Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Avorysuds]

Lets put it like this, real information could come out that Obama's opinion was indeed wrong, and RW would disappear into the night.... He's not here to get to the bottom of anything, he's here to attack republicans and blow Obama in the process.

 

[Billy000]

Ahmed Abu Khattala

Ahmed Abu Khattala heads the Benghazi-based Ansar al-Sharia group

Read more: Islamist group leader Ahmed Abu Khattala named as mastermind behind U.S. consulate massacre in Benghazi | Mail Online
Ahmed-Abu-Khattala-named-mastermind-U-S-consulate-massacre-Benghazi.html#ixzz2ooJWG17P
[/COLOR][/B]

Ansar al-Sharia has also been suspected in the violent attacks in the Mount Chaambi area near the Algerian border, including the killing of eight soldiers last month.

Laradeyh blamed the Salafist movement for liaising with Al-Qaeda's North African affiliate and announced the group as a terrorist group.

Ansar al-Sharia is considered one of the most radical groups that emerged after the secular autocrat Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was toppled in 2011.

The Ansar leader Saifallah Benahssine, also known as Abu Iyadh, is a former al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan sought by police for allegedly inciting an attack on the US embassy in Tunis in September 2012.

Ansar al-Sharia blamed for Tunisia killings - Africa - Al Jazeera English

See how easy that was nutjob?

He is a Terrorist leader with ties to Al Qaeda.

Dumbfuck.

Um no he has FORMER ties to Al Qaeda.

LOL um....ok.

Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets put it like this, real information could come out that Obama's opinion was indeed wrong, and RW would disappear into the night.... He's not here to get to the bottom of anything, he's here to attack republicans and blow Obama in the process.

I care only about truth, justice and the American way

 

[KGB]

^^^^ Be sure and avoid the subject completely by bringing up every other paranoid scandal you can think of.

The issue is when someone as partisan as RW claims "Obama was correct" I like most Americans today simply don't believe much of anything Obama says... due to his track record as being the most secretive and dishonest admin in US history. What really sucks is the claim I just made is accurate, not saying there are other Presidents not close to Obama 's league of bullshit... but that Obama in fact has been the most opposite of what he claimed President that anyone could possible name.

So no, I honestly don't give a fuck about the opinion of the NYT.

OK, so why not SHOW US why they are wrong? Why dismiss them out of hand without even making an attempt to discredit the article by proving it to be a lie?

not so much a lie as a misrepresentation of what Al Qaeda is. We have gone after the leadership & practically decapitated the top, yet these affiliates still run loose. In other words, there are no party cards, no pledges to bin Laden, etc., that are required. These subsidiaries probably received training & funding from the parent organization, but operate rather independently. In certain respects, they operate like the mafia. Families break off & form their own syndicates. The NYT is looking for direct links, but probably won't find them. Incidentally, Ansar al-Sharia is headed up by a former Al-Qaeda fighter (Saifallah Benahssine), so I find it very hard to believe there aren't back room channels. I find it rather specious of them to deny the possibility especially given the body of evidence we have regarding how Al-Qaeda operates. Even if they didn't receive direct orders, the action still furthers international terrorist goals, so it falls in line. All of these groups share a pretty similar ideology and view of the world (to establish the Caliphate). If the NYT wishes to engage in pedantic legal exercises, they are free to do so, but I do not accept their conclusions with that kind of methodology....

The Decline of Al-Qaeda Central; The Rise of Al-Qaeda Affiliates; The Arab Spring; and Implications for US Security - Security Center

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. NYT's ? lol!!!!!
2. That bitch has a serious case of *affluenza*!
3. Her words, *What difference does it make now anyhow?*
4. *They are dead and buried and she is saying grass has grown over their graves by now so why blame me byatches!*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[KGB]

Um no he has FORMER ties to Al Qaeda.

LOL um....ok.

Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.

what exactly does that mean? Did he publicly denounce bin Laden, throw down his AK-47 & proclaim his love for the West?.....don't be naive. As long as he shares Al-Qaeda's goals, he isn't really a former associate....

 

[Billy000]

LOL um....ok.

Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.

what exactly does that mean? Did he publicly denounce bin Laden, throw down his AK-47 & proclaim his love for the West?.....don't be naive. As long as he shares Al-Qaeda's goals, he isn't really a former associate....

But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.

 

[MACAULAY]

It seems clear enough to me.

The New York Times is a shill for the Democratic Party. (Everybody knows this, even the Democrats, who only deny it because they don't want to admit its their shill.)

The Democratic Party sees Bengazi as a problem for Hillary Clinton, so there must be a beclouding of the facts, starting early....and soon this article will be cited by sycophants as God's Truth of the fact that the bogus video started everything.

One of the threats to this great country is the belief that what happens in places like Russia, China, Banana Republics, Looney-bin Muslims Satraps, etc....cannot happen here.....but the New York Times is evidence that it can.

 

[Antares]

Um no he has FORMER ties to Al Qaeda.

LOL um....ok.

Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Priceless.

The ORIGINAL two posts by rw are shattered and yet in the Left's utter desperation to defend their Liar in Chief they are willing to suspend the fact that the primary suspect INDEED led a terrorist group and INDEED had ties to a MAJOR terror group both documented, and then go on to defend the rest of the article as gospel.

You just cannot make this shit up.

 

[Antares]

Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.

what exactly does that mean? Did he publicly denounce bin Laden, throw down his AK-47 & proclaim his love for the West?.....don't be naive. As long as he shares Al-Qaeda's goals, he isn't really a former associate....

But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.

This is the second of rw's assertions......

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation

Patently untrue as I have shown.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So we have Obama first laying blame on a video through Mrs Rice, then telling an audience during the Presidential debate hosted by Candy Crowley how it was IN FACT a terrorist attack, before the New York Times set the record straight that it really wasn't. Based on all the intelligence sources available to the president, do we even know what this Commander-in-Chief was actually doing at the time of the attacks, or is this more proof of just how incompetent this man really is?

What do you mean what Obama was doing during the attacks?

A little more than an hour after the fighting broke out, Obama was being briefed.

Based on the insistence of this President to have his administration remain consistent in its information to the public, I'm sure his complete attention was on the "briefing" of those events as they unfolded and not the Presidential fundraiser in Las Vegas. Of course we know how much more important it was to remain available to the latest intelligence gathered on the attack when it occurs, as it concerns those lives at the American embassy, over the need to keep a scheduled fundraiser event.

 

[Billy000]

LOL um....ok.

Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Priceless.

The ORIGINAL two posts by rw are shattered and yet in the Left's utter desperation to defend their Liar in Chief they are willing to suspend the fact that the primary suspect INDEED led a terrorist group and INDEED had ties to a MAJOR terror group both documented, and then go on to defend the rest of the article as gospel.

You just cannot make this shit up.

No one is denying he USED TO have ties, but he doesn't anymore. He does not fly that official banner therefore calling the attack an Al Queda attack is completely untrue. Obama never said there weren't still terrorists in general in the area.

 

[rightwinger]

what exactly does that mean? Did he publicly denounce bin Laden, throw down his AK-47 & proclaim his love for the West?.....don't be naive. As long as he shares Al-Qaeda's goals, he isn't really a former associate....

But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.

This is the second of rw's assertions......

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation

Patently untrue as I have shown.

Double down on fail for your part

But self proclaimed victories can be so shallow

 

[francoHFW]

So say the 25 per cent who only believe Rush, Beck, ISSA, AND THE BS PUB PROPAGANDA MACHINE, THE REDNECK/FUNDIE/BRAINWASHED chumps of the greedy rich...truth is now liberal...

Yes, the muslim Rush of Cairo DID call for protests against American embassies because of that video, and Libya followed others. There are so many militias with RPGs and mortars, ''terrorists'' as a term becomes absurd there...

 

[9thIDdoc]

You didn't read it either did you?

No. I happened to pay attention to what we know happened. The NYT is probably more slanted than Pravda.

Yeah. I refuse to discuss this with you while you are in a place of willful ignorance. You wanna talk slant? Yeah - you refusing to admit there is any reality but the one you've provided: That's slant.

Right. Ignorance of what? The NYT opinion? What matters is the facts; not opinion.
It is fact that our government failed to provide reasonable security for our embassy, ignored requests for additional, and failed to provide any help when they were attacked.

Who attacked us and why is relatively unimportant compared to the central facts.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Did you ever question your perceptions of the situation?

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

Was Obama politically motivated when he changed his story from the video to calling it a terrorist attack at the debates, a version backed through the support of CNN moderator Candy Crowley?

 

[Antares]

But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.

This is the second of rw's assertions......

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation

Patently untrue as I have shown.

Double down on fail for your part

But self proclaimed victories can be so shallow

S'ok kid

Swallow that bammy jizz

 

[Bloodrock44]

The bottom line is that the state department admitted they turned down requests for extra security. For Christ's sake the anniversary for 9/11 was coming up. They knew trouble was brewing. Common sense would tell you to beef up security. Even a squad of Marines would have been sufficient to have stopped that attack. The fucking buck stops at the top.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._J6jQyD2ngmjd8ZEg&sig2=JVIzG4QEhbvqz67ycoLi6A

 

[Antares]

Yeah, but I'm asking RW about his perceptions...I'm open to him surprising me.

OK

My perceptions are that the conservative witch hunt against the Benghazi attacks have been ilfounded and politically motivated

The NYT investigation affirms that

Surprised? I'm not

Was Obama politically motivated when he changed his story from the video to calling it a terrorist attack at the debates, a version backed through the support of CNN moderator Candy Crowley?

Who after the fact admitted Romney was right.

Candy Crowley regarding the actual Obama quote – and she NOW says (after correcting Mitt Romney during the actual debate) that Romney was actually RIGHT – Barack Obama did NOT specifically call the Benghazi Massacre a terrorist attack during his words in the Rose Garden the day after as Obama tried to spin it during the debate tonight. And then for WEEKS after Obama refused to acknowledge Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were slain at the hands of Islamic terrorists

Debate Moderator Crowley Admits Romney Right On Obama?s False Reference To Benghazi Terrorism - The Ulsterman Report

 

[KGB]

Meaning he didn't represent the terrorist group any longer therefore he wouldn't have come on the radar. It doesn't get simpler than that.

what exactly does that mean? Did he publicly denounce bin Laden, throw down his AK-47 & proclaim his love for the West?.....don't be naive. As long as he shares Al-Qaeda's goals, he isn't really a former associate....

But if he wasn't actually Al Qeuda, what Obama said was genuine.

there is no such thing as retired Al Qaeda members....once Al Qaeda, always Al Qaeda....