marikod was only defending the clarity of ONE SENTENCE in the Andrew’s AFB speech, NOT the totality of the weeks that followed the attack. Jumping on that band wagon proves you have zero interest in the truth.
You totally ignore her communication to the Egyptian President where she said she KNEW (not suspected) the attack was planned and NOT a protest. I’ve NEVER said anything about Benghazi crimes or her going to jail. So “matt” of you to change the bar or are you now once again claiming I fabricated more stuff? The position of Clinton’s defenders, at least the honest ones (go watch Juan Williams for example), is that indeed she and Obama etal. told a different public story than the one she knew to be true. They say she did so for obvious political purposes, i.e. for Obama to get reelected. Indeed, I agree. The difference is they see nothing wrong in the lie. I simply disagree. Now the Republicans are being accused of simple or pure politics in their attempts to publicize Clinton's simple or pure political actions regarding the lie. The former is declared a demon; the latter is declared brilliant and of course there’s no political calculus in that analysis. (do I need an emoticon to signify the sarcasm?“She has not called me. She has not contacted me. She has not given me any information,” she said, “except to tell me that I am not a member of the immediate family and I do not need to know.”
The mother of Sean Smith, one of the four Americans killed at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, exploded in response to a clip of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s prior testimony on the matter.
CNN Newsroom host Carol Costello was taken aback when Patricia Smith revealed in conversation that she actually didn’t know much about what happened to her son — despite the fact that the Benghazi attack occurred three years ago. Smith responded in kind, claiming that although Clinton promised to “get back to” her following her son’s funeral ceremony in Washington, D.C., no one had since contacted her on the matter.
The lady gave birth to him,and she's not a member of the immediate family,WTF!!
.........killed at our Embassy's/Consulates abroad. All these dead/injured U.S. foreign service staff members and yet NO ONE at the Powell/Condeleeza led State Department called to account.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had beenmarried for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
-- Modified on 10/22/2015 11:05:08 AM
the reason why or cover up who instigated those attacks. That’s the difference.
It's clear now that Clinton and BHO knew almost immediately it was a planned Al-Qaeda (or Al-Qaeda like) attack but she and many others in the BHO administration continued for weeks to lie to us and LIED to the FACE of the families of the DEAD in front of their flagged draped coffins; that this was not a planned terrorist attack but instead a spontaneous riot in response to a Youtube video. And why did they lie? So they could get re-elected.
-- Modified on 10/22/2015 7:18:51 PM
...........if Republican's were so confident they could beat Hilliary in a General Election? Nope! If the Benghazi coverup is an issue for you, what about the Iraq WMD coverup story by Bush II and Cheney? All deaths are tragic, but four people die, Republican's call it a scandal, three thousand die, Republicans say they kept us safe. What sort of BS hypocrisy is this? 😤
-- Modified on 10/22/2015 9:04:14 PM
I would hope so. I don't like being lied to.
What GWB cover up about people being killed
So, the thinking is, by you and the right, is that if the electorate knew that it was Al-Qaeda who was responsible for the attack, that they would vote for Romney vs. Obama. Or, that Obama believed that to be the case? Why would that be true? We knew Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Did that stop GW from getting re-elected? It was Romney that was so desperate that he jumped in with both feet to politicize the attack, and ended up with the shitty end of the stick, and you righties have been pissing and moaning ever since. 
BTW, which of the congressional investigations have made it "clear" that "Clinton and BHO knew almost immediately it was a planned Al-Qaeda (or Al-Qaeda like) attack...." I like how you hedge your bets by saying "Al-Qaeda like." Care to clarify?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/22/revealed-hillary-told-egyptian-pm-day-after-benghazi-attack-that-mohammed-movie-had-nothing-to-do-with-it/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/hillary-told-daughter-chelsea-that-terrorists-were-behind-benghazi-attack-the-night-it-happened-video/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/benghazi-was-planned-attack-not-protest-clinton-told-egyptian-pm-24-hours
Does this clarify it ?
You're Very Seriously Welcome
-- Modified on 10/22/2015 9:18:42 PM
You'd have to ask President Obama as to why he required everyone working in his administration to claim the cause of the attack was the video. Leading up to the election BHO was obviously attempting to give the impression that terrorism was on the wane. Had he been honest about Benghazi, I personally believe it would have helped him. He disagrees but then I also believe he's not rational regarding this. His narcissism runs amock.
"Al-Qaeda like."? Those were Clinton's own words. Clinton emailed her daughter and the President of Egypt that she KNEW the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks. Follow a news source other than HuffPo for God's sake.
-- Modified on 10/22/2015 8:42:27 PM
-- Modified on 10/25/2015 12:04:11 PM
Marikod already put you in your place!
And, if that's not enough, I'll let Woodward do so!
Given the emails you sight it's not "clear" that she knew differently. Just that perhaps she suspected an Al-Quaeda like group was responsible. And, when have spontaneous mob violence been always separate from planned insurgent or terrorist attacks? Often, they go hand in hand. So, there is no reason why she couldn't have thought it was both, at the time.
I've always said that I want the truth, though I knew all along that there was little evidence of a crime. Hillary's performance on the matter of Benghazi has been well investigated, and her errors in management have been exposed, and she has acted on the recommendations of those committees who have investigated her, and they found no criminal behavior. In the upcoming election, she will be judged based on such. It will probably be just the Republicans who will think it a big deal, and they will never vote for her anyway. Sorry Ed, doesn't look like she's going to jail, any more than Bush will over 9/11!
Anyway, as Woodard say's, there are some "inconsistencies," but no crime!
You should let sleeping dog lay!
marikod was only defending the clarity of ONE SENTENCE in the Andrew’s AFB speech, NOT the totality of the weeks that followed the attack. Jumping on that band wagon proves you have zero interest in the truth.
You totally ignore her communication to the Egyptian President where she said she KNEW (not suspected) the attack was planned and NOT a protest.
I’ve NEVER said anything about Benghazi crimes or her going to jail. So “matt” of you to change the bar or are you now once again claiming I fabricated more stuff?
The position of Clinton’s defenders, at least the honest ones (go watch Juan Williams for example), is that indeed she and Obama etal. told a different public story than the one she knew to be true. They say she did so for obvious political purposes, i.e. for Obama to get reelected. Indeed, I agree. The difference is they see nothing wrong in the lie. I simply disagree.
Now the Republicans are being accused of simple or pure politics in their attempts to publicize Clinton's simple or pure political actions regarding the lie. The former is declared a demon; the latter is declared brilliant and of course there’s no political calculus in that analysis. (do I need an emoticon to signify the sarcasm?
Straining at gnat's and declaring them truths that are clearly seen, and of course ignore the opinion of one who has done a lot of journalism digging, who has been very critical of her, yet he uses the words "inconsistencies."
“'There are legitimate questions here,' Woodward added." “'You have inconsistencies. This is a tragedy and it should be investigated. You are right ... She did and attempted to answer all those questions. But there is no crime here on her part and to try and criminalize it and suggest as some people have said, ‘Oh, she will be in jail.’ I mean there is no evidence of a crime. There is evidence of inconsistency. I mean, my God, this is our business, our lives. People saying one thing privately and saying something different publicly.'"
So, I'd like to see your level of self-righteous indignation when a Republican says "one thing privately and saying something different publicly." Or, even say one thing to one group of people and something totally different. And, why does it merit the millions of dollars spent on the investigations if there is nothing illegal that's been done, other than you and some other Republicans are butt hurt that Romney lost! That shouldn't carry a 16 million dollar price tag. It just makes you look like poor losers!
I can get the same results talking to my TV. If you wish to continue with countering and refuting points I never made, knock yourself out.
You would have a point about the level of money being spent if only the previous investigations had not either been so biased or missed so much information available or in the case of the Democrats on this go around, not blockaded and stonewalled so much.
And now thanks to this most recent investigation, the judgement of Clinton in the upcoming election, (a judgement you welcome so much) is now more accurate and complete. Some of your words say you welcome that while others say the opposite.
-- Modified on 10/25/2015 5:17:11 PM
his view doesn't align with yours. I however view him as being more professional, and less biased as yourself, so I will choose his opinion over yours!
It's curious! I gave you the last word, and you just had to stir things up again. And, it was you who took a sabbatical from me. Go figure! What, you thought my silence meant I agreed with you. Or, perhaps that I felt defeated by what you view as the truth, so I remained silent in embarrassment; dejected? Or, I was ignoring you, and you felt slighted!
Hang in there. I hope one day you will be able to develop and voice cogent opinions of your own, even on matters far more complex than Benghazi but I suspect it will remain a difficult goal for you to attain when you continue to view the easier route of either ignoring or distorting the opinions others.
In addition to several previous examples in this thread, case in point. I never dismissed Woodward on Benghazi. He and I are actually in a fair amount of agreement. He makes far more salient observations regarding Benghazi than 95% of his colleagues. Where he and I disagree is the overall importance of Clinton’s and BHO’s lies. He simply considers it business as usual. Not all that surprising but ever since Watergate he’s felt compelled to compare every scandal and controversy to Nixon. Not that Benghazi even comes close yet he brings it up as if he could never tolerate for his work in bringing down Nixon to be surpassed.
BTW, I’m going with door #
Thanks to you, I will not take Ed seriously enough to respond to any longer!
“She… LIED to the FACE of the families of the DEAD in front of their flagged draped coffins; that this was not a planned terrorist attack but instead a spontaneous riot in response to a Youtube video.”
Where are you getting this from? In the only video I have seen, she told the truth. Here is what she said
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with.”
Now Fox news gave the same erroneous report as the attached video headline. But I know you are smart enough to realize that
(1) it is undisputed that there was rage and violence directed at U.S. EMBASSIES in Egypt and elsewhere over the video;
(2) the two compounds at Benghazi were NOT the US Embassy. The US Embassy was located in Tripoli and had been closed at the time of the attacks.
Thus, what she said was 100% true - an attack on the Benghazi post and violence directed at US embassies due to the video.
Could you link to the basis for your comment? Or are you just ...wrong
I watched that exchange today as Jordan and Clinton argued over what the State Dept by saying “Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
But that was a statement made at 10:08 on the night of the attack, not the coffin ceremony days later.
You said Hillary “LIED to the FACE of the families of the DEAD in front of their flagged draped coffins;”
But I gave you of EXACTLY what she said and she NEVER blamed the video for the Benghazi attack in her short speech.
Lying to the face of the families? Ready to take that one back
Quote:
Smith responded, “She’s lying! She’s absolutely lying! She told me something entirely different at the casket ceremony. She said it was because of the video and that she would get back to me and tell me what happened with my son.”
But that was a statement made at 10:08 on the night of the attack, not the coffin ceremony days later.
You said Hillary “LIED to the FACE of the families of the DEAD in front of their flagged draped coffins;”
But I gave you of EXACTLY what she said and she NEVER blamed the video for the Benghazi attack in her short speech.
Lying to the face of the families? Ready to take that one back?
-- Modified on 10/22/2015 4:39:25 PM
for that one since the video of Hillary’s speech obviously does not show what Hillary said to this lady in person. She repeated that claim on the Kelly File and added that Obama, Biden, and Panetta also told her the video caused the Benghazi attack. Kind of odd that she had face time with all four and they all told her that the video was the cause of the attack but I guess it is possible.
But at best Hillary lied to this lady- no evidence that she said the same thing to anyone else at the coffin ceremony and Ed’s claim that she lied to the “the families” of the victims” remains unsupported
"Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive"
In the video you link she said …”We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies (note she said embassies…plural) over an awful internet video” clearly to include Benghazi since that is the embassy that the four dead Americans, the ceremony was for.
Whine, cry, bitch and moan, dishonestly distort, lie, all you want from now and until the end of time. She fucking lied at that ceremony, she knew she was fucking lying and continued to lie.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/22/revealed-hillary-told-egyptian-pm-day-after-benghazi-attack-that-mohammed-movie-had-nothing-to-do-with-it/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/hillary-told-daughter-chelsea-that-terrorists-were-behind-benghazi-attack-the-night-it-happened-video/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/benghazi-was-planned-attack-not-protest-clinton-told-egyptian-pm-24-hours
You're Welcome
-- Modified on 10/22/2015 10:50:28 PM
And the US Embassy in Libya had been closed. While Ed just made a mistake, you get a “F” because I pointed this out in my first post and you apparently still did not understand it.
Try to keep up
is also often referred to as the Benghazi Embassy/Embassy in Benghazi
As I predicted you would "Whine, cry, bitch and moan, dishonestly distort, lie, all you want from now and until the end of time. She fucking lied at that ceremony, she knew she was fucking lying and continued to lie."
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP All The Way
The distinction appears missing in Ms Rice's interviews.
where she clearly distinguished between the post at Benghazi and the US embassies where the video had lead to demonstrations.
The distinction between an "embassy" and a "post" may not be significant to the average citizen but it makes all the difference in the world to the State Dept. In order for her to lie, she would have had to thought Benghazi was an embassy, which she clearly did not.
So you still get an F.
You almost got me there. But were there any dead bodies laying there from Egypt? It's clear to everyone but you that they blamed the video for Benghazi and they continued pushing the video as the cause for weeks. And you disbelieve all that because the transcript you read inserted a period? I heard a comma. A semicolon at best. REALLY? Or are you still quibbling that it wasn't a lie that Benghazi was due to the video?
-- Modified on 10/22/2015 10:50:26 PM
your hubris - you said it was “clear” that she lied to the face of the families. Inferring a semi colon, or comma, in her speech, while remotely possible, would hardly be “clear.”
The period by the way was not my transcription but was taken from the Daily Caller article.
But I will change your grade from F to D- on this one in recognition of your creativity, and award you the P & R Board Weasel of the Week award. LOL
Just because you find some evidence that you believe does not prove my claim does not at all disprove my claim.
BTW, actually listening to someone talk is far more telling than reading a third person's transcriptional interpretation, unless of course HRC wrote the transcript or she was reading directly from the same document. Either way it is irrelevant to my point. Debating sentence structure and punctuation might be perfectly valid if that was the only evidence available, but of course it's not. Anyway, Timbow did me a favor by giving you an even better example. What is astounding is you, of all liberals, are attempting to defend HRC and BHO on this point.
but even HRH has not offered this as an explanation, probably for good reason as most people would think that the post at which the ambassador resided while the official embassy was closed, was, in effect, the embassy.
'it depends on what "is" is" version 2?
Where are you getting this from? In the only video I have seen, she told the truth. Here is what she said
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with.”
Now Fox news gave the same erroneous report as the attached video headline. But I know you are smart enough to realize that
(1) it is undisputed that there was rage and violence directed at U.S. EMBASSIES in Egypt and elsewhere over the video;
(2) the two compounds at Benghazi were NOT the US Embassy. The US Embassy was located in Tripoli and had been closed at the time of the attacks.
Thus, what she said was 100% true - an attack on the Benghazi post and violence directed at US embassies due to the video.
Could you link to the basis for your comment? Or are you just ...wrong?
The US embassy in Libya was NOT closed at the time of the attack on Benghazi as you wrongly stated.
You are just WRONG
Try to keep up
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP
I overlooked that , after the 2/25/11 embassy closing, the embassy was reopened before the attack on the Benghazi compound. Thanks for the correction.
"The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli was closed and all diplomatic personnel were evacuated on February 25, 2011, due to the Libyan civil war.[5][6][7][8] The embassy of Hungary in Tripoli acted as the protecting power for U.S. interests from the closure of the embassy until its reopening on September 22, 2011.[9][10]"
But that does not change that you are wrong about Hillary lying in her speech at the coffin ceremony. So you still get an F
The Embassy in Tripoli was not closed they just suspended operations.
"The flag is still flying. The embassy is not closed. Operations are suspended. Relations are not broken," Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy told reporters"
In her speech at the coffin ceremony she may have used the term post (in reference to Benghazi) but she included the post in Benghazi with all the embassy attacks in other countries that she blamed on the video, therefore she lied.
You just cannot stop tossing her salad.
You're Welcom
HONDA just gave so many example of the GOP fuck ups overseas and again no response from nuguy.
I wonder why he is so quiet now?? Lol
It's clear this whole Hillary thing is about trying to stop her from being President.
Just seems like people are starting to catch on to GOP lies. Lol
The mother of Sean Smith, one of the four Americans killed at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, exploded in response to a clip of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s prior testimony on the matter.
CNN Newsroom host Carol Costello was taken aback when Patricia Smith revealed in conversation that she actually didn’t know much about what happened to her son — despite the fact that the Benghazi attack occurred three years ago. Smith responded in kind, claiming that although Clinton promised to “get back to” her following her son’s funeral ceremony in Washington, D.C., no one had since contacted her on the matter.
The lady gave birth to him,and she's not a member of the immediate family,WTF!!
Obama and Clinton have lied so often, even they are beginning to believe them. Hard to understand how sane people can ignore them...and simply change the subject......
anyone see Sean Smith's mom on TV....Joe grieves and everyone has tears in their eyes.....Obama team says his other is not part of his family so they cannot tell her anything.....behavior that disqualifies Clinton as prez material...but don't expect 95% of this board to even have a thought on that...they just spit out venom about Bush, Reagan, etc.....sad.
Let's see; why don't we try to discover through anecdotes which parties and candidates have told more lies or broken more promises while in office or while seeking office?
It seems there is adequate evidence that both parties are unable to speak at all without engaging in some sort of lie... half-truths and omissions, simulation and dissimulation, misrepresentation. Kind of like the old joke "How do you know if a politician is lying? - Their lips are moving!"
Just for fun, why not justify the lies of Obama with the lies of Bush - "if Bush lied, it must be OK for Obama to lie". Or perhaps, we can debate the "degree of the lies" - "Bush was a bigger liar than Hillary, so Hillary must be a better candidate".
The problems we have now were built over decades of false promises and deceit from BOTH parties and their administrations... there is NO difference between an Ass and an Elephant inside the beltway, IMHO.
What fun to justify lies with lies, and to shill for your favorite liars?
As for partisan investigations - let's have more. Call out every liar and rake them over the coals. On both sides. Attack one another, expose the lies. Lock up the liars. Hold to account and clean house on both sides of the aisle. Every time. At least in that perfect division, we'd have perfect consistency between the parties on at least one topic!!!
I am so tired of the "divide and conquer" politics... a nation aligned is the only way to future prosperity and security
It's always ok for "our guy" to lie, but it's a capital offense when your guy does it.
Since this is still technically a fuck board, let me put it in slightly different terms. "My fetish is just that a harmless fetish. your fetish is SICK" Sound familiar?
Nice to see you here, did you get lost or something? lol
I took a short sabbatical to deal with real life. Kinda fun to return to the boards.
As for not understanding how it works... understanding and acceptance are two different things.
Peace, Bro!
Z
The rest of it I am sure we can agree on. Guys like Laffy constantly blast the "right" while giving the left a pass on the very same behavior, always claiming that "Bush was worse" as their reason. and to be fair the right does the exact same thing with posters like nuguy in complete lockstep with everything their heroes Rush and Sean Hannity have to say.
It's kind of like a proxy war, where no one even thinks for themselves, preferring to quote the talking points from their respective party, and where conceding that "their side" might possibly be wrong on even the minutest detail might be taken as a sign of weakness. It does make conversations rather unproductive and less than satisfying when you know the "other guy" is already formulating his answer before he has even read what you had to say. Or in the worst cases like FG (bigguy30) I seriously doubt he even bothers to read the posts of others before typing his responses.
"As for partisan investigations - let's have more. Call out every liar and rake them over the coals. On both sides. Attack one another, expose the lies. Lock up the liars. Hold to account and clean house on both sides of the aisle. Every time. At least in that perfect division, we'd have perfect consistency between the parties on at least one topic!!!"
Let's compare the partisan investigations mounted by the Republican's against the Democrats, and vice versa. I think you'll find it's the Republicans' favorite past-time and there's a great imbalance, with more time and tax-payer dollars invested in Republican's going after Democrats. How many millions have the Republicans spent going after just the Clintons?
But, I suspect you're being facetious. That the American public would be better served with more bi-partisan atmosphere in Congress. It doesn't seem to ever set well with Republicans when a Democrat wins the presidency, and they seem to do whatever it will take to piss in his or her's cherrios. Democrats don't much like it either when a Republican wins, but I believe on average they are more willing to work with the winner.