Tuesday, December 15

Hillary denies telling families of Benghazi dead that attack was due to a video

Remember that unpleasantness in Benghazi, Libya way waaay back in 2012?  Hard to remember much about something that happened so, so long ago, eh?  Something about four Americans killed?  An ambassador or something?

I mean really, who in the world bothers remembering trivial stuff like that?

But even if you don't recall much about it, I'll bet you remember what your emperor and SecState Hillary Clinton said caused the attack.  Sure: They blamed it on a video, posted on YouTube, that was critical Mohammed or Islam or some such.

Obama ordered U.N. ambassador Susan Rice to go to all the Sunday talk shows to push this fable. 

Hell, they even threw the guy who made the vid in jail.

Freedom of speech?  Nah, we don't believe in that stuff here, comrade.  That be dangerous talk.

When plane carrying the families of the four dead Americans landed in the U.S., Hillary met them at the airport and told 'em that the reason their sons or husbands were murdered was the anti-Muzz video.

With that as background, the presumptive Democrat nominee for president--Hillary--appeared on  ABC News' This Week Sunday, where host (and super-Clinton fan) George Stephanopoulos asked her if she'd told family members of the four murdered Americans that a YouTube video was responsible for their loved ones' deaths.  Here's the exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you tell them it was about the film? And what's your response?
HILLARY CLINTON:  No. You know, look I understand the continuing grief at the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans. And I did testify, as you know, for 11 hours. And I answered all of these questions.
Now, I can't -- I can't help it if the people think there has to be something else there. I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um, between the time that, uh, I – you know, when I talked to my daughter, that was the latest information; we were, uh, giving it credibility. And then we learned the next day it wasn’t true. In fact, they retracted it. This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war and I think most Americans understand that.
Why is Clinton's answer to this question important?  Because we now know--thanks to emails that should have been on a government server but which Clinton tried to hide on the private server she illegally used for government business, and which were pried out of her hands by a lawsuit--that within hours of the attacks Clinton was informed that the attack was NOT caused by a spontaneous reaction to a video, but was a carefully planned terrorist attack.

Yet in remarks on video the next day Clinton blamed the attacks on the video on YouTube.  Several family members of the murdered American have publicly claimed that she blamed the video in meetings with them three days later.

Then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, and then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice also peddled the false YouTube video narrative publicly for weeks,

So Hillary and Obama both knew the true cause, but for several days pushed the bullshit cover story that the attacks were caused by this allegedly defamatory video.

Now consider that on the ABC show last Sunday Hillary denied telling the families that the attacks were caused by the video.  Why?  Because now her own emails have now proven that she knew that story was false.  Rather than claiming the emails were false, she's trying to deny that she supported Obama's bullshit cover story.

And yet a majority of Democrats still want this woman to be president.  Obviously her brazen lying doesn't bother them a bit.  Or maybe they're just unaware of it.

After all, it happened so long ago.  2012, if I recall.  Just two months before the presidential election.

Oooh, surely you don't think Obama would have ordered his lackeys to go with the bullshit story so voters would be able to "explain away" the attacks as resulting from a grave and altogether understandable provocation of those innocent, peace-loving Muzz, do ya?

And Hill went along.  But now she's denying she ever supported the cover story.

Hey, "at this point what difference could it possibly make?"

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home