Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[blastoff]

So on Fox yesterday Chris Wallace had House Intel Committee chairman Mike Rogers, Republican, and committee member Adam Schiff, a Dem from California.

Rogers disputed the allegation that Al Qaeda had no involvement, based on the mountain of intelligence he, fellow committee members, and others in the government are privy to. And Democrat Schiff agreed with him about it.

Among other things, Rogers pointed out the huge difference between a NYT writer interviewing people on the street and whatnot long after the incident took place and the intelligence collected before and after from people who had no idea they were being listened to when they talked about Al Qaeda involvement in the attack.

So, it was bipartisan agreement by two intelligence committee members that the Times piece was complete bullshit with regards to AQ. The lefty rag made that up because it fits their agenda, and there's no telling what else they invented for the benefit of the low information idiots in this country.

The NYT is bent on becoming the MSNBC of the print media, and doing a damn good job of it IMO.

 

[paperview]

What is new is that Hicks has put a human face on previous reporting. He also disclosed he spoke directly to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the night of the attack, presumably relaying his conclusions.

The hearings also revealed an e-mail written by Elizabeth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, in which she recounted a conversation with the Libyan ambassador on Sept. 12: “When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks Ansar Al Sharia is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

The Benghazi hearings: what?s new and what?s not - The Washington Post

Hicks should quit lying about what happened and quit changing his story as well. His friends died and he does them disservice by using this tragedy for political brownie points.


During the September 8 edition of This Week, Former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Gregory Hicks described his experience and the aftermath of the Benghazi attack with host George Stephanopoulos. Hicks used the interview to accuse the State Department of retaliating against him for his testimony during a House Oversight Committee hearing on May 8. After Stephanopoulos asked Hicks whether he felt he was being punished for his testimony, he responded, "Yes, I feel that I have been punished. ... I don't know why I was punished" and "shunted aside."

But Hicks was not punished for speaking out. Stephanopoulos read from a State Department letter which explained that "The State Department has not punished Mr. Hicks in any way" and his departure from Libya "was entirely unrelated to any statements" he made about Benghazi.

In fact, Hicks' claim about being punished contradicts his previous testimony about not returning to his assignment in Libya. During his testimony at a May 8 House Oversight Committee hearing, Hicks explained that "my family really didn't want me to go back. ... So I voluntarily curtailed" returning to Libya. From Hicks' sworn testimony (emphasis added):

REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS (R-TN): So when you came back to the United States, were you planning on going back to Libya?

MR. HICKS: I was. I fully intended to do so.

REP. DESJARLAIS: And what do you think happened?

MR. HICKS: Based on the criticism that I received, I felt that if I went back, I would never be comfortable working there. And in addition, my family really didn't want me to go back. We'd endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed -- I accepted an offer of what's called a no-fault curtailment. That means that there's -- there would be no criticism of my departure of post, no negative repercussions. And in fact Ambassador Pope, when he made the offer to everyone in Tripoli when he arrived -- I mean Charge Pope -- when he arrived, he indicated that people could expect that they would get a good onward assignment out of that.

Hicks Claims He Doesn't Know Why Military Assistance Didn't Arrive In Time

Hicks also used the interview to strongly suggest that military resources could have been made available to respond to the attack in time to possibly save lives. While Stephanopoulos made clear that Pentagon officials reported that no assets could have responded in time, Hicks lamented, "I still don't quite understand why they couldn't fly aircraft over," adding "I just thought that they would come."

But military officials have explained that no forces from outside Libya could have deployed to Benghazi in time to affect the outcome of the attacks. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that a timely military response to the attacks "would have been very difficult if not impossible"

and that an expectation that military forces would be sent into an unknown situation shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." Gates also explained that due to the number of missing anti-aircraft weapons in Libya, he "would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi." The Department of Defense also testified that fighter aircraft would not have been able to respond to the attack in time to save lives. Hicks' suggestion is further undermined by the fact that resources were needed to defend the embassy in Tripoli.

*ouch*

 

[Dot Com]

Gregory had firebug on MTP ystrdy & crucified him

 

[Theowl32]

So, what exactly was he right about?

That is was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Don't expect the rw lies to stop though.

Lies are all they've got.

 

[paperview]

So on Fox yesterday Chris Wallace had House Intel Committee chairman Mike Rogers, Republican, and committee member Adam Schiff, a Dem from California.

Rogers disputed the allegation that Al Qaeda had no involvement, based on the mountain of intelligence he, fellow committee members, and others in the government are privy to. And Democrat Schiff agreed with him about it.

Among other things, Rogers pointed out the huge difference between a NYT writer interviewing people on the street and whatnot long after the incident took place and the intelligence collected before and after from people who had no idea they were being listened to when they talked about Al Qaeda involvement in the attack.

So, it was bipartisan agreement by two intelligence committee members that the Times piece was complete bullshit with regards to AQ. The lefty rag made that up because it fits their agenda, and there's no telling what else they invented for the benefit of the low information idiots in this country.

The NYT is bent on becoming the MSNBC of the print media, and doing a damn good job of it IMO.

Complete bullshit, eh? what, that a few people in the crowd were connected to Al Qaeda, making it an Al Qaeda attack? Is that the way it works now?

That Issa and Company are now saying there were some links, and not al Qaeda directly?

That the video inflamed the Muslim world the day of the attack, and it was shown on TV's and reported widely around the world -- but some how or another, the people in Benghazi didn't catch wind of it?

Is that it?

Even Schiff said:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also appearing on Fox News Sunday.

Schiff said the New York Times account "adds some insights" but doesn't tell a complete story.


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


And this:

Rep. Darrell Issa was equally stubborn during his appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, where he insisted his past comments about Al Qaeda's alleged involvement in the attack were accurate. “There is a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with Al Qaeda,” Issa said. Host David Gregory had first crack at one of the most impassioned drivers of Benghazi conspiracies in Washington, and for the most part he duffed it. “We have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi,” Issa said Sunday morning, and Gregory failed to challenge him on those remarks. “What we know, David, is the initial reports did not name this video as the prime cause,” he added.

Most initial reports said the video was part of the anger in the attack, somehow. The Times report yesterday was dripping with evidence from people who were present at the attack who said the video was involved.

But at least Issa did compliment the Times for “some very good work."

Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers Still Think Al Qaeda Was Involved in Benghazi - The Wire

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Oh, an investigation by the NYT...well that certainly settles it. Everybody zip it now.

The NYT interviewed hundreds of Libyans with an understanding of the situation

Who did Republicans talk to?

It's not like the Libyans have a reason to lie.

You ask any group that's suspected of committing a crime and they'll all claim innocence.

I think I'll stick with what our intelligence people have said on the subject.

 

[Theowl32]

So, what exactly was he right about?

That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, what exactly was he right about?

That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.

"At this point what difference does it make?"

 

[Dot Com]

Thats where Firebug screwed-up. An "affiliation" He spent MILLIONS OF TXPAYER $$$ just to say there was prolly an affiliation? Firebug is a rw hack on a witch hunt. Repubs

So on Fox yesterday Chris Wallace had House Intel Committee chairman Mike Rogers, Republican, and committee member Adam Schiff, a Dem from California.

Rogers disputed the allegation that Al Qaeda had no involvement, based on the mountain of intelligence he, fellow committee members, and others in the government are privy to. And Democrat Schiff agreed with him about it.

Among other things, Rogers pointed out the huge difference between a NYT writer interviewing people on the street and whatnot long after the incident took place and the intelligence collected before and after from people who had no idea they were being listened to when they talked about Al Qaeda involvement in the attack.

So, it was bipartisan agreement by two intelligence committee members that the Times piece was complete bullshit with regards to AQ. The lefty rag made that up because it fits their agenda, and there's no telling what else they invented for the benefit of the low information idiots in this country.

The NYT is bent on becoming the MSNBC of the print media, and doing a damn good job of it IMO.

Complete bullshit, eh? what, that a few people in the crowd were connected to Al Qaeda, making it an Al Qaeda attack? Is that the way it works now?

That Issa and Company are now saying there were some links, and not al Qaeda directly?

That the video inflamed the Muslim world the day of the attack, and it was shown on TV's and reported widely around the world -- but some how or another, the people in Benghazi didn't catch wind of it?

Is that it?

Even Schiff said:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also appearing on Fox News Sunday.

Schiff said the New York Times account "adds some insights" but doesn't tell a complete story.


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


And this:

Rep. Darrell Issa was equally stubborn during his appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, where he insisted his past comments about Al Qaeda's alleged involvement in the attack were accurate. “There is a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with Al Qaeda,” Issa said. Host David Gregory had first crack at one of the most impassioned drivers of Benghazi conspiracies in Washington, and for the most part he duffed it. “We have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi,” Issa said Sunday morning, and Gregory failed to challenge him on those remarks. “What we know, David, is the initial reports did not name this video as the prime cause,” he added.

Most initial reports said the video was part of the anger in the attack, somehow. The Times report yesterday was dripping with evidence from people who were present at the attack who said the video was involved.

But at least Issa did compliment the Times for “some very good work."

Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers Still Think Al Qaeda Was Involved in Benghazi - The Wire

 

[paperview]

"Obama's former national security spokesman, Tommy Vietor, however, was quick to pounce on Republicans after reading the Times' report. He unleashed a series of tweets, including these, condemning Republicans:

– "If Rs spent 1/50th as much time as @ddknyt learning what really happened in #Benhazi, we could have avoided months of disgusting demagoguery."


– "Republicans inflated the role of al Qaeda in #Bengazi to attack Obama's CT record. They were wrong, and handed our enemy a propaganda win."


– "Credit to @ddknyt but also disconcerting that his #Benghazi article offered more insight into what happened than all Congressional hearings."


Rogers on Benghazi: This should not be a ?partisan issue? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


Heh.

 

[rightwinger]

So, what exactly was he right about?

That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.

What he was right about

There was no international AlQaida planning or support
It was a loacalized and mostly spontaneous event that was exploited by local militant groups
The video did have an impact on the protest just like it did at several US Embassies

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So on Fox yesterday Chris Wallace had House Intel Committee chairman Mike Rogers, Republican, and committee member Adam Schiff, a Dem from California.

Rogers disputed the allegation that Al Qaeda had no involvement, based on the mountain of intelligence he, fellow committee members, and others in the government are privy to. And Democrat Schiff agreed with him about it.

Among other things, Rogers pointed out the huge difference between a NYT writer interviewing people on the street and whatnot long after the incident took place and the intelligence collected before and after from people who had no idea they were being listened to when they talked about Al Qaeda involvement in the attack.

So, it was bipartisan agreement by two intelligence committee members that the Times piece was complete bullshit with regards to AQ. The lefty rag made that up because it fits their agenda, and there's no telling what else they invented for the benefit of the low information idiots in this country.

The NYT is bent on becoming the MSNBC of the print media, and doing a damn good job of it IMO.

Complete bullshit, eh? what, that a few people in the crowd were connected to Al Qaeda, making it an Al Qaeda attack? Is that the way it works now?

That Issa and Company are now saying there were some links, and not al Qaeda directly?

That the video inflamed the Muslim world the day of the attack, and it was shown on TV's and reported widely around the world -- but some how or another, the people in Benghazi didn't catch wind of it?

Is that it?

Even Schiff said:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also appearing on Fox News Sunday.

Schiff said the New York Times account "adds some insights" but doesn't tell a complete story.


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


And this:

Rep. Darrell Issa was equally stubborn during his appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, where he insisted his past comments about Al Qaeda's alleged involvement in the attack were accurate. “There is a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with Al Qaeda,” Issa said. Host David Gregory had first crack at one of the most impassioned drivers of Benghazi conspiracies in Washington, and for the most part he duffed it. “We have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi,” Issa said Sunday morning, and Gregory failed to challenge him on those remarks. “What we know, David, is the initial reports did not name this video as the prime cause,” he added.

Most initial reports said the video was part of the anger in the attack, somehow. The Times report yesterday was dripping with evidence from people who were present at the attack who said the video was involved.

But at least Issa did compliment the Times for “some very good work."

Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers Still Think Al Qaeda Was Involved in Benghazi - The Wire

The CIA complex was also attacked, by mortars nonetheless, and if you know anything about military tactics you would know that such an attack needed planning. Which flies in the face of a spontaneous attack.

And let's not overlook these facts.

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack.

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16, five days after the attack, that it was a planned terrorist attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16.

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 21.

 

[Theowl32]

I am wondering, which of these are liberals supporting in this thread of left wing bullshit?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTteL2ui4kc


Let me clarify, so that you can all understand the creepy, double talking, hypocritical, mind of the left.

They are taking BOTH SIDES of the issue. Both sides yet again.

This is what they do, on every issue.

Can't accept things can happen concurrently when angry ****ed up groups assemble, it appears.

Does denying there was ANY video fan-flaming make you feel more huggy to daddy Fox, who insisted it had nothing to do with it?

It was two-fold, as we know now, the CIA op made it necessary to blow some smoke and make the video a part of it, or I should say, stronger than it was and, and perhaps because the conflicting intel was telling them it played a part?

There were people scaling the walls of our Embassy in Cairo, burning our flag -- just a few hours earlier because of that video - and demonstrations erupted at our Embassies and elsewhere ALL OVER THE WORLD, in some 54 incidents in twenty Countries for gawds sake. This was going on for days and days after. That stupid video did ignite a good part of the Muslim world. We know it did.

And this, my post from October of 2012 :::: There were people there in Benghazi who claimed the video was why they were angry. That was from initial eye-witness accounts. Now we read the Al-Sharia group was gathering restless Muslims from nearby neighborhoods to chant against the film.

"The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department’s timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film."

Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack - Washington Times

To repeat: There were people there in Benghazi who claimed the video was why they were angry - join that up with the Ansar al-Sharia (who first claimed, then denied responsibility) crowd - who no doubt were mightily pissed and ready to do us harm to begin with, and add the gasoline of that video to their whacked out religious sensibilities, and you get KA-BOOM!

It's not like the "reasons" can't happen concurrently, and the Intel was, as officials tell us, still fluid.

But no, you go with...the video had nothing to do with it.

Maybe it will help you guys win the next election.

I did not read all of your bullshit double talk.

Are you agreeing with the Obama that said it was ALL BECAUSE OF A VIDEO, or are you agreeing with the Obama that said it was AN ACT OF TERROR?

Are you denying that there were repeated requests for more security in Benghazi?

Are you acknowledging there were requests?

Which is the lie from the administration you believe, and which is the one you support?

Crowley, the big fat Clinton News Network blob said Obama said the attacks on the Benghazi embassy was an act of terror. Oh, when I say act of terror, it means it was NOT SPONTANEOUS. Where, Obama asked her to repeat what she said in order to emphasize that Obama claimed it was an ACT OF TERROR and not some spontaneous reaction to a video that they claimed for weeks after the attack.


So, what the fuck are you liberals saying here? Are you claiming it was all a spontaneous attack as a result of a video, like Obama claimed for weeks, or are you saying Obama lied when he claimed it was an organized act of terror?


I cannot fucking tell. Pick one. Double talking pieces of shit.

 

[Dot Com]

^ First rw melt down of the day

As to the OP, yeah- Firebug should be ashamed of himself and resign after spending MILLIONS of taxpayer $$$ on a rw dog & pony show. And they claim to be "deficit hawks"

 

[Theowl32]

So, what exactly was he right about?

That it was a spontaneous attack like he said for the first 4 weeks after the attack, or was it an organized terror attack that he claimed it was after the 4 weeks of bullshit were questioned?

Are liberals in this thread claiming Susan Rice was correct now?

Are they saying it was indeed created by a video and it was spontaneous, even though Obama denied he said that, and then the Clinton News Network fat ass affirmed Obama said it was an "act of terror" during the presidential debates?


Someone please tell me what the liberals are attempting to say. Please, someone decipher their double talk for me. I cannot do it.

What he was right about

There was no international AlQaida planning or support
It was a loacalized and mostly spontaneous event that was exploited by local militant groups
The video did have an impact on the protest just like it did at several US Embassies

Yeah, but Obama denied that it was all spontaneous.

So you support the initial lie, and reject the lie he was telling after more and more intelligence came out that the attack in Benghazi was organized?

Well, you would need to be supporting one of the lies. Which one?

Fucking liberals.

They are now claiming that it was all spontaneous cause of a video.

 

[Theowl32]

First rw melt down of the day

Why, which lie are you supporting?

 

[Claudette]

Did you mean "screwing the pooch?"

Obama flew off to Nevada the next day - on the 12th of September.

The warning??? What warning? Someone KNEW that there was going to be an attack, or are you talking about a general warning?

Nope. I meant they fucked the pooch.

And yes. They got warnings. Months of warnings. They asked for more security and were denied. They got the same warnings the Brits and the Red Cross got. Those folks were smart enough to pull out of Libya.

when theres no money to spend on security were are you going to get this security money from Claudette please enlighten us here your republicans cut it so there wasn't any money there... and you want to blame Hillary for it??? riiiiiiiiiight we got ya ...


Our State Department under Hilbat did nothing. They didn't beef up security or close the embassy so four very good men died.

at the cost of republicans cutting the budget they died for ... once Again ...there's no money to spend on security ....were are you going to get this security money from Claudette ??? please enlighten us here... your republicans cut it ...so there wasn't any money there... tell us why the republicans felt they didn't need to pay for security????

And yes Barry jetted off to his fund raiser the next day even though his ambassador and four Americans were killed in Libya. Sure showed where his priorities were. I'm sure he thought no more of those dead men that Hilbat did.

there you go with he didn't care shit ... even thought he went to a fund raiser he did not drop the ball ..but you keep trying, cause ya got nothing there .... lets see when Bush ignored his embassies request for more money, 60 Americans died .... when Obama asked for more money Americans still died ... hey how come we never heard about those 60 embassy people dying under the bush administration ... all we ever here from you is how Horrible it was for the people in Libya who were kill, can ya tell us that one, guess it slipped you mind ...

After all, "What difference does it make."

none I guess now does it

Bullshit there Billyopp.

That was debunked long ago. Money was never an issue you idiot.

Of course being an Obamabot you sure as shit wouldn't want Barry and Hilbat presented in a bad light.

Benghazi was a result of the total ineptitude of Barry's State Department run by Hilbat. They had loads of warnings. They did nothing.

Of course it makes no difference to an idiot like you. Of course if you'd lost a loved one at Benghazi you'd be singing a different tune. Or mayby not. Your an Obama lover after all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Obama could blame the attack on Global Warming and the Left would believe it

I don't know why they didn't just blame Bush. The leftist idiots would surely buy that lie.