Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[BDBoop]

Obama owns and runs the NYT, everyone knows that, and of course all those Muslims in Libya would agree with him, they like him hes a Muslim, duh.

The New York Times Company is an American media company which publishes its namesake, The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., has served as Chairman of the Board since 1997.

Hmm. I don't think so, home skillet.

 

[BDBoop]

RW, did you ever doubt Obama...is this article all it took to restore your confidence??

Did you ever question your perceptions of the situation?

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

Okay. Well, on another note then; have you read the article? Because I am finding it fascinating, mostly because I never followed the Benghazi story. I just knew the administration was saying something, the Republicans were saying something else, and the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.

 

[Antares]

Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.

Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.

Ansar al-Sharia is considered one of the most radical groups that emerged after the secular autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled in 2011.

The Ansar leader Saifallah Benahssine, also known as Abu Iyadh, is a former al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan sought by police for allegedly inciting an attack on the US embassy in Tunis in September 2012.

Ansar al-Sharia blamed for Tunisia killings - Africa - Al Jazeera English

??????


WTF does any of this mean?

It seems to be beyond your ability focus , its ok kid.

 

[Antares]

Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger View Post
. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
Ahmed Abu Khattala

Ahmed Abu Khattala heads the Benghazi-based Ansar al-Sharia group

Read more: Islamist group leader Ahmed Abu Khattala named as mastermind behind U.S. consulate massacre in Benghazi | Mail Online
Ahmed-Abu-Khattala-named-mastermind-U-S-consulate-massacre-Benghazi.html#ixzz2ooJWG17P
[/COLOR]

Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.

Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.

Ansar al-Sharia is considered one of the most radical groups that emerged after the secular autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled in 2011.

The Ansar leader Saifallah Benahssine, also known as Abu Iyadh, is a former al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan sought by police for allegedly inciting an attack on the US embassy in Tunis in September 2012.

Ansar al-Sharia blamed for Tunisia killings - Africa - Al Jazeera English

See how easy that was nutjob?

He is a Terrorist leader with ties to Al Qaeda.[/B]

His very first point is proven false in no more than 5 minutes with non partisan sources.

The premise of the article is bullshit as is your defense of the moron.

Sorry man - I don't speak cut and paste.

Really not even sure what you are trying to relate in that mess of a post you claim as "victory."

It is not relevant to the Benghazi attacks

Just another RW attempt at obfuscation

[MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]

Is it relevant to your article?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.

Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.

Ansar al-Sharia is considered one of the most radical groups that emerged after the secular autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled in 2011.

The Ansar leader Saifallah Benahssine, also known as Abu Iyadh, is a former al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan sought by police for allegedly inciting an attack on the US embassy in Tunis in September 2012.

Ansar al-Sharia blamed for Tunisia killings - Africa - Al Jazeera English

??????


WTF does any of this mean?

It seems to be beyond your ability focus , its ok kid.

WRONG! It means that you posted a bunch of unrelated crap that was both confusing to read AND laughably irrelevant.

 

[rightwinger]

RW, did you ever doubt Obama...is this article all it took to restore your confidence??

Did you ever question your perceptions of the situation?

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

 

[Dot Com]

so how many MILLIONS of American tax-payer dollars $$$ did Firebug (Issa (R) ) waste for that witch hunt?

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry man - I don't speak cut and paste.

Really not even sure what you are trying to relate in that mess of a post you claim as "victory."

It is not relevant to the Benghazi attacks

Just another RW attempt at obfuscation

[MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]

Is it relevant to your article?

Did you bother to read what you posted or just cut and paste the first thing Google came up with?

 

[Antares]

Did you ever question your perceptions of the situation?

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

rw if the very first point you tried to make with the article is wrong why would you believe any of it?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

rw if the very first point you tried to make with the article is wrong why would you believe any of it?

Having a bit of trouble letting this go, eh?

 

[Antares]

. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.

rw...dude, these are you first two posts...I've shown you that they are categorically false using non partisan sources.....why would ANY of the rest of the article e believable?

It wouldn't unless you NEEDED it to be believable.

 

[Antares]

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

rw if the very first point you tried to make with the article is wrong why would you believe any of it?

Having a bit of trouble letting this go, eh?

I know kid....the old synapses don't quite fire correctly when you are high....it's ok....

 

[Avorysuds]

You can keep your Doctor/Healthcare plan, period!

The NSA did nothing illegal, Obama told us that....

Obama will balance the budget...

Obama will close Guantanamo...

Obama will fix the economy....

Obama will end wars.....



Nope, Obama never lies!

^^^^ Be sure and avoid the subject completely by bringing up every other paranoid scandal you can think of.

The issue is when someone as partisan as RW claims "Obama was correct" I like most Americans today simply don't believe much of anything Obama says... due to his track record as being the most secretive and dishonest admin in US history. What really sucks is the claim I just made is accurate, not saying there are other Presidents not close to Obama 's league of bullshit... but that Obama in fact has been the most opposite of what he claimed President that anyone could possible name.

So no, I honestly don't give a fuck about the opinion of the NYT.

 

[rightwinger]

. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.

rw...dude, these are you first two posts...I've shown you that they are categorically false using non partisan sources.....why would ANY of the rest of the article e believable?

It wouldn't unless you NEEDED it to be believable.

Actually you haven't

But like most conservatives, you think repeated claims will make it so

 

[BDBoop]

Did you ever question your perceptions of the situation?

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

I'm on page four of the report. It has been a long time since I have read anything I would call "award-winning journalism" - I sincerely wish more such articles were written.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

You can keep your Doctor/Healthcare plan, period!

The NSA did nothing illegal, Obama told us that....

Obama will balance the budget...

Obama will close Guantanamo...

Obama will fix the economy....

Obama will end wars.....



Nope, Obama never lies!

^^^^ Be sure and avoid the subject completely by bringing up every other paranoid scandal you can think of.

The issue is when someone as partisan as RW claims "Obama was correct" I like most Americans today simply don't believe much of anything Obama says... due to his track record as being the most secretive and dishonest admin in US history. What really sucks is the claim I just made is accurate, not saying there are other Presidents not close to Obama 's league of bullshit... but that Obama in fact has been the most opposite of what he claimed President that anyone could possible name.

So no, I honestly don't give a fuck about the opinion of the NYT.

OK, so why not SHOW US why they are wrong? Why dismiss them out of hand without even making an attempt to discredit the article by proving it to be a lie?

 

[Sherry]

Did you ever question your perceptions of the situation?

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

Okay. Well, on another note then; have you read the article? Because I am finding it fascinating, mostly because I never followed the Benghazi story. I just knew the administration was saying something, the Republicans were saying something else, and the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.

I skimmed over Chapter 1...rolled my eyes that they're still pushing the video angle. I'm not surprised that they want to soften it up by stating that they found no evidence that any terrorists groups were involved, but I don't see their "investigation" having any significant impact.

 

[Katzndogz]

Looks like the "report" is actually a six chapter excerpt from a book and not a report at all.

 

[Sherry]

Did you ever question your perceptions of the situation?

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

The NYT investigation affirms that they're politically motivated.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

rw if the very first point you tried to make with the article is wrong why would you believe any of it?

Having a bit of trouble letting this go, eh?

I know kid....the old synapses don't quite fire correctly when you are high....it's ok....

Correct; I'm high as a kite. Good call.