Jump to content

Talk:2012 Benghazi attack: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Non-responsive WP:TPO violations - this page isn't a forum for you to spread conspiracy theories or other claims.
Tag: Reverted
Undid revision 982433246 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)
Tags: Undo Reverted
Line 71: Line 71:


[[User:Ostensibly1|Ostensibly1]] ([[User talk:Ostensibly1|talk]]) 07:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Ostensibly1|Ostensibly1]] ([[User talk:Ostensibly1|talk]]) 07:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

{{hat}}
== Hillary lied to the American People ==
== Hillary lied to the American People ==


Line 108: Line 108:


Does it matter that FactCheck.org, the final report of the Congressional committee that investigated Benghazi, and the Washington Post all found the Hillary lied? Apparently not. Hillary is still a sacred cow who can not be criticized even when she is guilty. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pschaeffer|Pschaeffer]] ([[User talk:Pschaeffer#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pschaeffer|contribs]]) 23:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Does it matter that FactCheck.org, the final report of the Congressional committee that investigated Benghazi, and the Washington Post all found the Hillary lied? Apparently not. Hillary is still a sacred cow who can not be criticized even when she is guilty. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pschaeffer|Pschaeffer]] ([[User talk:Pschaeffer#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pschaeffer|contribs]]) 23:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{hab}}

Revision as of 04:00, 8 October 2020

Hillary Clinton email controversy

The Hillary Clinton email controversy is not mentioned in this article, while the 2012 Benghazi attack is listed as major reason that the email controversy had begun. According to the New York Times: "The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack." (Link)–Zfish118talk 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the 2012 Benghazi attack is listed as major reason that the email controversy had begun? The controversy began with the fact she was using a private server, irrespective of Benghazi. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the private server started before the attack. The discovery of the server occurred during the Benghazi hearings. This fact is clearly articulated in the email controversy article, which links back here. The issue is the lack of a reciprocal link on this article. –Zfish118talk 22:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That liberal bias yet again

Wikipedia has historically and traditionally been accused of having a liberal bias, and it's perfectly exemplified in this article, my specific concern is the section "US media response", a section which starts by saying that "Fox News massively repeated a narrative of a conspiracy and cover-up" and then goes on to describe the coverage of other news outlets in neutral terms, so it's basically saying that Fox News is a paranoid right-wing conspiracy-promoting propaganda machine while the liberal left-wing outlets are ok. This is shameful and disgusting to be honest. --177.225.172.224 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Fox News is a paranoid right-wing conspiracy-promoting propaganda machine while the liberal left-wing outlets are ok." Correct. That sums up the facts and what RS tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News breathlessly reported on numerous Benghazi conspiracy theories for 2+ years. It was The Benghazi Channel that quite literally patted themselves on the back for obsessing on conspiracies that other outlets correctly ignored, because it was abundantly clear the conspiracies were false from the getgo, which was confirmed by TEN investigations, including the last of six GOP investigations that was specifically created to smear HRC. Time to move on. soibangla (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I laughed so hard at your reply and attitude: "This article is biased because it's the truth, I can confirm it, so stop complainin and shut up" Haha yeah all right we're all good now... Except not, I will not stand for liberal bias in Wikipedia, it's disgusting and shameful. --177.225.172.224 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News#Benghazi attack and aftermath Bye now. soibangla (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vague and unexplained "acted improperly" in summary statements

Several times in the summary sections, there are mentions of accusations/debates about whether or not the Obama administration "acted improperly" re: the attacks, but little attempt to explain or contextualize what this means. Acted improperly in what regard?

Ostensibly1 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary lied to the American People

Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about the Benghazi attacks and was caught doing so. If anyone doubts this, take a look at the timeline put together by FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/the-benghazi-timeline-clinton-edition/).

The bottom line is that Hillary lied and got caught.

At 10:00 PM (9/12/2012) Hillary issues a statement that reads "Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

No mention of terrorism and/or terrorist groups.

At 11:12 PM (9/12/2012). Hillary sends her daughter with an email with the truth. “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow."

So she tells her daughter the truth (that terrorists did it) while lying to the American people.

The next day she tells the PM of Egypt that the video did not cause the attack... While pubically saying the reverse.

The bottom line is that Hillary lied and the article is a coverup.

Peter Schaeffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.104.20 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Censorship

It is entirely appalling (but not unexpected) that a talk page with detailed information (including links) about Hillary's misconduct keeps getting deleted. I guess some folks at Wikipedia have sunk to the level of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. You either parrot the party-line or you get censored. Peter Schaeffer peter_schaeffer@yahoo.com Pschaeffer (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These topics have been exhaustively discussed during and after ten government investigations, but despite what Fox News et al. breathlessly asserted, there was no finding that Hillary lied and got caught, not even by the six Republican investigations. soibangla (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell

There is a quote from Orwell that has considerable bearing on this topic.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"

It would appear that some people can't stand the fact that Hillary was caught lying about Benghazi.

Does it matter that FactCheck.org, the final report of the Congressional committee that investigated Benghazi, and the Washington Post all found the Hillary lied? Apparently not. Hillary is still a sacred cow who can not be criticized even when she is guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschaeffer (talkcontribs) 23:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]