Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

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?

Face what?

This guy was a fucking liar.

And catch up.

Bush's body count is huge.

And none of you guys ever gave a fuck.
 
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..:mad:

And the far left once again posts using far left talking points and propaganda.
 
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

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has expressed a desire to keep some U.S. trainers in the country in 2012, past the deadline negotiated by the George W. Bush administration to remove all U.S. troops from the country.
U.S. officials said it is still not clear exactly what kinds of training the Americans would provide and how many trainers would be needed to accomplish the mission. The estimate of 3,000 to 5,000 troops reflects a general consensus on what is politically feasible in Iraq and the United States.

fail, try reading your own links. this isnt even about ending the war. seriously you are fucking stupid.
 
Yeah..maybe they should.

Along with this guy.

Did witness lie about Benghazi attacks? - YouTube

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?

Face what?

This guy was a fucking liar.

And catch up.

Bush's body count is huge.

And none of you guys ever gave a fuck.

More far left propaganda based on their programming.

The far left caused more deaths than Bush with their so called "freedom of Speech" from 2003 to 2006. How does it feel to have contributed to those deaths being a loyal far left programed drone?
 
link to missed timetable

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g"]Obama's PROMISE To End The Iraq War - Oct. 27, 2007 - "You Can Take That To The Bank" - YouTube[/ame]

I wonder, are you like RW, in search of the truth? Because I feel like you might argue that Obama's claim of ending the Iraq war as "the FIRST thing he will do" if elected President is not equal to a timetable.... Maybe you believe it was in the top 10 things he did first? Either war I'm pretty sure that makes him a liar, me right and RW supporting a liar "just because."

i cant watch this right now. Watching the Pacific ATM. does he state a date where he will end it?

Right after he closes Guantanamo.
 
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.
The thread is about Benghazi.

Stop trying to deflect.

If you want to whine about the ACA start your own thread.
 
House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.

“I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,” Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.”

He also repeatedly said the story was “not accurate.”

Rogers was joined on the show by California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, “intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.”

The findings in the New York Times story also conflict with testimony from Greg Hicks, the deputy of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Hicks described the video as "a non-event in Libya" at that time, and consequently not a significant trigger for the attack

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

The responses by Rogers and Schiff Sunday follow New York Rep. Peter King, member and former chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, telling Fox News on Saturday the argument in the Times story that the militia group Ansar al-Shariah -- not Al Qaeda -- led the Benghazi attack is an academic argument over semantics.

“It’s misleading,” said King, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. “It’s a distinction without a difference.”

Schiff, a House Intelligence Committee member, said the story doesn’t conclude the attack was a flash mob attack or a “pre-planned, core Al Qaeda operation.”

Rogers declined to say whether he thought the recent Benghazi-related stories on TV and in print were politically motivated -- particularly to try to exonerate then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is eyeing a 2016 presidential bid.

But he took issue with Ambassador Susan Rice talking about the incident when Congress “still has an ongoing investigation.”

Schiff said the newspaper report “was not designed to exonerate State Department lapses.”



”Congress, in bipartisan tone, disputes report Al Qaeda not involved in deadly Benghazi attack | Fox News
that's simply a LIE by Fox news and others.....

the nytimes did NOT say there was NO terrorist groups involved....they said Al Qaeda, as in the Al Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden was NOT involved....

WHY OH WHY does FOX news need to LIE like they do? Please tell me why? And please tell me WHY you all believe them as if GOD is speaking to you without checking for yourself what the nytimes investigation reported?

EVEN Daryll Issa this morning on meet the Press said the the NYTimes did a thorough investigation....?



Fox News = Bad. Did you read the quote from the Democrat Congressmen who basically said the NY Times story was bullshit?

Guess not because it's all about Fox News. :lol:
 
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.
The thread is about Benghazi.

Stop trying to deflect.

If you want to whine about the ACA start your own thread.

Really, I thought it was about the New York Times trying to cover for Clinton.
 
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.

Really?

So either that man is lying or the Obama admin is lying:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

You do remember the CIA scrubbing talking points about the attack 12 different times don't you?
 
Obama's PROMISE To End The Iraq War - Oct. 27, 2007 - "You Can Take That To The Bank" - YouTube

I wonder, are you like RW, in search of the truth? Because I feel like you might argue that Obama's claim of ending the Iraq war as "the FIRST thing he will do" if elected President is not equal to a timetable.... Maybe you believe it was in the top 10 things he did first? Either war I'm pretty sure that makes him a liar, me right and RW supporting a liar "just because."

i cant watch this right now. Watching the Pacific ATM. does he state a date where he will end it?

Right after he closes Guantanamo.

Which wasn't a lie either.
 
Yeah..maybe they should.

Along with this guy.

Did witness lie about Benghazi attacks? - YouTube

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?

Face what?

This guy was a fucking liar.

And catch up.

Bush's body count is huge.

And none of you guys ever gave a fuck.

Hillary isn't fit to be President, it is just that simple.

She is a shrill, conniving vindictive bitch who craves power.

The epitome of the word "shrew".
 
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?

Face what?

This guy was a fucking liar.

And catch up.

Bush's body count is huge.

And none of you guys ever gave a fuck.

Hillary isn't fit to be President, it is just that simple.

She is a shrill, conniving vindictive bitch who craves power.

The epitome of the word "shrew".

Don't vote for her..it's as simple as that.

I will.
 

Forum List

Back
Top