Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Procrustes Stretched]

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.

No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.

 

[Amelia]

Scandal? That happened when the President (yet again) lied to the American people about the incident at Benghazi. The fact that the NYT's and the left are trying to parse the difference between al-queada and an affiliated terror cell as meaning that there was no lie and no terrorist affiliation, is simply amusing.

The President didn't lie....he stated that it was a terrorist act, even though the right tried so hard to say he didn't. And, he didn't rush to make a claim, because he's not like the "right" who makes a claim and then has to swallow it.....because it turns out to be wrong.

It shows the depths that the progressives will go to in order to defend their POS President.

I think this thread just shows the depths the conservatives will go to try and hold on to their imaginary theories.......will have to come up with a new one, now that this one has been dissected....

Obama called it an 'act of terror,' which is different than calling it a 'terrorist act.' I realize that being a liberal makes distinctions difficult, but please try to keep up. This was even brought up during the debates... oh wait, you probably didn't watch those either. Just support the God-King thru every endeavor!

Obama didn't even call it an act of terror. He made a vague reference to acts of terror in connection with 9/11/2001, after earlier talking about the video in connection with Benghazi.

He was fudging like the dishonest pro that he is. He is an expert at saying a little bit of everything and then pretending afterward that what he said covered the facts of the situation.

That's an interesting skill to have -- but it's not a virtuous one. Obama is dishonest to his core but he has made it work for him in a phenomenal way.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rightwingers forget or refuse to acknowledge facts like these:

Mr. Stevens, who spent the day in the compound for security reasons because of the Sept. 11 anniversary, learned about the breach in a phone call from the American Embassy in Tripoli. Then a diplomatic security officer at the Benghazi mission called to tell the C.I.A. team. But as late as 6:40 p.m., Mr. Stevens appeared cheerful when he welcomed the Turkish consul, Ali Akin, for a visit.

There was even less security at the compound than usual, Mr. Akin said. No armed American guards met him at the gate, only a few unarmed Libyans. “No security men, no diplomats, nobody,” he said. “There was no deterrence.”

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

 

[blackhawk]

Just my opinion but it seems this is the first of what will be many we love Hillary moments from the MSM leading up to 2016.

 

[paperview]

So when is Issa gonna make this mess into the Gahzi crash y'alls hopes gonna happen?

 

[paperview]

The President didn't lie....he stated that it was a terrorist act, even though the right tried so hard to say he didn't. And, he didn't rush to make a claim, because he's not like the "right" who makes a claim and then has to swallow it.....because it turns out to be wrong.

I think this thread just shows the depths the conservatives will go to try and hold on to their imaginary theories.......will have to come up with a new one, now that this one has been dissected....

Obama called it an 'act of terror,' which is different than calling it a 'terrorist act.' I realize that being a liberal makes distinctions difficult, but please try to keep up. This was even brought up during the debates... oh wait, you probably didn't watch those either. Just support the God-King thru every endeavor!

Obama didn't even call it an act of terror. He made a vague reference to acts of terror in connection with 9/11/2001, after earlier talking about the video in connection with Benghazi.

He was fudging like the dishonest pro that he is. He is an expert at saying a little bit of everything and then pretending afterward that what he said covered the facts of the situation.

That's an interesting skill to have -- but it's not a virtuous one. Obama is dishonest to his core but he has made it work for him in a phenomenal way.

Please proceed Governor....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The President didn't lie....he stated that it was a terrorist act, even though the right tried so hard to say he didn't. And, he didn't rush to make a claim, because he's not like the "right" who makes a claim and then has to swallow it.....because it turns out to be wrong.

I think this thread just shows the depths the conservatives will go to try and hold on to their imaginary theories.......will have to come up with a new one, now that this one has been dissected....

Obama called it an 'act of terror,' which is different than calling it a 'terrorist act.' I realize that being a liberal makes distinctions difficult, but please try to keep up. This was even brought up during the debates... oh wait, you probably didn't watch those either. Just support the God-King thru every endeavor!

Obama didn't even call it an act of terror. He made a vague reference to acts of terror in connection with 9/11/2001, after earlier talking about the video in connection with Benghazi.

He was fudging like the dishonest pro that he is. He is an expert at saying a little bit of everything and then pretending afterward that what he said covered the facts of the situation.

That's an interesting skill to have -- but it's not a virtuous one. Obama is dishonest to his core but he has made it work for him in a phenomenal way.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

"But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity." Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House


acts of terror


jesus you people are pathetic with your hate and blindness

move away from wingnutworld talking points and the CONTEXT is about an act of terror

 

[Howey]

Did they turn up evidence it was in reaction to a half assed video about Mo?? That was the lie, Gertrude...all the rest is BS.

Yes.

 

[Antares]

Allow me to caution Dante, "initial" means beginning, throughout the article it speaks of the "attack" in a singular form...jus sayin kid....you are really looking stupid here.

the 'attack' refers to a series of attacks over something like an 8 hour long incident.

'initial' get it yet?

I see so the article use the singular case to describe "multiple" attacks.

I can no longer help you, you are officially stupid.

But then we all knew that.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Thanks for the quote. Point out specifically where Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack. Thanks.

 

[Antares]

Did they turn up evidence it was in reaction to a half assed video about Mo?? That was the lie, Gertrude...all the rest is BS.

Yes.

Ummmm, no.

It is however telling that you people choose to believe the Lybian's over the American's....sucks to have to protect a stupid fuck like Obama at the cost of whatever integrity you may have had.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thanks for the quote. Point out specifically where Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack. Thanks.

The context was in speaking of the attacks in BEnghazi


grow up

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Allow me to caution Dante, "initial" means beginning, throughout the article it speaks of the "attack" in a singular form...jus sayin kid....you are really looking stupid here.

the 'attack' refers to a series of attacks over something like an 8 hour long incident.

'initial' get it yet?

I see so the article use the singular case to describe "multiple" attacks.

I can no longer help you, you are officially stupid.

But then we all knew that.

jesus, you're dumb on this one.

The attack on Pearl Harbor...multiple launches of ... oh forget it.

wingnuts stuck on stupid are the twin separated at birth of the 911 truthers

 

[Amelia]

Obama called it an 'act of terror,' which is different than calling it a 'terrorist act.' I realize that being a liberal makes distinctions difficult, but please try to keep up. This was even brought up during the debates... oh wait, you probably didn't watch those either. Just support the God-King thru every endeavor!

Obama didn't even call it an act of terror. He made a vague reference to acts of terror in connection with 9/11/2001, after earlier talking about the video in connection with Benghazi.

He was fudging like the dishonest pro that he is. He is an expert at saying a little bit of everything and then pretending afterward that what he said covered the facts of the situation.

That's an interesting skill to have -- but it's not a virtuous one. Obama is dishonest to his core but he has made it work for him in a phenomenal way.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

"But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity." Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya | The White House


acts of terror


jesus you people are pathetic with your hate and blindness

move away from wingnutworld talking points and the CONTEXT is about an act of terror

Is there some reason you took that out of context? Are you afraid to quote what Obama said before that? He said "no acts of terror" after he spoke about 9/11/2001. Just as I said.

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks for the quote. Point out specifically where Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack. Thanks.

The context was in speaking of the attacks in BEnghazi


grow up

Act of terror does not equate to terrorism unless it is John Kerry saying US troops terrorize locals in the middle of the night

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did they turn up evidence it was in reaction to a half assed video about Mo?? That was the lie, Gertrude...all the rest is BS.

Yes.

Ummmm, no.

It is however telling that you people choose to believe the Lybian's over the American's....sucks to have to protect a stupid fuck like Obama at the cost of whatever integrity you may have had.

Seeking to tell the truth and counter wingnut world spin is 'defending' Obama?

 

[Sallow]

Much like Sallow who had the good sense to slink away.

Trolling?

Issa's investigation compromised a CIA investigation since he started leaking documents to the press almost immediately and without redaction.

He also got Petreaus, who arguably performed a major service for this nation in Iraq, into deep shit and ruined his career.

Issa also skipped right over the run up and handling of the Iraq war. There was plenty of wrong doing in that fiasco.

This was a bullshit partisan effort to sink the President. That's evidenced by Mitt Romney, who for the first time in US history criticized an American President about a foreign attack while it was on going.

This is not going to be remembered favorably by historians. And hopefully in 2014 and 2016, Republicans are punished for their treachery.

 

[BluesMistress]

You can interview all the fucking Libyans you want. I watched the congressional hearings. The number 2 AMERICAN on the ground laid the blame at the administrations feet. The 9/11 anniversary was coming up. Additional security was requested and denied. It would not have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon of Marines that would have stopped the terrorists in their tracks. Hilary and Obozo are guilty of accessory to murder.

It's a well established fact that there was no time to send Marines.

Republicans are the ones who wouldn't fund extra security.

It's a well established fact that there was no way to know when the attack would end. How can anyone possibly say there was NO Time when there was no known time limit.
There were over 30 people that were left in Benghazi with no way to know how many were dead or alive. There was never ANYTHING done to save Anyone in Benghazi.
Many times the CIA and State both denied extra additional security.

It never made it to the republicians to deny anyone anything...

Most telling is that Obama Never called or contacted anyone about an attack on 9-11 after his planned meeting at 5pm. Where was Obama?? Packing for his Las Vegas fundraiser with Jay Z & Beyoncé??? He started his day on 9-12 doing an interview with The Pimp with a Limp....Obama shows where his Priorities lie...

 

[TemplarKormac]

go ahead attack the source without referring to any of the info contained...

what a loser you show yourself to be

The info says the video caused it. Which is bullshit. That was clearly debunked in the hearings and by the President of Libya himself!

you are obviously a L-I-A-R

framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

I don't give a damn what a partisan newspaper publication said. I've posted proof that the exact opposite is true. Al Qaeda did play part in this attack, not even you or the NYT can say otherwise. The Libyan President knew a full four days before the CIA did that this attack involved Al Qaeda, random Libyans in the area of the attack also stated this was "pre-planned."

Spare me your garbage.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

the 'attack' refers to a series of attacks over something like an 8 hour long incident.

'initial' get it yet?

I see so the article use the singular case to describe "multiple" attacks.

I can no longer help you, you are officially stupid.

But then we all knew that.

jesus, you're dumb on this one.

The attack on Pearl Harbor...multiple launches of ... oh forget it.

wingnuts stuck on stupid are the twin separated at birth of the 911 truthers

Not as dumb as only being capable of using one source as a means to contradict several others, but then the New York Times is anything but partisan right? That's like the right only using FOX News as their authority on the subject. Show me a source that doesn't have a self interest in seeing Hillary run for president.