Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Procrustes Stretched]

And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?

 

[blackhawk]

Obama in the Presidential debate it was a terrorist attack.
Susan Rice on the Sunday morning talks shows it was over a video.
The New York Times it was neither.

 

[Billy000]

Okay you republicans, give this Fox News propaganda mess a rest.

 

[The T]

And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?

NO they're questioning the likes of YOU Dantoid.

They know they've been lied to...and YOU perpetuate the lies.

Learn it, Live it, KNOW IT.

YOU are a liar as is this administration AND the NYT .

LIARS, the lot of you.

 

[Antares]

You kids go ahead and run Piglary....it'll be fun.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay you republicans, give this Fox News propaganda mess a rest.

Give your talking points a rest, liberal.

 

[Billy000]

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 should anyone give a shit about a Fox News article that is summarizing what republicans are saying about Benghazi?

 

[Listening]

And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?

Can you provide some definitions and then the polls that support your claim ?

It would be really nice to know that you are not talking out your backside.

 

[blackhawk]

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 should anyone give a shit about a Fox News article that is summarizing what republicans are saying about Benghazi?

For one because there was a Democrat on the show saying the same thing.

 

[candycorn]

And the rightwingers wonder why most Americans think they're nuts?

Can you provide some definitions and then the polls that support your claim ?

It would be really nice to know that you are not talking out your backside.

People lie all the time. Like remember that time you lied about leaving the board if Romney lost?

 

[candycorn]

you are obviously a L-I-A-R

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

Some out of work loser in Georgia knows more than the NYT...what you don't believe him?

 

[Antares]

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

Some out of work loser in Georgia knows more than the NYT...what you don't believe him?

Some slut in Cali thinks she knows better than the CIA

 

[Billy000]

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 should anyone give a shit about a Fox News article that is summarizing what republicans are saying about Benghazi?

For one because there was a Democrat on the show saying the same thing.

That somehow makes this a scandal? One democrat?

 

[blackhawk]

Why should anyone give a shit about a Fox News article that is summarizing what republicans are saying about Benghazi?

For one because there was a Democrat on the show saying the same thing.

That somehow makes this a scandal? One democrat?

No the facts make it scandal. Such as security concerns in Benghazi were not addressed by the administration or that on September 12th the president in his rose garden speech did not call Benghazi a terrorist attack but made a general statement about terrorism and the following Sunday Susan Rice went on all the Sunday morning shows and claimed the attack was over video a claim the President repeated in several speeches after that including one at the U.N. and of course the aforementioned Presidential debate where Obama claimed he did call Benghazi a terrorist attack in his rose garden speech which in fact he didn't. These and other facts are what make this a scandal deny them if you wish it does not change them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Grow up?

You're funny. Maybe you should try it sometime.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why should anyone give a shit about a Fox News article that is summarizing what republicans are saying about Benghazi?

For one because there was a Democrat on the show saying the same thing.

That somehow makes this a scandal? One democrat?

You seem to have the same mindset about Republicans. Why the hypocrisy, Billy? Facts are what make it a scandal, as blackhawk has already pointed out.

 

[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?

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

Some out of work loser in Georgia knows more than the NYT...what you don't believe him?

Darlin, anyone who thinks the New York Times is a stand alone reliable source that can look at an event like Benghazi "objectively" has got issues.

 

[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?

.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

.

Not sure if they are believable or not.

I would go so far as to say, we really don't understand that part of the world, and we rely way to much on the Zionists to form policy.

That said, the premise of the right is that Al Qaeda planned this brilliant attack and Obama Covered it up and made up a lie about a video.

But the reality, people across the region were damned upset about that video.