3rdnlng Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Just in case Gator needs some more laughs: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/ Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS: The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows: This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory. Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant). At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations: The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials. “These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Just in case Gator needs some more laughs: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/ Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS: The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows: This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory. Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant). At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations: The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials. “These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.” Don't forget! http://prorev.com/foster.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Demented irony re Hillary e-mails--she was told Benghazi was work of al-Qaeda and planned for a month by Sydney Blumenthal .No wonder we have to fight to get the e-mails................ . Edited May 21, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Demented irony re Hillary e-mails--she was told Benghazi was work of al-Qaeda and planned for a month by Sydney Blumenthal .No wonder we have to fight to get the e-mails................ . What do you take "We should get this around asap." to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Demented irony re Hillary e-mails--she was told Benghazi was work of al-Qaeda and planned for a month by Sydney Blumenthal .No wonder we have to fight to get the e-mails................ . Clinton maintained contact with Blumenthal, who was hired by the Clinton Foundation, and, during the rebellion in 2011 in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi hoped, with business associates, to offer services to the rebels and any new government. Blumenthal prepared, from public and other sources, about 25 memos which he sent as emails to Clinton during 2011 and 2012 which she shared through her aide, Jake Sullivan, with senior State Department personnel. In the form of intelligence briefings, the memos sometimes touted his business associates and, at times contained inaccurate information.[14][15] According to journalist John Tabin, Blumenthal's "intel was shoddy, with basic errors like mixing up Libyan politicians with similar names. In a particularly sleazy instance, Blumenthal asserted that a businessman named Najib Obeida was among 'the most influential' of the Libyan prime minister's new economic advisers — without mentioning that Blumenthal was advising a group contractors courting Obeida as a potential business partner."[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Blumenthal His intel doesn't sound like it's the most trust worthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Blumenthal His intel doesn't sound like it's the most trust worthy C'mon, wikipedia is almost like having a Youtube video. So, should she be hung out to dry for not listening to his narrative regarding the terrorist attack or hung out to dry for passing on his bogus information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Actually, for any number of reasons, she should just be hung out to dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Blumenthal His intel doesn't sound like it's the most trust worthy And your mind that's a better explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Hillary's "body man" (Jake Sullivan) brags about his boss. Top Aide’s Pre-Benghazi Email: Hillary Clinton Had ‘Leadership/ Ownership/Stewardship of This Country’s Libya Policy From Start to Finish’ Cybercast News Service, by Terence P. Jeffrey Original Article Another reason why Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be president Power Line, by Paul Mirengoff Original Article The latest source is this New York Times report that Hillary’s private email account contained sensitive information. The official name for the information is “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU). What sensitive but unclassified information did Hillary have in her private account. According to the Times, “that information included the whereabouts and travel plans of American officials in Libya as security there deteriorated during the uprising against the leadership of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011.” Considering the fate of Christopher Stevens the following year, it’s safe to say that this information was, indeed, sensitive. And it’s safe to say that it should not have been contained in an unsecure email system. Noah Rothman at Commentary gets a head start on translating the Times’ story into a political ad. He asks: “Do you deserve to be President after jeopardizing national security?” The question, as they say, answers itself. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/ “The Obama administration – including Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice – knew immediately that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. The State Department’s new smoking gun documents put to rest any question about what Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice knew – and when they knew it,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Within minutes of the attack, the administration, specifically Hillary Clinton, began lying to the American people by blaming an obscure Internet video. No wonder Hillary Clinton is the great destroyer of State Department emails. One can assume that Mrs. Clinton would not have stolen and destroyed emails in violation of law and various court orders if she didn’t have something to hide. And it shouldn’t take a federal court order to find out that Hillary Clinton evidently had no clue how the State Department and the FBI responded to terrorist attacks on State Department personnel.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-almost-immediately-labeled-benghazi-attack-as-terrorism-event/ “The Obama administration – including Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice – knew immediately that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. The State Department’s new smoking gun documents put to rest any question about what Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice knew – and when they knew it,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Within minutes of the attack, the administration, specifically Hillary Clinton, began lying to the American people by blaming an obscure Internet video. No wonder Hillary Clinton is the great destroyer of State Department emails. One can assume that Mrs. Clinton would not have stolen and destroyed emails in violation of law and various court orders if she didn’t have something to hide. And it shouldn’t take a federal court order to find out that Hillary Clinton evidently had no clue how the State Department and the FBI responded to terrorist attacks on State Department personnel.” So what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 So what So you're ok with your leaders blatantly lying to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 So you're ok with your leaders blatantly lying to you? Just as long as they're Democrats. Because even though they lie, they really do care and have a really good reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 So you're ok with your leaders blatantly lying to you? But there's nothing wrong at all with the NSA's data collection... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 So you're ok with your leaders blatantly lying to you? Just being a realist, unlike you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 If they weren't lying to us they couldn't call themselves leaders, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Just being a realist, unlike you So your rational is still "well they all do it so why should I care." And no that doesn't make you a realist. It makes you a patsy and a tool. Someone that every politician loves. I HATE when people lie to me especially when feel their shielding me from the awful truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2690-05112015.pdf These are the documents, I don't get out of them what Judicial Watch gets out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2690-05112015.pdf These are the documents, I don't get out of them what Judicial Watch gets out of them. That's because you are a really, really dumb schit. Just being a realist, unlike you So, reptileman, please explain to all of us about being a realist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 BUMP Tomorrow is the big day! What is it going to be.....epic hillary win or just another GOP embarrassment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts