Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[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.

Obama sent his spokepersons out to say it was because of a video, so he did NOTget it right.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Looks like the "report" is actually a six chapter excerpt from a book and not a report at all.

So, no one actually want's to address the facts, only the source?

Guess we will never find out the truth then?

 

[BDBoop]

I have now read the entire article. I would like to discuss it with people who have also done so.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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.

Obama sent his spokepersons out to say it was because of a video, so he did NOT get it right.

The video had NOTHING to do with it? Was the video that relevant at all? Obama is on record as saying this was an act of terror. What am I missing here?

 

[Antares]

. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

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.

rw...dude, these are you first two posts...I've shown you that they are categorically false using non partisan sources.....why would ANY of the rest of the article e believable?

It wouldn't unless you NEEDED it to be believable.

Actually you haven't

But like most conservatives, you think repeated claims will make it so

Actually I have , but you know full well the rest of it is shit because of it so you simply cry "nuh-uh".

 

[Katzndogz]

Looks like the "report" is actually a six chapter excerpt from a book and not a report at all.

So, no one actually want's to address the facts, only the source?

Guess we will never find out the truth then?

A report is supposed to be just facts, good, bad indifferent. A book has a slant, it tells a narrative that the author wants to promote. Peter King says it's a pack of hogwash with very little facts. It's a book. It's written like every other book.

 

[Avorysuds]

^^^^ Be sure and avoid the subject completely by bringing up every other paranoid scandal you can think of.

The issue is when someone as partisan as RW claims "Obama was correct" I like most Americans today simply don't believe much of anything Obama says... due to his track record as being the most secretive and dishonest admin in US history. What really sucks is the claim I just made is accurate, not saying there are other Presidents not close to Obama 's league of bullshit... but that Obama in fact has been the most opposite of what he claimed President that anyone could possible name.

So no, I honestly don't give a **** about the opinion of the NYT.

OK, so why not SHOW US why they are wrong? Why dismiss them out of hand without even making an attempt to discredit the article by proving it to be a lie?

Because I don't care... Just like RW and many others don't care about the small list I gave all being true. Obama is 98% of everything these people claim to hate about politicians, yet they mindlessly support Obama.

Obama kills children with drones, But I should give a **** about him possibly being right about Benghazi?

Obama expands the patriot, NSA spying on us and allies, erodes the economy, has less people working than 1-5 years ago... But I should really suck it up and give a **** that Obama MIGHT be right about something meaningless according to the NYT....


Even if Obama is right I just don't care... why? Because when Obama is wrong (the vast majority of the time) people like the OP fight day and night with no intention of ever admitting Obama could possibly be wrong. Again, if Obama were a Republican people like RW would NEVER start a thread like this, he would hate Obama more than any president before him seeing as near all his policies are nothing more than an extension or expansion of the Bush era policies.

 

[g5000]

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

From the link:

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.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

The NYT investigation affirms that they're politically motivated.

After ten Congressional investigations by Issa that found nothing.......Conservatives attack the New York Times for finding the same

I'm not surprised

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The issue is when someone as partisan as RW claims "Obama was correct" I like most Americans today simply don't believe much of anything Obama says... due to his track record as being the most secretive and dishonest admin in US history. What really sucks is the claim I just made is accurate, not saying there are other Presidents not close to Obama 's league of bullshit... but that Obama in fact has been the most opposite of what he claimed President that anyone could possible name.

So no, I honestly don't give a **** about the opinion of the NYT.

OK, so why not SHOW US why they are wrong? Why dismiss them out of hand without even making an attempt to discredit the article by proving it to be a lie?

Because I don't care... Just like RW and many others don't care about the small list I gave all being true. Obama is 98% of everything these people claim to hate about politicians, yet they mindlessly support Obama.

Obama kills children with drones, But I should give a **** about him possibly being right about Benghazi?

Obama expands the patriot, NSA spying on us and allies, erodes the economy, has less people working than 1-5 years ago... But I should really suck it up and give a **** that Obama MIGHT be right about something meaningless according to the NYT....


Even if Obama is right I just don't care... why? Because when Obama is wrong (the vast majority of the time) people like the OP fight day and night with no intention of ever admitting Obama could possibly be wrong. Again, if Obama were a Republican people like RW would NEVER start a thread like this, he would hate Obama more than any president before him seeing as near all his policies are nothing more than an extension or expansion of the Bush era policies.

Always care about truth - it will do wonders for your credibility as a poster and as a human ~

 

[BDBoop]

What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.

You didn't read the article, did you.

 

[rightwinger]

What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.

You didn't read it either did you?

 

[BDBoop]

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

The NYT investigation affirms that they're politically motivated.

After ten Congressional investigations by Issa that found nothing.......Conservatives attack the New York Times for finding the same

I'm not surprised

Poor Issa. What's he up to these days?

The sun has risen in the East, so there must be a news report somewhere quoting a partial transcript leaked by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) purporting to show the shortcomings of Obamacare.

Bingo! We have not one but two "investigative" news reports, from CBS and ABC, based on the same partial transcript. And both, consequently, have the same level of credibility: none. CBS News even offers a dividend -- a thoroughly dishonest and discreditable interview with Issa himself. We'll get to that in a moment.

The topic of the latest leak is the purported security flaws in healthcare.gov, the federal health enrollment website. The raw meat is a partial transcript of an interview conducted by the staff of Issa's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with Teresa Fryer, chief information security officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is handling the healthcare.gov rollout.

Another day, another leak from Issa, another credulous news report - latimes.com

 

[BDBoop]

What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.

You didn't read it either did you?

Sir? If we're going to say the same thing at the same time, one of us is NOT necessary.

And I'm cuter.

 

[Billy000]

. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

Ahmed Abu Khattala

Ahmed Abu Khattala heads the Benghazi-based Ansar al-Sharia group

Read more: Islamist group leader Ahmed Abu Khattala named as mastermind behind U.S. consulate massacre in Benghazi | Mail Online
Ahmed-Abu-Khattala-named-mastermind-U-S-consulate-massacre-Benghazi.html#ixzz2ooJWG17P
[/COLOR][/B]

Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.

Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.

Ansar al-Sharia is considered one of the most radical groups that emerged after the secular autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled in 2011.

The Ansar leader Saifallah Benahssine, also known as Abu Iyadh, is a former al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan sought by police for allegedly inciting an attack on the US embassy in Tunis in September 2012.

Ansar al-Sharia blamed for Tunisia killings - Africa - Al Jazeera English

See how easy that was nutjob?

He is a Terrorist leader with ties to Al Qaeda.

Dumbfuck.

Um no he has FORMER ties to Al Qaeda.

 

[Antares]

. In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

Ahmed Abu Khattala

Ahmed Abu Khattala heads the Benghazi-based Ansar al-Sharia group

Read more: Islamist group leader Ahmed Abu Khattala named as mastermind behind U.S. consulate massacre in Benghazi | Mail Online
Ahmed-Abu-Khattala-named-mastermind-U-S-consulate-massacre-Benghazi.html#ixzz2ooJWG17P
[/COLOR][/B]

Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.

Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.

Ansar al-Sharia is considered one of the most radical groups that emerged after the secular autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled in 2011.

The Ansar leader Saifallah Benahssine, also known as Abu Iyadh, is a former al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan sought by police for allegedly inciting an attack on the US embassy in Tunis in September 2012.

Ansar al-Sharia blamed for Tunisia killings - Africa - Al Jazeera English

See how easy that was nutjob?

He is a Terrorist leader with ties to Al Qaeda.

Dumbfuck.

Um no he has FORMER ties to Al Qaeda.

LOL um....ok.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.

You didn't read it either did you?

No. I happened to pay attention to what we know happened. The NYT is probably more slanted than Pravda.

 

[BDBoop]

What is "obvious" is that there was no reasonable attempt at meaningful security and no attempt to help when there was an attack. Negligent manslaughter by the politicians and should be treated as such.

You didn't read it either did you?

No. I happened to pay attention to what we know happened. The NYT is probably more slanted than Pravda.

Yeah. I refuse to discuss this with you while you are in a place of willful ignorance. You wanna talk slant? Yeah - you refusing to admit there is any reality but the one you've provided: That's slant.

 

[Avorysuds]

OK, so why not SHOW US why they are wrong? Why dismiss them out of hand without even making an attempt to discredit the article by proving it to be a lie?

Because I don't care... Just like RW and many others don't care about the small list I gave all being true. Obama is 98% of everything these people claim to hate about politicians, yet they mindlessly support Obama.

Obama kills children with drones, But I should give a **** about him possibly being right about Benghazi?

Obama expands the patriot, NSA spying on us and allies, erodes the economy, has less people working than 1-5 years ago... But I should really suck it up and give a **** that Obama MIGHT be right about something meaningless according to the NYT....


Even if Obama is right I just don't care... why? Because when Obama is wrong (the vast majority of the time) people like the OP fight day and night with no intention of ever admitting Obama could possibly be wrong. Again, if Obama were a Republican people like RW would NEVER start a thread like this, he would hate Obama more than any president before him seeing as near all his policies are nothing more than an extension or expansion of the Bush era policies.

Always care about truth - it will do wonders for your credibility as a poster and as a human ~

I do care about truth, and the truth is Obama is a horrible human being even if he is right about Benghazi... It's like making an issue about people not liking Hitler because he could have been right about Benghazi... Obama is a bad man, I don't care if his useless opinion is correct about something as truly meaningless as Benghazi. RW cares, because there is very little to make Obama look "right" outside of the NYT's opinion piece based on Obama's opinion.

It's like a clone of a clone, it's just less important than the real issues out there.