Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Listening]

What's REALLY delusional is the fact that republicans ... in complete absence of any reliable information about this matter ... steadfastly refuse to let it go.

Meanwhile, the age-old dream of reducing spending, small government, and an armed populous, ready to protect itself continues to take a beating come election time. Why? Because crap issues like this are always front and center and aside from the wing-nutz NO ONE really cares.

The House committee interviewed the second in command at the Embassy and several American contractors that were there during the attack for their information, and it directly contradicts what is in the NYT article. The NYT reporter interviewed Libyan terrorists for his information. You have chosen who you want to believe and I will do the same.

Great point - and what were the findings of the House committee? What was their determination with regards to this case?

Any way you slice it, Benghazi is nothing but fodder for the pundits.

That is unsupportable in every way.

Here for the conversation.

 

[asaratis]

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.

A pseudo-intellectual work of fiction by a died-in-the-wool supporter of the "progressive" agenda...a vain attempt to polish two turds at one time. Obama lied...Hillary lied...a respected American diplomat and three other Americans DIED!

“INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS” PURPORTED TO BE AN ONLINE TRAILER for a film about the mistreatment of Christians in contemporary Egypt. But it included bawdy historical flashbacks that derided the Prophet Muhammad. Someone dubbed it into Arabic around the beginning of September 2012, and a Cairo newspaper embellished the news by reporting that a Florida pastor infamous for burning the Quran was planning to debut the film on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.

. But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attacker’s boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.

You can re-quote that fictional, rosy account of what a liberal wishes had happened all you want. That is after all, the liberal modus operandi...repeat a lie until it seems true.

You get ZERO points here, Bubba!

 

[Redfish]

Well basically, Benghazi, the rally call of the right and crime boss Issa, turned into something that conservatives couldn't handle..complicated.

Issa's "investigations" became a witch hunt and basically nothing that has come out of it gained any traction. Except in the nutter circles.

Wake up, this is nothing but an attempt by the left wing press to excuse Hillary's terrible job as SecState. Those 4 americans died because "what difference does it make" was her attitude as to protecting americans overseas.

Sorry, libs, but it won't work.

No, four diplomats died because the middle east is a dangerous place.

That your side kept trying to use the coffins of brave Americans as soap-boxes and got slapped down repeatedly for trying it shows you just don't learn.

Sure its a dangerous place, thats why they should have been provided with adequate protection--------protection that they requested and Hillary denied.

 

[Katzndogz]

This report might be some kind of action to rehabilitate Hillary in advance of the disaster now brewing in Egypt.

 

[Sunni Man]

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the dynamics of the Libyan civil war.

Would know that Al Qaeda really didn't have a dog in the fight.

And that Benghazi was a spontaneous event by a local group of radicals and not a well organized and planned operation. ....

 

[deltex1]

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the dynamics of the Libyan civil war.

Would know that Al Qaeda really didn't have a dog in the fight.

And that Benghazi was a spontaneous event by a local group of radicals and not a well organized and planned operation. ....

Oh.

 

[Antares]

??????


WTF does any of this mean?

You are really starting to scare me. Do you live alone ? If so, how ????

Talk about the subject much?

Like I said that garbage was unrelated to the OP and didn't make any sense.


Maybe instead of crying about my response, you could have tried to explain it, but of course you aren't really here for the discussion ... .

Meaning you have serious comprehension issues, the phrase "nun-uh" is about as deep as you can get without being confused.

 

[asaratis]

And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.


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. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Another dupe of the NYT and the Obama-ass kissers that call themselves journalists. Fictional short story authors fits them better. This thread should be merged with rightwinger's and then sent to the Rubber Room.

 

[TooTall]

What's REALLY delusional is the fact that republicans ... in complete absence of any reliable information about this matter ... steadfastly refuse to let it go.

Meanwhile, the age-old dream of reducing spending, small government, and an armed populous, ready to protect itself continues to take a beating come election time. Why? Because crap issues like this are always front and center and aside from the wing-nutz NO ONE really cares.

The House committee interviewed the second in command at the Embassy and several American contractors that were there during the attack for their information, and it directly contradicts what is in the NYT article. The NYT reporter interviewed Libyan terrorists for his information. You have chosen who you want to believe and I will do the same.

Great point - and what were the findings of the House committee? What was their determination with regards to this case?

Any way you slice it, Benghazi is nothing but fodder for the pundits.

The way I slice it is based on the testimony of the people that were there, not on a self serving reporter looking for a favor from the Administration or a Pulitzer for his stories.

Here is what the second in command said as well as excerpts from the Washington Post on various testimony.

[quote]Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attack, testified that it was clear from his perspective that this was a terrorist attack. The last words he heard from J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador who was killed in the attack, were: “Greg, we’re under attack.”[/quote]

But the attack occurred shortly after violent protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which muddied the news reporting and may have shaped official perceptions.

This was the account in The Washington Post on Sept. 12, the day after the attack:

“At least an hour before the assault began, a stream of cars was seen moving toward the U.S. Consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. By late Tuesday evening, as many as 50 heavily armed militants had gathered outside its high walls. They joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad. But according to one witness, the new arrivals neither chanted slogans nor carried banners…. Even as evidence was being assembled, the early indications were that the assault had been planned and the attackers had cannily taken advantage of the protest at the consulate.”

On Sept. 15, in a page one story titled “Muslim Fury at U.S. Spreads,” the Post reported: “From Tunis to Cairo to Jakarta, Indonesia, the Muslim world erupted in protests aimed at the United States on Friday as anger over a video that mocks the prophet Muhammad boiled over into assaults on embassies or demonstrations in nearly two dozen countries.”

But it turns out there were no demonstrations in Benghazi; it was a terrorist attack, pure and simple. This has been well established in various official documents, including the Accountability Review Board, which declared: “The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”

The Senate report also revealed that internally, many officials early on were certain this was a terrorist attack.

The report cited “two emails from the State Department Diplomatic Security Operations Center on the day of the attack, September 11, and the day after, September 12, 2012, characterized the attack as an ‘initial terrorism incident’ and as a ‘terrorist event.’” Moreover, as early as Sept. 15, the team that had been in Benghazi reported there has been no protest; the FBI also conducted face-to-face interviews with people who were in the compound during the attack and they reported there was no protest.
So it is not new that there was no protest. That’s been officially well established. It is also not new that many officials knew it was a terrorist attack.

What is new is that Hicks has put a human face on previous reporting. He also disclosed he spoke directly to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the night of the attack, presumably relaying his conclusions.

The hearings also revealed an e-mail written by Elizabeth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, in which she recounted a conversation with the Libyan ambassador on Sept. 12: “When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks Ansar Al Sharia is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

The Benghazi hearings: what?s new and what?s not - The Washington Post

 

[Edgetho]

This report might be some kind of action to rehabilitate Hillary in advance of the disaster now brewing in Egypt.

Yeah.....

Funny how that DNC fund-raising letter went out at almost exactly the same time.

The question really should be, "Will the lie by the New Yawk Slimes stand the test of time?"

I don't think it will. I think it gets taken apart and the Slimes gets another black eye.

Online NewsHour | Credibility in Question | Jayson Blair: A Case Study of What Went Wrong at The New York Times

It isn't that the Slimes didn't know Blair was a lying sack of shit. The entire upper echelon at the Slimes is just that.

It's just that, frankly, they didn't care.

Most everything they do at the Slimes is a lie. SOme of it is good work, but most of the headline-grabbing, "Holy Shit!" political stuff is totally made up.

And they don't care. It's what they do.

Will this stand the test of time? I doubt it.

The other question is, "Will the Slimes be able to keep the lid on the lie long enough to not have it blow up in their faces?"

I'd say the odds of the Slimes keeping a lid on it are around 80%. The odds of the article having a short-term effect will be 70%.... Retarded people like our resident dimocraps will point and snicker.... The odds of the lie.... er, er, the article having a long term effect (more than 6 months) are about 1%.

It's just another lie by the Slimes, people.

Deal with it. It's what they do. It's why I DESPISE the LSM.

And you should, too. They deserve it

 

[TooTall]

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.

I wonder where the Libyans that were supposedly protesting a video got gallons of fuel oil to set the buildings on fire, the AK-47's to shoot the place up, and the military training to fire the heavy mortors they just found in the woods?

That had to be a spontaneous demonstration if I ever saw one since it is obvious there was no previously planned attack.

It is obvious to a fool or a Democrat, but that is redundant.

 

[Jroc]

What bothers me most about the entire Benghazi attack is that certain Americans felt a need to try to make it a political issue by blaming Americans rather than the people who actually attacked us. We have gotten to a point that it is politics at all cost. We have to be certain to make the other side look bad because we have been convinced by a few idiots on the fringes that it is in our best interest to hate everyone who does not think exactly as we do. The few have led us down this path and they are helping tear us apart at the seams.

Exactly......there were times when we rallied around the flag at times like this. We backed our president and supported his efforts to retaliate

Within hours of the attack it became an issue of........can we impeach over this?

What retaliation? He immediately LIED and blamed it on a YouTube video, and had the creator of it imprisoned. Hilary nor the Hussein did anything to address the security requests from the Embassy prior to the attack, and they did nothing during the attack to help those people. And what did the Hussein do to "retaliate" hours after the attack? Attend a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.

Sept 11th, 10pm response by 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."

All they did in the days and weeks following was cover up their tracks, knowing full well that the media and his sheep (like YOU) will gloss over it and defend the Hussein no matter what.

No one blames Hilary or the Hussein for Muslims gone wild. There will be more attacks and it should be expected. But it would be nice if Dems actually acknowledged the real threat these savages present, instead of ignoring it and making every effort to appease them(see her "religious tolerance" comments above).

He's a pathetic joke

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogk2dgSQETA]Infamous Obama Admin - State Dept - Pakistani TV Ad Apologizing For Mohammed Video - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Spoonman]

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.

What bothers me most about the entire Benghazi attack is that certain Americans felt a need to try to make it a political issue by blaming Americans rather than the people who actually attacked us. We have gotten to a point that it is politics at all cost. We have to be certain to make the other side look bad because we have been convinced by a few idiots on the fringes that it is in our best interest to hate everyone who does not think exactly as we do. The few have led us down this path and they are helping tear us apart at the seams.

Why are the ambassadors there in the first place? Politics. This is political and if we are going to put individuals in harms way in the name of politics our government owes it to these unarmed American citizens to provide them protection. our current administration was instrumental and lended support to the rebels who toppled a stable government and left a country in turmoil. They should have been more aware of the risk and either provided greater protection or pulled the US citizens out of there. sure, fanatics were responsible fro the attack, but the attack was made possible by poor decisions of this administration

 

[candycorn]

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.

Looks like there was no "there" there.

 

[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.

Looks like there was no "there" there.

And you're a moron

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.


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. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

^ Low Information Voter meets Obama's Media

 

[TooTall]

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.

What bothers me most about the entire Benghazi attack is that certain Americans felt a need to try to make it a political issue by blaming Americans rather than the people who actually attacked us. We have gotten to a point that it is politics at all cost. We have to be certain to make the other side look bad because we have been convinced by a few idiots on the fringes that it is in our best interest to hate everyone who does not think exactly as we do. The few have led us down this path and they are helping tear us apart at the seams.

Exactly......there were times when we rallied around the flag at times like this. We backed our president and supported his efforts to retaliate

Within hours of the attack it became an issue of........can we impeach over this?

Obama can't be impeached. It is a race thing.

 

[deltex1]

I am hearing that the IRS actions against t party groups were spontaneous also...a couple of bad actors in Cleveland....

 

[candycorn]

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.

Looks like there was no "there" there.

And you're a moron

Poor baby, nobody likes you.

 

[TooTall]

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.

Looks like there was no "there" there.

You accept the words of Islamist terrorists, I will accept the words of the Americans that were attacked.

That says a lot about you!