Jump to content

Ny Times Defends Hillary, Blames Video, For Bengazhi


Guest Deisel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Deisel

The author of the Times report, is also the same author who wrote the day after 9/11/12 that a VIDEO was to blame for the terrorist attack, i mean Peaceful protest, on our men in at the counsulate. This same reporter has written a puff piece in order to exconerate Hillary for her run up to 2016. His report tries to make the claim that al queda wasn't involved and that yes, that PESKY video, that no one has seen is the reason. As if that exconerates anybody in the 1st case.

Here's the facts:

#1. Our consulate was attacked by TERRORIST wether you want to give them a Al queda business card or NOT. These mangy bearded killers don't sign up on the net and carry ID cards.

#2. Extra security was asked for and Denied prior to the attack.

#3. The consulate had been attacked numerous times leading up to the massacre.

#4. Hillary signed off on NO new security, even pulled assets out prior, stating lack of funds.

#5. HILLARY was in charge.

#6. Al Queda and terrorists groups gave us ample warning the attack was coming.

#7. Hillary again is responsible for calling off the military who COULD have helped counter this attack.

#8. The State dept. the CIA and the WH covered up the Terrorist attack and blamed a video, then hid and intimidated the employee's on the ground there, after the attack.

#9. The President, Hillary and Susan Rice all lied abt it being a terrorist attack and blamed a video.

#10. NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE for these deaths...LEADERSHIP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whichever "truth" the media pushes still means that Hillary and Obama lied. They have blamed the video tape then admitted it was a planned terrorist attack.

The only thing consistent in the story is that the administration is adamant that they "didn't know" anything. This has got to be the most mis-informed president in US history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author of the Times report, is also the same author who wrote the day after 9/11/12 that a VIDEO was to blame for the terrorist attack, i mean Peaceful protest, on our men in at the counsulate. This same reporter has written a puff piece in order to exconerate Hillary for her run up to 2016. His report tries to make the claim that al queda wasn't involved and that yes, that PESKY video, that no one has seen is the reason. As if that exconerates anybody in the 1st case.

Here's the facts:

#1. Our consulate was attacked by TERRORIST wether you want to give them a Al queda business card or NOT. These mangy bearded killers don't sign up on the net and carry ID cards.

#2. Extra security was asked for and Denied prior to the attack.

#3. The consulate had been attacked numerous times leading up to the massacre.

#4. Hillary signed off on NO new security, even pulled assets out prior, stating lack of funds.

#5. HILLARY was in charge.

#6. Al Queda and terrorists groups gave us ample warning the attack was coming.

#7. Hillary again is responsible for calling off the military who COULD have helped counter this attack.

#8. The State dept. the CIA and the WH covered up the Terrorist attack and blamed a video, then hid and intimidated the employee's on the ground there, after the attack.

#9. The President, Hillary and Susan Rice all lied abt it being a terrorist attack and blamed a video.

#10. NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE for these deaths...LEADERSHIP?

They are trying to insulate Hillary Clinton from this issue ruining her chances for the Democratic nomination in 2016. They are hoping the attention span of the average vote is a short as the average fruit fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt she will be held accountable for her decisions and actions regarding Bengazhi and the loss of American lives.

Of course she won't. The blame will be placed on no one person or any administrative element of government. Blame will be placed, but it will be on someone or something which can not respond to the criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, not a conspiracy. Doesn't need to be. Hillary Clinton is the media's chosen one. They will do what they need to do and say what they need to say without coordination.

Massive multi-corporation conspirucy through brainwash. Zombies. Walkers.k21it5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Hillary will NOT escape her involvement thats led Directly to the 4 deaths at Benghazi......http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/wrong-again_773261.html#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary will NOT escape her involvement thats led Directly to the 4 deaths at Benghazi......http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/wrong-again_773261.html#

The New York times is just trying to provide her cover. When this issue is brought up during the next election period, her surrogates can now make the claim that the New York Times looked into this and found nothing ......

No one is buying it. Even the rest of the media knows what the Times is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conspirucy.

The list of people who are in conspiracy against these fringe 'conservatives' grows:

- Merriam Webster, for defining the words 'science', 'facts', and 'average'

- All media, unless it agrees with the fringe conservative dogma

- Statistics and statisticians

- Facts themselves

That's a lot of conspiracy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list of people who are in conspiracy against these fringe 'conservatives' grows:

- Merriam Webster, for defining the words 'science', 'facts', and 'average'

- All media, unless it agrees with the fringe conservative dogma

- Statistics and statisticians

- Facts themselves

That's a lot of conspiracy!

Noah Webster passed on in the mid to late 1800's. He has no part of re-defining the Merriam Webster dictionary.

I've heard of both Charles and George Merriam, but who is this Merrriam Webster fellow? me thinks you don't know what you be talking about brah....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New York times is just trying to provide her cover. When this issue is brought up during the next election period, her surrogates can now make the claim that the New York Times looked into this and found nothing ......

No one is buying it. Even the rest of the media knows what the Times is doing.

I love it when Snake and Y#%@man team up . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2biEBOfO7k4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...