The New York Times’ Benghazi Revisionism

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


US-consulate-libya-blood-streaksTo help put Hillary Clinton in the White House, the once-great New York Times has published a dubious report swallowing the Obama administration’s lies about the Sept. 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In an act of journalistic malfeasance, the agenda-setting newspaper of record concluded over the weekend that the once-obscure “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video sparked the armed assault that left four Americans dead at the height of last year’s presidential election cycle. The newspaper also concluded that al-Qaeda wasn’t involved, ignoring the mountain of evidence suggesting al-Qaeda was involved.

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Evidently the Old Gray Lady didn’t look too hard for the truth.

From the outset the Obama administration said that what happened in Benghazi was a spontaneous riot identical to what had taken place in Cairo, Egypt, a short time before.

The administration claimed that the Benghazi violence was a spontaneous protest that somehow got out of hand. The official line was that a demonstration outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi grew increasingly violent and that protesters unconnected to terrorist groups eventually stormed the facility.

Not long after the attack National Security Adviser Susan Rice told Fox’s Chris Wallace that,

the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

Weeks later the Obama administration changed its tune, admitting as more and more evidence accumulated that terrorist groups were involved in planning and carrying out the attack.

After Rice’s TV appearance, the State Department said that there were no protests whatsoever outside the consulate before the attack. The tale that Rice told of “mobs” and “protests” spiraling out of control was an utter fabrication. It was a bald-faced lie told with a straight face to the American people on national TV.

Why would the administration go on with this charade? Mostly likely to downplay the threat of Islamic jihad during Obama’s reelection campaign. President Obama had gone to great lengths to declare that al-Qaeda was in decline thanks to his efforts. It is clear that the Benghazi attack was premeditated and planned, though the exact details of for how long and by whom remain a bit fuzzy.

Like radical leftist fabulist Oliver Stone laboring to create his crazy-quilt alternative myth explaining the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the New York Times is attempting to rewrite the narrative about what really happened in Benghazi and afterwards. It is trying to resurrect the Obama administration’s original line of argument in order to create wiggle room for Hillary Clinton who has been scathingly criticized by Republican lawmakers and the occasional Democrat for bungling the Benghazi saga.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi saga, was not impressed, saying a proper congressional investigation is urgently needed to clear the air.

“This is why I introduced my discharge petition to force a full investigation into the Benghazi attacks with full subpoena power,” Stockman, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FrontPage. “So far we have had only partial, limited investigations. I hope Speaker Boehner will immediately bring my petition to the floor so justice can be served.”

Stockman’s discharge petition, House Resolution 306, would establish “a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.” Boehner has been blocking Stockman’s request for months.

Amidst White House stonewalling, intimidation of witnesses, and Republican gutlessness, little has been done to move the ball forward in the investigation surrounding the deaths on Sept. 11, 2012, of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith, and security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods at U.S. facilities in eastern Libya.

But on “Fox News Sunday,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), rejected the New York Times story. “I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,” he said, adding several times that the article was “not accurate.”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also on the show, also rejected the newspaper report, saying “intelligence indicates al-Qaeda was involved.”

On Saturday, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a member and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News the contention in the NYT article that the militia group Ansar al-Shariah — not al-Qaeda — led the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, was an exercise in semantics.

“It’s misleading,” said King, given that Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. “It’s a distinction without a difference.”

The New York Times article, allegedly the work product of a team of researchers, also contradicts the testimony of Greg Hicks, the deputy of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was murdered during the attack. Hicks said the “Innocence of Muslims” video, which portrayed the Islamic prophet Mohammed in an unflattering manner, was “a non-event in Libya” at that time and didn’t precipitate the Benghazi attack.

As previously noted, the obvious goal of this breathtakingly dishonest move is to insulate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from criticism for her role in the affair. It is no understatement to suggest that there is a vast left-wing media conspiracy aimed at maintaining the political viability of the woman who coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” as a red herring to explain away the problems of her corrupt, lawbreaking husband, then-President Bill Clinton.

The Left’s coverup of the Obama administration’s mishandling of the Benghazi saga began as soon as the attack got underway a little over 15 months ago. A coordinated effort to deflect blame from President Obama, at that time involved in a competitive reelection fight, was directed by the White House with the assistance of dupes in the media.

Even the hapless Candy Crowley got involved in defending Obama when during a televised presidential debate she slapped down GOP candidate Mitt Romney for correctly stating that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Obama got more support from the left-wing media and the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America, which went on to publish a book titled The Benghazi Hoax, by Media Matters founder and confessed liar David Brock, in order to provide progressive dupes with talking points to regurgitate.

The New York Times story comes as Democrats grow increasingly nervous about an electoral wipeout in the congressional elections in November 2014. Evidence of Democrat jitters abounds. Republicans lead Democrats in the generic congressional ballot by 5 percentage points as public disapproval of President Obama and Obamacare continue to rise.

The Obama White House is preparing to flood the airwaves with pro-Affordable Care Act propaganda showing alleged Obamacare success stories. Over the weekend the Democratic National Committee sent out a mass email to Obama supporters warning that Republicans are preparing to impeach the 44th president. The email referred to the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.” Actually, only a handful of Republican lawmakers would like to move forward with impeachment proceedings. Members of the GOP leadership are terrified of taking action out of a paralyzing fear of being tarred as bigots by left-wingers who characterize virtually all criticism of Obama as motivated by racial antagonism.

The Left will do whatever it takes to decouple Hillary Clinton in the public mind from the fiasco in Benghazi. Expect many more blatant media attempts to rehabilitate her stained legacy as Secretary of State to come.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Socialist communist liberal

    Lol this is the worst article I’ve read in a long time
    I’d be pissed too if my contrived, manufactured “outrage” over Benghazi was disproven too. Conservative slimeballs do not handle reality and truth well when it doesn’t fit their phony narratives.

    • The March Hare

      Vague accusations do not disprove what is obvious to many, many people. I know you seem to be limited to name calling, but when your propaganda is so thin it can be seen through, then I guess you feel cornered and throw insults instead of facts because they are is the nearest things you can grab.

    • Gislef

      Noticeably, you didn’t refute any of the information from multiple sources, including the Obama press office itself, that it wasn’t an attack inspired by the video.

    • m4253y

      moron, aside from journalist’s opinions, what is your opinion of what happened in Libya? aside from being a troll, probably paid to do so on sites as this no doubt, please, share with me your true narratives. fucking twit.

    • morriscat

      If you like to live in a land of wonderful Communist Socialism it is nice and warm in Cuba but if you enjoy cold weather you can move to Russia .
      Sorry America will never fit you lifestyle .

      • WillyWallace

        If Hillary wins, there will be another eight years where the US could be Communist and we’ll be getting on innertubes to defect to Cuba.

    • Steve Bryant

      If you won’t accept the testimony of those actually involved in the attack, then what would you accept?

    • Gee

      Am willing to bet that not one of the attackers or their leaders ever saw or even heard of the video before the attack.

      • Drakken

        They are all drinking coffee in downtown Benghazi and Tripoli with not a care in the world and bragging up a storm, if there ever is a bounty on these savages, I am going to be a very rich man.

    • TheOrdinaryMan

      Why would you “be pissed too?” After all, Hilary herself said “What does it matter?”

    • nomoretraitors

      The article must have too many 3-syllable words.
      Do humanity a favor and take a leap off a tall building. You’re too stupid for decent company

    • Landy

      Hang out near a military base in North Carolina at a bar and run your mouth off as to how everyone knows that this was a mob attack and not a planned attack.

      If you give us your name I promise you a insurance policy if you go through with it. I’ll make sure I am a beneficiary.

    • Landy

      The NYT bought the Boston Globe for $ 1.1 Billion

      It solid it for $ 70 million.

      It lost 94% of its’ investment. this is what the public at large thinks about the MSM journalist and MSM media.

      So little socialist communist (you don’t know what flavor you are because none of them work but you do not want to be like us) the writing is on the wall. Your propaganda is failing.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/03/us-usa-nytimes-globe-idUSBRE97205L20130803

    • PhillipGaley

      Thank you for your comment, . . . Please rest assured, your opinion will receive the full measure of consideration and esteem which your puerile effort appears to merit, . . .

    • Stash

      Nor can they do any investigative reporting of their own. Why, I don’t know, but there is no serious source of investigative reporting on the right, just op-ed writers who try tell people what to think. And I said serious, so the Jerome Corsis of the world don’t count.

    • American1969

      Is this phony?
      Tell it to their loved ones.

  • WillyWallace

    Media Matters and MSNBC, all paid operatives of the Obama White House who meet with the Propaganda Master, comb the web, especially conservative sites, to discredit any comment or article that is not in step with the Party line. This includes every issue from the IRS, Fast and Furious, NSA, and of course, Obamacare where they are the only ones defending these “phony scandals.”

    When Obama comes up with another slogan or one-liner, they are the first to parrot it all over the media and soon the Zombies are too. When someone brings up any of these scandals, they repeat “phony scandal” and the conversation ends so it’s like when someone calls out a Communist, all they have to say is “McCarthyism and Red-baiting” and the conversation ends leaving the accuser exposing Communists as the crazy one for even bringing it up.

    Where is the 1000 plus signatures from former intelligence and security personnel that was given personally to Congress? What this NYT’s article does is only make these people more determined to get to the truth.

    The Democrats in the Intelligence Committee say they want to get “to the truth so it never happens again,” so many “phony scandals,” and then they spend all their time covering up what happened… covering up for Obama and his administration.

  • CitizenPatiot

    We must stop the liberal media from their slanderous acts propping up the Democrats, blaming everything on the Republicans. This is propaganda or Yellow Journalism at best. It is going to take we, the people to stand up to these false stories. NBC is one of the worst broadcast of the “news”, using WH or DNC talking points without any investigation or verification of what they put on the air, going as far as editing video to create a false story instead of reporting the truth. I remember David Gregory in the WH Press Pool getting in GWB’s face and claiming they were lying. With all the lies out of this Administration, he is best buddies with this WH and Dem. Legislation.
    I saw where David Carl w/ ABC attempted the talking point that the shut down was the fault of the Rep’s to Ted Cruz. He told David it was the Dem’s and the Pres that shut down the gov’t because the Rep House sent up 6 (I think) different bills, each with less of what the Rep’s wanted, but, Reid refused to meet in conference, as the House and Senate have done forever, to come to some sort of meeting of the minds. It was the Pres, who called the Rep’s to the WH and told them he would not negotiate, so, you can see how the Democrats shut down the Gov’t and then attempted to cause as much pain to the people as they could. How do you defend this kind of leader that is Anti-America.

    • nomoretraitors

      You can help by donating to the Media Research Center (in addition to the Freedom Center) at mrcdotorg

  • WillyWallace

    Why not investigate the NYT’s, their writers and investigators, their connections to the Democrats and the White House, and their editors.

    Surely the CIA and FBI knew of these NYT’s truth seekers in Benghazi and Libya, and since the truth has been covered up by them, they surely don’t want the truth to be exposed so they would have kept close tabs on any NYT’s operative. Therefore, they know when they landed, where they stayed, who they talked to, everything about their visit.

    Surely too they were followed by Libya’s own spy network.

    What does this do? It will verify if the NYT’s did what they said they did. After all, an American, especially a White/Anglo one, sticks out like a sore thumb and they should have been in fear of getting kidnapped or shot at. Did they then hide under their beds in their hotel so their airline and hotel reservations could then prove they were there and all while they conspired to “find the truth” that they had already known before they left? That’s that they do, and have done, on missions to areas controlled by the Mexican Zapatistas meaning they have to have their “facts” straight to even be invited to the area or even sent by their sponsors like universities.

    Someone investigate that and their every movement and I’m sure you will find that they did very little in investigative work. Someone out the NYT’s and their connections to Obama and his talking points.

    • JSC

      Investigate the investigators? I agree. You bring up many good points especially what these people did while in Libya and Benghazi with a terrorist on every street corner who’d love to kill an American and who’d they love to drag through the streets.

      Therefore, I doubt any NYT’s reporter even set foot on the streets, any street!

    • Drakken

      Make no mistake, there are folks in the intelligence community who knows where all the bodies are buried and are making lists and checking them twice to use at a later date, and God help you if your on one of them.

  • Yasha7

    The NYT article seems to me to miss the whole point of the “phony” scandal. I think that it matters far less what instigated the attack, but the pathetic, treasonous non-response by TPTB,to protect our citizens during the attack.

    • Doug Light

      But if the motivation for the attack can be recast back to original lie, then Clinton is off the hook for lying to the American people. I know we’re getting used to it by now, but hanging the albatross of Benghazi around her neck is the best hope to keep her out of the White House in 2016. I hope Boehner is being savvy by delaying the investigation for as long as he can so the scandal still has legs come election time. This sham of “investigative journalism” by the NY Slime is such a farce!

  • guest

    Unless they have erased the video, the regime has evidence form the attack itself via the drone feeds. Why do not they release them? Because it would show their guilt!

    Analysing the number of people, their weapons and their tactics would put to bed whether it was a spontaneous riot or a planned attack.

    Most Marines form Lance Corpora on up could make a sound judgment as to the tactics being those of a mob or a planned attack.

    The little boys and girls at the NYT only have journalism degrees in the main and could not make such a judgment,.

  • Phil McMorrow

    The New York Times – Unfit for the news? We make up our own.

  • Elizabeth Cape Cod

    While Lara Logan was crucified for misrepresenting facts about Benghazi that contradicted this administration, there will be no such crucification of nyt writers for presenting misinformation that favors this administration.

  • dan

    Where are we going folks .Is this the last Generation
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp Here and now or
    near to being here ?

  • Sheik Yerbouti

    In the typical way leftists use a sledge for a thumbtack we see them testing the Benghazi waters well ahead of the campaign seasons, by firing a shot across the bow. Is it possible to use the repeated lie strategy again? And so long after it met with marginal success.

    I can only figure they are banking on the general stupefying effects of media and mass-market lying. Since they’re playing their greatest hits before they become oldies, I wonder if Fast & Furious or the Black Panther Voter harassment tunes will be playing again? And how on earth did we escape Christmas without a rerun of the Trayvon show?

  • celador2

    Move the ball forward as Stockman says. Its now or never to start learning more than we know from current sources. Obama is a fraud and has harmed the US by not leading and pushing polices that seem to help terrorism like destabilizing Arab spring.

  • James Foard

    NEWS FLASH! 12/29/2013 Contrary to what had previously been reported, The New York Times has uncovered startling new evidence that the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. compound in Libya that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others was not the result of a carefully planned terrorist attack, but was instead a “spontaneous reaction” to an obscure YouTube video.
    This schocking new development came to light after months of careful research by Time’s reporters who were suspicious of initial reports by the Interim President of Lybia, Mohammed Magarief that the deaths of the four Americans was a preplanned attack by jihadi foreigners.
    Magarief had said at the time that “foreigners infiltrated Libya over the past few months and planned the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.”

    “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a
    spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely
    unfounded and preposterous,” Magarief told NPR in Benghazi on Sunday.
    “We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack
    that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate.
    “The intention was there from the beginning, for it to take this ugly barbaric, criminal form,”
    Magarief doubled down in an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation a few hours later.
    He told CBS that about 50 people have been arrested in conjunction with
    the attack on the U.S. consulate, which he said was “definitely planned
    by foreigners” who entered Libya several months ago and immediately
    started plotting the assault. He said “a few” of the perpetrators were
    from Mali and Algeria while others were Libyan “affiliates” and
    “sympathizers.”
    “These ugly deeds, criminal deeds … do not
    represent in any way, in any sense, the aspirations and feelings of
    Libya toward the United States and its citizens.”
    “The way these perpetrators acted and moved and their choosing the specific date [of Sept. 11] for this so-called demonstration, I think this leaves us with
    no doubt that this was pre-planned, pre-determined.”
    The Hill, September 16, 2012, 04:20 pm

    Well, we can finally put those silly rumors about a preplanned terrorist attack to rest now, along with those phoney IRS and gun running scandals that have plagued “the most transparent administration” in history.
    This would seem to pave the way now for Hillary’s expected 2016 Presidential run to go unchallenged.
    Que Sera Sera

  • James Foard

    NEWS FLASH! 12/29/2013 Contrary
    to what had previously been reported, The New York Times has uncovered
    startling new evidence that the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S.
    compound in Libya that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher
    Stevens and three others was not the result of a carefully planned
    terrorist attack, but was instead a “spontaneous reaction” to an obscure
    YouTube video.
    This schocking new development came to light after
    months of careful research by Time’s reporters who were suspicious of
    initial reports by the Interim President of Lybia, Mohammed Magarief
    that the deaths of the four Americans was a preplanned attack by jihadi
    foreigners.
    Magarief had said at the time that “foreigners
    infiltrated Libya over the past few months and planned the attack that
    killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.”

    “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a
    spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely
    unfounded and preposterous,” Magarief told NPR in Benghazi on Sunday.
    “We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack
    that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate.
    “The intention was there from the beginning, for it to take this ugly barbaric, criminal form,”
    Magarief doubled down in an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation a few hours later.
    He told CBS that about 50 people have been arrested in conjunction with
    the attack on the U.S. consulate, which he said was “definitely planned
    by foreigners” who entered Libya several months ago and immediately
    started plotting the assault. He said “a few” of the perpetrators were
    from Mali and Algeria while others were Libyan “affiliates” and
    “sympathizers.”
    “These ugly deeds, criminal deeds … do not
    represent in any way, in any sense, the aspirations and feelings of
    Libya toward the United States and its citizens.”
    “The
    way these perpetrators acted and moved and their choosing the specific
    date [of Sept. 11] for this so-called demonstration, I think this leaves
    us with
    no doubt that this was pre-planned, pre-determined.”
    The Hill, September 16, 2012, 04:20 pm

    Well, we can finally put those silly rumors about a preplanned
    terrorist attack to rest now, along with those phoney IRS and gun
    running scandals that have plagued “the most transparent administration”
    in history.
    This would seem to pave the way now for Hillary’s expected 2016 Presidential run to go unchallenged.
    Que Sera Sera

  • http://www.abay.vn/Ve-quoc-te/ve-may-bay-di-tay-ban-nha Nhóm Đào Tạo

    Someone investigate that and their every movement and I’m sure you will find that they did very little in investigative work.
    Ve may bay di anh gia re
    Tour du lich Nhat Ban Ha Noi

  • http://www.abay.vn/Ve-quoc-te/ve-may-bay-di-tay-ban-nha Nhóm Đào Tạo

    compound in Libya that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher
    Stevens and three others was not the result of a carefully planned
    terrorist attack

    Ve may bay di My
    Ve may bay di Duc

  • mo up in the northeast

    There are compelling reasons to call it Brennghazi:

    From legal project.org:

    “President Obama last month began describing Benghazi as one of a number of “phony
    scandals” currently engulfing his administration. On Thursday CNN reported
    that the CIA had 21 or more agents in the embassy compound during the attack
    and is engaged in an “unprecedented” effort to conceal details of the
    incident.

    Former Green Beret Jack Murphy, bestselling co-author of “Benghazi: The Definitive Report,” has identified John
    O. Brennan, the then-chief counterterrorism adviser to the president, as the
    source of the decision to blame Nakoula’s video for the terrorist attack on Benghazi. When asked
    about Brennan on Twitter, Murphy described him as “Obama’s propaganda
    minister,” who “knows how to work disinformation very well,” and
    said he was “behind both the OBL leaks and the YouTube video as the motive
    behind the Benghazi
    disinfo.” Asked how he knew that, Murphy demurred, saying, “I didn’t
    find it in the NYC public library, that’s for sure.”…………………………”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7os9D-EsFmM
    is the link in which you’ll find the
    avatar and hyperlinks that place Brennan’s former firm, Stanley Inc. as being a
    part changing the name of “Innocence of Muslims” … Also, CGI ( of Obamacare contract fame acquired Stanley
    Inc. http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2010/05/07/cgi-buys-stanley.aspx

  • EHNJ

    Here’s my “what difference does it make” moment,,,, Regardless of whether or not Al Qaeda was directly involved, the islamist ideology that these savages adhere to and share is what caused the attack; for the NY Times to split hairs over whether the savages were Al Qaeda or not is immaterial. They both have the same violent agenda, inspired by the same supremest goals.

    I see this “report” as a blatant political effort to shield their “girl” Hillary from scrutiny in the run up to the 2016 Presidential election.

    Shame on the NY Times for buying (I have no doubt they paid for these “man in the street” accounts) coverage for the Obama administration and for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run.

  • GirlFuturist

    Apparently perspective has totally left the building. Just to refresh memories with some facts. There were 14 attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the Bush years alone, killing several dozen Americans, killing and wounding many others. And yet no one called for GW’s impeachment or called it coverup. Your hypocrisy about Benghazi is obvious. Just during the Bush years, these attacks happened:

    US Embassy in Calcutta attacked Jan 2002

    US Consulate in Karachi June 2002, suicide car bomb,

    US Consulate in Indonesia bombed 2002,

    Another gunman at US Consulate Karachi Feb 2003,

    Terrorist storm US compound Riyadh May 2003, 36 dead, 9 Americans

    US Embassy in Uzbekistan bombed in July 2004,

    Gunman stormed US consulate in Saudi Arabia Dec 2004,

    3rd attack on US Consulate Karachi, 4 Americans killed

    US Embassy in Damascus attacked Sept 2006,

    RPG launched at US Embassy in Athens Jan 2007,

    US Embassy in Serbia set on fire 2008 by 300 rioters breaking in,

    US Embassy in Yemen bombed March 2008

    US Consulate in Istanbul fired upon July 2008

    US Embassy in Yemen bombed Sept 2008

    And the mother of all “George Bush kept us safe lies?” 9/11, 3000 Americans dead. If your counting dead American bodies, the list above would represent 750+ Benghazis.

    And speaking of investigations, why haven’t you all attacked Condi Rice, George Bush. and others who KNEW terrorists were talking about using planes as bombs. The coverup and incompetence allowing 9/11 to happen is the real story. Keep making up conspiracies about stuff like Benghazi and you’ll be crying over the next President Clinton. It certainly got Obama elected twice.

    BTW, you can look all this up yourself. Here was one of my sources: http://www.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing

  • American1969

    The Left would like nothing more than for this to just go away. It’s not going to. Sorry, but if Clinton wants to be President, she has to explain to us how she could possibly be a good Commander in Chief when she couldn’t do her job as Secretary of State? When she would accept no responsibility what so ever for this entire thing? It’s a fair question—-one among many.
    I seem to recall the Left going absolutely insane when Abu Ghraib happened—-and no one died there. The MSM went on and on about it for weeks, like some horrific things had happened. Big deal—-they embarrassed these prisoners. But the Left went off as if these prisoners had been tortured or starved to death or something. But it’s no big deal when four Americans are left to be tortured and die by the Obama Administration.
    If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, she’s not going to be able to avoid this. Two-thirds of the American public want a Select Committee on Benghazi. That should tell you something. This stinks to high heaven, and the American people know it.

    Hillary Lied. Four Died.
    Remember the Benghazi Four.

  • Shannon Pendergrass

    This is what happens when you let the criminals investigate their own criminal activity! They amazingly find that they did nothing wrong! I guess we should let all murderers investigate their own crimes then no one will ever be guilty of murder again!!!

  • http://koreanair.biz.vn/ve-may-bay-di-my-n3 ve may bay di my

    compound in Libya that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher
    Stevens and three others was not the result of a carefully planned
    terrorist attack
    ve may bay di my
    ve may bay di los angeles

  • http://www.hotels-in-vietnam.com/ Do Tung

    Keep peace, not war. I hate terorrists