Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Antares]

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

Poor Dante "attack" is used in its "singular" throughout the article you just aren't very bright.

Why is this half white liar so important to you people?

 

[BobPlumb]

Looks like the NY Times is carrying water for Obama, HC, and the democrats.

 

[Antares]

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.

Trolling?

No, apparently I was giving you too much credit.

You've been bitch slapped up one side and down the other here

 

[WelfareQueen]

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

Sorry I killed your NY Times Benghazi story. It wasn't your fault. Just more mainstream media bullshit to which we've all grown painfully familiar. I still don't think it'll help Hillary in 2016...but they'll keep trying, and keep lying. It is all they know at this point.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

So were they lying when they said it was a video that caused it, or are you trying to parse words to appear correct?

The latest excuse the administration is floating is that they went by the information they had, which is a bold-faced lie. They knew within 24 hrs it was an attack, not a protest over some stupid video. Also, they used this stupid excuse for a couple of weeks until they couldn't get away with it anymore. Obama even used it at the UN 2 weeks after the attack still blaming it on a video.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

D'Oh! The attack happened on the anniversary so of course it got mentioned. and your ref is two paragraphs before the quoted paragraph


the context is the attack on the consulate. it's obvious to any rational and fair-minded individual without hatred in their heart for the President

 

[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.

Trolling?

No, apparently I was giving you too much credit.

You've been bitch slapped up one side and down the other here

Eyeah..

Basically that's what your imaginary friend tells you at the tea party you are having.

Boo boo bear.

What is Raggedy Ann saying now? "You da man"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyt6nVf_CA4]A Doll's Teaparty - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

seriously, your hatred is showing

 

[BluesMistress]

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.

The same idiot that recommended people donate to Obama instead of receiving wedding and birthday gifts

 

[Amelia]

"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.

D'Oh! The attack happened on the anniversary so of course it got mentioned. and your ref is two paragraphs before the quoted paragraph


the context is the attack on the consulate. it's obvious to any rational and fair-minded individual without hatred in their heart for the President

Oh bullshit. It wasn't even obvious to Candy Crowley. After her shameful performance in that debate she backtracked.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

D'Oh! The attack happened on the anniversary so of course it got mentioned. and your ref is two paragraphs before the quoted paragraph


the context is the attack on the consulate. it's obvious to any rational and fair-minded individual without hatred in their heart for the President

Oh bullshit. It wasn't even obvious to Candy Crowley. After her shameful performance in that debate she backtracked.

What in the world are you talking about....a debate? Veer away all you want.

The phrase 'terrorist attack' in the context of the President's address to the nation was clear except to partisan haters

 

[Dirk the Daring]

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

The Obama administration made the distinction between 'an act of terror' and a 'terrorist attack.' Why am I 'blind' and full of 'hate' to do the same? Why do you not?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

When will you ever stop obsessing over Issa? Hillary's gonna be upset that you've found a new friend to play with.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

D'Oh! The attack happened on the anniversary so of course it got mentioned. and your ref is two paragraphs before the quoted paragraph


the context is the attack on the consulate. it's obvious to any rational and fair-minded individual without hatred in their heart for the President

Oh bullshit. It wasn't even obvious to Candy Crowley. After her shameful performance in that debate she backtracked.

What in the world are you talking about....a debate? Veer away all you want.

The phrase 'terrorist attack' in the context of the President's address to the nation was clear except to partisan haters

This debate;

CNN's Crowley Admits Obama Didn't Call Benghazi a Terror Attack

The one you probably didn't watch, because... why should any one question the God-King Obama...??

 

[TooTall]

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.

The Democrats, including former Presidents Clinton and Carte, criticized Bush hundreds of times during the ongoing battles is Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't come up with that crap about the "for the first time in US history" someone criticized a President.

And, I would need a timeline on Romney criticizing Obama during the attack since I do not believe it.

 

[Antares]

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.

Trolling?

No, apparently I was giving you too much credit.

You've been bitch slapped up one side and down the other here

Eyeah..

Basically that's what your imaginary friend tells you at the tea party you are having.

Boo boo bear.

What is Raggedy Ann saying now? "You da man"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyt6nVf_CA4]A Doll's Teaparty - YouTube[/ame]

LOL, poor Sallow.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

[The gals in my wife's office once decided to ask this special male colleauge how he voted.
"I'm gay! Of course I vote Democratic!" was his reply.
It was also as clear an admission as ever heard that some people really do their thinking with their d!ck.

Betcha it was a hot time at 'Pinch's' place in the Hamptons last night in anticipation of this story's imminent release with the all male conga line really hoppin'. They probably even had to send out for another 55 gallon drum of KY jelly due to all the revelers frolic.
"We're saved! Its gonna be Hillary all the way in 2016. Was there ever any doubt?"
Just the NYT rewriting history. Sorta like their polling. The usual make up of an NYT polling sample runs like this: 50 per cent Democrats, 15 per cent Republicans and 35 per cent independents who voted for Barack Obama. The Times will typically commission a poll with a sample this skewed, then write a front page story about the results.
This is likely the Times last gasp as the so called newspaper of record. The National Enquirer will have a better standing after this. Mebbe if 'Pinch' sells the digs in the Hamptons he might be able to get by just selling his rag to the 82% of New Yorkers who voted for Barack Obama]

"But Kirkpatrick says he found no evidence of involvement in the attack by al Qaeda or other international terrorist group. The good faith of that claim depends on his diligence in searching for such evidence. As Tom Joscelyn has shown, Kirkpatrick appears willfully to have ignored key players who likely were involved in the Benghazi attack and who have documented ties with al Qaeda. Kirkpatrick’s cherry picking suggests bad faith.

Similarly, Kirkpatrick’s claim that the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger” at the video about Islam seems to rest primarily on what Libyans told him after the fact. These sources can’t entirely be discounted, of course. However, it is surely self-serving for Libyans, almost regardless of their persuasion, to blame the attack on external events, and especially anti-Islamism, rather than on the bloodthirsty extremism of the Libyan attackers themselves.

Kirkpatrick’s heavy reliance on self-serving comments by Libyans that also serve the purposes of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, etc, suggests that he had a story he wanted to write and was looking for confirmation of that story.

This suspicion was confirmed to me by one of the people Kirkpatrick interviewed. This person, probably as well informed about the Benghazi attack as any American, tells me that during the interview with Kirkpatrick (which occurred many months ago), it quickly became clear that he “had his conclusions and simply wanted me to confirm them, not refute them.” It also became clear, my source adds, that Kirkpatrick “was off the rails.”

Off the rails is bad enough. But off the rails for an ulterior motive is worse. Unfortunately, this may well be what we’re witnessing in the Times’ revisionist account of Benghazi."

The New York Times ? off the rails for an ulterior motive | Power Line

"Left out of the Times’s account are the many leads tying the attackers to al Qaeda’s international network.

For instance, there is no mention of Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, an Egyptian. This is odd, for many reasons.

On October 29, 2012 three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamal’s network, in addition to a known al Qaeda branch (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), was directly involved in the assault. The Times reported (emphasis added): “Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.”

Jamal was trained by al Qaeda in the late 1980s, and has been loyal to Ayman al Zawahiri since at least the 1990s. He served as a commander in the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), a terrorist group headed by Zawahiri that merged with bin Laden’s enterprise. Jamal left prison in 2011 and quickly got back to work.

The Egyptian press has published some of Jamal’s letters to Zawahiri. In the letters, which were written in 2011 and 2012, Jamal is extremely deferential to Zawahiri. Jamal heaps praise on Zawahiri, seeking the al Qaeda master’s guidance and additional support. Jamal even mentions that he attempted to visit Zawahiri in person, but failed to do so because of restrictions on his travel. So, Jamal writes, he sent an emissary instead"

How the New York Times tried to airbrush al Qaeda out of Benghazi | Power Line

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

The Obama administration made the distinction between 'an act of terror' and a 'terrorist attack.' Why am I 'blind' and full of 'hate' to do the same? Why do you not?

people making teh distinction were political operatives looking to make Benghazi an election issue to be used against the President


you people have no shame using a tragedy like you do...from Terri Schiavo to Benghazi

 

[The T]

NYT backing Obama for the Hidebeast...NO doubt about it.

Just remember:4 DEAD AMERICANS and LIES from Obama and Hillary...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrEz3_zVEgg]"With All Due Respect! We Have FOUR Dead Americans! What Difference Does It Make!" Hillary Clinton - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdpJXO_AyOg]Eric Nordstrom answers Hilary Clinton's "What Difference Does It Make?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh bullshit. It wasn't even obvious to Candy Crowley. After her shameful performance in that debate she backtracked.

What in the world are you talking about....a debate? Veer away all you want.

The phrase 'terrorist attack' in the context of the President's address to the nation was clear except to partisan haters

This debate;

CNN's Crowley Admits Obama Didn't Call Benghazi a Terror Attack

The one you probably didn't watch, because... why should any one question the God-King Obama...??

that debate has nothing to do with the attack and the President's address at the time to the nation

grow up