Skip to comments.Fact Check: Clinton’s Benghazi chapter has holes
Posted on 05/31/2014 3:45:40 PM PDT by don-o
In the limited excerpts published Friday from Clintons Benghazi chapter, the former secretary of State continued to defend the administration from what she termed a political slugfest.
Specifically, she defended the flawed explanation -- used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack -- that an obscure anti-Islam video fueled a protest gone awry in Benghazi.
"There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives," Clinton wrote, according to Politico. "It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video.It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions deny not only the evidence but logic as well."
Further, she reportedly wrote that Rice relied on existing intelligence in making her statements.
But former CIA deputy director Mike Morell, who now works for Clinton's principal gatekeeper Philippe Reines at the D.C. consulting firm Beacon Global Strategies, testified in April that it was Rice who linked the video to the Benghazi attack. Morrell, who still faces allegations he misled Congress over the so-called talking points, said the video was not part of the CIA analysis as Clinton seems to suggest.
Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee that Rices claims about the attacks evolving from a protest were exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed.
However, he said: When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that's not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to."
An independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings, conducted by a leading social media monitoring firm in December 2012, also found the YouTube video was a non-event in Benghazi.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Of course, FReepers know that the video piece is small beer in relation to the actual depth of the atrocity that has been perpetrated.
Susan Rice allegedly relied on existing intelligence when she went on the Sunday shows to explain everything.
The liberals had meltdowns about the Bush administration reliance on existing intelligence in going into Iraq. The liberals concluded that Bush lied, people died, etc.
In that case of Iraq and Bush, the liberals disallowed the possibility that the intelligence could have been faulty. Instead, Bush was supposed to have known that there were holes in said intelligence.
Yet in spite of that, many liberals including Hillary, voted for the Iraq war.
But now, the liberals make the excuse that Susan Rice had the best intelligence available at the time, and we’re supposed to accept that as their excuse.
The liberals, if they were intellectually honest, would blame Obama and his administration for not having complete information about Benghazi. Just as they had their meltdown over Bush and intelligence and the Iraq war.
They called YouTube PRIOR to the earliest time they originally claimed the CIA had told them of The Dastardly Video (insert Psycho shower-scene music here).
Catherine Herridge deserves a raise.
That is a flat out lie. The evidence is that no one in Benghazi ever heard of the video.
Hillary knew about the video before Sept. 11th though.
Hillary Clinton is THE original source of the 'video did it' excuse for Benghazi, Cairo and all the rest of the embassy riots around the world. Hillary did it!
US Embassy in Cairo quietly deletes its we stand by our condemnation tweet; Update: More deleted tweets!
Here is Hillary pushing it again on Sept. 13th.
Clinton: Anti-Islam Video 'Disgusting' (video 2:56)
Here is a 'senior administration official' trying to distance 0bamugabe from Hillary's f-up and at the same time admitting by inference that she was the source of the 'video did it' meme.
Senior administration official: The Cairo embassys statement does not reflect the view of the U.S. government; Update: Romney calls embassy statement disgraceful
posted at 10:34 pm on September 11, 2012 by Allahpundit
The White House is disavowing a statement from their own Cairo embassy that apologized for anti-Muslim activity in the United States.
The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government, a senior administration official told POLITICO
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a Tuesday statement.
And here 0bamugabe and Hillary work together to try to prop up her 'video did it' nonsense and spread it even further.
Nope, she never said anything about a 'video.'
Father of Fallen SEAL: Hillary Told Me Theyd Get That Filmmaker Good 10/25/2012 videos at link
New Evidence Links U.S. Federal Government to FILMMAKER behind Benghazi Fiasco (Shocking)
Montagraph put up a new video on May 1st. It is basically a refresher of his original findings of the connection between Stanley Inc., a State Dept. subcontractor, to the Innocence of Muslims video. He also shows when and by whom the name was changed.
Here is a video by another Vlogger who demonstrates how Montagraph traced Innocence of Muslims to Stanley Inc. through the meta-data.
Blizzard of Lies....New York Times -January 8, 1996
Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.
Brian Lilley: The MSM is lying about the muslim riots
Interviews on the streets of Cairo. 'Video' had nothing to do with protests and attack.
I know what you mean. We can’t expect intellectual honesty from the liberals, or from their apologists in the liberal media.
When you look at Obama’s job approval ratings, it makes you wonder where those ratings would be, if he didn’t have the media shilling for him every single day?
1. The rebels had roadblocks all around the embassy, yet after the fateful dinner meeting, the Turkish Ambassador magically SUCCEEDED in passing THROUGH those same roadblocks —how..?
2. The locally hired security physically OPENED THE FRONT GATE to the attackers who said ON VIDEO, “Dr. Morsi sent us”. Since Hillary’s ties with Morsi are FAR deeper than people usually assume, HOW can that not be important..?
3. Hillary’s impulse was to maximally distance herself in the aftermath of Bengazi, yet when footage surfaced showing joyous kidnappers extracting a soot-faced Stevens, Hillary jumped before microphones, extravagantly thanking the kidnappers “for them HELPING our Ambassador, later shouting Allah Akbar in their joy he was found still alive..” WHY?
4. If the men really WERE rescuers, why did they take the most powerful American in Bengazi to a hospital controlled by AL QAEDA...? That behavior seems more kidnapper-centric.
5. Using a target designator elevates risk to the user. If no armed aircraft were overhead, WHY were the SEALS lasing targets in the middle of a firefight...?
Something is off about this. Clinton’s assertions in this book are easily refutable.
They have been caught red-handed lying about the intelligence and the talking points.
Why do they insist on continuing to trot out the lie?
I doubt his poll numbers. I doubt that he is even as popular as his (currently dismal) poll numbers say. Look, the MSM makes things up. This has been proven. Why is it such a stretch that they would make up poll numbers?
I wonder where the original Reuters reporter got the idea of the video? I wonder if Hillary Clinton herself initiated the info to the reporter?
Interesting that Nakoula the film maker is also a FedMob stooge.
Producer Of Anti-Islam Film Was Fed Snitch
L.A. man began cooperating after 2009 fraud bust
Interesting that Nakoula's websites track back to connections with 0bama.
Interesting that Nakoula's partner in the film was a palestinian Muslim with terrorist connections who was also watched by the Feds for three decades but never arrested and frequently bailed out by the Feds.
- Nakoula is a FedMob snitch.
- Nakoula's partner in the film was Eiad Salameh, a Palestinian Muslim.
- AFAIK Nakoula was never a film maker before. He was a check kiter.
- The film was not originally about Mohammed.
- Clips from the film were first aired on Egyptian TV just 3-4 days before Sept. 11th by a hardline 'tele-Islamist.'
- 0bama, Hillary and Rice have repeatedly made a point of saying that the U.S. gov had "nothing to do with the film." Something no one in the world would have ever thought.
- 0bama and Hillary have engaged in a major campaign of disinformation to blame the film and apologize for it.
Nakoula and Eiad may have made the film.
Someone else handled "distribution" and "promotion" in Egypt.
The Clintons never tell the truth when a lie will do as well.
Reuters reporter? I don’t know anything about that. The Cairo embassy was tweeting apologies for it early in the day of Sept. 11th before any crowds had even assembled at the Cairo embassy. That was many hours before the Benghazi consulate compound was attacked. Hillary had the Youtube video in mind before anything had happened anywhere.
The blinding speed the WH used in dredging up Nikoula and the eggregious nature of the film MAKE SENSE **if his film was made SPECIFICALLY in order to provide cover IF the WH KNEW that something bad was about to happen in Bengazi.
Indeed Nikoula was ALREADY a Fed snitch and had a very strong incentive to cooperate in any way that would lessen his legal problems.
NOBODY knew the film and it was so obscure that it had eluded even the muzzie ConcernTrolls who have nothing better to do than cruise around, looking to flag exactly this type of content.
But the WH magically already did know this film —WHY..?
So many inexplicable aspects of Bengazi magically make sense if one simply accepts the notion that the WH *knew* of the chaos that was about to explode.
When do they ever stop lying ?
Hillary absolutely started the first “video” lie, and her memory has been conveniently “jello”, since hauled before investigators on the White Water-gate affair.
There was no surprise about the attack. There was no 'failure of intel.' The attack was predicted in precise detail a month before it occurred. The draw down of security had to be intentional.
The failure to approve a rescue had to be intentional.
Keeping the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) in the dark about the attack had to be intentional.
Tweeting apologies for the 'anti-Muhammed video' beginning early that morning, repeatedly blaming all the violence at all of our embassies on the 'video' and making an apology video to air in Pakistan had to be intentional.
Stevens presence in Benghazi on Sept. 11th had to be intentional.
Is that original Rueters reporter related to or married to a member of the 0 administration ? Do you have a name?
Years ago, there was much talk about how she would handle a 2AM call....
Benghazi was that call.
And as Allen West said, a ball team owner makes a private comment and he is vilified and banned from the game but the President of the United States repeatedly lies and lies - not to mention the squandering of billions of the citizen’s money and lives lost with his mis-adventures, and nothing happens.
Even a hell-spawned daughter of Satan can only stretch a lie so far.
The only thing in question was this "intelligence pulled out of Valerie Jarrett's ass, Hillary Clinton's ass, or Obama's ass? It may be an foul amalgamation of all three.
I have also noted the total silence of General Petraeus. He as the former head of the CIA knows everything. It is obvious he is being blackmailed. I would like to hear him testify with total immunity. Petraeus could bring down this administration in one day of testimony. I am talking impeachment and conviction. Impeachment and conviction means removal from office only. However, it does also opens the door to subsequent criminal prosecution after conviction.
“There is a difference between getting something wrong and
committing a wrong. A big difference that some have blurred
to the point of casting those who made a mistake as inten-
Hillary, you and the rest of your fellow scumbag Democrats
just couldn’t see your way clear to apply this viewpoint to
George W Bush and WMDs in Iraq, could you?
The Republicans are in conflict with the Muslim half of the world.
The Demon Ratz are at war with the patriotic half of America.
If Petraeus has already been fired for diddling his biographer, what else could they possibly have on him?
First detail they took care of was neutering Gen. Petraeus.
I’d change the order of words in the title along with the tense.
The most recent Rasmussen poll (5/28 - 5/30) has 48% approve 50% disapprove. How is that even remotely possible. That is good for Hillary who will run to fix Obamacare, etc. But they were all good ideas, just need a little tweaking.
I never recalled ANY of the protests in any city to be the result of a video. This came out of thin air...there we no signs about the video, nobody calling for the arrest of the maker, etc.
I’ve always thought this was odd, saying it was about a video with NO evidence anywhere...it is just an assertion.
It is a fact that Hillary and Obama knew immediately that the video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi. So, why did they make that commercial apologizing to the Moslems?
Because they were told to. It was part of the surrender deal at Benghazi that Obama agreed to. The Al Qaeda boys are smarter than Hillary and Obama gave them credit for. Treason is where United States citizens provide aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. The money missing from the State Department and the American weapons mysteriously shipped into Libya and left unguarded so they could be “stolen” is providing aid. But the Al Qaeda boys wanted to ensure that Hillary and Obama violated the “comfort” part, too. So they told Hillary and Obama that they had to make and air that commercial apologizing to the Moslems. Think about it. Why did it HAVE to be Hillary and Obama in the commercial? It is because Al Qaeda wanted to have Hillary and Obama by the short hairs, and they do. She is literally fighting for her life. Treason is punishable by death. If she was smart, and I don’t think she is, she’d cut a deal with Gowdy tonight.
“If Petraeus has already been fired for diddling his biographer, what else could they possibly have on him? “
I often wondered that. Whoever has the control of the NSA and its newfound powers could blackmail anyone in congress, the SC, even the head of the CIA...someone like Petraeus.
WOT or not, that was a dangerous overreaching power to create.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
UNFIT for DOG CATCHER.
Thanks for that analysis blueunicorn6
She’s a congenital liar.
“The liberals, if they were intellectually honest,”
Liberals are freaking weasels.
Because they were told to. It was part of the surrender deal at Benghazi that Obama agreed to. The Al Qaeda boys are smarter than Hillary and Obama gave them credit for. Treason is where United States citizens provide aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.
The money missing from the State Department and the American weapons mysteriously shipped into Libya and left unguarded so they could be stolen is providing aid.
But the Al Qaeda boys wanted to ensure that Hillary and Obama violated the comfort part, too. So they told Hillary and Obama that they had to make and air that commercial apologizing to the Moslems.
Think about it. Why did it HAVE to be Hillary and Obama in the commercial? It is because Al Qaeda wanted to have Hillary and Obama by the short hairs, and they do. She is literally fighting for her life. Treason is punishable by death. If she was smart, and I dont think she is, shed cut a deal with Gowdy tonight.
35 posted on 5/31/2014 6:49:45 PM by blueunicorn6
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
The attack did not occur because of any Libyan’s views of the video, whether from seeing it directly or by hearing about it. It, the video, was never the cause as much as anyone in Libya or anyone in the Obama administration offered it as an excuse. The attack occurred because it was planned and that planning did not need the convenience of the video to excuse it.
Billary and Obama’s acceptance of any credibility for the video as a cause is the erroneous and warped acceptance of a fellow traveler - one who is less informed than those who are really in charge and because they are less informed, and they know it, they accept - out of ignorance - what those really in charge claim.
Those really in charge of the attack were Libyan Islamists and the world-wide anti-western radical Islamist movements do not need any central international headquarters to all be speaking on the same page, whether they be armed Islamist militants and terrorists, the Islamist leaders of many Middle East nations, including many so-called “friends” of the U.S., and western academics and foreign policy wonks who have bought hook line and sinker the Middle East Islamist myths about what’s wrong with the world and who is responsible - the west.
Billary-Obama have been fellow travelers of the geopolitical line of the Islamists - “the west” is too intolerant of Islam and THAT is the source of Islamist anger toward the west.
Once the world-wide Islamist view wanted to use the video as the excuse for the well planned attack that needed no excuse, their fellow travelers in the west, Billary & Obama included, accepted what they were told to believe and it fit Obama’s entire apology outreach to Islam.
If Petraeus has already been fired for diddling his biographer, what else could they possibly have on him?
I do not know. I do know if what he knew supported Obama's version of Bengazhi he would have been put forward day after day after day to support Obama's narrative.
As head of the CIA he also knows all the truth.
Why and the hell is he not front and center for testimony?
I read somewhere that it was our side that sent the video to Egypt along with our sincerest apologies trying to stir something up and even that failed.Also we ran adds all over the mid- East apologizing for the video but no one took the bait.
I sometimes wonder if we ever knew who the real Petraeus was or is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.