Hillary’s Private Email Server,” Lethal” or Just a “Mistake”

Posted on Monday, October 12, 2015 by Post Scripts

Posted by Tina

Emails turned over to the committee looking into the Benghazi debacle may spark an intelligence investigation that would add to her already mounting legal problems. The Free Beacon reports that correspondence between Hillary and her longtime adviser and business partner, Sidney Blumenthal, identified a covert CIA Libyan source. Hillary then forwarded the information to a colleague on her private server.

Is the media taking this as seriously as they should?

According to a former top CIA lawyer the answer is a resounding, “No!”

John Rizzo, a former CIA lawyer, was interviewed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today. His opinion took a much more serious tone:

…Hillary Clinton’s decision to move forward and store emails with the names of CIA operatives on them was extremely dangerous.

“As a former CIA counsel, what’s most troubling about this email to you- specifically this email- and then if you’re troubled by it, the Secretary’s use of private email,” host Willie Geist asked John Rizzo.

“The most troubling thing Willie is, if the [Trey Gowdy] version is accurate, the true name of a human CIA source being bandied about, really,” Rizzo said.

“As Joe knows from his days in Congress, that’s the holiest of holies inside the CIA, the true identity of a secret source. Even inside the CIA, in internal e-mails or cables or even conversations, you never mention or talk about the true name of a source. You use a synonym.”

“How dangerous is that going over a public server that’s held in someone’s private home in Chappaqua, New York?” host Joe Scarborough asked.

“It could be literally lethal,” Rizzo said. “Who has access to that? Who is trying to hack into it? If this was a foreign-based source living in Libya, let’s say, I mean if you get outed as the CIA source over there, you’re a dead man. So it couldn’t be more serious.”

This is serious and if the media were doing it’s job…

When the Valerie Plame case came up during the Bush administration it was a top news story for months. The story, about a woman that had not been an operative for years, was a Democrat and media focused push to “get” someone at the top in the Bush administration. It resulted in Scooter Libby going to jail, basically for writing a memo.

Over the weekend the President brushed off concerns about the seriousness of Hillary’s defiant private email use and the possible consequences to national security. He told Steve Croft on 60 Minutes that Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails didn’t endanger national security but was a “mistake.”

Really, Mr. President? Just a “mistake?”

Is it not incredible that the media hasn’t hounded Hillary Clinton to death about using a non-secured private email service while doing the nation’s business as Secretary of State? Is it not outrageous that Hillary remains the front runner for the Democrat Party in the race for president?

Hillary is a deceiving manipulative elitist believes herself to be above the law. She absolutely should not be our next president. The people cannot count on the media to honestly report on the Republicans or the Democrats. On the one hand they exaggerate and work to destroy and on the other they prop up and promote the candidates.

It’s up to the people to sort it all out. In this case I’d say just the use of a private server makes Hillary unfit for the job of president and quite possibly a candidate for prison.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Hillary’s Private Email Server,” Lethal” or Just a “Mistake”

  1. J. Soden says:
    Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:42 am

    The “mistake” excuse coming from a proven Serial Liar is ludicrous. That’ll rate right up there with “You can keep your doctor” and “It was the fault of a video.”

    Obumble won the title of Biggest Liar for the “you can keep your doctor” claim, but this year he and $hrilLIARy are tied for first place in that contest.

    Reply
    • Chris says:
      Monday, October 12, 2015 at 5:45 pm

      I’ll give you “You can keep your doctor,” which was a lie. But no one ever said “It was the fault of a video” in regards to Benghazi. They said the terrorists were motivated by the video, which is factually true and has been confirmed by numerous sources, and was stated as the motivation by the terrorists themselves. But Obama also said at the UN that the video was no excuse for violence, so it’s absurd to argue that the administration claimed the video was at “fault.”

      This has been your daily dose of reality on Benghazi; I’m sure you’ll pour it down the sink again like you did the last time, and the time before that.

      Reply
      • Tina says:
        Monday, October 12, 2015 at 7:10 pm

        Chris your inability to catch on to liberal spin is epic, such a trusting fool.

        There was a conspiracy to deceive the public prior to an election and to save Hillary’s future bid for the presidency.

        The Weekly Standard:

        Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.

        As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

        The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.

        The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure. (continues with timeline and features copies (3) of revisions to talking points)

        Hillary’s recovered emails might shed more light on Hillary’s motivation for changing the Benghazi talking points…that would be words they deemed necessary for the public to believe…and her attempt to hide those emails from public view.

        USA Today:

        WASHINGTON — Sidney Blumenthal stood to benefit financially from his unofficial advice to Hillary Clinton on U.S. policy in Libya when Clinton was secretary of State, according to the Republican chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

        “Beyond the pure politics that were occurring at this time, perhaps more disturbing is that at the same time Blumenthal was pushing Secretary Clinton to war in Libya, he was privately pushing a business interest of his own in Libya that stood to profit from contracts with the new Libyan government — a government that would exist only after a successful U.S. intervention in Libya that deposed Qaddafi,” Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said in a letter Thursday to the Benghazi panel’s top Democrat.

        In the biting 13-page letter to Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Gowdy said he plans to release email traffic within days showing that Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton family confidant, was Clinton’s primary adviser on Libyan policy. More than half the emails sent to and from Clinton regarding Benghazi and Libya prior to the terrorist attacks involved Blumenthal, according to Gowdy’s letter.

        “The fact that former Secretary Clinton relied so heavily on an individual for the Libyan intervention, her quintessential foreign policy initiative, whom the White House explicitly prohibited from working at the State Department is mind boggling,” Gowdy wrote.

        The intention behind making the video the principle news story following the 911 attack in Benghazi was to deceive the public, pure and simple!

        Reply
        • Chris says:
          Monday, October 12, 2015 at 7:52 pm

          Tina: “There was a conspiracy to deceive the public prior to an election and to save Hillary’s future bid for the presidency.”

          Prove it. You’ve had three years.

          Quoting the Weekly Standard:

          “As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved.”

          This is a lie by omission. Some intelligence officials believed that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved; some did not. You know this. It was the CIA who removed the part about al-Qaeda. You also know this.

          Simply pretending that certain facts don’t exist won’t make them go away.

          Reply
          • Chris says:
            Monday, October 12, 2015 at 7:54 pm

            Also–you totally dodged the main point, which is that the terrorists did claim to be inspired by the video. That is because you can’t rebut it. It is a fact.

          • Pie Guevara says:
            Monday, October 12, 2015 at 8:32 pm

            Re : “As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved.”

            This is a lie by omission. Some intelligence officials believed that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved; some did not.

            This is a lie by deflection. Hillary did know. Some did, some did not. Fiddle Dee, Fiddle Dum.

            Now, dear water carrier for the Rat party Chris, WHO WAS WRONG AND WHO WAS RIGHT AND WHO MADE THE WRONG CALL?

          • Pie Guevara says:
            Monday, October 12, 2015 at 8:48 pm

            My bad, the above should have read “Now, dear water carrier for the Rat party and Hillary Chris …”

            Addendum — Yep Chris is DEFINITELY not into “group think.” This is an outstanding example of how he “thinks for himself.” No?

            Cookie cutter parrot of a Rat boy who takes his talking points from his left-wing betters.

          • Tina says:
            Monday, October 12, 2015 at 9:35 pm

            Bologna! Political activists within the intelligence community were complicit in the plot!

            “Simply pretending that certain facts don’t exist won’t make them go away.”

            Yes, like you pretending that a video was the main motivator for terrorists and the single most important factor to share with the public in this horrendous attack.

            The weekly Standard article also included this:

            The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

            Duh-uh!

          • Chris says:
            Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:00 am

            “Bologna! Political activists within the intelligence community were complicit in the plot!”

            Again, prove it. Prove that it was anything more than an intelligence failure, and a mildly inconsequential one at that. It’s nothing compared to the massive failure that led us into the Iraq War, ending in thousands dead for no reason. But please, keep pretending that we should be more outraged about a botched response to an embassy attack than a decade long war of choice.

          • Tina says:
            Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 7:44 pm

            Chris you really are dense or a fool: ” Some intelligence officials believed that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved; some did not”

            Does it not occur to you that those who “did not” were the very ones that helped alter the memos and talking points?

            Man you are unbelievable in your abject loyalty and lack of interest in something so serious and important.

        • Pie Guevara says:
          Monday, October 12, 2015 at 9:02 pm

          I object! Chris is not a “trusting fool”, he is a water boy.

          Reply
      • Tina says:
        Monday, October 12, 2015 at 7:35 pm

        The Weekly Standard:

        At his first press conference after being elected to a second term, President Barack Obama did everything he could to avoid directly answering the difficult questions on the growing scandal about his administration’s handling of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. But in so doing, the president inadvertently told us quite a bit.

        At one point he said: “And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.” It was, of course, just as important to find out what happened in Benghazi before the election, but we should be grateful to the president for giving us this inadvertent glimpse into the role politics played in his thinking about Benghazi before he was reelected.

        The president, perhaps realizing he had made a revealing slip of the tongue, went on to insist that he’d been providing information all along. But in response to a question about criticism of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice from Senators John McCain and Lindsey ­Graham, the president slipped again. “For them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Ben­ghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous.”

        If Susan Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” why then was she sent out to represent the administration in multiple television interviews five days after the attacks?

        The charitable view: The White House wanted to see her in a high-profile position as something of a tryout for her possible appointment as secretary of state in a second term.

        The less charitable view: Because Rice had no independent knowledge of what happened, she could be counted on to do nothing more than recite administration talking points. And because Rice had nothing to do with Ben­ghazi, there was no risk that she would disclose just how much of the intelligence pointed to a coordinated, planned al Qaeda attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi. Instead, Rice’s misleading talking points suggested that the deaths of four Americans in Libya came as a result of a political protest run amok—a narrative that was almost as thoroughly discredited when she delivered it as it is today.

        Those talking points were misleading not only because of what they included but because of what they left out. As The Weekly Standard first reported last month, the unclassified version of those talking points excluded the key fact that the U.S. intelligence community knew that the attacks had been conducted by terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda.

        Here’s how we reported this on October 20:

        One thing that has troubled both intelligence officials and those on Capitol Hill as they have evaluated the administration’s early response to the attacks is what appears to be an effort to write al Qaeda out of the story. For example, the [Obama administration’s] talking points .  .  . include this sentence: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” But according to several officials familiar with the original assessment from which the talking points were derived, the U.S. intelligence community had reported the fact that these were extremists with ties to al Qaeda. That key part was omitted.

        Why was that language dropped from the talking points distributed to Congress and Obama administration officials? Did anyone at the White House or the National Security Council have any role in drafting them?

        Those questions remain. And there are others. The basis for the administration’s claims about demonstrations in Benghazi was a phone call between al Qaeda-linked terrorists. The administration built its unclassified talking points around a detail from that call, but stripped out of the memo any indication of affiliation with “extremists.” And why was this crucial detail of an al Qadea link taken out? It’s not that it wasn’t relevant. Indeed, if one were trying to provide an accurate picture of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, it’s hard to imagine a detail more relevant to the story.

        And that might be the problem. Obama administration officials were not trying to provide an accurate picture of what happened in Benghazi on September 11. They were trying to obscure it. Notwithstanding the president’s claims to the contrary, it appears as if the goal of the White House in those early days was to hide the truth from the American people. That’s why you send out a spokesman who “had nothing to do with Benghazi.” It’s why you give her talking points that include a debunked story about a protest that never took place. (continues)

        Politico:

        After Friday’s Benghazi hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) read to reporters the CIA unclassified talking points that were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday talk show circuit days after the Sept. 11 attack in Libya.

        Rice, who’s under consideration for secretary of state, has come under fire from Republicans for saying Sept. 16 that the assault on the U.S. consulate had been sparked by “spontaneous” protests to an anti-Islam Internet video. The ambassador has maintained she was simply reading from talking points provided by the intelligence community.

        According to Feinstein, the talking points stated:

        The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the United States embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against United States diplomatic posts in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.

        There are indications extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

        This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

        The investigation is ongoing and the United States government is working with Libyan authorities to bring justice to those responsible for the deaths of United States citizens.

        The number one point was not that terrorists linked to al Qaeda attacked in an obviously planned attack…which it was.

        There was no protest in Benghazi and yet the number one talking point was that a ” spontaneous protest evolved” into a “direct attack.” It’s utter hogwash! They made it all up. The cairo protest gave them the perfect excuse.

        I post this again (And Again) so that your pathetic excuses do not go unanswered.

        Reply
        • Chris says:
          Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:02 am

          “There was no protest in Benghazi”

          Yes, and that was literally the only thing the administration was wrong about, and they corrected it within two weeks. They were right about the video, and they said they were inconclusive about Al Qaeda’s involvement. That all of this boils down to whether or not there was a protest shows how shallow and vapid this conspiracy theory is. There was no motivation to even lie about that; it wouldn’t have helped Obama or Hilary’s election prospects at all.

          Reply
  2. Pie Guevara says:
    Monday, October 12, 2015 at 3:08 pm

    I agree with J. Soden.

    This may explain a lot, Hillary is the first robot to run for presidential nominee —

    HILLARY CLINTON: You guys [BuzzFeed podcast Another Round], are the first to realize that I’m really not even a human being. I was constructed in a garage in Palo Alto a very long time ago. People think that, you know, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, they created it. Oh no. I mean, a man whose name shall remain nameless created me in his garage.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/hillary-clinton-robot-sweat

    No wonder Bill strayed. He hungered for a real human.

    Reply
  3. Tina says:
    Monday, October 12, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    As long as we’re on a nostalgia tour we shouldn’t forget the big Kahuna’s, “I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false.” (emphasis mine)

    Not only did he lie, he referred to Lewinsky as “that woman.” Talk about a war on women, Clinton was a wrecking crew!

    Birds of a feather…Hillary should never be president…never!

    Reply
  4. Pie Guevara says:
    Monday, October 12, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    With the exception of Fox News and a very few major newspapers, the vast majority of the mainstream is in the tank for the Democrat Party. Instead of a forth estate, the mainstream is a fifth column.

    Reply
  5. J. Soden says:
    Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:47 am

    The “blame the video” charade was twofold. On the one hand, it served to obscure the fact that Chris Stevens wanted more security in Benghaqzi but was ignored — by ShrilLIARy – and the other was to change the failure narrative to enable Obumble to get re-elected.
    Unfortunately both worked, and the lies involved will forever be attached to Obumble, $hrilLIARy and Sneaky Susan.

    And I’m not even including the “stand down” orders to those who wanted to send help to our Benghazi heroes.

    Reply
    • Chris says:
      Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 10:46 am

      J. Soden, do you acknowledge the fact that the terrorists responsible for the Benghazi attack said they were motivated by the video?

      “And I’m not even including the “stand down” orders to those who wanted to send help to our Benghazi heroes.”

      There were no stand down orders, and help was sent. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You enjoy being lied to.

      Reply
      • Pie Guevara says:
        Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 5:26 pm

        Re : “J. Soden, do you acknowledge the fact that the terrorists responsible for the Benghazi attack said they were motivated by the video?”

        To Chris the Idiot. Yes, I always believe what terrorists say, just as Hillary does even when some of her best advisers say no.

        WHO MADE THE BAD CALL, JACKASS?!!

        Chris, Hillary’s water boy.

        Reply
        • Chris says:
          Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 8:20 pm

          Typically Islamic terrorists don’t lie about their motivations; they want the world to know why they strike, to try and intimidate people not to anger them again.

          But you know that already.

          It’s obviously absurd to argue that the administration lied about the motivations of the terrorists by reporting the stated motivations of the terrorists, but I guess that’s what you’ve been reduced to now. If that’s all you have left, maybe it’s time to reconsider your position?

          Reply
  6. Libby says:
    Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    Good Lord, Chris … don’t encourage them.

    Salon posted the creepiest piece yesterday or the day before. Creepy 1) for the look into the inner workings of our Congress, which was just sick-making; and creepy 2) for exposing Gowdy’s desperation to keep this Benghazi thing going. Apparently, he fires staffers who question the ideological purity of the cause … and then they sue … and then he pays them off … but not enough … and they make further accusations … and it is all sick-making.

    Reply
    • Tina says:
      Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 4:52 pm

      The RESULT of the inquiry has been a political black eye for Hillary, it’s true.

      But this is a result she brought on herself when she failed miserably in her job and left Stevens and the rest unprotected in a dangerous region and on the anniversary of 911 after the Red Cross and England’s embassy staff had already got out of town. Her lies about emails are a testament to her dishonestyand untrustworthyness. Emails have revealed talking points were changed.

      There is plenty of reason to investigate and if the political parties were reversed YOU DEMS would be more vicious and demanding than Trey Gowdy has been. The hypocricy, as always, is astounding.

      Required reading: Yahoo – Fiscal Times

      What’s not in question anymore is that the committee and its mission have been pulled into the swamp of presidential election politics in the past two weeks in a way that its chair, South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy, had made Herculean efforts to avoid during the first year and a half of the committee’s existence.

      Reply
  7. Tina says:
    Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:40 pm

    CNS News has a very good rundown on the way various people in the administration were talking about the video.

    White House briefing on September 18th featuring Jay Carney. I will comment in parenthesis) :

    “Ambassador Rice says on Sunday that it was spontaneous (Wrong- we knew it was a planned attack the night of the attack), and then we hear from the State Department that there’s not enough information to make the determination(Wrong again),” a reporter asked. “But you’re saying that there is no shift, right?”

    “No, I’m saying that based on information that we–our initial information, and that includes all information–we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack (Lie- there was evidence and that was the initial report); that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video,” (Wrong the protest they claim grew “spontaneously” out of a “demonstration” never happened…there was no protest in Benghazi) said Carney. “And that is what we know thus far (Lie) based on the evidence (Lie), concrete evidence(Lie)–not supposition (Lie)–concrete evidence that we have thus far. But there is a lot that is under investigation here, and as more facts come to light, if they change that assessment, we’ll make that clear.”

    “Would the administration still say that it was spontaneous?’ a reporter asked Carney in a follow-up.

    “Based on the information that we have now (Lie), it was–there was a reaction to the video(Squirm)–there was protests in Cairo, then followed by protests elsewhere, including Benghazi (Lie), and that that was what led to the original unrest,” said Carney. “The other factors here–all factors–but the other factors here, including participants in the unrest, participants in the violence, (Pat the American people on the head now) are under investigation. And the goal of that investigation is both to find out what happened and why, but also to track down and bring to justice those who killed four Americans. And we’re working with our Libyan counterparts to ensure that that happens, as the President committed it would.”

    On Sept. 21, three days after Obama appeared on Letterman, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unambiguously stated that “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” But, the committee report notes, three days after Clinton’s statement–and nine days after CIA eyewitnesses said there had been no protest in Benghazi–Obama declined to make a “definitive” statement on “The View” about what had happened in Benghazi.

    On the Sept. 24 edition of “The View,” Obama said the Benghazi attack was not “just a mob action.”

    Joy Behar asked him: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie, or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

    Obama replied: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation. (I’m not talking) There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. (Covering my butt a little) Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there. And that’s why we have to maintain the strongest military in the world.”(Hurrah for the US Armed Services…barf)

    What a bunch of nonsensical manipulative blather!

    Those who fail to see the obvious obfuscation and lies are blithering, sycophantic deniers.

    Reply
  8. Chris says:
    Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 8:14 pm

    ““Ambassador Rice says on Sunday that it was spontaneous (Wrong- we knew it was a planned attack the night of the attack)”

    No, you’re wrong. We didn’t “know” it was pre-planned–there were mixed reports. You’ve seen them yourself. Heck, even the congressional reports filed a year after the fact couldn’t establish that the attack was planned more than a day in advance.

    Every one of your other points follows from this one basic error you’ve made, so I think addressing that one is sufficient.

    Reply
  9. Tina says:
    Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    National Review, “Hillary Clinton’s Top Aides Knew from First Minutes that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack, E-mails Disclose,” by Andrew McCarthy

    From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility. These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials. About a half-hour later, another e-mail — this one from Scott Bultrowicz, then director of diplomatic security (DSCC) — related: 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 [4 p.m.] DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 [4:14 p.m.] RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire. At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli” Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

    <Frontpage Magazine

    At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary told the families, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

    Even in the presence of the families of the murdered Americans who died because of her, Hillary Clinton was still making lying about Islamic terrorism and apologizing to Muslims into her two major priorities.

    Two days earlier, Hillary Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State had told the Libyan ambassador that Ansar Al-Sharia, a group linked to Al Qaeda, was responsible. The morning of the receiving ceremony AFRICOM had sent the State Department a list of suspects, including Al Qaeda members, responsible for the Benghazi attack.

    In January, Hillary had blamed “imperfect information.” As she makes her rounds promoting her book, she’s fighting to keep the video lie alive.

    In “Hard Choices,” Hillary claims that there were “scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives. 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.”

    Since it’s impossible to disprove a negative, it would be equally inaccurate to state that none of the attackers were influenced by a frustrated passion for Hillary Clinton. Since there’s no way to disprove the possibility that at least one of the attackers was motivated by the video, by love for Hillary or by hallucinations induced by bath salts, it’s inaccurate to state that none of the attackers carried a torch for Hillary, were angry at a YouTube video or were tripping on bath salts.

    You expect to hear that kind of argument from a college freshman who just took Logic I and is trying to explain that she didn’t finish her essay because nothing can truly be finished. But you don’t expect to have to listen to this kind of childish drivel from the frontrunner for the presidency of the United States.

    The Benghazi attack wasn’t carried out by a disparate group of loners with their own motives. It was an assault by a heavily armed Jihadist group whose motive was, in their own words, to ensure that “there will be nothing ruling in this country other than the laws of Allah.”

    US diplomatic facilities are outposts of infidel law that don’t answer to Allah. They had to be destroyed.

    Al Qaeda’s first successful attack on the US targeted embassies in Africa. Credit was claimed by a previously obscure group tied to Al Qaeda.

    The attack on the Benghazi mission was similar to the failed 2008 attack on the US embassy in Yemen which used RPGs, snipers and car bombs in another carefully planned assault by an Al Qaeda affiliate. The difference was that US diplomatic facilities in Yemen were heavily fortified and defended while the Benghazi mission couldn’t have had worse security if Al Qaeda had been hired to protect it.

    And considering the complex affiliations of the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade that was hired, and then not paid, to protect the mission, that is conceivably what did happen.

    On September 11, 2012, Islamist groups carried out attacks against US embassies in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. The Egyptian attack was organized by the brother of the Al Qaeda leader. The attacks in Yemen and Tunisia had also been organized or promoted by Al Qaeda terrorists and supporters.

    These attacks were less heavily armed, but their goal was to remove the flag of the United States and raise the war flag of Jihad over these small outposts of US soil on Muslim land. These were not protests. They were motivated by the same pretext as Osama bin Laden’s original declaration of war on the United States for “occupying” the “holy land” of Saudi Arabia.

    Al Qaeda’s attacks on US diplomatic facilities have been motivated by Bin Laden’s fatwa that “After Belief there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the Holy land.”

    As I have said before, if they had been truthful, and not in campaign mode, they would have been up front about the initial reports of a terrorist attack. Instead they created a media blitz to putin the minds of the people that a “hateful” video

    Like Hillary, Rice and Obama, Al Qaeda’s propaganda has been known to change, but its objectives have remained consistent. Their first US embassy attack took place in August 1998. Every few years there have been attacks by Al Qaeda affiliates against US diplomatic facilities around the world. From Saudi Arabia to Syria to Pakistan to Turkey, the attacks routinely came around every two years.

    By September 11, 2012, the US was due for another attack on its diplomatic facilities. On September 13, 2006, the US embassy in Damascus had been attacked. On September 17, 2008, the US embassy in Yemen had been attacked. In 2010, the Pakistani Taliban had targeted the US Consulate.

    It should not have been very difficult to spot the pattern. (continues)

    As I have said before the number one talking point should have been, and should have remained, that this was a planned terror attack. There is no valis excuse for the planned attempt to fool the American people with “gee we don’t know” and “gosh we have to wait” and it was a hateful video” prior to an election…none!

    Reply
    • Chris says:
      Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:37 pm

      Tina, both of those timelines are from right wing sources that leave a lot out; specifically, the conflicting evidence that indicated the attack was not pre-planned and that Al Qaeda was not involved. Remember, these two points were debated for months afterward; many of the congressional investigations that took place were inconclusive on both these matters.

      Do you have any timelines of the events that include this missing information? Preferably one that does not come from a partisan source?

      Reply
      • Tina says:
        Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 7:49 pm

        Chris you provide the opposing partisan source and so far all you have really done is parrot what those who are accused of misdeeds are saying…that isn’t proof; that is dim-witted acquiescence.

        Reply
  10. J. Soden says:
    Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    After reading Post Scripts for a few years and the almost completely laughable comments by Chris, I’ve decided I will not respond to any more of his “questions.”

    Between Dewey and Chris, if we could harness all that hot air we wouldn’t have an energy problem.

    Reply
    • Chris says:
      Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 6:38 pm

      After reading Post Scripts for many years, I’ve learned that when people refuse to answer a question, it’s usually because they can’t answer a question honestly.

      Reply
      • Post Scripts says:
        Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 7:12 pm

        C’mon Chris, we make an effort to answer as time permits. Sometimes we may miss the question, if we do, please restate it for us.

        Reply
        • Chris says:
          Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 7:18 pm

          I wasn’t talking about you, Jack. And I shouldn’t have made it exclusive to Post Scripts, but I was playing off of J. Soden’s comment. J illustrated a basic principle of Internet debate; when asked a legitimate question you don’t want to answer, feign superiority and pretend the question is ridiculous.

          Reply
          • Tina says:
            Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 7:57 pm

            But you wouldn’t do anything like that, right Chris?

            When you don’t want to address a point you simply ignore it. Is that any different really than failing to answer a direct question?

            If anyone here is guilty of “feign(ing) superiority,” it is you.

          • Chris says:
            Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 12:11 pm

            “When you don’t want to address a point you simply ignore it. Is that any different really than failing to answer a direct question?”

            Yes, of course it is.

        • J. Soden says:
          Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 8:13 am

          And to quote John Wayne as Cole Thornton in “El Dorado” “You can’t argue with a closed door.”

          Reply
  11. Tina says:
    Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    And by the way…those “partisan” timelines included information taken from actual documents…it was not opinion, OR SPIN!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.