Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[KGB]

Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Priceless.

The ORIGINAL two posts by rw are shattered and yet in the Left's utter desperation to defend their Liar in Chief they are willing to suspend the fact that the primary suspect INDEED led a terrorist group and INDEED had ties to a MAJOR terror group both documented, and then go on to defend the rest of the article as gospel.

You just cannot make this shit up.

No one is denying he USED TO have ties, but he doesn't anymore. He does not fly that official banner therefore calling the attack an Al Queda attack is completely untrue. Obama never said there weren't still terrorists in general in the area.

you seriously can not be this naive....

 

[BDBoop]

what exactly does that mean? Did he publicly denounce bin Laden, throw down his AK-47 & proclaim his love for the West?.....don't be naive. As long as he shares Al-Qaeda's goals, he isn't really a former associate....

But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.

there is no such thing as retired Al Qaeda members....once Al Qaeda, always Al Qaeda....

That's the Marines, moron.

 

[KGB]

But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.

there is no such thing as retired Al Qaeda members....once Al Qaeda, always Al Qaeda....

That's the Marines, moron.

oh I'm sorry, did you have something intelligent to add to the discussion....clearly not....you can piss off now....

 

[Clementine]

NYT Investigation? What a giant pile of shit.

Why didn't the media seek out the people who were there instead of looking the other way when the survivors were carted off to places unknown and forced to sign agreements to keep quiet? The media still doesn't give a damn what they and others have to say about the attacks. Instead the leftist rag opts to take the word of Libyans. Typical, yet sad.

 

[Desperado]

So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said. Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.

 

[BDBoop]

there is no such thing as retired Al Qaeda members....once Al Qaeda, always Al Qaeda....

That's the Marines, moron.

oh I'm sorry, did you have something intelligent to add to the discussion....clearly not....you can piss off now....

Well, if THAT'S the criteria, what the hell are you doing here?!

 

[GWV5903]

So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

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.

Benghazi was a disaster for Obama, end of story...

Doesn't matter how you spin it...

But you keep focusing on that and if we end up with Hillary as POTUS the end is near...

 

[Kosh]

The far left NYtimes and Obama news outlet defends Obama, no surprise there.

 

[Kosh]

But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.

there is no such thing as retired Al Qaeda members....once Al Qaeda, always Al Qaeda....

That's the Marines, moron.

Leave to the far left to equate the US military as extremists Muslim terrorists.

 

[Clementine]

So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said. Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.

Yup, the NYT would love it if people actually believed that.

No film caused any violence. Funny that the film exposed the violent nature of the radical Muslims and their actions proved it correct.

There is no excuse for what they did to the ambassador and his people. It is 100% caused by the killers.

I still don't know why the filmmaker was condemned by the administration. I know Obama went to the enemy and lamented about the freedom of speech thing. It still pisses me off how they bashed the filmmaker over and over and were so careful not to offend the murderous assholes who killed and raped the ambassador. I don't care what the reasons are, they aren't sufficient and the act was inexcusable.

I will not trust Obama until he blames the right people instead of pretending that some guy and some obscure video got them killed.

It was not spontaneous. They had a huge crowd gathered to watch as they paraded the dead body of Stevens. They had flags to burn. They had a lot of weapons. Those cost money. This appeared to be well orchestrated and funded.

I would never expect the NYT to get to the bottom of this mess. They continue to carry the water for the Obama regime and they can only reach out to the woefully ignorant.

 

[francoHFW]

So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said. Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.

Everyone in the WORLD knew that, beside the brainwashed chumps of the GOP DUH...YOUR ''news'' is a joke...including the ''MSM''- CBS, NBC, ABC cowards...

 

[Antares]

So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said. Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.

Everyone in the WORLD knew that, beside the brainwashed chumps of the GOP DUH...YOUR ''news'' is a joke...including the ''MSM''- CBS, NBC, ABC cowards...

I am starting to believe you and Jake are twins.

 

[francoHFW]

Only the dupes don't know...dingbat.

 

[francoHFW]

Go back to Fox, Rush, Beck, Issa etc etc, you'll be fine...

 

[Jroc]

So much for the Republican campaign against Hillary

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

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.

So it was the video? So security wasn't inadequate after all? you're a joke

 

[KGB]

That's the Marines, moron.

oh I'm sorry, did you have something intelligent to add to the discussion....clearly not....you can piss off now....

Well, if THAT'S the criteria, what the hell are you doing here?!

Discussing the item in question in an intelligent manner. A fact that escapes your grasp. Run along now child....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So it really was the YouTube movie "Mohammed Innocence of Muslims" that cause the embassy attack just as Obama said. Who would have guessed. Thank you New York Times for clearing that up for us.

Yup, the NYT would love it if people actually believed that.

No film caused any violence. Funny that the film exposed the violent nature of the radical Muslims and their actions proved it correct.

There is no excuse for what they did to the ambassador and his people. It is 100% caused by the killers.

I still don't know why the filmmaker was condemned by the administration. I know Obama went to the enemy and lamented about the freedom of speech thing. It still pisses me off how they bashed the filmmaker over and over and were so careful not to offend the murderous assholes who killed and raped the ambassador. I don't care what the reasons are, they aren't sufficient and the act was inexcusable.

I will not trust Obama until he blames the right people instead of pretending that some guy and some obscure video got them killed.

It was not spontaneous. They had a huge crowd gathered to watch as they paraded the dead body of Stevens. They had flags to burn. They had a lot of weapons. Those cost money. This appeared to be well orchestrated and funded.

I would never expect the NYT to get to the bottom of this mess. They continue to carry the water for the Obama regime and they can only reach out to the woefully ignorant.

When the attack follows the death of Osama Bin Laden, as well as the boasting of how Al Qaeda is on the run and decimated, I'm sure there are still efforts by some (like the New York Times) to try and help this administration save face.

 

[Listening]

The New York Times has simply started the process of cleansing Bengazi in preparation for Hillary's Clinton's presidential campaign.

It is the Pravda of the Democratic Party.

No, its not like that at all; Benghazi was never anything but a smear campaign.

It's so full of garbage that no one is really even interested in debunking it anymore.

And even though he posts something to the contrary that supports his point of view, we are expected to take your analysis (minus anything to support it) and believe that ?

Please. Don't piss at others about making a point and then turn around and look so stupid.

 

[francoHFW]

135- Probably. Bengazi was a dumb move for an ambassador. And no...

 

[BDBoop]

oh I'm sorry, did you have something intelligent to add to the discussion....clearly not....you can piss off now....

Well, if THAT'S the criteria, what the hell are you doing here?!

Discussing the item in question in an intelligent manner. A fact that escapes your grasp. Run along now child....

You first, infant.