Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[WelfareQueen]

I don't know why, but the attempts to defend the Benghazi bullshit and the NY Times is amusing the hell out of me. Please folks...by all means...please continue.

So, it really was all about a video? Idiots.

 

[Antares]

Was it the video as the Article says?
As Obama's flaks all said the day after or what?

Which is it Dante?

 

[Trajan]

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.

uh yea, ok then......



thats why obama has given/shared everything he has on it inc. permission for full disclosure on fbi files, cia fils and has allowed any and all witnesses called by congress for testimony to appear........hey wait..

 

[paperview]

Doesn't change the fact the NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit.

Well, come up with the links to Al Qaeda and you may be credible....but so far.....all that vitriol about Benghazi not being about the video seems to be coming up to be just "hot air" - what it was the whole time!

It wasn't all about the video....but I'd like to see them deny this:

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.

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

 

[Mertex]

^^^^NY times lied and morons keep going. This has been a good day.

Ha,ha, just because you or Faux News say it's a lie doesn't make it a lie......funny how that KoolAid works.

Really got you worked up, didn't it?

 

[Antares]

Dante needs to read further


The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

"Anger at the video motivated the initial attack."

just like arguing with 911 truthers....

"initial attack"


more than one attack happened.

Do tell, source?

 

[Mertex]

The NYT tells then what they (and Hillary) so desperately want to hear.

I'm sure you meant what the right doesn't wan't to hear? The truth?

 

[rdean]

Funny how congress has intelligence the president doesn't. What is the name of their "organization"?

I know it's not FBI or CIA. Could it be ISA?

 

[Mertex]

If you're female then you're a 300 lbs hag hiding behind your avatar...if you're a male then you're a limp dick that can't a date but get off on your avatar "woman."

That is all...

So, what grade did you say you were in? 8th? I figured as much.....

 

[WelfareQueen]

Fox News = Bad.

Sweetie, you do understand both Democrats and Republicans were quoted and on television saying the NY Times piece was crap. You do understand the quotes in the story are what folks on the Intelligence Committee actually said...and it's all on T.V.

Tough to spin out of this one. But please...keep trying. Oh...and I know Fox News = Bad.

 

[Amelia]

Funny how congress has intelligence the president doesn't. What is the name of their "organization"?

I know it's not FBI or CIA. Could it be ISA?

It would be odd with any other president. But with Obama it's not. He never knows anything about anything which has gone wrong. The only time he knows what's happening is if he can figure out how to take credit for something by knowing it.

 

[Antares]

Allow me to caution Dante, "initial" means beginning, throughout the article it speaks of the "attack" in a singular form...jus sayin kid....you are really looking stupid here.

 

[Antares]

Much like Sallow who had the good sense to slink away.

 

[Mertex]

To really illustrate how pathetic this story is and their running with this story is that the terrorist group which is not so-called AQ means Obama lied that he is personally shutting down terrorism worldwide when there are terrorist groups growing like weeds in Africa.

Is that your new scandal?.......

Scandal? That happened when the President (yet again) lied to the American people about the incident at Benghazi. The fact that the NYT's and the left are trying to parse the difference between al-queada and an affiliated terror cell as meaning that there was no lie and no terrorist affiliation, is simply amusing.

The President didn't lie....he stated that it was a terrorist act, even though the right tried so hard to say he didn't. And, he didn't rush to make a claim, because he's not like the "right" who makes a claim and then has to swallow it.....because it turns out to be wrong.

It shows the depths that the progressives will go to in order to defend their POS President.

I think this thread just shows the depths the conservatives will go to try and hold on to their imaginary theories.......will have to come up with a new one, now that this one has been dissected....

 

[tinydancer]

Fox News = Bad.

Sweetie, you do understand both Democrats and Republicans were quoted and on television saying the NY Times piece was crap. You do understand the quotes in the story are what folks on the Intelligence Committee actually said...and it's all on T.V.

Tough to spin out of this one. But please...keep trying. Oh...and I know Fox News = Bad.

Why would they do this? Please remember you are talking to someone on the mightyQ

But why would they do this?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Funny how congress has intelligence the president doesn't. What is the name of their "organization"?

I know it's not FBI or CIA. Could it be ISA?

It would be odd with any other president. But with Obama it's not. He never knows anything about anything which has gone wrong. The only time he knows what's happening is if he can figure out how to take credit for something by knowing it.

And the few things he does actually know about...like millions getting their insurance killed...he lies about. I would say he's basically 70/30.

70% clueless....and the 30% he knows about he lies.

 

[Amelia]

Funny how congress has intelligence the president doesn't. What is the name of their "organization"?

I know it's not FBI or CIA. Could it be ISA?

It would be odd with any other president. But with Obama it's not. He never knows anything about anything which has gone wrong. The only time he knows what's happening is if he can figure out how to take credit for something by knowing it.

And the few things he does actually know about...like millions getting their insurance killed...he lies about. I would say he's basically 70/30.

70% clueless....and the 30% he knows about he lies.

That's about right.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The NY Times story is meant to do damage control for Hillary. She lied multiple times about Benghazi. Here is one example. You think we'll all be seeing this in a few political ads over the coming few years. Poor Hillary.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQGMzmzcd0]Hillary Clinton Blames Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dante]

Allow me to caution Dante, "initial" means beginning, throughout the article it speaks of the "attack" in a singular form...jus sayin kid....you are really looking stupid here.

the 'attack' refers to a series of attacks over something like an 8 hour long incident.

'initial' get it yet?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Is that your new scandal?.......

Scandal? That happened when the President (yet again) lied to the American people about the incident at Benghazi. The fact that the NYT's and the left are trying to parse the difference between al-queada and an affiliated terror cell as meaning that there was no lie and no terrorist affiliation, is simply amusing.

The President didn't lie....he stated that it was a terrorist act, even though the right tried so hard to say he didn't. And, he didn't rush to make a claim, because he's not like the "right" who makes a claim and then has to swallow it.....because it turns out to be wrong.

It shows the depths that the progressives will go to in order to defend their POS President.

I think this thread just shows the depths the conservatives will go to try and hold on to their imaginary theories.......will have to come up with a new one, now that this one has been dissected....

Obama called it an 'act of terror,' which is different than calling it a 'terrorist act.' I realize that being a liberal makes distinctions difficult, but please try to keep up. This was even brought up during the debates... oh wait, you probably didn't watch those either. Just support the God-King thru every endeavor!