Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And why should anyone give a shit about a NYTimes article that is full of falsehoods and protects Obama & Clinton from the truth as to what Really happened 9/11 in Benghazi??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 Houses 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.
Its misleading, said King, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. Its a distinction without a difference.
Schiff, a House Intelligence Committee member, said the story doesnt 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?
It is all designed to help Hillary in 2016. Complete bullshit.
Link?The story changes depending on who and when they need to not look incompetent. When a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent, it was a "spontaneous response to a video". When DENYING it was a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent (debate with Romney), it was a "terrorist attack". Now that the election is over and Hillary needs to not look incompetent, It's a "spontaneous response to a video" again. Only idiot liberals (like the ones on this site) believe whatever the "official excuse" is at any given time from the left.
Yeah sure, that's why those on the right had to falsify the e-mails......to make sure they said what the "right" lied about what the CIA said....
The NYT is a mouthpiece for the Obama admin.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 Houses 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.
Its misleading, said King, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. Its a distinction without a difference.
Schiff, a House Intelligence Committee member, said the story doesnt 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
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.
that's simply a LIE by Fox news and others.....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 Houses 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.
Its misleading, said King, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. Its a distinction without a difference.
Schiff, a House Intelligence Committee member, said the story doesnt 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
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....?
This was nothing but a desperate attempt by the NYT to help Obama save face after one of the worst post reelection years of any president since Richard Nixon. Essentially, the NYT called all the men who testified on the stand before congress liars. Do they realize what implications that has? They have essentially contradicted sworn testimony. Are they crazy?
Link?The story changes depending on who and when they need to not look incompetent. When a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent, it was a "spontaneous response to a video". When DENYING it was a terrorist attack made Obama look incompetent (debate with Romney), it was a "terrorist attack". Now that the election is over and Hillary needs to not look incompetent, It's a "spontaneous response to a video" again. Only idiot liberals (like the ones on this site) believe whatever the "official excuse" is at any given time from the left.
Yeah sure, that's why those on the right had to falsify the e-mails......to make sure they said what the "right" lied about what the CIA said....
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.
Ya think?
For all we know what appears in the Times is a White House plant story..
The timing of the story is also suspect.
The Times released the report on the weekend. That does two things. One, it permits the story to go unchallenged until Monday's talk shows air. It allows the story to have time to become accepted by the general public. Two, it was released during the Holidays when most of the talk show hosts and other hard news investigative reporters are on vacation.
This thing is going to be taken apart piece by piece and vetted for validity.
What an awesome thought.Looks like Firebug is going to have to move on from "Ben gotcha" to the next controversy. Here's an novel idea- why don't Repubs legislate
"White House alleges". That's all we need to hear. A proven liar (who got "lie of the year") accuses his enemies of lying? I think that requires proof, don't you?Link?Yeah sure, that's why those on the right had to falsify the e-mails......to make sure they said what the "right" lied about what the CIA said....
Are you serious? That was thoroughly discussed on the thousand Benghazi threads started by the right....
Oh, that's right, Faux News wouldn't have covered it.....
Funny how the rw always seems to miss all the stories outing their deceitfulness.....
One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
White House: GOP fabricated leaked Benghazi email | TheHill
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.
"White House alleges". That's all we need to hear. A proven liar (who got "lie of the year") accuses his enemies of lying? I think that requires proof, don't you?Link?
Are you serious? That was thoroughly discussed on the thousand Benghazi threads started by the right....
Oh, that's right, Faux News wouldn't have covered it.....
Funny how the rw always seems to miss all the stories outing their deceitfulness.....
One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
White House: GOP fabricated leaked Benghazi email | TheHill
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.
LOL.
Lack of a rebuttal at it's finest.
