Bob Woodward Doesn’t Buy Hillary’s Benghazi Denial

can't find video in article

 

We need to vote them out of office regardless.

Hillary actually seems to believe that her exclamation in her book where she said that she won't be a part of a "slugfest," and that " “Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.” What a crock!

Remember during the Bush administration when she screamed, "I am sick and tired of being told that if we criticize this administration, we are unpatriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Right on, Hillary. Now......answer the freaking questions....and truthfully.

 

you do realize that Obama is not running and Hillary is out of politics...You are you going to vote out?

 

What?? No video, no transcript from WOODWARD?? That's CREDIBLE??

 

Bob Woodward credible sounds more like another right wiong opinion piece that belongs in the opinion section not breaking news. It seem rightwingers do not have a concept of what Breaking news is these days.

 

Daily Caller?? I want a REAL source.

 

Okay, I'll play! I'll even use the DAILY CALLER. I'll even use WOODWARD.

WHAT ARE WE MISSING?? What are they covering UP? Americans died at the hands of LOCALS/TERRORISTS/THUGS or OTHER in a region of the M.E. IN CHAOS with a CIA complex (and more employees than STATE employess) with SOME DEFENSE on those premises at a distance away of 1/2 mile who apparently couldn't or didn't get there in time. WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO KNOW??

I've always had several questions about what was STATE allowed to tell us. Of course, HILLARY didn't work at the CIA and no DEMOCRAT at the CIA is running for anything so NO ONE ON THE RIGHT IS ASKING THEM A GD THING!![/B]'

You'd be surprised how many AMERICANS actually understand this!

 

You'd be surprised how many Americans understand this:


72% of Americans want the truth about Benghazi



Seventy-two percent continue to believe that it is important to find out exactly what happened in the Benghazi matter, with 46 percent who say it is ‘Very Important.’ Twenty-five percent consider more information about the Benghazi case unimportant, up from 19 percent in January, but that includes just 7 percent who say it is Not At All Important,’” said Rasmussen in its polling report.

These findings do not bode well for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has received much flak for her perceived mishandling of the situation. Many people believe that her actions on September 11, 2012 led to the deaths of four Americans.



http://usfinancepost.com/72-of-americans-want-the-truth-about-benghazi-18151.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most Americans also believe that the Obama Adm. has been lying to them about Benghazi from the start, and are sick of it.

 

WOODWARD asked a question that reminds me of the old example--Have you stopped beating your wife?? Frankly, UNLESS he knows something which he should have zero qualms about saying out loud, it was a question 'UNBECOMING' Woodward. Of course, he WAS ON FOX. Perhaps his IQ and/or INTEGRITY takes a drop once the red light goes on over there.

 

Like Rawstory?????

 

The Party of George W. Bush had started two wars, was in the process of losing both of them, and had just collapsed the economy right before the election.

ObamaCare will be popular in 2016, and the economy should be pretty good...and the US won't be involved in any wars....
Do you really want a referendum on Peace and Prosperity vs War and Economic Collapse?

 

So you are stating that the Daily Caller article MISQUOTES Woodward?

 

We have been in a constant state of war since ww2 what is so magical about 2016?

 

The party of Democrats and Republicans started the wars

The party of Democrats had control of the purse strings since 2007 - Deny all you want...........but it would be hypocritical

Iraq had a withdraw plan in place.....

Obama sent a surge to Afghanistan (rightfully)

 

What wars were we fighting when George W. Bush took office?

 

George W. Bush launched those wars, neither of which was defensive in nature, and he had managed both wars disastrously.
Who could have imagined that attacking the two weakest nations in the world would result in the two longest wars in American history?
Nothing went right in either fiasco.

What I am saying is that so far, the Obama presidency has been a much better experience than the Bush presidency, so I don't fear a referendum on the Obama Presidency, we had one in 2012 and did fine...

 

What was that question?

- - - Updated - - -

Both wars were approved in BIPARTISAN VOTES.

Keep trying to rewrite what actually happened.

 

Somalia

Bosnia

Sent troops into Hati

Continued involvement in Iraq

 

based on what metrics?

please be specific

 

That's happened to me in the past; usually when I've waited a day or two to post about something and the source has had time to re-think the possibility of alienating its nominal readership base. It's weird to work up an opening post only to find that the intended article or video reference has vanished. Anyway, apparently in this case The Daily Caller rethought its belated effort to once again spin and cover for Barack and Hillary and then re-issued both the article and video segment:

What interests me about this is that obviously Bob Woodward has decided that the Dem Party is probably going to be political toast not only at the end of 2014 but at the end of 2016 as well and so he is laying the groundwork to get in tight with the next GOP president. You know how he sucked up to G.W. Bush in 2000 and then Barack Obama in 2008? Well the fact that he's indicating a belief that there is some element of 'there' in regards to Benghazi-gate regardless of Hillary Clinton's continued dismissal of the issue implies that Bob has decided that not even Hillary has a realistic chance of becoming the DEM Party's president in 2016.

 

72% poll from an ORGANIZATION for which this poster post ZERO details. Who was polled, how many, what was the question, +/- margins of error--- from an ORGANIZATION that must be so small it doesn't even warrant a simple 1 line WIKIPEDIA mention. I've never even heard of it. I went to the site, it seems CAREFULLY VAGUE, even its mission statement. Now if FINANCE POST took the data from another source, that should be sourced!

(By the way, there are so many UNKNOWN RW sources posted on this board, it boggles my mind. Seems all of sudden 'out of the red', comes numerous sources that sprung up since in last 5 years (coincidental period, I'm sure). I'm beginning to think that MOST RIGHT WING sources are some (or maybe 2 guys) sitting in their pajamas in their MOTHER'S BASEMENTS in front of computer sceens. And the LEFT dares to post NY TIMES, Washington Post, Reuters, McClatchy, Vanity Fair, Mother Jones, even ROLLING STONE (all which are 'COMPANIES'--you know as in that 'CAPITALISM' thing) even Huff Post, or RAW STORY and the clowns on this board think those entities have zero credibility. I mean, COME ON, what kind of standards does the R have??

 

I watched that interview on Fox, and after listening to Woodward and the other commentators, I can clearly see the connection of Frank and Claire Underwood in the Netflix series "House of Cards" to the Clinton's. Bill and Hillary are nothing but vicious, unscrupulous, and diabolitcal political machines, and every single facet of their lives is political, exactly like Frank and Claire Underwood