Some of the Reviews of Hillary's New Book are not so kind

 

There are plenty of wonderful reviews of Hillary Clinton's new book. I guarantee that some of these same reviews were written far ahead of the book release. 

What I did find, is an interesting lot of bad reviews that were not so glowing. Alas, I am sure, that many of these were written without a thorough read as well. But, I figured, they are at least good for a laugh.  SF

Sickening: I became violently ill before finishing the first chapter and had to burn it in a bio-hazard incinerator. Dangerous stuff.

Boring: The directions on shampoo were more interesting than this. I feel like the Clintons owe me 4 hours of my life back.

Toilet Paper: Totally unequivocally pure unadulterated stinky no good terrible crap. I would not recommend using this as toilet paper, maybe kindling, do not waste your money.

Lies start with Cover Photo: Who is that person on the cover of the book? It isn’t Hillary, as Hillary has more wrinkles than Rip Van Winkle.

Putrid partisan puke: Acquired this steaming load of tightly coiled excrement from a friend who warned me of its content but as the fool I am, I read it anyway…. well, as far as I could get before my digestive tract rebelled in an excellent demonstration of sympathetic nervous system functioning.

I feel so sorry for her I had to buy this book: How did she survive leaving the White House dead broke? They could hardly pay their multiple mortgages for their multiple houses, send Chelsea to Columbia, carpet bag in New York, or anything! And no help from the United Way, Salvation Army, or Pants Suits for the Homeless. Oh, the horror!

Book sucks: Her last book is on sale @ Amazon for .1 cent…. kinda tells one how acclaimed this book is… pure trash…

Time to wake up America: Boring, nothing of substance, and purely a transparent ramp up to her 2016 campaign. Voters made a terrible decision (twice) putting an unqualified candidate in the oval office. Time to wise up America and stop electing ideologues, or candidates for “historical” reasons and elect qualified candidates who can lead. To the libs questioning reviewers ability to read a paltry 600 pages in a day, I will point out that is pretty slow when compared to all of the democrats who read the 20,000+ ACA bill overnight.

Beyond Pathetic: So out of touch with the American people. A liar, & & & oh well at this point WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES MAKE??? I would NOT recommend this to no one, not even my dog.

How is this NO.2 on Amazon? Did the clinton camp and associates buy up all the books to keep it at the top like they did in the past? Bought this locally and it is full of lies and subtle blame games. She has no record other than being a failure.

Horrible! Just Horrible! Wow, I don’t know what made Hillary think she had enough literary skill to write in complete sentences, but this is not helping her case. Even the “hard” choices she talks about, without spoiling anything, are so dull and lacking in expression, I really thought I was reading a weekly journal or something. Just horrible. The most boring thing I have EVER read. This does NOT make me excited to think of her giving ANY Presidential speech or presentation. What was she thinking!!!!??? DO NOT BUY!

Booooorrrrriiiiiinnngggggggg! Thank you Hillary for curing my insomnia. I now just pick up you book and within seconds I’m asleep. And just what exactly were the “hard choices” you made? There clearly aren’t any of them listed in this piece-of-crap book.

75 year old brain damaged grandmother: Absolute garbage. Another reminder why this evil, disgusting person needs to be prevented from ever again entering the white house or into any position of power.

Poll Tested, Blow Dried Tripe for Political Fodder: More mumbo jumbo from the political set. I think a Putin book of his speeches would be as or more enlightening!!

That's just for starters. The rest of the fun at: Truth Revolt

BENGHAZI They Knew 15 Minutes After the Terrorist Attack that it was a Terrorist Attack

The country’s top military commanders clearly understood the assault on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, was a terrorist attack from the moment the first reports came in, just 15 minutes after the assault began on September 11, 2012.

Why Did They Change The Story? 

Heritage Foundation

CIA CONTRADICTS GOV’T BENGHAZI ACCOUNT

CIA agents on the ground in Benghazi testified to lawmakers they were loaded into vehicles and ready to aid the besieged U.S. special mission on Sept. 11, 2012, but were told by superiors to “wait,” a congressman privy to the testimony has revealed. 

Unreported is that the new accounts seem to contradict claims made by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, or ARB, which states that the response team one mile away in the CIA annex was “not delayed by orders from superiors.” 

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., head of the House intelligence subcommittee that interviewed the CIA employees, explained that while there was no “stand-down order,” there was a disagreement at the nearby CIA annex about how quickly to respond. 

Westmoreland revealed that some CIA agents wanted to storm the Benghazi compound immediately, but they were told to wait while the agency collected intelligence on the ongoing attack. 

“Some CIA security contractors disagreed with their bosses and wanted to move more quickly,” the Associated Press reported, drawing from Westmoreland’s comments.

 The AP reported: Westmoreland said the CIA security contractors loaded into two vehicles, with weapons ready, the moment they heard the radio call for help from the diplomatic building. Some wanted to rush to the U.S. compound roughly a mile away, and their agitation grew as they heard increasing panic when the diplomats reported the militants were setting the compound on fire. The CIA team leader and the CIA chief at the Benghazi annex told committee members that they were trying to gather Libyan allies and intelligence before racing into the fray, worried that they might be sending their security team into an ambush with little or no backup. At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to “wait” at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because they are still CIA employees. 

The AP reported the CIA agents said a quicker response would not have saved the lives of those killed in the attacks, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. That claim cannot be immediately verified because of the lack of information regarding what happened to Stevens the night of the attacks. 

The narrative of “orders to wait” seems to directly contradict Page 23 of the ARB report. 

The page states: “Just prior to receiving the TDY RSO’s distress call shortly after 2142 local, the head of Annex security heard multiple explosions coming from the north in the direction of the SMC. 

The ARB report said “the Annex response team departed its compound in two vehicles at approximately 2205 local.” 

“The departure of the Annex team was not delayed by orders from superiors; the team leader decided on his own to depart the Annex compound once it was apparent, despite a brief delay to permit their continuing efforts, that rapid support from local security elements was not forthcoming.”

Read More: Klein Online