thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Can anyone say "campaigning for Hillary"?Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.
But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.
“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.
The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.
It appears this bogus fraud of a "report" is doing just that, attempting to lay a groundwork for which Hillary can defend herself against the eventual fallout from Benghazi. It attempts to build credibility for the traitorous administration and it's lackeys -- including Clinton -- who claim that ludicrous "video" on You.Tube somehow played a role in a "spontaneous demonstration" that erupted into a firefight.
The posting on FoxNews.com details, from eyewitnesses, the IMT (individual movement techniques) of the attackers, typical tactics used by guerrilla fighters. It describes how individuals advanced under covering fire during the initial moments of the attack on the consulate. As on witness said, "That's not a 'spontaneous attack.' "
Congress has much of the truth, after holding hearings in multiple venues over the last several months. I have to ask several questions, and I'm certain no one here has answers.
- When is the truth going to come out?
- Why are they sitting on this?
- Will the ignoble traitor, the Great Pretender, face articles of impeachment? He certainly should.
Last edited by a moderator: