Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama refused to send help...because of the video

At this point you are merely attempting to hijack this thread - so I am calling BULLSHIT right here and telling you point-blank why this proclamation is without merit.

Obama does not "send help" when none is available.

... military officials have explained that no forces from outside Libya could have deployed to Benghazi in time to affect the outcome of the attacks. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that a timely military response to the attacks "would have been very difficult if not impossible" and that an expectation that military forces would be sent into an unknown situation shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." Gates also explained that due to the number of missing anti-aircraft weapons in Libya, he "would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi." The Department of Defense also testified that fighter aircraft would not have been able to respond to the attack in time to save lives. Hicks' suggestion is further undermined by the fact that resources were needed to defend the embassy in Tripoli.

Care to admit your error right now or are you just going to post another stupid pic with yet another snarky retort?

The attack took place over 8 hours.

Val Jarrett refused to send help

End of story

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Unlike his famous, multifaceted, and often repeated, lies, "If you like your _____ you can keep your _____."

 

[Mertex]

The far left will believe anything that the far left prints without question or hesitation.

Er, hmmm, like you don't believe everything Faux News tells you? Without hesitation?

Pot meet kettle.....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

This is obviously rhetorical, given the arrogance of most conservatives, and the contempt most partisan republicans have for the American people, the ‘hearings’ being evidence of that, where the right pursued a McCarthyesque witch-hunt in lieu of addressing jobs and the economy.

Well I'm sure the death of an American Ambassador Stevens doesn't mean much to the Democrats, which is why they'd rather bury the issue, forget about it, and move on.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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!

Did you read the article? Just curious. To be nice, I'll highlight the relevant passage to help you out. Reading comprehension must not be your strength. Either that, or you're an idiot.



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.”


Btw...your avi is a porn star. Nice touch.

 

[Antares]

"At this point what difference does it make?"

HC

 

[Darkwind]

the Times Never said terrorism was not involved, NEVER and you all are just regurgitating a LIE....

be proud of yourselves! Make Christ proud of you at least during this Christmas season, stop your lies, all of you on the right and the left....if you're lying, just STOP IT! If you are ignorant on a topic, then don't lie for the sake of lying....inform yourself, before speaking and passing along another lie you've read...

HOW HARD IS THIS TO DO?

Having another circle jerk makes you look dumb, honestly...it does....

I just don't get you sheeple......?

The only lie here is the NYT's article. Shill some more.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I am so glad I was able to use this thread to expose the lies of the NY Times and the mainstream media. But be vigilant folks...it's three years to the next Presidential election. This is the first of about 7 million stories/lies they will publish to further their agenda. Don't let the bullshit fly this time. Never again.

 

[Darkwind]

So who were they?

Issa did all that 'vestigating.

Who were these Yemeni dudes?

Terrorists, operatives from Al Qaeda. What else would they be?

Yep, you lose. I obliterated your premise. What of this, then?

Consulate Attack Preplanned, Libya's President Says : NPR

Now it's just laughable.

You can't name them, and post an article from 9/16/12???

Seriously?

There were a ton 'O 'vestigating by Issa's publicans. Who? Who? Who?

You can't name them, Kenya? You just repeat the Foxy angle, with nothing to show for it, after alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll this time.

Comedy, at its finest.

9/16/12......5 days after the attack......Naming them? They have been named. Long before the lies told by the NYT's...

If Obama shat in your mouth, would you say it was Issa and not Obama....that is the depths of your blindness.....

Say goodbye. I have no use for people who are contrary just to be contrary and ignore facts and the truth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Yup.

now let's hang Issa from a liberty tree.

 

[TooTall]

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....?

Here is the latest breakdown of Al Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda has the following direct affiliates:
• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
• Al-Shabaab (Mujahideen Youth Movement) in Somalia
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad

Al-Qaeda has the following indirect affiliates:
• East Turkestan Islamic Movement
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
• Taliban
• Caucasus Emirate
• Fatah al-Islam
• Lashkar-e-Taiba
• Jaish-e-Mohammed

Al-Nusra Front
• Jemaah Islamiyah
• Abu Sayyaf
• Rajah Sulaiman movement
• Islamic Jihad Union
• Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa
• Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group
• Al-Qaeda Kurdish Battalions

Do you suppose any of those affiliates were involved.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Yup.

now let's hang Issa from a liberty tree.

Because the NYT says so!

 

[1776]

First liberals claimed there was no terrorist attack, it was an angry mob that just showed up and a "few Americans died."

Then when caught they are now changing their lie to "well it wasn't AQ since the group that did the attack doesn't go by 'AQ'."

They are that pathetic and scummy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservative efforts to contrive a controversy where none exists is both pathetic and telling.

 

[Amelia]

It was terrorist activity. It wasn't about the film. The Obama administration lied. The media ran interference for them. And now the media is running interference for Hillary.

Have I missed anything?

 

[1776]

Soooooo it's no big deal that the DoS and DoD weren't ready to protect Americans doing official duties in a terrorist wild west of Libya on some date....called 11 Sep?

11 Sep...is an irrelevant date in your inferior pig brain.

Conservative efforts to contrive a controversy where none exists is both pathetic and telling.

 

[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!

Did you read the article? Just curious. To be nice, I'll highlight the relevant passage to help you out. Reading comprehension must not be your strength. Either that, or you're an idiot.

Of course I read the article, and of course Peter King is a Republican, just like Mike Rogers and just like you, so you all sing the same song....what's new about that? I guess logic is not your strength, or you're the idiot, or both.

Btw...your avi is a porn star. Nice touch.

And you would know that....of course....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservative efforts to contrive a controversy where none exists is both pathetic and telling.

Your attempts to contrive a controversy of a controversy where one does in fact exist is quite pathetic and telling.

 

[Amelia]

Without going through the mess in this thread ... just looking at the title and wondering what Obama was supposedly correct about.

He wasn't correct about the cause of the attack in Benghazi. He was a shameless liar about that. Was he actually correct about something?

 

[Mertex]

I am so glad I was able to use this thread to expose the lies of the NY Times and the mainstream media. But be vigilant folks...it's three years to the next Presidential election. This is the first of about 7 million stories/lies they will publish to further their agenda. Don't let the bullshit fly this time. Never again.

You just wanted to jump ahead of a Lib picking up the story so you could push your spin, as usual....the only thing you had going against Hillary is disintegrating right before your eyes...how sad for you....