Posted on 05/30/2014 6:44:31 AM PDT by NYRepublican72
WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton is firing a preemptive 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 U.S. the late 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 unlistened to answers,” she writes.
At one point, she suggests it’s unpatriotic to keep re-visiting the issue in the political realm.
“Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Clinton says.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
fl
So is Obama, but he is President, and Hillary may be someday too.
If Nixon was evil, one has to wonder how much more evil is hillary.
Muslim Brotherhood.
Huma connections.
“Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers,”
Uh HUH! This sounds like the Evita version of, ‘that depends on what the definition of IS, IS.’
More Clinton ‘rope-dope’. Is she kidding... seriously?!
Amazing. She was the one in charge when the ambassador and 3 heroes are killed, and because she's questioned over the failure to launch a rescue, over their reasons for being in Benghazi, and over the whole system of events that night, then her critics are to blame for refusing "NO ANSWERS" as an answer?
It's not the critics who lied about the mohammed video. I heard Geraldo defending it this morning saying that we're not paying attention to everyone being in the streets throughout the Mideast that 9/11 anniversary, and Benghazi being a barely organized attack, and in some small way that video enters in there somewhere.
An inquisitive mind, however, wants to know about the weapons-running operations.
“Unlistened to answers”?
will this become a Hillary Classic?
Well, if anyone knows “flat-out deceit”, Hillary is your man...errr....woman.
To me...the Captain Obvious question is: What legal standing does the guy who made the video now have in light of the memos being publicized. Could he not use them as evidence in suing the gubmint for illegally detaining him. We used to have something called “free speech”. The law must still be on the books somewhere!
Why was Ambassador Stevens there? Why were 31 cia weapons experts and operatives there? Why are the prohibited from talking to our Congress? Did you endorse the delivery of weapons to the Al Qaeda affiliates in Benghazi?
Keep lying, Hillary.
When the CIA folks who were there that night testify, it will be all over but the shouting.
Here’s to hoping she snaps again and gives the nation another screaming one liner to join her
what difference does it make
My contempt for her is similar to the one I have for Jane Fonda
The arrest of that man should have brought down dynasties, but it was blown off. They covered themselves by making it for some obscure reason rather than directly about his video, but still, everyone knew it was about the video.
How is just wanting to know what happened and why deceitful? How is withholding evidence from Congress not deceitful?
Projection ...
1st question to clinton: Where were you on 9/11?
2: Where was obama?
3: Why did you replace US soldiers with terrorists as guards in Benghazi?
4: Why do you directly employ terrorist supporters?
5: Where is the missing $6 billion dollars?
6: Why are you giving weapons to the terrorists?
7: Why did you lie to the family members in front of the coffins of the dead?
8: Why are you so devoid of morals that you could do such things?
Ouch
You are looking at the wrong issue.
Hillary’s own question: “When the phone rings at 3:00 am who will answer?”
The phone rang.
A US Ambassador is under attack and the attack went on for about 9 hours :
Only the President has authority to order troops to the rescue.
1) Did she ask the president for military assistance?
2) If so, what was his response?
3) Did the president order the Sec Def to marshal forces?
4) If not, why not?
5) If so, which forces were marshaled and when?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.