Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[TemplarKormac]

Benghazi deniers are the same as 9/11 truthers.

Sounds that way, doesn't it? It's a shame really, you have people twisting, mangling, and politicizing the deaths of four brave Americans instead of telling the truth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We have a thread on this already. What did you need people to pay attention to you?

No we don't. Perhaps you need to learn how to read. There are no threads about the NYT report being challenged by actual sources on the ground.

Go be liberal somewhere else please.

 

[tinydancer]

Tell that to your Republican leaders who refused to fund more security......the rw is all about not taking responsibility for their ineptness.

**** you. You can't figure out how to move security around?

But that's not the worst of it. You hired libyan rebels

What could possibly go wrong??????????????????

You spent the money.

Yeah, you cut the funding and then ***** about not increasing security....typical conservative reasoning.....it takes money to move them around too, or did you think they paid for their own moves? Geez......no wonder your party is losing elections.....

You were paying the rebels.

What part of you were schilling out the dough BIG TIME to rebels?

 

[Plasmaball]

We have a thread on this already. What did you need people to pay attention to you?

No we don't. Perhaps you need to learn how to read. There are no threads about the NYT report being challenged by actual sources on the ground.

Go be liberal somewhere else please.

Welfare queens thread covers this issue....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Umm no. That thread deals with reactions by members of congress. This one deals with reactions of the sources themselves. Negged for attempting to derail my thread, Plasmabrain.

 

[tinydancer]

OK does every one get that there was money? But what they did was in an Obama world they gave money to rebels to protect a good man called fill in the blank

Don't you guys get this?

 

[Plasmaball]

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread

No, they deal with two completely different aspects of this issue altogether. The difference is clear.

 

[BluesMistress]

My hope is the NYTimes False story starts the unraveling of the truth about Benghazi.
I Will NEVER Forget Benghazi where Americans were left to die & the POS POTUS went to Vegas.

 

[Plasmaball]

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread

No, they deal with two completely different aspects of this issue altogether. The difference is clear.

Nope

 

[NoNukes]

After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'

Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.

Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.

But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.

The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.

Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.

"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.

"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."

The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News

Who are these sources on the ground"?

 

[BDBoop]

We have a thread on this already. What did you need people to pay attention to you?

No we don't. Perhaps you need to learn how to read. There are no threads about the NYT report being challenged by actual sources on the ground.

Go be liberal somewhere else please.

Welfare queens thread covers this issue....

Rightwinger had the first one.

 

[Geaux4it]

May the wheels continue to come off the wagon. The liberal media can only hold on so long

-Geaux

 

[edthecynic]

After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'

Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.

Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.

But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.

The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.

Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.

"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.

"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."

The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News

Who are these "forces on the ground"?

The guy from the 60 Minutes interview.

 

[BluesMistress]

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread

No, they deal with two completely different aspects of this issue altogether. The difference is clear.

Nope

This is a completely different article. This is an article about those that were actually there are now pissed after reading the NYTIMES propaganda piece.
Welfare Queen has a thread about Bi Partisan agreement that NYTIMES is a Fraud. That on Fox News Sunday R & D both agreed that the article was a fraud. Not a single word about a single survivor in any such way as them speaking out about the NYTimes article. This is completely different unless it concerns a Dem and Rep agreeing on Anything much less Benghazi.
I've read Both and they are Different ~
This one is actually much more important as the survivors are speaking out...Let's hope they continue!!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'

Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.



'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News

Who are these "forces on the ground"?

The guy from the 60 Minutes interview.

Better than citing Kilpatrick isn't it? Please.

 

[TemplarKormac]

After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'

Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.

Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.

But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.

The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.

Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.

"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.

"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."

The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News

Who are these "forces on the ground"?

That's "sources" not "forces", milady. And those sources would dare not reveal their identities for fear of retaliation by their own government.

 

[Plasmaball]

No, they deal with two completely different aspects of this issue altogether. The difference is clear.

Nope

This is a completely different article. This is an article about those that were actually there are now pissed after reading the NYTIMES propaganda piece.
Welfare Queen has a thread about Bi Partisan agreement that NYTIMES is a Fraud. That on Fox News Sunday R & D both agreed that the article was a fraud. Not a single word about a single survivor in any such way as them speaking out about the NYTimes article. This is completely different unless it concerns a Dem and Rep agreeing on Anything much less Benghazi.
I've read Both and they are Different ~
This one is actually much more important as the survivors are speaking out...Let's hope they continue!!!

Except if you read that thread this is brought up. This would only back up those opinions. It's more like someone was getting their butts handed to them so they ran off to make a new thread so people would help.

 

[paperview]

Link?

Are you serious? That was thoroughly discussed on the thousand Benghazi threads started by the right....

Oh, that's right, Faux News wouldn't have covered it.....

Funny how the rw always seems to miss all the stories outing their deceitfulness.....

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

White House: GOP fabricated leaked Benghazi email | TheHill

I had forgotten about that.

Seems it's a part of the story publicans would like to hope people forget too.

Report: Republicans were source of bogus Benghazi quotes | The Raw Story

and

It's Official: Those Bogus Email Leaks Came From Republicans

It's not as if we didn't know this already, but today Major Garrett made it official: last week's leaks that misquoted the Benghazi emails came directly from Republicans. Here's the report on the CBS Evening News:

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation. But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

....Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda." The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.
​

So here's what happened. Republicans in Congress saw copies of these emails two months ago and did nothing with them.

It was obvious that they showed little more than routine interagency haggling. Then, riding high after last week's Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of leaking two isolated tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an effort to make the State Department look bad. Apparently they figured it was a twofer: they could stick a shiv into the belly of the White House and they could then badger them to release the entire email chain, knowing they never would.

But it was typical GOP overreach. To their surprise, the White House took Republicans up on their demand to make the entire email chain public, thus making it clear to the press that they had been burned. And now reporters are letting us all know who was behind it.

This has always been the Republican Party's biggest risk with this stuff: that they don't know when to quit. On Benghazi, when it became obvious that they didn't have a smoking gun, they got desperate and tried to invent one. ...


\\\Yee haw///

 

[rdean]

The president has the FBI and the CIA.

The Republicans have ISA.