Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[TooTall]

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).

Retaliation? Sometimes it takes a decade to retaliate. How long did it take Bush to retaliate against OBL? Oh yea......he didnt

I heard that Bush invaded Afghanistan to look for and punish OBL. He did cross theT's and dot the I's with Congress before doing so, unlike the present dictator.

 

[Clementine]

The big question is who in the White House leaked bits and pieces of classified information to the NYTimes for them to "create" this lie.

And the info they gave them was as contradictory as their original rhetoric. Obama and Hillary kept changing the story as details emerged. Now this story contradicts everything they initially said.

When you lie, it's hard to keep the story straight and this just proves it.

The NYT is really bad at investigative reporting, probably because they are out of practice since they've been mouthpieces for the last 5 years. They are running with a story that they were probably consigned to do. It's not investigative reporting, it's just more carrying the water for their masters.

 

[TooTall]

Retaliation? Sometimes it takes a decade to retaliate. How long did it take Bush to retaliate against OBL? Oh yea......he didnt

You act as if the attack on the trade towers by Osama Bin Laden began during the Bush administration. Wait, that's right the left didn't like to associate the "incident" with the words attack or terrorism, did they?

Ummm...yes they did begin during the Bush administration. Sept 11 2001..... Bush allowed the worst attack in US history

Bush took office on Jan 20, 2001.

The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Others were from Egypt, Lebanon, and the UAE. The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with four "muscle hijackers" who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew.

The first hijackers to arrive in the United States were Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who settled in the San Diego area in January 2000. They were followed by three hijacker-pilots,Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah early in the summer of 2000 to undertake flight training in south Florida. The fourth hijacker-pilot, Hani Hanjour, arrived in San Diego in December 2000. The rest of the "muscle hijackers" arrived in the spring and early summer of 2001.

As for the pilots who would go on to participate in the attacks, three of them were original members of the Hamburg cell (Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah). Following their training at Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, they were chosen by Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's military wing due to their extensive knowledge of western culture and language skills, increasing the mission's operational security and its chances for success.

 

[paperview]

Kirkpatrick is a liar. He knows that Al-Qaeda participated in that attack, namely the Yemeni branch of Ansar al Sharia. On October 4, 2012, the state sponsor of terrorism list was amended by the US State Department to include the name "Ansar al Sharia" as an alias for "Al Qaeda."

BS all the way paperview.

al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula Terrorist Designations of Ansar al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula



Media NoteOffice of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 4, 2012

Share on facebookShare on twitter


The Department of State amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and E.O. 13224 designations of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula to include the new alias, Ansar al-Shari’a (AAS). The Department of State previously designated AQAP as an FTO and under E.O. 13224 on January 19, 2010.
AAS – which is based in Yemen and is a separate entity from Ansar al-Shari’a in Libya – was established to attract potential followers to shari’a rule in areas under the control of AQAP. However, AAS is simply AQAP’s effort to rebrand itself, with the aim of manipulating people to join AQAP’s terrorist cause.



AAS has publicly stated that the particular brand of shari’a they hope to implement is the same as that espoused by the Afghan Taliban and the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant umbrella group and designated Foreign Terrorist Organization that includes al-Qa’ida in Iraq.
Terrorist Designations of Ansar al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula

And? That still doesn't change the fact that Al-Qaeda did participate in the attack, paperview. Move along.

They were not "an al Quida group."

They were pro-al queda. That does not make them one and the same. Again, as what rightwinger said:
"It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda

If you think AlQaeda means Muslim Bad Guys.....you are right
If you think an international terror group was involved in the attacks.....you are wrong"

And it was reported on early on that group AAS in Libya were there. We knew they were there from the start. That a video contributed to it some is not insane considering the whole freaking Muslim world was going nuts about the video, embassies all that week were besieged. Remember? The he embassy in Cairo sparked that madness before the Ghazi mess.

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack

By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN
September 13, 2012 --<-----

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack - CNN.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You do realize this contradicts sworn testimony right? You do realize that this article called all the men who were there on the night of that attack a bunch of liars, don't you? If this is true, then they should all be thrown in jail for perjury, correct?

But no, this is the problem with investigative journalism influenced by political bias, it doesn't serve as a substitute to professional intelligence gathering. Investigative journalism by the New York times wouldn't equal the CIA at it's worst. Besides, Al Qaeda did play a role in the attack. Mr. Kirkpatrick is lying through his teeth.

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

 

[Plasmaball]

Why are low information voters so easily swayed?

feel free to explain why you are

 

[Vox]

They were pro-al queda.

which means they are support al Qaeda and are active militant terrorist group.

an offspring of al Qaeda.

which is the same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula Terrorist Designations of Ansar al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula



Media NoteOffice of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 4, 2012

Share on facebookShare on twitter


The Department of State amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and E.O. 13224 designations of al-Qa&#8217;ida in the Arabian Peninsula to include the new alias, Ansar al-Shari&#8217;a (AAS). The Department of State previously designated AQAP as an FTO and under E.O. 13224 on January 19, 2010.
AAS &#8211; which is based in Yemen and is a separate entity from Ansar al-Shari&#8217;a in Libya &#8211; was established to attract potential followers to shari&#8217;a rule in areas under the control of AQAP. However, AAS is simply AQAP&#8217;s effort to rebrand itself, with the aim of manipulating people to join AQAP&#8217;s terrorist cause.



AAS has publicly stated that the particular brand of shari&#8217;a they hope to implement is the same as that espoused by the Afghan Taliban and the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant umbrella group and designated Foreign Terrorist Organization that includes al-Qa&#8217;ida in Iraq.
Terrorist Designations of Ansar al-Sharia as an Alias for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula

And? That still doesn't change the fact that Al-Qaeda did participate in the attack, paperview. Move along.

They were not "an al Quida group."

They were pro-al queda. That does not make them one and the same. Again, as what rightwinger said:
"It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda

If you think AlQaeda means Muslim Bad Guys.....you are right
If you think an international terror group was involved in the attacks.....you are wrong"

And it was reported on early on that group AAS in Libya were there. We knew they were there from the start. That a video contributed to it some is not insane considering the whole freaking Muslim world was going nuts about the video, embassies all that week were besieged. Remember? The he embassy in Cairo sparked that madness before the Ghazi mess.

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack

By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN
September 13, 2012 --<-----

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack - CNN.com

Sorry, once again you're wrong.

8 months later:

Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

By Paul Cruickshank. Tim Lister. Nic Robertson and Fran Townsend, CNN
updated 9:23 AM EDT, Sat May 4, 2013<---------

 

[Pop23]

Why are low information voters so easily swayed?

feel free to explain why you are

Funny, now run along and play

 

[TemplarKormac]

Have a seat, paperview.

 

[B. Kidd]

Looks like Hildebeast is gonna run.......as the NYT is providing early cover for her.

 

[Sallow]

When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?

when will obama resign over his lies and lies and lies for 5 years ?

What lies?

 

[Sallow]

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.

You do realize this contradicts sworn testimony right? You do realize that this article called all the men who were there on the night of that attack a bunch of liars, don't you? If this is true, then they should all be thrown in jail for perjury, correct?

But no, this is the problem with investigative journalism influenced by political bias, it doesn't serve as a substitute to professional intelligence gathering. Investigative journalism by the New York times wouldn't equal the CIA at it's worst. Besides, Al Qaeda did play a role in the attack. Mr. Kirkpatrick is lying through his teeth.

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

Yeah..maybe they should.

Along with this guy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wof1mY6NYW8]Did witness lie about Benghazi attacks? - YouTube[/ame]

And the CIA are paid to lie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When will Issa apologize to the American people for tying up Congress for ten hearings?

when will obama resign over his lies and lies and lies for 5 years ?

What lies?

"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period."

-Barack Obama, stated in 36 different instances over the past 5 years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I care only about truth, justice and the American way

lol, ok ok... Le's do a test.

RW, who ended the Iraq war? Bush by stetting the timetable that the war actually ended on or Obama who set many timetables and missed them every single time until the war ended on Bush's timetable.

Go ahead, answer the question RW.

link to missed timetable

How about this one?

Obama wants to keep 3,000-5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq into 2012 - The Washington Post

 

[Antares]

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.

You do realize this contradicts sworn testimony right? You do realize that this article called all the men who were there on the night of that attack a bunch of liars, don't you? If this is true, then they should all be thrown in jail for perjury, correct?

But no, this is the problem with investigative journalism influenced by political bias, it doesn't serve as a substitute to professional intelligence gathering. Investigative journalism by the New York times wouldn't equal the CIA at it's worst. Besides, Al Qaeda did play a role in the attack. Mr. Kirkpatrick is lying through his teeth.

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

Yeah..maybe they should.

Along with this guy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wof1mY6NYW8]Did witness lie about Benghazi attacks? - YouTube[/ame]

And the CIA are paid to lie.

Face it, we now know what Hilary would do if the phone rings at 3 a.m., she'd say "let them die what difference does it make?

 

[Plasmaball]

Why are low information voters so easily swayed?

feel free to explain why you are

Funny, now run along and play

i am...

 

[Sallow]

You act as if the attack on the trade towers by Osama Bin Laden began during the Bush administration. Wait, that's right the left didn't like to associate the "incident" with the words attack or terrorism, did they?

Ummm...yes they did begin during the Bush administration. Sept 11 2001..... Bush allowed the worst attack in US history

Bush took office on Jan 20, 2001.

The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Others were from Egypt, Lebanon, and the UAE. The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with four "muscle hijackers" who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew.

The first hijackers to arrive in the United States were Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who settled in the San Diego area in January 2000. They were followed by three hijacker-pilots,Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah early in the summer of 2000 to undertake flight training in south Florida. The fourth hijacker-pilot, Hani Hanjour, arrived in San Diego in December 2000. The rest of the "muscle hijackers" arrived in the spring and early summer of 2001.

As for the pilots who would go on to participate in the attacks, three of them were original members of the Hamburg cell (Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah). Following their training at Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, they were chosen by Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's military wing due to their extensive knowledge of western culture and language skills, increasing the mission's operational security and its chances for success.

And it was only 8 short months later that the attack occurred.

Somehow these guys, only armed with box cutters were able to steal 4 US commercial airliners, fly them around for over an hour in US air space and ram them into some pretty expensive real estate killing close to 3,000 Americans.

That's with the most expensive and advanced military in the world.

Musta been Clinton's fault, right?

Along with the first world trade center bombing that took place weeks after he assumed office.

Why anyone lets conservatives be in charge of anything important is beyond me..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bush never did a thing he said he would...a catastrophe...

Good thing, if he had done that education thing he was talking about we would have national testing standards that treat every kid like a cog in a machine. What was it that he called that, wasn't it something stupid like No Child Left Behind?

 

[paperview]

And? That still doesn't change the fact that Al-Qaeda did participate in the attack, paperview. Move along.

They were not "an al Quida group."

They were pro-al queda. That does not make them one and the same. Again, as what rightwinger said:
"It all depends on your definition of AlQaeda

If you think AlQaeda means Muslim Bad Guys.....you are right
If you think an international terror group was involved in the attacks.....you are wrong"

And it was reported on early on that group AAS in Libya were there. We knew they were there from the start. That a video contributed to it some is not insane considering the whole freaking Muslim world was going nuts about the video, embassies all that week were besieged. Remember? The he embassy in Cairo sparked that madness before the Ghazi mess.

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack

By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN
September 13, 2012 --<-----

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack - CNN.com

Sorry, once again you're wrong.

8 months later:

Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack

Sources: 3 al Qaeda operatives took part in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

By Paul Cruickshank. Tim Lister. Nic Robertson and Fran Townsend, CNN
updated 9:23 AM EDT, Sat May 4, 2013<---------

So who were they?

Issa did all that 'vestigating.

Who were these Yemeni dudes?