Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Theowl32]

Which of these are liberals supporting here?



The attack just so happened to happen on 911. Probably not planned. Yes, folks. The moron liberals are still claiming this. It was a coincidence.

Just so happened to be on 911. They have spent 50 pages going back to the claim that it was spontaneous.

Yes, they are folks.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So, what exactly was he right about?

That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.

The left would like to see Hillary Clinton run for President in 2016, since she was Secretary of State during the time of the attack on Benghazi, they need to find a way to re-examine the Benghazi attack that supports her (as there is little doubt a left leaning newspaper like the New York Times, would in fact fully endorse her candidacy). You have to look to the much bigger picture, to see the political motive involved and to be gained here.

 

[Dot Com]

My question is: Should firebug offer to pay the taxpayer $$$, wasted on this particular partisan witch hunt, back to the American people through Boehner & Cantor's Leadership (slush fund) PACS?

 

[Theowl32]

My question is: Should firebug offer to pay the taxpayer $$$, wasted on this particular partisan witch hunt, back to the American people through Boehner & Cantor's Leadership (slush fund) PACS?

So, again. Which lie do you believe?

The one where Obama claimed it was a spontaneous attack even though it happened on 911 (yeah probably a coincidence) or the one where he claimed it was an organized terror attack?

You can ignore my question.

You avoiding the question is all I need to know. You liberals cannot commit to one side. You need to hold on to both sides, in order to claim you were right about something.

Which makes you and everyone that thinks like you totally invalid.

You can *****, moan, brag that your incompetent liar in chief won the election. Does not matter. The fact that you parrot bullshit is all I need to know about your ability to think for yourself.


*******Duuuuuuuh, I am a liberal, which means I believe all things NY Times tells me. Duuuuuhhhh*************

 

[rightwinger]

So, what exactly was he right about?

That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.

What he was right about

There was no international AlQaida planning or support
It was a loacalized and mostly spontaneous event that was exploited by local militant groups
The video did have an impact on the protest just like it did at several US Embassies

Yeah, but Obama denied that it was all spontaneous.

So you support the initial lie, and reject the lie he was telling after more and more intelligence came out that the attack in Benghazi was organized?

Well, you would need to be supporting one of the lies. Which one?

******* liberals.

They are now claiming that it was all spontaneous cause of a video.

It is what is known as the fog of war

When things initially happen it is difficult to quickly determine the cause and exactly what occured
Because similar protests were occurring throughout the Muslim world because of the video, initial analysis was that this was the same as the others.
It turns out that Obama was right. Protesters were out there because of the video. Local militants took advantage of the situation and attacked the embassy.

Obama was also correct in that it was not a well planned international AlQaida attack on the anniversary of 9-11. It was carried out by local militants

 

[paperview]

I am wondering, which of these are liberals supporting in this thread of left wing bullshit?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTteL2ui4kc


Let me clarify, so that you can all understand the creepy, double talking, hypocritical, mind of the left.

They are taking BOTH SIDES of the issue. Both sides yet again.

This is what they do, on every issue.

Can't accept things can happen concurrently when angry ****ed up groups assemble, it appears.

Does denying there was ANY video fan-flaming make you feel more huggy to daddy Fox, who insisted it had nothing to do with it?

It was two-fold, as we know now, the CIA op made it necessary to blow some smoke and make the video a part of it, or I should say, stronger than it was and, and perhaps because the conflicting intel was telling them it played a part?

There were people scaling the walls of our Embassy in Cairo, burning our flag -- just a few hours earlier because of that video - and demonstrations erupted at our Embassies and elsewhere ALL OVER THE WORLD, in some 54 incidents in twenty Countries for gawds sake. This was going on for days and days after. That stupid video did ignite a good part of the Muslim world. We know it did.

And this, my post from October of 2012 :::: There were people there in Benghazi who claimed the video was why they were angry. That was from initial eye-witness accounts. Now we read the Al-Sharia group was gathering restless Muslims from nearby neighborhoods to chant against the film.

"The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department’s timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film."

Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack - Washington Times

To repeat: There were people there in Benghazi who claimed the video was why they were angry - join that up with the Ansar al-Sharia (who first claimed, then denied responsibility) crowd - who no doubt were mightily pissed and ready to do us harm to begin with, and add the gasoline of that video to their whacked out religious sensibilities, and you get KA-BOOM!

It's not like the "reasons" can't happen concurrently, and the Intel was, as officials tell us, still fluid.

But no, you go with...the video had nothing to do with it.

Maybe it will help you guys win the next election.

I did not read all of your bullshit double talk.

Are you agreeing with the Obama that said it was ALL BECAUSE OF A VIDEO, or are you agreeing with the Obama that said it was AN ACT OF TERROR?

Are you denying that there were repeated requests for more security in Benghazi?

Are you acknowledging there were requests?

Which is the lie from the administration you believe, and which is the one you support?

Crowley, the big fat Clinton News Network blob said Obama said the attacks on the Benghazi embassy was an act of terror. Oh, when I say act of terror, it means it was NOT SPONTANEOUS. Where, Obama asked her to repeat what she said in order to emphasize that Obama claimed it was an ACT OF TERROR and not some spontaneous reaction to a video that they claimed for weeks after the attack.


So, what the **** are you liberals saying here? Are you claiming it was all a spontaneous attack as a result of a video, like Obama claimed for weeks, or are you saying Obama lied when he claimed it was an organized act of terror?


I cannot ******* tell. Pick one. Double talking pieces of shit.

You're not interested in even learning the raw details, you insult me from beginning to end, and you expect a civil and informed reply?

Right.

Which is it you ask? Your purpose is not to find out - it's to throw a fit, hold your hands over your ears and eyes, spit out invective laced in repetitious GOP bumper stickers and talking points all the while saying ....

na na na ...I can't heeeaaarrr you.

 

[rdean]

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

IOW, FOX/RNC made them up out of thin air and has to feed gullible SUCKERS a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory morons would easily believe.

Why does everything have to be about Fox? Why can't you debate the OP?

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the intelligence committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" said the New York Times report added value, but that the newspaper did not have the level of information the intelligence committee had.

"I don't think the New York Times report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the State Department that left our people vulnerable," Schiff said. "I do think it adds some valuable insights. I agree with Mike [Rogers] that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there are also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved."

"I think the intelligence paints a portrait that some people came to murder, some came to destroy property, some merely came to loot, and some came in part motivated by those videos," Schiff continued. "So it is a complex picture."

Mike Rogers: New York Times Benghazi Report 'Just Not Accurate' (UPDATE)

Satisfied?

Hilarious!

 

[NYcarbineer]

And to think there were rightwing inmates here on USMB able to say with a straight face that Obama should be impeached over Benghazi.

 

[whitehall]

Real journalists are laughing at the cheap attempt by the NY Times to cover Hillary's ass. A few decades ago they might have gotten away with the propaganda but Americans are better informed than the stodgy old Times realizes. Didn't anyone tell the Times that the you-tube video was dismissed by everyone as the cause of the riot including Hillary?

 

[paperview]

Real journalists are laughing at the cheap attempt by the NY Times to cover Hillary's ass. A few decades ago they might have gotten away with the propaganda but Americans are better informed than the stodgy old Times realizes. Didn't anyone tell the Times that the you-tube video was dismissed by everyone as the cause of the riot including Hillary?

That's not true.

It played a part in it.

Have you been paying any attention at all?

 

[Theowl32]

Can't accept things can happen concurrently when angry ****ed up groups assemble, it appears.

Does denying there was ANY video fan-flaming make you feel more huggy to daddy Fox, who insisted it had nothing to do with it?

It was two-fold, as we know now, the CIA op made it necessary to blow some smoke and make the video a part of it, or I should say, stronger than it was and, and perhaps because the conflicting intel was telling them it played a part?

There were people scaling the walls of our Embassy in Cairo, burning our flag -- just a few hours earlier because of that video - and demonstrations erupted at our Embassies and elsewhere ALL OVER THE WORLD, in some 54 incidents in twenty Countries for gawds sake. This was going on for days and days after. That stupid video did ignite a good part of the Muslim world. We know it did.

And this, my post from October of 2012 :::: There were people there in Benghazi who claimed the video was why they were angry. That was from initial eye-witness accounts. Now we read the Al-Sharia group was gathering restless Muslims from nearby neighborhoods to chant against the film.

"The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department’s timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film."

Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack - Washington Times

To repeat: There were people there in Benghazi who claimed the video was why they were angry - join that up with the Ansar al-Sharia (who first claimed, then denied responsibility) crowd - who no doubt were mightily pissed and ready to do us harm to begin with, and add the gasoline of that video to their whacked out religious sensibilities, and you get KA-BOOM!

It's not like the "reasons" can't happen concurrently, and the Intel was, as officials tell us, still fluid.

But no, you go with...the video had nothing to do with it.

Maybe it will help you guys win the next election.

I did not read all of your bullshit double talk.

Are you agreeing with the Obama that said it was ALL BECAUSE OF A VIDEO, or are you agreeing with the Obama that said it was AN ACT OF TERROR?

Are you denying that there were repeated requests for more security in Benghazi?

Are you acknowledging there were requests?

Which is the lie from the administration you believe, and which is the one you support?

Crowley, the big fat Clinton News Network blob said Obama said the attacks on the Benghazi embassy was an act of terror. Oh, when I say act of terror, it means it was NOT SPONTANEOUS. Where, Obama asked her to repeat what she said in order to emphasize that Obama claimed it was an ACT OF TERROR and not some spontaneous reaction to a video that they claimed for weeks after the attack.


So, what the **** are you liberals saying here? Are you claiming it was all a spontaneous attack as a result of a video, like Obama claimed for weeks, or are you saying Obama lied when he claimed it was an organized act of terror?


I cannot ******* tell. Pick one. Double talking pieces of shit.

You're not interested in even learning the raw details, you insult me from beginning to end, and you expect a civil and informed reply?

Right.

Which is it you ask? Your purpose is not to find out - it's to throw a fit, hold your hands over your ears and eyes, spit out invective laced in repetitious GOP bumper stickers and talking points all the while saying ....

na na na ...I can't heeeaaarrr you.

Yeah, you still have not decided to let us know which lies of his you believe.

He said it was all spontaneous due to a video (which of course you still believe and still actually think it was a coincidence that it was on 911) and then he said it was an ORGANIZED ACT of terror.

Insulting you? I have not even begun.

You are nothing but a miserable left wing hack, who believes any and all things from a left wing rag, hell bent to promote Hillary.

You go ahead and cry how this was a spontaneous. I also hope you continue parroting that bullshit.

You really do not think there is more than enough evidence that many requests were ignored by this administration?

You don't think they chose to sell the spontaneous bullshit for political expediency?

Why were the witnesses not allowed to testify before congress?

Six months later, where are the Benghazi survivors? - CBS News

^^^^^^^^^
Even CBS News reported that:

Today marks six months since the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Some watchdog groups, members of the media and Republican members of Congress are asking: Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven't been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.

In a recent press report, Secretary of State John Kerry said he visited one survivor at "Bethesda hospital," and referred to him a "remarkably courageous person who is doing very, very well." Kerry added, "I've called his wife and talked to her." But the identities, condition and testimony of the survivors and witnesses have been closely held from the public.





Keep on repairing that image of Hillary, who is now launching her campaign for the 2016 presidency. This will be the first and most important hurdle. Her news sources will now go back to the notion that it was spontaneous, after they use their stupid left wing constituency to share these bullshit reports.


It is unreal how easily they seduce these morons on the left. Then again, I am not shocked.

They are still saying an attack on 911 was not organized, even after Obama said it was, after he said for weeks it was spontaneous.

 

[Edgetho]

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

“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.

Sean Smith, a foreign service officer, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed in the 2012 assault.

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."

Yeah, protesters learn "Fire and Maneuver". Right.

Just another lie by the most disgusting, the most evil, the most anti-American FILTH the world has ever know...... dimocrap scum hiding behind the protective curtain of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM.

And anybody that believes it, is just as disgusting and just as guilty.

People, I told you only hours after it happened, before anybody else had a clue, that it was a coordinated attack by trained Military Professionals.

Protesters don't just use "Fire and Maneuver" tactics. Protesters just don't fire 5 Mortar Rounds and make three direct hits from 3 to 4 miles away.

To you people who still care about truth, honor, the United States and what we stand for, this is just another lie by the left.

To the left..... ******* die, scumbags.

Soon.

If I were a reporter with an agenda, I could find people who would swear that Pol Pot was innocent, too.

Who did this scumbag interview? The ************ interviewed terrorists, that's who.

You gotta be special kind of scumbag to believe the shit from the Slimes.

They're digging their own graves

 

[paperview]

From the NYT account

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. Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.
​

The whole ******* world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.

This isn't difficult people.

It's like some can't imagine concurrent things can happen, that both things can happen -- that it was a planned attack, and that some militants and militia groups were brought in by the intensity of learning an American film was made that spit a crusty loogy in the eye of their Prophet.

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative. Has to be one or the other.

 

[Theowl32]

From the NYT new account

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative. Has to be one or the other.​

The Fox Narrative?



You ******* hack.

Love it. Happened on 911, and was not organized.​

 

[rightwinger]

From the NYT account

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. Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.
​

The whole ******* world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.

This isn't difficult people.

It's like some can't imagine concurrent things can happen, that both things can happen -- that it was a planned attack, and that some militants and militia groups were brought in by the intensity of learning an American film was made that spit a crusty loogy in the eye of their Prophet.

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative. Has to be one or the other.

Republicans claim it was a preplanned attack by the international AlQaida for the anniversary of 9-11
They also claim the video had nothing to do with it and blocked Susan Rices appointment to the UN because she had the nerve to say such a thing

 

[paperview]

Connies are now embracing their own "Please proceed Governor" moments.

 

[Ame®icano]

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 wasn't terrorist attack. That leaves it to "violence at work place", I guess.

 

[TooTall]

From the NYT account

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. Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.
​

The whole ******* world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.

This isn't difficult people.

It's like some can't imagine concurrent things can happen, that both things can happen -- that it was a planned attack, and that some militants and militia groups were brought in by the intensity of learning an American film was made that spit a crusty loogy in the eye of their Prophet.

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative. Has to be one or the other.

Everybody brings AK-47's, mortors and gallons of fuel oil to SPONTANEOUS demonstrations. Woudn't you?

The key word the Obama administration used, 'spontaneous' was meant to downplay the fact that it was Islamist terrorists that planned and carried out this attack on US citizens.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

From the NYT account

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. Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.
​

The whole ******* world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.

This isn't difficult people.

It's like some can't imagine concurrent things can happen, that both things can happen -- that it was a planned attack, and that some militants and militia groups were brought in by the intensity of learning an American film was made that spit a crusty loogy in the eye of their Prophet.

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative. Has to be one or the other.

Republicans claim it was a preplanned attack by the international AlQaida for the anniversary of 9-11
They also claim the video had nothing to do with it and blocked Susan Rices appointment to the UN because she had the nerve to say such a thing

And the evidence shows the Republicans to be correct.

In an exclusive interview with NPR in Benghazi, President Mohammed el-Megarif says foreigners infiltrated Libya over the past few months, planned the attack and used Libyans to carry it out.

 

[TooTall]

From the NYT account

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. Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests.
​

The whole ******* world was watching on the day of September 11th -- and that video was part of what caused some to get involved in the attack.

This isn't difficult people.

It's like some can't imagine concurrent things can happen, that both things can happen -- that it was a planned attack, and that some militants and militia groups were brought in by the intensity of learning an American film was made that spit a crusty loogy in the eye of their Prophet.

Naw, not to cons who are fixed on the Fox narrative. Has to be one or the other.

Republicans claim it was a preplanned attack by the international AlQaida for the anniversary of 9-11
They also claim the video had nothing to do with it and blocked Susan Rices appointment to the UN because she had the nerve to say such a thing

Put her remarks in context. It was anything but a 'spontaneous' demonstration that got out of control. She, and every body with more than half a brain knew that.