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.
[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.That was 25 years of New Bs GOP BS/hate against Hillary, actually. So what's your explanation of polls always being 4% off?She never said a WORD against Sanders, and what DNC staffers BSed about means NOTHING, dupe- That didn't stop all pundits from ALSO making mountains out of nothing. Our media is gotcha pathetic. Still, Hillary was up 10 til Comey started it up again with 11 days to go- against all protocol. Now 4% of that was Trump voters lying or ignoring pollsters, but that did it, DUH dupe.
If your minions were so willing to desert Hillary, over something that had been dragging on for a year (and, according to you, amounted to nothing at all), I would suggest that she never had them in the first place.
So, you're going to tell me that it was the fault of Trump voters who ignored the pollsters that caused Hillary to get lost? You'd have better luck trying to blame on the kindergarten classes in Chicago's 4th School District, but that makes a lot more sense.
Why do you care? Are you trying to tell us that if the polls had been more accurate, Hillary would have won? What kind of perverted nonsense is that?
To quote that great philosopher and humanitarian, "What difference does it make"?
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
They have a one month-6 week paid vacation after 1 year. Free health care and daycare, free college, $11 min wage, and cars duh. You vote for giant tax cuts for the rich. lolWe're #23 in happiness behind all of them. They have health care, day care, good pay, great vacations and cheap college still....at this rate we never will. Americans don't seem to know they could have control over these things.I mean people in Europe have no clue. Sorry Europeans.Then why do you vote for the greedy rich and believe a pile of crap? "They don't let the greedy idiot rich tell them what to think. Their infrastructure, health care, day care, pay, number in prison, cost of college, taxes on the rich, vacations, etc etc make us look like fools."
The EU and Sweden look like fools compared to the US right now.Very mysterious. What do you mean?Because the greedy idiot GOP wrecked the world economy, and they don't have our natural resources? They have health care, day care, good pay, great vacations and cheap college still....at this rate we never will. Americans don't seem to know they could have control over these things.
I have bolded the key word with you.
You might be 100.
We have health care, day care, great pay, great vacations.......
BTW: The normal person working there pays over 50% in taxes lives in an apartment that we'd consider cramped and has to ride public transportation.
MOVE.
[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.That was 25 years of New Bs GOP BS/hate against Hillary, actually. So what's your explanation of polls always being 4% off?If your minions were so willing to desert Hillary, over something that had been dragging on for a year (and, according to you, amounted to nothing at all), I would suggest that she never had them in the first place.
So, you're going to tell me that it was the fault of Trump voters who ignored the pollsters that caused Hillary to get lost? You'd have better luck trying to blame on the kindergarten classes in Chicago's 4th School District, but that makes a lot more sense.
Why do you care? Are you trying to tell us that if the polls had been more accurate, Hillary would have won? What kind of perverted nonsense is that?
To quote that great philosopher and humanitarian, "What difference does it make"?
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
Yup, only proven non-stop liars Sean and Rush will do. Google ''witnesses say attackers in Bengazi said video was the motivation" and take your pick, superdupe. But you can be sure Fox, Heritage, the Moonie Examiner, the Adelson Times will continue to ignore real news, dingbat dupe.[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.That was 25 years of New Bs GOP BS/hate against Hillary, actually. So what's your explanation of polls always being 4% off?
Why do you care? Are you trying to tell us that if the polls had been more accurate, Hillary would have won? What kind of perverted nonsense is that?
To quote that great philosopher and humanitarian, "What difference does it make"?
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
“You’re awake by the way. You’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also, you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell. This is your life now. This is our election now. This is us. This is our country.” – Rachel Maddow’s reaction to Trump becoming President
When Barack Obama was elected, conservatives didn’t cry like the liberals you see in this HILARIOUS VIDEO. We didn’t need therapy. We didn’t start wailing that he was Hitler or demand safe spaces. Instead, we said, “That sucks. This guy is going to be terrible for the country.” By the way, we were right. He was. But still, we got up and we went to work. Then when the time came, we went to Tea Parties. We obeyed the law at those Tea Parties. We paid for our permits. We were polite to the police. We cleaned up behind ourselves. Then we organized and we took control of the House and the Senate along with the majority of state legislatures and governorships. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
What we didn’t do was put on masks and riot in D.C. because we didn’t like the candidate who was elected. What we didn’t do was tear up Berkeley because we were upset that a pro-Trump gay guy was invited to give a speech. We didn’t smash any windows at Starbucks. We didn’t squirt pepper spray in people’s faces because they wore hats we didn’t like. If we had done that, Townhall and Right Wing News wouldn’t have written columns talking up the riots like the UC Berkeley student paper did. The rationale was that having people say things students don’t like on their campus is the same as committing violence against them and therefore, their violent outbursts represented “self-defense” against fascism…or something. It’s a little hard to follow the reasoning of crazy people sometimes, but as Phil Massey said, “They're trying to fight imagined fascism with actual fascism.”
Donald Trump Has Caused The Left to Lose Its Mind
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
History may tell us THIS was his greatest accomplishment.
Yup, only proven non-stop liars Sean and Rush will do. Google ''witnesses say attackers in Bengazi said video was the motivation" and take your pick, superdupe. But you can be sure Fox, Heritage, the Moonie Examiner, the Adelson Times will continue to ignore real news, dingbat dupe.[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.Why do you care? Are you trying to tell us that if the polls had been more accurate, Hillary would have won? What kind of perverted nonsense is that?
To quote that great philosopher and humanitarian, "What difference does it make"?
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
Yup, only proven non-stop liars Sean and Rush will do. Google ''witnesses say attackers in Bengazi said video was the motivation" and take your pick, superdupe. But you can be sure Fox, Heritage, the Moonie Examiner, the Adelson Times will continue to ignore real news, dingbat dupe.[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.Why do you care? Are you trying to tell us that if the polls had been more accurate, Hillary would have won? What kind of perverted nonsense is that?
To quote that great philosopher and humanitarian, "What difference does it make"?
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
ONLY on Fox, Rush, Koch Heritage, Moonie Times, Adelson Times, and the GOP Fake News Network, etc etc etc, superdupe.“You’re awake by the way. You’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also, you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell. This is your life now. This is our election now. This is us. This is our country.” – Rachel Maddow’s reaction to Trump becoming President
When Barack Obama was elected, conservatives didn’t cry like the liberals you see in this HILARIOUS VIDEO. We didn’t need therapy. We didn’t start wailing that he was Hitler or demand safe spaces. Instead, we said, “That sucks. This guy is going to be terrible for the country.” By the way, we were right. He was. But still, we got up and we went to work. Then when the time came, we went to Tea Parties. We obeyed the law at those Tea Parties. We paid for our permits. We were polite to the police. We cleaned up behind ourselves. Then we organized and we took control of the House and the Senate along with the majority of state legislatures and governorships. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
What we didn’t do was put on masks and riot in D.C. because we didn’t like the candidate who was elected. What we didn’t do was tear up Berkeley because we were upset that a pro-Trump gay guy was invited to give a speech. We didn’t smash any windows at Starbucks. We didn’t squirt pepper spray in people’s faces because they wore hats we didn’t like. If we had done that, Townhall and Right Wing News wouldn’t have written columns talking up the riots like the UC Berkeley student paper did. The rationale was that having people say things students don’t like on their campus is the same as committing violence against them and therefore, their violent outbursts represented “self-defense” against fascism…or something. It’s a little hard to follow the reasoning of crazy people sometimes, but as Phil Massey said, “They're trying to fight imagined fascism with actual fascism.”
Donald Trump Has Caused The Left to Lose Its Mind
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
History may tell us THIS was his greatest accomplishment.
Ain't it grand?
So what? That was the first night, when even FOX said it was in reaction to the video, before they got their bs propaganda act together. And guess what, Foxbot shyttehead, it can be against the video AND a "terrorist" attack, dunces. But carry on with your incredibly stupid propaganda. You've heard irrelevant crap so many times you CAN"T respond intelligently. LOLYup, only proven non-stop liars Sean and Rush will do. Google ''witnesses say attackers in Bengazi said video was the motivation" and take your pick, superdupe. But you can be sure Fox, Heritage, the Moonie Examiner, the Adelson Times will continue to ignore real news, dingbat dupe.[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
You're full of excrement. That is of course why Hillary emailed Chelsea that it was a terror attack by an "Al Qaeda" like group.
Fake news is 99% RW, idiot. The NYT and Wapo are the most respected US news outlets everywhere BUT Dupe world. Poor America.Yup, only proven non-stop liars Sean and Rush will do. Google ''witnesses say attackers in Bengazi said video was the motivation" and take your pick, superdupe. But you can be sure Fox, Heritage, the Moonie Examiner, the Adelson Times will continue to ignore real news, dingbat dupe.[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
... I did, and I came right back to the same fake news. Clearly, you are only capable of believing what you want to believe . the truth might set you free, but apparently, it also scares the shit out of you.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Ph8kAPuHDu2VyaDdg&sig2=oxHT_R3g4_w5tUWiyHYVGQ[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.That was 25 years of New Bs GOP BS/hate against Hillary, actually. So what's your explanation of polls always being 4% off?
Why do you care? Are you trying to tell us that if the polls had been more accurate, Hillary would have won? What kind of perverted nonsense is that?
To quote that great philosopher and humanitarian, "What difference does it make"?
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
How bout Fox, brainwashed functional MORON? lolYup, only proven non-stop liars Sean and Rush will do. Google ''witnesses say attackers in Bengazi said video was the motivation" and take your pick, superdupe. But you can be sure Fox, Heritage, the Moonie Examiner, the Adelson Times will continue to ignore real news, dingbat dupe.[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
You're full of excrement. That is of course why Hillary emailed Chelsea that it was a terror attack by an "Al Qaeda" like group.
Fake news is 99% RW, idiot. The NYT and Wapo are the most respected US news outlets everywhere BUT Dupe world. Poor America.Yup, only proven non-stop liars Sean and Rush will do. Google ''witnesses say attackers in Bengazi said video was the motivation" and take your pick, superdupe. But you can be sure Fox, Heritage, the Moonie Examiner, the Adelson Times will continue to ignore real news, dingbat dupe.[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
... I did, and I came right back to the same fake news. Clearly, you are only capable of believing what you want to believe . the truth might set you free, but apparently, it also scares the shit out of you.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjfup7YkY7SAhWJllQKHW67CSkQFggcMAA&url=http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/23/benghazi-flashback-when-fox-news-reported-that/206391&usg=AFQjCNE44H2n8wCkDPh8kAPuHDu2VyaDdg&sig2=oxHT_R3g4_w5tUWiyHYVGQ[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.Why do you care? Are you trying to tell us that if the polls had been more accurate, Hillary would have won? What kind of perverted nonsense is that?
To quote that great philosopher and humanitarian, "What difference does it make"?
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
So how bout Fox, superdupe? Hey, most of the country believes your propaganda, not to worry. BS propaganda works...
From last link:
But During The Night Of The Benghazi Attack, Fox News Itself Reported That The Video Inspired The Attack
Greta Van Susteren: "Both Attacks Were Triggered By A Movie Produced In The United States That Protesters Say Is Anti-Muslim." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Van Susteren twice repeated an Associated Press story that cited an anti-Islam video as a trigger for the Benghazi attack:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: This is a "FOX News Alert." An American consulate worker murdered and at least one other wounded in the American consulate in Libya, that according to the Libyan security officials. The Associated Press is now reporting the American was shot to death when gunmen stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and clashed with security forces.
And there is more violence against America tonight, this time in Cairo, Egypt, thousands of protesters marching on the U.S. embassy. They climbed the embassy walls, they ripped down our American flag, they burned our flag, and then they replaced our flag at our embassy with a black Islamist flag!
According to the A.P., both attacks were triggered by a movie produced in the United States that protesters say is anti-Muslim. The AP further reports that movie was made by an anti-Muslim extremist. "On the Record" is tracking these breaking news stories and will bring you developments throughout the hour.
[...]
VAN SUSTEREN: This is a "FOX News Alert," an American State Department officer killed in Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now confirming the killing at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. At least one other person was reportedly wounded after gunmen stormed the consulate. There are also reports of looting.
And there is even more violence tonight in Cairo, Egypt, thousands of protesters marching on the U.S. embassy. According to the Associated Press, both attacks were triggered by an anti-Muslim film produced here in the United States. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 9/11/12, via Nexis]
Fox's Bret Baier: "There Was ... Protest Over The Video At The U.S. Consulate In Benghazi." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Baier reported that there was a "protest over the video" in Benghazi:
BAIER: There was also protest over the video at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Report says an armed mob set fire to that building. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 9/11/12]
Fox's Dana Perino: "An American Citizen Died ... It Is Happening Across The Middle East Because Of A Video That Was Produced In The United States." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox host Dana Perino explained that there were many protests occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa over the anti-Islam video, and blamed a protest over the video for the death of Americans in Benghazi:
DANA PERINO: There has been a lot of talk in the last couple weeks about hard truths. But the people in the Muslim world -- can deal with hard truths as well. They need to be communicated to in a way that they could understand. The other thing is that there were other protests that were sparked today and an American person -- an American citizen died --
DOUG SCHOEN: In Libya!
PERINO: In Libya. So it is not just happening in Egypt. It is happening across the Middle East because of a video that was produced in the United States. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/11/12]
Associated Press Report Cited By Fox Was Based On Information From The Libyan Government
AP Report Cited By Fox Got Information From Libyan Government Official, Not Clinton Or The Obama Administration. The Associated Press reported at 5:17 pm, prior to the airing of Fox's Special Report or On the Record, that a Libyan official said the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi was stormed "after a protest against a video deemed insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad." From the AP report:
A Libyan Interior Ministry official says armed men have stormed the US consulate in east Libya's Benghazi and set it ablaze after a protest against a video deemed insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad, which was reportedly produced in America.
Witnesses say Tuesday's attack left much of the consulate burned. It came hours after ultraconservative Islamist demonstrators in Egypt climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest the film.
Wanis al-Sharef, an interior ministry official in Benghazi, says the attackers stormed the consulate after firing in the air. [Associated Press, 9/11/12]
Initial Intelligence Regarding Attackers And Their Motivations Was "Piecemeal" And "Conflicting" And "Continued To Change Throughout The Week"
House Intelligence Committee: Initial Intelligence Surrounding The Attackers' Identities And Motives Was "Piecemeal" And "Conflicting." The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's Benghazi investigation found that in the wake of the attacks, "intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers," and that "much of the early intelligence was conflicting":
After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain.
Various witnesses and senior military officials serving in the Obama Administration testified to this Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist acts against U.S. interests. 125 No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts.
Along those lines, in the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012, President Obama said that four "extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi," and said that: "[n]o acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
However, it was not clear whether the terrorist attacks were committed by al-Qa'ida or by various groups of other bad actors, some of who may have been affiliated with al-Qa'ida. Early CIA, NCTC, DIA, and CJCS intelligence assessments on September 12th and 13th stated that members of AAS and various al-Qa'ida affiliates "likely," "probably," or "possibl[y]" participated in the attacks. [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 11/21/14]
According to brainwashed functional moron GOP propaganda/fake news drones.Fake news is 99% RW, idiot. The NYT and Wapo are the most respected US news outlets everywhere BUT Dupe world. Poor America.Yup, only proven non-stop liars Sean and Rush will do. Google ''witnesses say attackers in Bengazi said video was the motivation" and take your pick, superdupe. But you can be sure Fox, Heritage, the Moonie Examiner, the Adelson Times will continue to ignore real news, dingbat dupe.[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
... I did, and I came right back to the same fake news. Clearly, you are only capable of believing what you want to believe . the truth might set you free, but apparently, it also scares the shit out of you.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjfup7YkY7SAhWJllQKHW67CSkQFggcMAA&url=http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/23/benghazi-flashback-when-fox-news-reported-that/206391&usg=AFQjCNE44H2n8wCkDPh8kAPuHDu2VyaDdg&sig2=oxHT_R3g4_w5tUWiyHYVGQ[paste:font size="4"]1/15/14] [Media Matters, 10/21/16]If they had, she might have campaigned more in PA, Mi, and Wi duh. No, I'm saying Comey is scum GOP.
Hillary said that after all the GOP BS about the BENGAZEEEEE!!!!!! attackers's motives, though none had ever been asked. And you fools are absolutely certain the video had nothing to do with it, though the attackers told onlookers that was their reason, AND there were 20 other attacks/protests at the time in the ME that were. You're total dupes. Get it?
You, of course, have proof that the attackers said they did it because they were crazed as the result of youtube video, right? And, you're more than willing to show us that, right?
NY Times: Suspected Benghazi Ringleader Told Witnesses The Benghazi Attack Was In Response To Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video. According to The New York Times, Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured in June 2014 by U.S. military on an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attack, "told fellow Islamist fighters" on the night of the attack "and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video" mocking Islam that inspired demonstrations in Cairo:
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
[...]
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls -- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. [The New York Times, 6/17/14]
NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times reported that on the night of the Benghazi attack, attackers "did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video" (emphasis original):
What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?
According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]
Wash. Post's Ignatius: CIA Document Supported Rice's Description Of Attack As Reaction To Anti-Islam Video. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the CIA confirmed that Rice's description of the Benghazi attack on the Sunday shows was accurate:
"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [The Washington Post, 10/19/12]
Wash. Post Editorial: News Organizations Quoted People At The Burning Consulate Saying They "Were Angry About The Video." A November 22, 2012, Washington Post editorial pointed out that several Western news organizations quoted people protesting outside the attacked Benghazi consulate saying that they were angry about the anti-Islam YouTube video:
Though investigations are not complete, what has emerged so far suggests that the attack was staged by local jihadists, not ordered by the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Officials believe that it was inspired in part by demonstrations that took place that day in Cairo. That is not so far from Ms. Rice's explanation that "this began as a spontaneous . . . response to what transpired in Cairo." Republicans claim that Ms. Rice "propagated a falsehood" that the attacks were connected to an anti-Islam YouTube video. How then to explain the contemporaneous reports from Western news organizations quoting people at the burning consulate saying that they were angry about the video? [The Washington Post, 11/22/12]
You expect us to accept a second-hand account from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times??
Surely, you jest.
USED to be respected .... now, they're nothing more than a propaganda tool for the left.
Of course it was, superdupe. There were 20+ other attacks/protests against the video at the time, all in reaction to calls from the fundie Rush Limbaugh of Cairo. You are totally duped. Poor America. Can you read? lol. Or can you only listen to Sean and Rush? Everything I've posted is backed up by respected media and fact checkers. Poor America...So how bout Fox, superdupe? Hey, most of the country believes your propaganda, not to worry. BS propaganda works...
From last link:
But During The Night Of The Benghazi Attack, Fox News Itself Reported That The Video Inspired The Attack
Greta Van Susteren: "Both Attacks Were Triggered By A Movie Produced In The United States That Protesters Say Is Anti-Muslim." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Van Susteren twice repeated an Associated Press story that cited an anti-Islam video as a trigger for the Benghazi attack:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: This is a "FOX News Alert." An American consulate worker murdered and at least one other wounded in the American consulate in Libya, that according to the Libyan security officials. The Associated Press is now reporting the American was shot to death when gunmen stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and clashed with security forces.
And there is more violence against America tonight, this time in Cairo, Egypt, thousands of protesters marching on the U.S. embassy. They climbed the embassy walls, they ripped down our American flag, they burned our flag, and then they replaced our flag at our embassy with a black Islamist flag!
According to the A.P., both attacks were triggered by a movie produced in the United States that protesters say is anti-Muslim. The AP further reports that movie was made by an anti-Muslim extremist. "On the Record" is tracking these breaking news stories and will bring you developments throughout the hour.
[...]
VAN SUSTEREN: This is a "FOX News Alert," an American State Department officer killed in Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now confirming the killing at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. At least one other person was reportedly wounded after gunmen stormed the consulate. There are also reports of looting.
And there is even more violence tonight in Cairo, Egypt, thousands of protesters marching on the U.S. embassy. According to the Associated Press, both attacks were triggered by an anti-Muslim film produced here in the United States. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 9/11/12, via Nexis]
Fox's Bret Baier: "There Was ... Protest Over The Video At The U.S. Consulate In Benghazi." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Baier reported that there was a "protest over the video" in Benghazi:
BAIER: There was also protest over the video at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Report says an armed mob set fire to that building. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 9/11/12]
Fox's Dana Perino: "An American Citizen Died ... It Is Happening Across The Middle East Because Of A Video That Was Produced In The United States." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox host Dana Perino explained that there were many protests occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa over the anti-Islam video, and blamed a protest over the video for the death of Americans in Benghazi:
DANA PERINO: There has been a lot of talk in the last couple weeks about hard truths. But the people in the Muslim world -- can deal with hard truths as well. They need to be communicated to in a way that they could understand. The other thing is that there were other protests that were sparked today and an American person -- an American citizen died --
DOUG SCHOEN: In Libya!
PERINO: In Libya. So it is not just happening in Egypt. It is happening across the Middle East because of a video that was produced in the United States. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/11/12]
Associated Press Report Cited By Fox Was Based On Information From The Libyan Government
AP Report Cited By Fox Got Information From Libyan Government Official, Not Clinton Or The Obama Administration. The Associated Press reported at 5:17 pm, prior to the airing of Fox's Special Report or On the Record, that a Libyan official said the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi was stormed "after a protest against a video deemed insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad." From the AP report:
A Libyan Interior Ministry official says armed men have stormed the US consulate in east Libya's Benghazi and set it ablaze after a protest against a video deemed insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad, which was reportedly produced in America.
Witnesses say Tuesday's attack left much of the consulate burned. It came hours after ultraconservative Islamist demonstrators in Egypt climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest the film.
Wanis al-Sharef, an interior ministry official in Benghazi, says the attackers stormed the consulate after firing in the air. [Associated Press, 9/11/12]
Initial Intelligence Regarding Attackers And Their Motivations Was "Piecemeal" And "Conflicting" And "Continued To Change Throughout The Week"
House Intelligence Committee: Initial Intelligence Surrounding The Attackers' Identities And Motives Was "Piecemeal" And "Conflicting." The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's Benghazi investigation found that in the wake of the attacks, "intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers," and that "much of the early intelligence was conflicting":
After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain.
Various witnesses and senior military officials serving in the Obama Administration testified to this Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist acts against U.S. interests. 125 No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts.
Along those lines, in the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012, President Obama said that four "extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi," and said that: "[n]o acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
However, it was not clear whether the terrorist attacks were committed by al-Qa'ida or by various groups of other bad actors, some of who may have been affiliated with al-Qa'ida. Early CIA, NCTC, DIA, and CJCS intelligence assessments on September 12th and 13th stated that members of AAS and various al-Qa'ida affiliates "likely," "probably," or "possibl[y]" participated in the attacks. [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 11/21/14]
You lonely and needing attention?
You are the only person in America who still thinks it was a "video".
That is pretty much correct, dupe. Fox is your best and they need to apoogize about every 10 minutes but never do. There are some fake news on LW websites I suppose, but I don't know where. The NYT has apologized a couple times, for repeating RW BS, dupe. Your party is a world wide laughingstock and disgrace, dupe. Luckily, Trump may not be so misinformed. He's already dumped the dupes on several fronts (Lock her up BS, GW BS) and the courts have stopped him on others.Rule #1- There is no such thing as a "bad" Leftwing source
Rule #2- There is no such thing as a "good" Rightwing source
Just ask him
Stimulus worked-ran out in 2010.
Of course it was, superdupe. There were 20+ other attacks/protests against the video at the time, all in reaction to calls from the fundie Rush Limbaugh of Cairo. You are totally duped. Poor America. Can you read? lol. Or can you only listen to Sean and Rush? Everything I've posted is backed up by respected media and fact checkers. Poor America...So how bout Fox, superdupe? Hey, most of the country believes your propaganda, not to worry. BS propaganda works...
From last link:
But During The Night Of The Benghazi Attack, Fox News Itself Reported That The Video Inspired The Attack
Greta Van Susteren: "Both Attacks Were Triggered By A Movie Produced In The United States That Protesters Say Is Anti-Muslim." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Van Susteren twice repeated an Associated Press story that cited an anti-Islam video as a trigger for the Benghazi attack:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: This is a "FOX News Alert." An American consulate worker murdered and at least one other wounded in the American consulate in Libya, that according to the Libyan security officials. The Associated Press is now reporting the American was shot to death when gunmen stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and clashed with security forces.
And there is more violence against America tonight, this time in Cairo, Egypt, thousands of protesters marching on the U.S. embassy. They climbed the embassy walls, they ripped down our American flag, they burned our flag, and then they replaced our flag at our embassy with a black Islamist flag!
According to the A.P., both attacks were triggered by a movie produced in the United States that protesters say is anti-Muslim. The AP further reports that movie was made by an anti-Muslim extremist. "On the Record" is tracking these breaking news stories and will bring you developments throughout the hour.
[...]
VAN SUSTEREN: This is a "FOX News Alert," an American State Department officer killed in Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now confirming the killing at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. At least one other person was reportedly wounded after gunmen stormed the consulate. There are also reports of looting.
And there is even more violence tonight in Cairo, Egypt, thousands of protesters marching on the U.S. embassy. According to the Associated Press, both attacks were triggered by an anti-Muslim film produced here in the United States. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 9/11/12, via Nexis]
Fox's Bret Baier: "There Was ... Protest Over The Video At The U.S. Consulate In Benghazi." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Baier reported that there was a "protest over the video" in Benghazi:
BAIER: There was also protest over the video at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Report says an armed mob set fire to that building. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 9/11/12]
Fox's Dana Perino: "An American Citizen Died ... It Is Happening Across The Middle East Because Of A Video That Was Produced In The United States." On the September 11, 2012 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox host Dana Perino explained that there were many protests occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa over the anti-Islam video, and blamed a protest over the video for the death of Americans in Benghazi:
DANA PERINO: There has been a lot of talk in the last couple weeks about hard truths. But the people in the Muslim world -- can deal with hard truths as well. They need to be communicated to in a way that they could understand. The other thing is that there were other protests that were sparked today and an American person -- an American citizen died --
DOUG SCHOEN: In Libya!
PERINO: In Libya. So it is not just happening in Egypt. It is happening across the Middle East because of a video that was produced in the United States. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/11/12]
Associated Press Report Cited By Fox Was Based On Information From The Libyan Government
AP Report Cited By Fox Got Information From Libyan Government Official, Not Clinton Or The Obama Administration. The Associated Press reported at 5:17 pm, prior to the airing of Fox's Special Report or On the Record, that a Libyan official said the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi was stormed "after a protest against a video deemed insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad." From the AP report:
A Libyan Interior Ministry official says armed men have stormed the US consulate in east Libya's Benghazi and set it ablaze after a protest against a video deemed insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad, which was reportedly produced in America.
Witnesses say Tuesday's attack left much of the consulate burned. It came hours after ultraconservative Islamist demonstrators in Egypt climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest the film.
Wanis al-Sharef, an interior ministry official in Benghazi, says the attackers stormed the consulate after firing in the air. [Associated Press, 9/11/12]
Initial Intelligence Regarding Attackers And Their Motivations Was "Piecemeal" And "Conflicting" And "Continued To Change Throughout The Week"
House Intelligence Committee: Initial Intelligence Surrounding The Attackers' Identities And Motives Was "Piecemeal" And "Conflicting." The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's Benghazi investigation found that in the wake of the attacks, "intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers," and that "much of the early intelligence was conflicting":
After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain.
Various witnesses and senior military officials serving in the Obama Administration testified to this Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist acts against U.S. interests. 125 No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts.
Along those lines, in the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012, President Obama said that four "extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi," and said that: "[n]o acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
However, it was not clear whether the terrorist attacks were committed by al-Qa'ida or by various groups of other bad actors, some of who may have been affiliated with al-Qa'ida. Early CIA, NCTC, DIA, and CJCS intelligence assessments on September 12th and 13th stated that members of AAS and various al-Qa'ida affiliates "likely," "probably," or "possibl[y]" participated in the attacks. [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 11/21/14]
You lonely and needing attention?
You are the only person in America who still thinks it was a "video".
