Hillary says grieving mother is wrong!

Rep Jordan spelled it out, eatbibeau. There's no evidence -- nada -- that any state department personnel or intelligence agents reporting from Libya ever attributed the Benghazi assault as a response to a video, eatbibeau. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Incorrect.

Meanwhile, there is substantive evidence that the Odumbo administration, Nuland, Rhodes, Hildabeast, Blumenthal, etc., manufactured the video story to cover their collective asses in an election year, eatbibeau.

Where is this evidence?

Furthermore, there is substantive evidence that Hildabeast personally disavowed, within mere hours of the attack, the notion that the attack in Benghazi was in response to a video while she simultaneously told a different story to the American public, eatbibeau.

No, there isn't. I already offered up a link that debunks your attempts to paint what she did as a lie. If you have anything that actually contradicts that link, I would like to hear it. And the questioning you posted is addressed (indirectly) in the article I cited.

Incorrect.

A discerning and intelligent reader of your cite will discover that your cite supports my statement and not yours, eatbibeau: "There's no evidence -- nada -- that any state department personnel or intelligence agents reporting from Libya ever attributed the Benghazi assault as a response to a video." The whole "it was a video" story was concocted by the Odumbo administration in D.C.

Where is this evidence? The Ben Rhodes memo as well as the email exchange Nuland et al had as they prepared the "Talking Points" for Susan Rice.

Under the heading “Goals” for Ms. Rice’s appearance on five Sunday talk shows, Mr. Rhodes wrote to other White House communications officials that a main objective of Ms. Rice’s interviews should be to “reinforce the president and the administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

A second goal was to link the Benghazi attack — and those on other diplomatic sites across the Middle East — to an obscure anti-Muslim video and to insist that the protests were not “rooted” in a “broader failure of [administration] policy.” (Washington Times)

No, there isn't. I already offered up a link that debunks your attempts to paint what she did as a lie. If you have anything that actually contradicts that link, I would like to hear it. And the questioning you posted is addressed (indirectly) in the article I cited.

You offered up nothing that refutes the evidence Rep Jordan laid out against Hildabeast proving she lied and continues to lie, eatbibeau.
Originally Posted by eatfibo

.

Pissing match with an incontinent opponent. He's already given you one of his special names, and used it multiple times in the same paragraph.

Might as well just call him chicken dick and be done with it.

That's where your logical debate with IBIdiot is headed, eatfibo.

Pissing match with an incontinent opponent. He's already given you one of his special names, and used it multiple times in the same paragraph.

Might as well just call him chicken dick and be done with it.

That's where your logical debate with IBIdiot is headed, eatfibo. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hasa Diga, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM: truth trumps lib-retard fiction every day of the week.

A discerning and intelligent reader of your cite will discover that your cite supports my statement and not yours Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, it rates the position half true. It does indicate that there wasn't a lot of evidence to support the conclusion, but that saying there was "nada" is not accurate.

The Ben Rhodes memo as well as the email exchange Nuland et al had as they prepared the "Talking Points" for Susan Rice.

This is long since debunked.

You offered up nothing that refutes the evidence Rep Jordan laid out against Hildabeast proving she lied and continues to lie, eatbibeau.

And you've offered up nothing that shows that anyone, when something official is on the line, believes that Clinton and/or the administration intentionally misled anyone. Sure, people can cherry pick facts and try to twist what they mean to fit their narrative, but the reality is that each and every time the narrative is finalized in a report, people are forced to admit that the "fog of war" narrative is the most accurate.

Pissing match with an incontinent opponent. He's already given you one of his special names, and used it multiple times in the same paragraph.

Might as well just call him chicken dick and be done with it.

That's where your logical debate with IBIdiot is headed, eatfibo. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Honestly, I don't even understand why so many people on this board spend post after post after post doing little more than calling each other names. That's what most people would call a pissing match.

When he turns to just calling me names, I'll ignore him. But if he makes actual points, which he is doing now, even if they are wrong, I will address them.

You didn't answer my question, AssupLiar. But you did show your disrespect for freedom, once again. As usual. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That's a fucking lie.

No, it rates the position half true. It does indicate that there wasn't a lot of evidence to support the conclusion, but that saying there was "nada" is not accurate. Eatbibeau, your site says there was no intel from Libya attributing the attack to a video, and attributing the Benghazi attack to a video story was concocted by administration sources in Washington D.C. -- NOT Libya!


This is long since debunked. There's nothing debunked about how the Investigative Report, dtd 21 Nov 2014, faulted Morell -- who was in D.C. and NOT in Libya -- for interjecting insupportable "Talking Points" into his partisan analysis of what happened in Benghazi. The Investigative Report, dtd 21 Nov 2014, termed Morell's contribution faulty because they found Morell's contribution was "inconsistent and incomplete." BTW, your article by the self-serving Morell pre-dates the fork-tongued revelations in Hildabeast's emails.

And you've offered up nothing that shows that anyone, when something official is on the line, believes that Clinton and/or the administration intentionally misled anyone. Sure, people can cherry pick facts and try to twist what they mean to fit their narrative, but the reality is that each and every time the narrative is finalized in a report, people are forced to admit that the "fog of war" narrative is the most accurate.
There was no "fog of war", eatbibeau. No one in Libya ever once attributed the attack to a video, eatbibeau. Even Hildabeast disavowed the video story to her family and inner circle as she continued to lie and mislead the American public, eatbibeau. Your insistent lies cannot change the facts, eatbibeau: Hildabeast lied, and your'e lying when you say she didn't. Originally Posted by eatfibo

.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Eaty is unlike Hillary because he doesn't know when he's lying. He truly believes his twisted logic. Hillary on the other hand, knows when she's lying. Which is often.

Honestly, I don't even understand why so many people on this board spend post after post after post doing little more than calling each other names. That's what most people would call a pissing match.

When he turns to just calling me names, I'll ignore him. But if he makes actual points, which he is doing now, even if they are wrong, I will address them. Originally Posted by eatfibo

That didn't take him long, did it?

I've got him on ignore, but obviously he hasn't changed his posting strategy.

Ask him about slavery. Better yet, ask him what his name for you means.

Eaty is unlike Hillary because he doesn't know when he's lying. He truly believes his twisted logic. Hillary on the other hand, knows when she's lying. Which is often. Originally Posted by bambino

Yep. Eatbibeau, blinded by the Kool Aid he sucks down, cites a source that relates how every report originating in Benghazi and Libya on that terrible night stated that the attacks were deliberate and carried out by well armed attackers and that there was never any mention of a "video" or "demonstrations" protesting a video.

Timeline of reports about what prompted the attacks

Sept. 11, 2012: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Defense Department officials a couple hours after the attack "to discuss the Benghazi attack and other violence in the region in reaction to the anti-Muslim video," according to a report from the bipartisan Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Several officials later told this committee that they believed it was a terrorist attack immediately or almost immediately.

Sept. 11, 2012: At 11:12 p.m. Hildabeast sent an email to her daughter Chelsea saying the attack was conducted by an al-Qaida like group.

Another email revealed that Hildabeast, during a phone call with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf around 8 p.m. ET, said she understood Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaida-affiliated group, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Hildabeast told the Egyptian prime minister: "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest."

Sept. 11, 2012: Two alerts were issued by the State Department Operations Center to administration officials, according to the House Republican Conference report. The first said the U.S. facilities were under attack, while the second linked the attacks to Ansar al-Sharia. Neither alert mentioned a protest related to the video.

Sept. 12, 2012: In the first CIA assessment of the attacks, the CIA said "the presence of armed assailants from the incident’s outset suggests this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest."

Sept. 15, 2012: The CIA’s chief of station in Tripoli wrote an email to the then-deputy director of the CIA saying that the attacks were "not an escalation of protests."

The intelligence community "also had information that there were no protests outside the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks, but did not incorporate that information into its widely circulated assessments in a timely manner," according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.

Sept. 16, 2012: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows. She talked about the video several times and said, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

Sept. 18, 2012: The CIA and FBI reviewed video footage from the Benghazi compound that showed no protests preceding the attack.

That didn't take him long, did it?

I've got him on ignore, but obviously he hasn't changed his posting strategy.

Ask him about slavery. Better yet, ask him what his name for you means. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You linked to something that said there was, in fact, evidence that it was a result of the video, just that it wasn't very compelling. On top of that, you ignore, the same site, saying that there is no evidence that Clinton intentionally misled anyone.

You linked to something that said there was, in fact, evidence that it was a result of the video, just that it wasn't very compelling. On top of that, you ignore, the same site, saying that there is no evidence that Clinton intentionally misled anyone. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Wrong, eatbibeau. It was -- in fact -- your source, and it reported that in each and every instance the intel received from Libya made no mention of a video or a spontaneous protest about a video. The "someones who said" it was a video, as noted in your source, were conspicuously NOT in Benghazi or Libya. Those "someones" were the likes of Odumbo, Morell (an Odumbo appointee), Hildabeast, et al, who consciously fabricated a fictitious story not supported by the evidence that came out of Libya, eatbibeau.

Wrong, eatbibeau. It was -- in fact -- your source, and it reported that in each and every instance the intel received from Libya made no mention of a video or a spontaneous protest about a video. The "someones who said" it was a video, as noted in your source, were conspicuously NOT in Benghazi or Libya. Those "someones" were the likes of Odumbo, Morell (an Odumbo appointee), Hildabeast, et al, who consciously fabricated a fictitious story not supported by the evidence that came out of Libya, eatbibeau. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Gotcha. So your source, which concludes there was evidence presented to Clinton that tied it to the video, supports your position that there was no evidence presented to her that linked it to the video.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.