The New York Times Begins Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign To Obfuscate Benghazi Libya

By now everyone is well aware of the New York Times article trying to point the blame of responsibility away from al-Qaeda in Benghazi Libya; the attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi which led to the death of FOUR Americans.

EVERYONE with a scintilla of intellectual honesty knows the Times Article is pure deflective Pro-Hillary propaganda.

It does not take words to destroy their insufferable claims.

Benghazi Libya al-Qaeda 2Benghazi Libya al-Qaeda

Libyan protesters celebrate in Benghazi

Western Media / Libyan Propaganda  (Disturbing Video Refutes State Dept)Libya-Al-Qaeda

Western Media / Libyan Propaganda  (Disturbing Video Refutes State Dept)



Benghazi bathroom

ambassador chris stevens collar bone injury


wrist bracelet expansion

wrist bracelet owner

blood on their hands

This photo was taken at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

This photo was taken at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu


Hillary and Bill Clinton will be presiding over the swearing in of New York Mayor Bill De Blasio.

“I was honored to serve in President Clinton’s Administration and on Secretary Clinton’s campaign for U.S. Senate, and I am honored again that they will both join our celebration for all of New York City. Wednesday’s ceremony will be an event for every New Yorker from all five boroughs, and Chirlane and I couldn’t be more excited to have President Clinton and Secretary Clinton stand with us,” he said.

This event is the 2016 presidential campaign kickoff for Hillary Clinton. That’s what this NYT B.S. is all about…..

Hey Liars

We align with THIS message.

PS.  Don’t just focus on Obama and Hillary….  Focus on John McCain !    THAT’s the reason why no “independent investigation” was ever launched.

Western Media / Libyan Propaganda  (Disturbing Video Refutes State Dept)

Watch what John McCain says about Hillary…..   Watch and listen very closely.    McCain is individually a benefactor from this.  He holds cards of knowledge.    

If The GOP take back the Senate —> McCain is positioned to replace Harry Reid, because there’s a strong possibility McConnell will be primaried.

…. just watch it play out.

This entry was posted in Benghazi-Gate, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Egypt & Libya Part 2, Election 2014, Election 2016, Harry Reid, Islam, media bias, Military, Mitch McConnell, Notorious Liars, Obama re-election, Obama Research/Discovery, propaganda, Terrorist Attacks, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, Valerie Jarrett, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The New York Times Begins Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign To Obfuscate Benghazi Libya

  1. myopiafree says:

    So four people were killed by Al-Qaeda.

    Hillary’s response: “Whatever”.

    Do you truly want this person to be President of the USA?

    What was Susan’s “explanation”? They had a right to attack, and kill because of a “video” they did not like?

    Are these people HONEST?

    You want them as your leaders?

    I don’t.


  2. ctdar says:

    As Susan Rice put it last week, she has more important things to handle than the “false controversy” aka as Benghazi. Yeah? I think the wives and family’s of the 4 murdered men (and much of the rest of the USA) would beg to differ.
    Rice was just so thoughtful to step into those 5 Sunday talk shows later that week to explain everything away because poooor Hillary was just to stressed that week to deal…how is that an attribute to become commander in chief?


    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Hillary was probably too busy trying to cook up some scheme to cover her own butt, and knew that she *might* be asked some questions she was not willing to answer. Much safer to let things go for a while, just to let things “shake out”. It’s easier to figure out what will be the best (most believable) lie *after* you “know what they know.”


  3. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    Considering Hillary’s 2016 ambitions, she’s been smart to (pretty much) stay out of the spotlight, other than participating in “feel good” appearances and giving “softball” interviews. Meanwhile, her compatriots in the liberal media are obfuscating the Benghazi incident to diffuse her deplorable response during the congressional hearing.

    What seems to be missed, though, is that *she* was diverting attention away from herself, and onto the specifics of what was the cause of the attack. The real question that should be asked is NOT *why* the attack occurred, or even *who* was responsible for the attack, itself. We should be asking why SHE did not take action to improve security *prior* to the attack, and why Obama (and Hillary) failed to take action *during* the attack. I, for one, have NEVER bought in to the suggestion that It was too late for anything to be done once the administration realized an attack WAS under way.

    Just like one comment (to the iOtW article) said (paraphrased in deference to our wonderful mods): We need to hang this thing on her and beat it like a cowbell! American voters need to realize just how incompetent her responses to Ambassador Stevens’ pleas were. This is NOT the kind of person who is needed to lead our country. Remember what her husband said while trying to defend Obama in regards to the Osama Bin Laden raid: The President’s job is to make the decisions that no one else can make.” Hillary has already proved that she is not up to that task.


    • yadent says:

      I believe that Benghazi was just one of the consequences of the mishandling of the fall of Libya. As a previous Treehouse article stated the REAL ‘crime’ was the incompetent (purposeful?) handling of the advanced weaponry after the ‘conquest’ of Libya and that weaponry finding it’s way to our ‘enemies’. It’s almost as if Benghazi, as horrible as it was, is being used as a diversion from the reason the Benghazi disaster even occurred. Hillary, along with others, should be held responsible for any actions that these Libyan weapons caused. By continuing to obfuscate on Benghazi she could potentially escape liability for all the trouble these Libyan weapons have/are causing.


      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        Great point. That is a much bigger issue that is rarely discussed by the LSM.


      • sundance says:

        yadent …..” It’s almost as if Benghazi, as horrible as it was, is being used as a diversion from the reason the Benghazi disaster even occurred”….

        Yes. THIS !

        Beyond a wholesome discipline this is the biggest issue just sitting there and all our representatives totally ignore it.

        1.) The nineteen days of Obama silence ? Nothing.
        2.) The State Dept contracted/hired an evacuation ship in Tripoli – Broken down and no-way to evacuate our personell ? Nothing.
        3.) In the height of Libyan *civil war* (battle) we could not get Americans out ? Nothing.
        4.) We didn’t even know the ideology of “the rebels” – yet we armed them ? Nothing.
        5.) Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil – known al-Qaeda operative ? Nothing.
        6.) Susan Rice (as U.N. Ambassador) skips emergency U.N. Security council meeting ? Nothing.
        7.) Libya’s WMD (known stockpiles of mustard gas) ? Nothing.
        8.) 20,000 SAAM and Stinger Missiles disappear ? Nothing.
        9.) Eventually Obama invokes use of War Powers Act – But after 30 days the law requires a congressional vote ? Nothing.
        10) White House own OLC (Office of Legal Council) notifies him he is defying law ? Yet, again – Nothing.
        11) Clinton and Sarkozy meetings to coordinate NATO attack ? Since when is State Dept in charge of DoD? Yet, Nothing.

        Media discussed Obama/Rice/Powers/Clinton – Responsibility to Protect Doctrine – But who had responsibility to protect AMERICANS ?

        The real Libyan controversy happened long before a compound in Benghazi was attacked.

        ……. “It’s almost as if Benghazi, as horrible as it was, is being used as a diversion from the reason the Benghazi disaster even occurred”….



        • carterzest says:

          I often use pieces of your wisdom in my fight against liberalism in the Peoples Republic of Portland. As they were all gushing over the NYT article, I slipped most of your post above into a FB thread.
          Here is their reply:
          “10 will get you 20 Nick didn’t read it & if he did he didn’t like what it had to say. Debunks what he wants to believe. Truth be damned! Right wing haters are going to hate no mater what the “truth” is.”

          I refuse to respond to their ignorance and name calling. Woke up today to this:
          ( please note the first defense is the Candy Crowley bit of water carrying from the 3rd? presidential debate)….I could hardly read the rest.

          “1. On Sept. 12, (yes Nick, that would be the DAY after the attack), President Obama said in the White House Rose Garden: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.” He also made a general reference to terrorism: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” So Nick, I’m not sure what your “19 days of silence” is referring to.

          2. I need a source for the State Department contracting an “evacuation ship in Tripoli” as I can’t find anything about this fact. I am also not certain it’s relevant as, given the circumstances, it’s unlikely our people could have gotten to a “ship” in the first place. What is the proximity of either the CIA annex or the diplomatic outpost to the port of Tripoli?

          3. Yes. During the “battle” we could not get Americans out. Pretty sure this happens during lots of battles but then, I’ve never been in battle.

          4. “We didn’t know the ideology of the rebels yet we armed them?” A) You clearly didn’t read the article with an open mind. The entire situation is fraught with nuance, still is. Are you new to American wars? We do this all the time: Reagan in Central and South America, Bush in the Middle East, all the Presidents during the “War on Drugs” in South and Central America etc. We typically arm the side we think is least dangerous to our economic and political interests. Sen. McCain wants to arm a specific faction in Syria. Get it?

          5. Not really sure what your point is.

          6. Maybe you should look up how many meetings Susan Rice did attend before you zero in on ONE she missed. Also find it super interesting you think the U.N Security Council would even be relevant. People like you usually despise all things related to the United Nations lol.

          7. As it is common knowledge that Libya has unweaponized mustard gas and that Libya has its mustard gas under the auspices and guard of the OPCW, this point is a bit over-the-top. A great deal of their (former) stockpile has been destroyed, dating back to 2011, and the new cache discovered was immediately reported. You can read more in both The Guardian and the Libya Herald.

          8. Need a source for the 20,000 missiles that have gone missing as I haven’t heard of this.

          9. Not sure of your point.

          10. Agree 100% that his own legal team said that. When you write “again nothing” however, you lose me every time. What are you needing here? Perhaps I’m just missing everything, (which is completely possible.)

          11. Well actually, from here…you just sort of lost your shit. But I will write this:

          At least you care. And what scares me a lot more than you is that most American don’t give a crap at all about this or anything else. It’s that apathy that is a danger to our country in the end, not passionate people with conviction. I really believe that.
          4 hours ago · Like

          Darce Johnson Hey! Check that out. No editing necessary. heh heh”

          This is they really believe all of this spew. Just amazing.


  4. Pingback: The New York Times Begins Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign To Obfuscate Benghazi Libya | GulfDogs

  5. Jim Brown says:

    When Morsi goes on trial in Egypt many of the Clinton’s and the Obama’s skeletons will jump out of the closet, and a few will be about Benghazi.


    • doodahdaze says:

      The MSM will tamp it down. Hannitty will babble about it to no avail as usual. Even Huckster will make a few polite comments. The main GOP leaders will be compassionate and not invade her space out of MSMaphobia. Issa will sweep it under his rug.


  6. rovatek says:

    Sundance is right about McCain. We should be focused on ousting the RINOs and getting the Republican house in order. Hilary may not even be the Democratic nominee, remember what happened the last time everyone thought she would be.


    • Inkraven says:

      Who else, other than Clinton could it be? Certainly not Biden; he’s Obama’s Dan Quayle. I’ll grant a maybe on Elizabeth Warren – that way the Dems can get their first woman and first “Indian” president in one fell swoop.

      Do we think it’s even possible to get McCain out? I have a hard time buying the idea that trading Reid for McCain as Senate ML is a good idea.


      • sundance says:

        McCain does not come up for re-election until 2016 cycle. If McConnell is defeated – the establishment class that survives 2014 will look to anoint McCain in his stead.

        All of this Hillary stuff should be of no concern to the conservatives and Tea Party folks. We should pay it no mind. Hillary will be the Dem candidate in 2016 Period, it’s silly to waste energy on it – – – > we need to focus on eliminating the GOP Decepticons. Leave Hillary talk to a later time.


        • LetJusticePrevail" says:

          Agreed. 2016 is a medium range concern that is secondary to the 2014 midterm election. If the RINOs can’t be run off (particularly McConnell) in 2014, and replaced with true conservatives, whatever happens in 2016 will be moot. With old guard establishment GOP members like McConnell in place, it really doesn’t matter if the GOP takes control of both houses in 2014 or not, since they will continue to “compromise” with (ie capitulate to) the progressive agenda emanating from the White House.

          If McConnell can be replaced with Matt Bevin in 2014, some of the less conservative establishment GOP might begin to wonder if THEY are next, and could start to “play ball” with Ted Cruz and the other Tea Party conservatives. However, if McConnell IS unseated, but replaced by Alison Grimes (backed by Katzenberg’s financial support) will the GOP establishment shift even further to the left, believing it will save them from a similar fate? Whatever the outcome, the race for McConnell’s seat will be a pivotal issue for the future of American politics and freedom as we know it.


          • sundance says:

            It matters not whether Grimes or Bevin replaces McConnell.

            It’s McConnell that needs to be removed. The GOP needs to know they will be destroyed so long as they continue current course. If it means giving up every attainable Republican seat but destroying the current occupants – so be it….. it matters not.

            Like you said – currently there is no difference between Big gov Dems and Big gov Republicans. So the elimination is only what matters.


      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        I was wondering this same thing, earlier this evening. What would happen if Hillary did NOT receive the democratic nomination? Do the progressives have *another* obscure “community organizer” waiting to swoop in from nowhere, like Obama (seemingly) did in 2008? It seems they would NEED one since even the Dems view Biden as a buffoon, and Harry Reid is older than dirt and supposedly has no aspirations to the presidency.

        John McCain, who is more than 3 years older than Reid, will turn 80 in August of 2016. Although he won his latest Senate bid by a large margin in 2010.with 59% of the vote, is it possible that he will be re-elected in 2016, for a job that would last until he’s 86? Maybe Arizona GOP voters will ask themselves that question, and opt for younger candidate.


  7. peachteachr says:

    I think that McCain should go home while he still has a shred of a reputation left. He has disgraced his name as a POW and a man of honor. Just a very sad ending to what could have been a truly inspiring career.


  8. myopiafree says:

    Last campaign – from the “Brave Hillary”:

    “I was at the airport and some snipers were shooting and kicking up dust”.

    Later on, she admitted she lied about her “bravery”.

    She is a fraud.


  9. Pingback: Hillary makes it Official | Political Street

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s