Hilary Clinton accuses Benghazi critics of "flat out deceit"

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton is firing a pre-emptive blast at her fiercest critics on the Benghazi issue, accusing them of “flat-out deceit” in her forthcoming book.
Moving to confront a lingering issue that is certain to draw attacks in any 2016 presidential contest, Clinton is training fire on Republican lawmakers who have launched a series of probes into the attacks that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the late US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.
“Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and un-listened to answers,” she writes.


“Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and un-listened to answers,” she writes.”

At this point what difference does it make? :shrug:

Why shouldn’t people criticise her or Barack Obama? There were sources, before she and Barack Obama went out and blamed the video in part, that claimed the attack was linked to an Al Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al-Sharia.

Well, sit yourself down and answers some questions, Hillary! Explain to Sean Smith’s mom why you lied to her when you told her that the maker of the video would pay. Then, explain where you were during the terrorist seige. While you are at it, tell the families of the slain why you denied several months woth of requests from Amb. Stevens for reinforcements.
Trey Gowdy would love to see you now, and I’m sure that you will provide answers to all the committee’s questions. :wink:

She’s still sticking to the video theory? WOW! :mad:

We still don’t know where she and the President were in the wee hours following the attack. Is that an un-listened to answer?

I don’t think there’s any question that the Obama administration lied about Benghazi, and will tell more lies to cover those lies.

But I’m not actually all that interested in that aspect of it. I would still like to know why on earth we aided the rebels in the first place. What did this administration think it was doing in aiding and arming people who would kill us all if they could, and undo people who were nasty but who were also the enemies of our enemies? It seemed bizarre to me then, and still does.

Then what made anybody think those Islamists would give back or even sell the weapons we gifted them? Were we really going to give them to the Turks to give to the rebels in Syria? Why was Stevens in Benghazi at all, when everybody knew it was the wrong place to be, and he was the wrong guy to be there.

To be fair, she did say not every single person was motivated by the video"

"There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “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 defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

Does she sound plausible? :stuck_out_tongue:

I think she will be running. She’s laying the groundwork.

Among the questions Rep. Trey Gowdy asked the media earlier this month.

– Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi?

– Why were we the last flag flying in Benghazi after the British had left, the Red Cross had left?

– Why did Ambassador Stevens’ requests for additional security go unheeded?

– Do you know why no military assets were moved?
– Do you know if the president called any of our allies?
– Why was Susan Rice picked for Sunday television after the attack, and why wouldn’t the Secretary of State appear?
– How the did the mythology of a YouTube-induced protest gone bad become the official Obama administration position?

Hilary’s words "But there is a difference between unanswered questions and un-listened to answers,”
should be listed right next to Bill’s it depends on the definition of the word is.

Sorry, Hillary is 100% correct. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose President Obama. This one is made up, almost as bad as the lies they pushed about President Obama’s birth. Frankly, it would not be necessary to ban that topic among any group of human beings with half a brain cell because it was obviously fictitious. But critical thinking doesn’t quite flourish around here.


I’m sure my main concerns will never even be addressed. Perhaps they’re too sensitive for anyone to address, for reasons unknown to me.

But I’m still very troubled with our having knocked Quaddhaffi over when he was also fighting Al Queda affiliates and providing us with intelligence on them. Why did we do that? Is this like Obama aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Is the U.S. foreign policy to support any rebellion that seems indigenous on its surface, with no thought paid to the nature of the rebellion? Was this government equally lacking in insight in proposing to support Syrian rebels? Were we going to leave it up to the Turks to distribute weapons to whomever they preferred, (leading from behind again) or were we going to somehow handle the distribution?

All of it seems just crazy to me, and I wonder (and would think others would as well) whether that really is U.S. foreign policy; disengagement from the world and support of just anybody at all who rebels against “the establishment”.

If so, it’s much scarier than I think most people appreciate.

Read MJE’s posting above, and maybe you could answer some of Rep. Gowdy’s questions for us, if indeed this is a “made up” scandal. Four dead Americans, killed by terrorists, has not been a “made up” controversy. Don’t believe the Democrat lies. :cool:


Obama was still pushing for aid to Syrian rebels in his West Point Speech.


Folks may want a high percentage of Americans to be focussed on this story but it’s just not so.

To what extent the GOP candidate rides this issue in 2016 will be to their detriment.

The people just don’t care anymore. You guys may want them to but they don’t. We have moved on.

Whether or not the majority has moved on, I still want to see this investigated. I’d like some answers to what MJE and Ridgerunner have posted. I’m not sure we’ll get them, but we shouldn’t give up.

These are serious issues.

Lets start with these two:

From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

“Although some countries and international organizations had reduced their presence in Benghazi, the United States maintained a diplomatic presence there similar to the UN, the European Union, and other Western countries such as Italy, France, Turkey, and Malta.”

This is a great example of what Hillary described as “un-listened to answers.” Ambassador Stevens declined offers made by General Ham for additional security on two separate occasions. Gen. Martin Dempsey confirmed that this took place in his testimony:

"I was aware of it, because it came in, in Gen. Ham’s report. Gen. Ham actually called the embassy to, to see if they wanted to extend the special security team there and was said – and was told no.”

Stevens did not want additional US security in Benghazi. In fact he made it clear that he wanted the Libyans to provide it as is their obligation under international law.

Maybe people don’t care much about the Boston bombing anymore either. But that doesn’t mean that there should be no justice for the families of the maimed and killed. I am sorry that you are the type of person who is able to ignore cold-blooded murders of American heroes, but I won’t join your ranks.
P.S. If this unconscionable negligence occurred under Bush, you would NOT be forgetting about it. You are simply unwilling to gore YOUR ox. The agenda is all that matters for progressives. :sad_yes:

And there are SO MANY more!

Poll: Most Americans don’t believe Hillary Clinton on Benghazi security

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.