Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Antares]

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

1999?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Still not a lie, buddy.

Pants On Fire: PolitiFact Tries To Hide That It Rated 'True' in 2008 Obamacare's 'Keep Your Health Plan' Promise - Forbes

Yeah, and?

liedly·ing
Definition of LIE

intransitive verb
1

: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2

: to create a false or misleading impression

That's not what happened.

There was no intention to deceive anyone.

You... are having a meltdown, Sallow. You have nothing but your own assertions. They were tacit, complicit, the works. Obama is a liar, deal with it.

 

[Antares]

Just thank me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The New York Times has spoken...

The rest of us need to know only that.



Yeah .... Right.

If the 4 killed in Benghazi had been black, and the killers white, why my God, we'd hear a different story from Obummer and his cronies.

That is a bit far fetched. Sorry.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just thank me.

I already did.

 

[depotoo]

Still not a lie, buddy.

Pants On Fire: PolitiFact Tries To Hide That It Rated 'True' in 2008 Obamacare's 'Keep Your Health Plan' Promise - Forbes

Yeah, and?

liedly·ing
Definition of LIE

intransitive verb
1

: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2

: to create a false or misleading impression

That's not what happened.

There was no intention to deceive anyone.

it was either a lie or incompetence. Take your pick

 

[tinydancer]

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.

No. They are no Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda likes to brag of their actions to gain support from extremists. Have you noticed?

Why didn't they list the attacks in Benghazi? Why? It was by all measures a successful attack against Americans.

Why? Because they weren't involved.

​

Okey dokey here. Your assassination Prez death by drone AQ #2

Is anyone else getting that if you whacked off #2 the libyan dude shits going to hit the fan.

 

[TooTall]

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..

The first two terrorist pilots arrive in the US in Jan, 2000 Sept, 2001 is 21 months later. They came here on Clinton's watch and he was in office until Jan 2001.

The military does not screen passengers getting on civilian airliners.

The first WTC attack was in late Feb 1993 shortly after Clinton took office. Feel free to blame it on him if that is what makes your cookie crumble.

The failure of the CIA and FBI to prevent either of these attacks has nothing to do with conservative or liberal ideology.

 

[tinydancer]

Why do you guys lie so much.? Late June or early July your government was doing an old figure that I can only give up to Tripple H

 

[Mertex]

I guess the blatant attempt to rehabilitate Hillary is an epic failure. Benghazi will hang around her neck for the rest of her political life. No amount of lies or spin by the NY Times are other corrupt rags will change that. Might as well deal with it Libs.

I see the scurrying around to try and make this new finding to be false......what a blow to the conservative conspiracy theorists who were so adamant that "it wasn't about the video"...all I can say is, another epic fail for conservatives......

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Why would anyone in their right mind believe the NY Times anyway?

 

[Mertex]

There's no doubt they were terrorists. That's not the issue, it's the Al Qaeda link you guys can't make.

Oh, they'll try and make one up.....that was their only defense going against Hillary and now it's falling apart....

Their only hope "Christie" also has a mess to try and clean up....they just can't win...

 

[Mertex]

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

Why would anyone in their right mind believe the NY Times anyway?

Because it is certainly more credible than Faux News?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Funny...libtards are all over the two lying threads on Benghazi, but when they have actual quotes from Republicans and Dems debunking the NY Times garbage they're no where to be found. Wonder why?

Because libtards hate the truth because the truth shows them for what they are, LIARS!!!!

 

[Contumacious]

And it turns out Al Qaeda wasn't involved.

Yo Joe please explain , if you can, some contradictions:



The NY Times article claims that "a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala,"



But the NY Times had previously reported that Mr Khattala had stated:

"Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaeda’s puritanical zeal for Islamic law"


Joe, are the requirements to join AQ strict ones?



.

Furthermore, the NY Times had previously reported in the same article that :



Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.


So what happened to the previous witnesses, how come they are no longer believable?

.

 

[Mertex]

Doesn't change the fact the NY Times story is complete and utter bullshit.

Well, come up with the links to Al Qaeda and you may be credible....but so far.....all that vitriol about Benghazi not being about the video seems to be coming up to be just "hot air" - what it was the whole time!

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

No, he wasn't. Anyone who would believe the NY Times has lost a few million brain cells. Obamaturd and his army of idiots on the left would love for Benghazi to go away because obamaturd knows he got caught in one more lie, as he usually does.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.

Oh right.....Now if it had been Breitbart or Fox it would have cred. Did you click on the article? I have the actual paper here. But for you idiots who need flash cards because you can't make it past a headline, go to the link and at least check out the graphics.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.

Oh right.....Now if it had been Breitbart or Fox it would have cred. Did you click on the article? I have the actual paper here. But for you idiots who need flash cards because you can't make it past a headline, go to the link and at least check out the graphics.

Deflection again

 

[Contumacious]

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.

please explain , if you can, some contradictions:



The NY Times article claims that "a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala,"



But the NY Times had previously reported that Mr Khattala had stated:

"Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaeda’s puritanical zeal for Islamic law"


Are the requirements to join AQ strict ones?



.

Furthermore, the NY Times had previously reported in the same article that :



Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

So what happened to the previous witnesses, how come they are no longer believable?

.