Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"

APACHERAT said:

This thread isn't about 9/11 so please stop trying to take this thread off in to another direction.

If you want to start a thread about who dropped the ball or who's policies allowed 9/11 happen or why Osama bin Laden thought he could get away with attacking America on it's own soil, start a new thread. I'll be more than happy to participate. I'll probably start where the first mistakes were made, back in 1976.

Click to expand...

We are discuassing the reasons you people are freaking out over something that you never cared about before, and are blowing up four deaths when you actually passed by 4000 deaths less than a decade ago while cheering on the person who covered things up regarding them, including his complacency in them. Your motives for outrage are directly related to your ignoring of explanation of what happened in benghazi, and why you are continuing to make an issue out of something that is pretty normal for an administration. yes, i said it is normal for an administration to suffer attacks that kill state department people on foreign soil. It has happened to the best administrations, and it will happen in the future.

You have made a tremendous issue out of something you don't really care about, and that is ceertainly part of the multiple threads on this BS at this point. I could accept it way back in October when you were trying to make holes in Obama's campaign. Now there is no purpose to be campaigning against Obama. He cannot win the next election. mittens romnifeller will not win 2012 no matter how many times you say benghazi now. You are not even offering up any new information or even a new theory. We still know the same thing we did a week after the attack. There is no new news at all. . You could have put this is the old benghazi threads, but you had to make a whole bunch of new ones to pretend there is something here. So yes i am going to point out your motivations and lack of consistency in your complaints as part of the reason why you are making such an issue out of somet5hing you normally would just pass on by.

APACHERAT said:

Otherwise keep to the topic, Benghazi; 4 dead Americans; U.S. military being told to stand down while that attack was occurring;

Click to expand...

Like i said, you don't care about this because stand down orders were given on 9/11 and that was never a concern of yours. So this little bit of outrage is faux outrage considering there were 3k deaths in 2001 and you did not care at all.

APACHERAT said:

British FAF asking the Americans if they could go in and rescue the Americans and not receiving any response;

Click to expand...

Maybe they did not know what exactly was going on at the time and launching an attack into a sovereign foreign country is not what they wanted to do. yes, i know military action and damning the consequences of sending in troops into another country is something you feel is OK, but other countries tend to frown upon use of force in that manner. Yes, that means sometimes people in a foreign country will die because we respect borders.

APACHERAT said:

Hillary Clinton dereliction of duty; Barack Obama dereliction of duty as Cn'C;

Click to expand...

Feel free to show us something that actually applies here. Not just something you wish was an actual dereliction of duty, but something that can be proven to be. Your interpretation of the law is pretty shaky considering your clear bias as shown by your lack of any response to past incidents that have been far more severe than this. So i am going to require a little more than you just claiming there is something there based on your outlandish opinion. There are things called laws with definitions for crimes. Feel free to post what actual laws these two violated, and to show why they should be prosecuted for them. Also, you might want to post some motivations because negligence is not actually dereliction of duty. Just because something went wrong does not mean someone shirked their duties. So please make your case with something aside from your rabid hate of the obama admin. Then I could actually focus on something you said that has a rebuttal instead of just pointing out your hypocritical opinions for what they are.

APACHERAT said:

Why two weeks of lying to the American people that it was all about a You Tube video;

Click to expand...

It was less than a week before they realized the video was not the reason, and people asked them for their theories as to why the attack happened and they gave them their ideas at the time. Unless you are going to make a claim that Obama was omnipotent and therefor does not suffer from the need to investigate to find out the truth, you have no real complaint here. Actually i think 2 weeks is pretty good considering it was in a country and a place we didn't have much access to at the time. If you are really angry at the confusion perhaps you should blame the filmmaker who sent egypt into an uproar with his terrible film and obscured the real reason behind these attacks.

APACHERAT said:

Who was inside the White House situation room watching live feed of the attack on the consulate;

Click to expand...

Ok, were they snorting coke in the room, or playing keep away with dick cheney's new heart? Did some sort of crime occur in that place and time that we should know about?

APACHERAT said:

Why was Al Qaeda operating in Libya when Obama said Al Qaeda was on the run and was being decimated ?

Click to expand...

Because they are a terrorist organization who has cells in many countries and is not just in one place? You do know what terrorism is, right? You do know that they don't just happen in afganistan, right?

apdst said:

It's time the CIC answered up as to why security was weak and why he didn't authorize help for our people.

Click to expand...

Security was weak due to the budgetary problems of the state department and having to cover embasies all over the world with a budget of their own that is not tied into the military. That has been explained time and time again. Plus, this was libya right after a revolution. This was a dangerous place with lots of instability. There were weapons of war all over the place and a compound would have been hard to defend against heavily armed supporters even with staff.

As for why we did not invade libya and start killing their people, countries tend to dislike the US charging into sovereign nations without permission from their governments. Yes, i know US citizens were dying, but that does not mean the US can operate in whatever way it wants to internationally. 4 people does not make a war with libya. Sorry, but your expectations are well beyond international treaties and rules. Yes, I am glad obama did not decide to declare war on libya over 4 people.

CanadaJohn said:

What an utterly ignorant statement. Name one US Ambassador that was murdered doing his/her job during the Presidencies of Clinton, Bush Sr and Jr., Reagan, Ford.
Ambassador Stevens was the first Ambassador murdered in office since the Carter administration - an equally disasterous presidency led by an imbicile who was more interested in his own image than the needs of his country, eeriely similar to the baffoon in the White House now.

That is not to say that the murder of the ambassador was Obama's fault - it wasn't - but the cover-up after the fact was indeed led from the White House

Click to expand...

Attacks on the state department in foreign countries happen all the time. This is not new and trying to pretend it is by limiting it to s specific position undermines the objections to american lives being lost when you really only want to count certain ones when you are backpedaling to pretend you have a point. But then again you would be conservative light.

tererun said:

Security was weak due to the budgetary problems of the state department and having to cover embasies all over the world with a budget of their own that is not tied into the military. That has been explained time and time again. Plus, this was libya right after a revolution. This was a dangerous place with lots of instability. There were weapons of war all over the place and a compound would have been hard to defend against heavily armed supporters even with staff.

As for why we did not invade libya and start killing their people, countries tend to dislike the US charging into sovereign nations without permission from their governments. Yes, i know US citizens were dying, but that does not mean the US can operate in whatever way it wants to internationally. 4 people does not make a war with libya. Sorry, but your expectations are well beyond international treaties and rules. Yes, I am glad obama did not decide to declare war on libya over 4 people.

Click to expand...

A Dangerous place with lots of instability.....now you have answer as to why the Screw ups. Oh and using the argument of other screw-ups with other administrations. Don't count. As That screw up changes nothing about those that screwed up now. As well as doing the wrong is never.....Right.

Which changes nothing about this Administration.....who was more concerned about Obama's re-election than they were about the Anniversary of 911. Benghazi or any of Obama's Other foreign policy.

tererun said:

Now you see you have completely missed
the point of tin hat conspiracy theories. Your imagination is so much better than the truth when you are a paranoid delusional like the benghazi guys are. This way you can imagine obama is actually siding with the terrorists and perhaps ordered the strike on the consulate using his secret kenyan muslim terrorists contacts, and he blew it up just to make Romney and the republicans look stupid in the last election by making stuff up abou......Sorry, i don't actually know. I have never personally been that delusional in my life.

But if you want to know what actually happened it is pretty simple. We helped free libya. We set up a consulate in a pretty dangerous location and did not give it much staff. The people there seemed to believe that they could help the libyans establish their government and secure their land. They also seemed to understand the risk they were taking in being there, but believed in their mission. They did request more security, and it seems the request was denied by Hillary's office due to budgetary reasons. The local american haters noticed they were not well protected at the consolate and launched an attack on them that happened to coincide with an event in egypt where people protested a really stupid video insulting muhammed and muslims. In the confusion as to why it happened some state department woman went on some talk shows and said it might have something to do with the protests in egypt over the video. From the beginning it was called terrorism and it has been investigated to find the people who were responsible and blow them up.

What the republicans think is actually going on has never actually been said. They do not even have a real theory as to what is being covered up, but they know it is horrible because they have no theory on what is being covered up and that makes it super spooky. Yes, your confusion is acceptable as everyone is generally confused as to why they are making such an issue out of it now. At least it made sense to blow it out of proportion during the election in hopes that Mitt could capitalize on it, but now they should just let it go.

Click to expand...

As the coverage continues and self described whistle blowers testify under oath this week, your opinion will be marginalized down into a minority of people who are more irritated that those people had to die that close to the election.

Instead of being irritaed there was a top down concerted effort to cover up a terroist attack for political reasons that just took Hillary out of the running for 2016 and further reminds Americans who respect integrity of what a collosal mistake Obama was.

Okay, let's say we all agree that the attack on the U.S Embassy in Benghazi, Lybia was a cover-up, that the storyline given by the Obama Administration and repeated on the Sunday talk shows was indeed a cover-up orchestrated by CIA officials within the Obama Administration. Now what?

What's the end-game for Republicans on this issue?

I mean, yes, it's tragic that four Americans lost their lives, but what exactly do Republicans in Congress really hope to gain by getting their "gotcha" witnesses to say "Yes, officials within the White House knew this wasn't some random attack sparked by some anti-Islamic video"?

I've read a good portion of the emails and other details on the incident and I'm still trying to understand even after these new witnesses testify of what they saw or knew what folks like Rep. Issa hopes to gain here. A confession by the President himself?

Objective Voice said:

Okay, let's say we all agree that the attack on the U.S Embassy in Benghazi, Lybia was a cover-up, that the storyline given by the Obama Administration and repeated on the Sunday talk shows was indeed a cover-up orchestrated by CIA officials within the Obama Administration. Now what?

What's the end-game for Republicans on this issue?

I mean, yes, it's tragic that four Americans lost their lives, but what exactly do Republicans in Congress really hope to gain by getting their "gotcha" witnesses to say "Yes, officials within the White House knew this wasn't some random attack sparked by some anti-Islamic video"?

I've read a good portion of the emails and other details on the incident and I'm still trying to understand even after these new witnesses testify of what they saw or knew what folks like Rep. Issa hopes to gain here. A confession by the President himself?

Click to expand...

That's just it.....no one is saying the CIA orchestrated the cover up. As a matter of fact. Access to their classified documents has been leading to Team Obama and their Covering up of what they knew at the time. As well as What I have already stated. Concerning Obama on the 10th and with his Re-election.

CanadaJohn said:

Good evening Bonz - I'll give it a try.

1. Obama, and many Democrats, at their convention in August/September spoke about Al Queda and terrorists being on the run and decimated because of the policies and actions of Obama and the administration.

2. Just weeks later, the attacks on the the Benghazi compound occurred and there were some initial reports that it was a terrorist attack but the administration's officials at the State Department and the White House chose to claim it was a "spontaneous protest" similar to what was happening in Egypt and elsewhere supposedly related to a web-video insulting to Muslims that virtually no one had seen.

3. Hillary Clinton and others went on TV to apologize to Muslims for the web-video and even created an ad that was sent to Pakistan, Egypt and other countries apologizing for the video even though the government had nothing to do with creating it or showing it.

4. This was all happening as the Presidential election was heating up and the President was vulnerable because this was the first time an ambassador had been murdered since Jimmy Carter's presidency.

5. Even though reports from Libya by State Department officials, CIA officials and perhaps most importantly the media were showing this was a terrorist attack, the administration sent out Rice on the Sunday shows to claim it was not terrorism but spontaneous protests. The administration did not want their Al Queda is decimated meme to be shot down.

That's the basic cover-up. The administration lied about the death of a US ambassador for presidential, political purposes.

Click to expand...

I'm still crafting my response as I became "high" in the meantime and I keep forgetting what Im going to say...............

tererun said:

Attacks on the state department in foreign countries happen all the time. This is not new and trying to pretend it is by limiting it to s specific position undermines the objections to american lives being lost when you really only want to count certain ones when you are backpedaling to pretend you have a point. But then again you would be conservative light.

Click to expand...

An American ambassador gets killed by terrorists all the time??? I think a civil way to classify that remark is to call it mistaken. To call it a lie would not be nice.

washunut said:

An American ambassador gets killed by terrorists all the time??? I think a civil way to classify that remark is to call it mistaken. To call it a lie would not be nice.

Click to expand...

Gee, something smells in all this. Reagan got 100's of Americans killed in Lebanon and the reaction was "Ronald St. Reagan is the father of this country and Jesus likes him too, alot".......................

MMC said:

That's just it.....no one is saying the CIA orchestrated the cover up. As a matter of fact. Access to their classified documents has been leading to Team Obama and their Covering up of what they knew at the time. As well as What I have already stated. Concerning Obama on the 10th and with his Re-election.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd like to know what they possibly hope to gain by continuing to keep this story in the forefront. To me, Rep. Issa is simply on a witch hunt, nothing more. Again, I don't mean to downplay the death of 4 Americans who served their country well and with distinction. So, please don't misunderstand me here. Nor am I attempting to play politics and defend the President nor his Administration. I'll be the first to say those involved with trying to change the storyline should own up to it. But then what? It's not like Benghazi was some TOP SECRET mission to invade Lybia or some weapons smuggling deal gone completely wrong (let's I hope not).

So, what's the point of continuing to dredge up this issue and keep it in the spotlight?

Clearly, I've missed something. Maybe you guys can clarify things for me. Make me understand from your point of view.

Bonzai said:

Gee, something smells in all this. Reagan got 100's of Americans killed in Lebanon and the reaction was "Ronald St. Reagan is the father of this country and Jesus likes him too, alot".......................

Click to expand...

No one said that about Reagan. Even George F. Will accused him of "retreating tall."
Get over your RWR hatred.

tererun said:

Security was weak due to the budgetary problems of the state department and having to cover embasies all over the world with a budget of their own that is not tied into the military. That has been explained time and time again. Plus, this was libya right after a revolution. This was a dangerous place with lots of instability. There were weapons of war all over the place and a compound would have been hard to defend against heavily armed supporters even with staff.

As for why we did not invade libya and start killing their people, countries tend to dislike the US charging into sovereign nations without permission from their governments. Yes, i know US citizens were dying, but that does not mean the US can operate in whatever way it wants to internationally. 4 people does not make a war with libya. Sorry, but your expectations are well beyond international treaties and rules. Yes, I am glad obama did not decide to declare war on libya over 4 people.

Click to expand...

While some are asking question, your answering the questions while you are not in any position to answer those questions, at least to my knowledge.

As revealed just over a week ago it was Hillary Clinton who cut funding for State Department Embassy security. But they refused to cut funding for green cars and electric fueling stations at American Embassies. Like grounding 1/3 of the Air Force squadrons because of the lack of funding but the Obama administration has no problem paying $57 per gallon for green JP-8 fuel instead of purchasing the regular JP-8 for $4. per gallon.

It seems the entire Obama administration have their priorities wrong. Green fuel is more important than national defense ?
Electric cars have priority over Embassy security ?

White House Cover Up ?



>" Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.

As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.

The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure. "< Breaking: White House E-mails And Timelines Show Obama Administration Knowingly Misled The Country About What Happened In The Days Following Benghazi Terror Attack | INSIDE THE GULCH

The BHO gang is getting cornered now.

Jack Hays said:

No one said that about Reagan. Even George F. Will accused him of "retreating tall."
Get over your RWR hatred.

Click to expand...

I don't dislike George Will, but I have my doubts about men who remain virgins until age 40...........................

Bonzai said:

I don't dislike George Will, but I have my doubts about men who remain virgins until age 40...........................

Click to expand...

That seems unlikely since he was married at 28.

Jack Hays said:

That seems unlikely since he was married at 28.

Click to expand...

I don't dislike George Will, but I have my doubts about men who remain virgins until age 40, or look like they'e 40 at 28......................................................

tererun said:

In another poll 99 percent of people who think an armed uprising is in our future are all talk. (1)I would also love to ask, how often did you call for the truth to 9/11 to come out, and why are you not being as hard on good old george now that we know he ignored intelligence that pointed to the 9/11 attacks? It is not like benghazi where it was in a foreign country we had little control over and no budget for. nope, 9/11 was in america and actually got by a number of military facilities. (2)So did you object to the cover up of 9/11 like you have with benghazi?

Click to expand...

1. Until the 911 report was published I wrote several emails to my legislators. How often? Don't remember. GW (and Clinton for that matter) WAS an idiot to ignore the intelligence but he is now NOT the president.

2.I'm not a truther and generally agree with the 911 report. I suspect that once(if) a report on Benghazi is published I will review with an open mind and decide then. It sounds as though you have already made up your mind.

Wondering why you have failed to respond to my question...except with questions (quite rude). Why is that?

Bonzai said:

Gee, something smells in all this. Reagan got 100's of Americans killed in Lebanon and the reaction was "Ronald St. Reagan is the father of this country and Jesus likes him too, alot".......................

Click to expand...

Not from me. I called him a coward, and to make up for it he attacked the great nation of Grenada. Sorry, but partisan politics from either conservatives or liberals who now call themselves progressives to me is mindless.

Objective Voice said:

Well, I'd like to know what they possibly hope to gain by continuing to keep this story in the forefront. To me, Rep. Issa is simply on a witch hunt, nothing more. Again, I don't mean to downplay the death of 4 Americans who served their country well and with distinction. So, please don't misunderstand me here. Nor am I attempting to play politics and defend the President nor his Administration. I'll be the first to say those involved with trying to change the storyline should own up to it. But then what? It's not like Benghazi was some TOP SECRET mission to invade Lybia or some weapons smuggling deal gone completely wrong (let's I hope not).

So, what's the point of continuing to dredge up this issue and keep it in the spotlight?

Clearly, I've missed something. Maybe you guys can clarify things for me. Make me understand from your point of view.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it takes reading the whole thread and putting 2 and 2 together about what people are saying. Moreover the ARB Review has nothing to do with Issa and the Republicans. As much as those on the left would like it to be. It is simply not the truth.


Well, one would be Clinton Cutting Security knowing what the Conditions on the ground, were in Libya. Then there would be that issue that Panetta and General Ham spoke of in not being able to do anything to assist in a battle that took over 7hrs.

Also there would be the material that was chosen to be classified. Despite some material being in Emails and was put over Phone and Radio.

Another issue would be that Team Obama knew Ansar Al Shariah who was acting security for us in Benghazi and was part of the attack. Yet none from the FBI went to see their leader. Who Stayed in a 4 star hotel bragging about it who really Controlled Libya. He was not taken in as a Suspect.

Then there is that whole issue with the Sunni Cleric in Egypt who used social media to get 23 muslims countries to rise up against us all on 911, and as well as who was released after Mubarak fell from Power. The same cleric that caused those In Egypt to riot the Egyptian Embassy.

Oh and that this attack upon the Benghazi was a Predetermined, Premeditated, and Pre-Planned. Unlike Team Obama had stated at first. Then agreed it was a terrorist attack. But that it wasn't AQ. As there are others that would want to do us harm too.

These just for Starters.....snip~

From two pages Back. Also then there is what CJ brought up as well. Maybe you should start there. Course myself I would go back to the 10th and Obamas Speech at the Florida University. During his re-election in Sept after he was told he was trailing Romney in polls and Right after he was old AQ had released a tape for 911. I would pay strict attention to Obamas words. Mannerisms and behavior. Noting how nothing about Foreign policy was on his mind.

Other than keeping that party going. Fundraising for what mattered the Most to him above all other things. Do you think Obama can defends his own words, actions, and mannerisms that was showing he wasn't looking like someone who was to worried about the Anniversary of 911?

MMC said:

Nice try with the conspiracy theory. There is no getting round Team Obama changing the talking points. Course that's exactly what the left wants most of those low information voters to think.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, no, there's not. I'm frankly astonished it took this long for someone to come forward.

cpwill said:

Ultimately, no, there's not. I'm frankly astonished it took this long for someone to come forward.

Click to expand...

Almost 8 months and we are finally getting something from the FBI.....huh? Which isn't helping Team Obama's Talking points with anything. Let alone the CIA or Survivors from the Consulate shedding light on anything.

Still Team Obama can't get around what the Libyans told the Press anyways. Team Obama may try and pull the eyes over those here. I doubt he can with those overseas where they question why they never listened to the Libyans in the First Place. Course now with the UN knowing Rice the UN Ambassador lied at the time. One can see where that puts things in perspective with that Worldy View.

MMC said:

Almost 8 months and we are finally getting something from the FBI.....huh? Which isn't helping Team Obama's Talking points with anything. Let alone the CIA or Survivors from the Consulate shedding light on anything.

Still Team Obama can't get around what the Libyans told the Press anyways. Team Obama may try and pull the eyes over those here. I doubt he can with those overseas where they question why they never listened to the Libyans in the First Place. Course now with the UN knowing Rice the UN Ambassador lied at the time. One can see where that puts things in perspective with that Worldy View.

Click to expand...

Meh, I don't think Rice lied. I think she was told what to say, and believed what she was told. You need plausibility in a patsy, after all.

cpwill said:

Meh, I don't think Rice lied. I think she was told what to say, and believed what she was told. You need plausibility in a patsy, after all.

Click to expand...

Well I think, she lied.....she had seen the news. She knew what they were Reporting. Plus she would have known what the Libyans had reported. As UN Ambassador.

Course being played for the Patsy is what will be getting her that Spot as National Security Chief For the NSA. Which is not a Confirmation Hearing. So Obama could appoint her like he wants to.

Trust me Rice is a major screw up. All one need do is look at Darfer and Somalia. Blackhawk Down. Even the UN watchdog Groups are on her for false statements over Darfer.

MMC said:

Well I think, she lied.....she had seen the news. She knew what they were Reporting. Plus she would have known what the Libyans had reported. As UN Ambassador.

Course being played for the Patsy is what will be getting her that Spot as National Security Chief For the NSA. Which is not a Confirmation Hearing. So Obama could appoint her like he wants to.

Trust me Rice is a major screw up. All one need do is look at Darfer and Somalia. Blackhawk Down. Even the UN watchdog Groups are on her for false statements over Darfer.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be astonishing.