Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[rdean]

This is the GOP "source" incognito in Libya. He looks this way to blend in and keep from being identified.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Uh-huh, as if anyone would trust what the White House says.

The CIA altered the talking points before they were sent out by Rice on that Sunday morning. Someone in the White House ordered them to. Are we forgetting something here? Do the folks at the CIA belong to a political party? Surely not, unless your CinC is President Barack Obama. Obama's White House changed the talking points, paperview.

(Reuters) - When U.S. intelligence officials testified behind closed doors two weeks ago, they were asked point blank whether they had altered the talking points on which U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice based her comments about the Benghazi attacks that have turned into a political firestorm.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, acting CIA Director Michael Morell and National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen each said no, according to two congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The next day, November 16, former CIA director David Petraeus testified before the same congressional intelligence committees and also replied no to the question of whether he had changed the talking points, three congressional sources said.

The CIA on Tuesday told lawmakers that it had in fact changed the wording of the unclassified talking points to delete a reference to al Qaeda, according to senators who met with Morell on Tuesday. It appeared to be the first time that the CIA acknowledged it was the agency that made that change, congressional sources said.

Shifting account of CIA's Libya talking points fuels Rice controversy | Reuters


Really? How naive. You'll have to do better than a liberally biased news source, too. Raw Story? Are you kidding me?

Just to be certain:

The Democratic National Committee claimed to its supporters that "Republicans actually doctored emails between administration officials about Benghazi. Then, they released them to the press, trying to pass them off as real."

But when we asked, Democrats didn’t provide evidence that discrepancies resulted from anything more than sloppy note-taking, or that journalists had been snookered into believing they had seen the original messages.

ABC News, in fact, took responsibility for imprecision in its story. Hayes of the Weekly Standard says no one tried to misrepresent summaries that were leaked to him as actual emails.

It’s certainly possible the leaker’s inaccurate notes were intended to deceive. But Democrats have failed to prove that’s the case. Their claim about doctoring evidence could use some evidence. We rate it Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ats-say-republicans-doctored-emails-about-be/

You Democrats, sheep the lot of ya.

 

[Avorysuds]

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread

Because we had a discussion in the thread started by then progressive fluffer known here as Rightwinger... I believe I was told and asked to comment on the topic at hand, now I'm wondering if all the people that put stock in the NYT story will do as they asked of me...

I didn't read the NYT story and I don't give a fuck about this story. What I'm wondering is now that the NYT story is being challenged, will the fluffers disappear into the night, or will they pretend to be objective and looking for truth, you know, get to the bottom of this and hold Obama accountable.

So what will it be plaz, fluffer or realizing Obama has been a total waste of your time to get behind?

 

[Kosh]

And the far left continue show how intolerant of facts they have truly become.

 

[jon_berzerk]

After hearing about and reading the investigative report by the New York Times blaming a video for the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; which killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, sources and eyewitnesses on the ground that night slammed the report as 'completely false.'

Doesn't pay to contradict people who were actually there as it happened, now does it. I gather the NYT and the Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for turning this into a farce. Those four men who died that night deserve better than this.

Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.

But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.

The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.

Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.

"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.

"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."

The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News

leftist propagandists nothing more nothing less

 

[jon_berzerk]

And the far left continue show how intolerant of facts they have truly become.

would you expect any less

 

[BluesMistress]

Nope

This is a completely different article. This is an article about those that were actually there are now pissed after reading the NYTIMES propaganda piece.
Welfare Queen has a thread about Bi Partisan agreement that NYTIMES is a Fraud. That on Fox News Sunday R & D both agreed that the article was a fraud. Not a single word about a single survivor in any such way as them speaking out about the NYTimes article. This is completely different unless it concerns a Dem and Rep agreeing on Anything much less Benghazi.
I've read Both and they are Different ~
This one is actually much more important as the survivors are speaking out...Let's hope they continue!!!

Except if you read that thread this is brought up. This would only back up those opinions. It's more like someone was getting their butts handed to them so they ran off to make a new thread so people would help.

Being Brought up completely different than a Topic ~~
Seems you're Worried about your Butt?? Simply pulling your head out will help

 

[paperview]

Maybe you can get Issa to do an investigation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe you can get Issa to do an investigation.

Buh bye! That's the second time I've slapped you down. You'll need Candy Crowley to handicap the next debate. You lose.

 

[edthecynic]

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News

Who are these "forces on the ground"?

That's "sources" not "forces", milady. And those sources would dare not reveal their identities for fear of retaliation by their own government.

IOW, FOX/RNC made them up out of thin air and has to feed gullible SUCKERS a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory morons would easily believe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who are these "forces on the ground"?

That's "sources" not "forces", milady. And those sources would dare not reveal their identities for fear of retaliation by their own government.

IOW, FOX/RNC made them up out of thin air and has to feed gullible SUCKERS a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory morons would easily believe.

Why does everything have to be about Fox? Why can't you debate the OP?

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the intelligence committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" said the New York Times report added value, but that the newspaper did not have the level of information the intelligence committee had.

"I don't think the New York Times report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the State Department that left our people vulnerable," Schiff said. "I do think it adds some valuable insights. I agree with Mike [Rogers] that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there are also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved."

"I think the intelligence paints a portrait that some people came to murder, some came to destroy property, some merely came to loot, and some came in part motivated by those videos," Schiff continued. "So it is a complex picture."

Mike Rogers: New York Times Benghazi Report 'Just Not Accurate' (UPDATE)

Satisfied?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know BD is flitting around this thread like some fairy. I know she has zilch to contribute to this thread whatsoever, though.

 

[paperview]

You didn't slap down shit.

You still can't even back up your first assertion.

Who be the Yemeni dudes? You find that out yet?

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[BDBoop]

You didn't slap down shit.

You still can't even back up your first assertion.

Who be the Yemeni dudes? You find that out yet?

Oh, my gracious. Every time I turn around, he's claiming pwnage.

 

[paperview]

Didn't think so.

Sit down Templar.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You didn't slap down shit.

You still can't even back up your first assertion.

Who be the Yemeni dudes? You find that out yet?

Oh, my gracious. Every time I turn around, he's claiming pwnage.

I thought as much. And what have you done to contribute to this thread? Hey, didn't you have me on ignore?

 

[paperview]

You didn't slap down shit.

You still can't even back up your first assertion.

Who be the Yemeni dudes? You find that out yet?

Oh, my gracious. Every time I turn around, he's claiming pwnage.

I know.

He's at least entertaining. In a Monty Python no arms/no legs kind of way.

 

[BDBoop]

You didn't slap down shit.

You still can't even back up your first assertion.

Who be the Yemeni dudes? You find that out yet?

Oh, my gracious. Every time I turn around, he's claiming pwnage.

I know.

He's at least entertaining. In a Monty Python no arms/no legs kind of way.

 

[Plasmaball]

Ok...they still can be merged into the same thread

Because we had a discussion in the thread started by then progressive fluffer known here as Rightwinger... I believe I was told and asked to comment on the topic at hand, now I'm wondering if all the people that put stock in the NYT story will do as they asked of me...

I didn't read the NYT story and I don't give a fuck about this story. What I'm wondering is now that the NYT story is being challenged, will the fluffers disappear into the night, or will they pretend to be objective and looking for truth, you know, get to the bottom of this and hold Obama accountable.

So what will it be plaz, fluffer or realizing Obama has been a total waste of your time to get behind?

I don't care about this story. It's fake outrage is just that. Fake.