Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary Suggests (Again) That Benghazi Victims’ Families Are Liars

Hillary Suggests (Again) That Benghazi Victims’ Families Are Liars

The victims’ families are “wrong, absolutely wrong” about what Hillary told them

We all remember Hillary Clinton’s, along with assorted Obama administration officials’, televised assertions that the Benghazi attacks that left four men—an American ambassador (Christopher Stevens), two former Navy SEALS (Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty), and one embassy aide (Sean Smith)—brutally murdered in a terrorist attack was the result of an anti-Islamist video.

As of the most recent Democrat debate, Hillary is still standing by that assertion and even going so far as to imply the Benghazi victims’ families are lying about what she told them.

Following Hillary’s repeated assertions that the video was the cause of the “spontaneous” attack on the Benghazi compound and the subsequent revelations that the attack was neither spontaneous nor the result of a video, the victims’ families came forward with the information that Hillary had told them that the video was to blame long after she knew that not to be the case.

Watch one victim’s mother express her outrage at Hillary for lying to her:

The above interview references the casket ceremony for the fallen, and here is the video of that casket ceremony in which Hillary iterates the false assertion that the attack was the result of the video.

In the most recent Democrat debate, Hillary doubled-down on the video story and even went so far as to suggest that the Benghazi victims’ families are lying about what she said to them about the attack.

Jorge Ramos, amid boos from the Hillary-friendly debate audience, persevered in his question about the victims’ families’ statements that she lied to them about the video and its role in the Benghazi attack.  Hillary claims that the grief-stricken families are “wrong, absolutely wrong” about what she told them and asserted the attack was, now only “in part,” based on the video.


This is not, of course, the first time that Hillary has asserted that she is not lying . . . so the Benghazi families must be, and the chances are good that it won’t be the last.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


legacyrepublican | March 12, 2016 at 10:44 am

Obviously a vast legit victim’s of terrorism conspiracy. Nothing to see here.

Character. A trait so poorly defined, so inherently meaningless, that after all these years of trying Hillary still can’t figure out how to fake it.

Consoling the families of America’s honored dead, next to the flag-draped caskets of the men who gave the ultimate sacrifice – Hillary Clinton clasped the hands of the parents and with careful cadence and solemn words … lied through her teeth. Integrity and the tears of grieving parents are an easy price to pay, given a chance to exploit “Feeling Their Pain” in front of the TV cameras.
Now she calls those parents, liars.
Hillary Clinton Dishonors the Sacrifice of Fallen Heroes and their shattered loved ones, while standing over the caskets … she Dishonors America.
Hillary Clinton is a poster grandma for depraved indifference.

Yeah, she’ll survive Trump.


Hard to imagine how so many people can support this shrew. But then again it doesn’t require much effort to be a Democrat.

Sammy Finkelman | March 13, 2016 at 12:49 pm

She knows what the truth is a lot better than she’s letting on.

The video was one of a number of cover stories prepared by the terrorists. It was told by guards posted by the attackers, during the attack, to a crowd which included a New York Times stringer in Benghazi – which was the first time he, and probably almost everybody else in Benghazi heard about the video. (The crowd had been assembled by spreading a false rumor that demonstrators had been shot at.)

Hillary Clinton did tell some family members (privately, so now she can deny she said it, or say they misunderstood her – take your pick) that the man responsble for the attack was going to be arrested, by which she meant the producer of the video…

Who was in fact in league with the terrorists or their sponsers, although nobody will say so, and that’s not the way she meant it.

It’s also a fact that Ansar al Sharia claimed responsbility and then retracted it, and when it retracted it, so did the CIA! And the whole Obama Adminstration began to do so, also over the course of the remainder of that week. They learned it was terrrism, and then they unlearned it. A point that Republicans seem to be particularly dense about getting.

The fact that they had it right at the beginning didn’t mean that people like Susan Rice, and Tommy Vietor and Benjamin Rhodes knew that what Susan Rice saying by the following Sunday was wrong.

They relied on the CIA – not because the CIA actually had the best information but because it had the most highly rated information – because it was the CIA saying it.

That’s not the same thing as the “best” intelligence.

Hillary Clinton has not yet once criticized the CIA. And the Republicans want to say that the video story was invented in Washington in the White House – which it was not. It was invented by the terrorists. That still does not excuse what the Obama Administration’s position became, but it is a good thing they made it public, or else President Barack Obama would have continued to believe it.

Also: While the CIA never specifically mentioned the video (in anything that has surfaced) it did say the assault was spontaneous and had evolved out of a demonstration which was inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo – which I think the CIA said, although what the CIA said at the time and before is still secret – but I believe they said the demonstration in Cairo would be because of the video – that would explain the Cairo Embassy tweet, as well as something in an e-mail by David Petraeus. They may very well have said that the Cairo sdemonstration was about the video, even though that actually is not true, but the demonstration in Cairo was about freeing Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department insisted on correcting the Benghazi “talking points”, prepared later that week, on the issue of whether the State Department had been warned (which they had not been really) and about whether the place where the Ambassador was staying in Benghazi that was attacked was a consulate – it was a “mission” and as such did not have the usual security a consulate would have – no Marine guards and so on like that.

But she did not want to start a fight about whether or not there had been a demonstration in Benghazi, which she, and everybody else in the State Department knew there had not been. (Susan Rice was not really in the State Department, but operated independently)

There were demonstrations about the video AFTER the Benghazi attack – probably as a cover-up. A lot of people were involved with that cover-up – probably paid to make those demonstrations, and they occured everywhere from Tunisia to Pakistan. Republicans ignore these later demonstrations which really were ostensibly about the video. But only AFTER the death of the Ambassador, and done precisely in order to imply that the assault in Benghazi and the protest in Cairo was ALSO about the video.

I’m not surprised that, as Hillary Clinton says, an organizer of the assault in Benghazi is sticking to the video story. He doesn’t want to admit whose orders he was following.

As I said, Hillary Clinton knows a whole lot more than she’s letting on about this. She’s succeeding admirably in keeping everybdy ignorant and in confusing everybody.

Sammy Finkelman | March 13, 2016 at 1:36 pm

Now I will explain what I think really happened, in brief, although this may make me into something like “Moishe the Explainer.”

The real reason for the assault was probably to kill the Ambassador. There are a lot of questions as to how he got there, who told him to go there, or contrived to get him there, or knew. But I don’t think his killing was a coincidence. It was almost certainly pre-planned — by some foreign countries, most likely.

The had penetrated the security, or had been consulted in setting it up, not just to get onto the grounds, but they also knew that, in case of an attack, they would go to a firetrap “safe room.” Possibly his killers pretended to be rescuers. That would have bene a way to get him out of there, besides the smoke.

They wanted to get the U.S. out of Benghazi. These countries were buying up missiles and other weapons that Quaddafi had stored near Benghazi (because he had thought it was a safe place) weapons that they were sending to Syrian rebels they picked. Weapons that the United States was trying to buy to prevent them from going to the Qatari and Saudi backed Syrian rebels.

The ship had sailed when Ambassador Christopher Steven got to Benghazi – the first one anyway – but Ambassador had met with the Turkish station chief

(Not the Turkish “Ambassador”)

And he got an agreement, by threatening Turkey, that the arms would go no further than Turkey.

His killing, Hillary Clinton knew, was probably planned by the same person who murdered Vincent Foster – Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who…

1) In 1993 was the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, who lived across the street from Fort Marcy Park, who (at some date in July, which my FOIA requests to verify was July 20, or any other date, were of no avail) had a secret unscheduled meeting in the White House with President Clinton and Sandy “burglar” Berger that was leaked to Fred Barnes, complete with an almost certainly false explanation of the reason of the meeting, including a caution not to generalize from it (!) The story was published on page 10 of the March 14, 1994 New Republic, right at the same time as several known Foster case leaks.

The key words there are on lines 9 and 10 “in July”

And Prince Bandar also…

2) was, in 2012, the head of Saudi intelligence. And apparently Saudi intelligence gave the U.s. information that the attack was spontaneous – which would mean there were no plotters to find!