NYTimes: Al-Qaeda not behind Bengahzi attacks (video in part to blame)

[theeedude]

lol.

Benghazi is so over it's not even on the radar of 80% of voters. That's a reality you'll have to come to grips with someday, especially when Repubs fail to do anything substantive in Nov. 2014.

What about Whitewater and Watergate? Those are front and center in voters' minds!

 

[werepossum]

lol.

Benghazi is so over it's not even on the radar of 80% of voters. That's a reality you'll have to come to grips with someday, especially when Repubs fail to do anything substantive in Nov. 2014.

Yeah, I really don't see how Republicans come out ahead on this issue. Obama has control of all the eyewitnesses and the public has no reason to trust the Pubbies any more than Obama. Maybe if an eyewitness or someone in State comes forward, but unless it's several people there's really no way to know if the accusations are even true or just more politics.

 

[michal1980]

well it came out. Hillary's fault, when your a dem and lose feinstien you must have really wandered off the reservation.

 

[Jhhnn]

well it came out. Hillary's fault, when your a dem and lose feinstien you must have really wandered off the reservation.

So, uhh, Feinstein said it was Hillary's fault? What, exactly, was Hillary's fault?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, I really don't see how Republicans come out ahead on this issue. Obama has control of all the eyewitnesses and the public has no reason to trust the Pubbies any more than Obama. Maybe if an eyewitness or someone in State comes forward, but unless it's several people there's really no way to know if the accusations are even true or just more politics.

It's not that. It's that the whole thing is conspiracy theory bullshit, always was.

You intimate that somebody might "come forward" to reveal the conspiracy, just to maintain the conspiracy theory, right?

Because you're just sure that there is a conspiracy, of course. Or at least you want others to entertain the possibility.

 

[michal1980]

So, uhh, Feinstein said it was Hillary's fault? What, exactly, was Hillary's fault?

not protecting the embassy.

 

[theeedude]

not protecting the embassy.

It wasn't an embassy. The embassy is in Tripoli. If Stevens evacuated to Tripoli like the British did, he and his men would still be alive.

 

[Incorruptible]

It's not that. It's that the whole thing is conspiracy theory bullshit, always was.

You intimate that somebody might "come forward" to reveal the conspiracy, just to maintain the conspiracy theory, right?

Because you're just sure that there is a conspiracy, of course. Or at least you want others to entertain the possibility.

So it's alright for obama to pander to radical Islam and lock up an innocent man who made a movie about Islam?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So it's alright for obama to pander to radical Islam and lock up an innocent man who made a movie about Islam?

So a man arrested for violating his probation is innocent? Innocent people get probation now? He also plead guilty to the charges of violating his probation.

Your definition of innocent needs some work.

 

[Incorruptible]

So a man arrested for violating his probation is innocent? Innocent people get probation now? He also plead guilty to the charges of violating his probation.

Your definition of innocent needs some work.

So you defend obama and you haven't attacked the terrorists.

He was arrested for making the movie and obama said that they would get him. obama said the future doesn't belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam.

Why was it necessary to have that many cops arrest him and keep in jail for so long? Why was it necessary to call the media.

obama didn't care about the probation violation but that he insulted Islam.

Would this have happened if the movie was about Christians?

 

[brycejones]

So you defend obama and you haven't attacked the terrorists.

He was arrested for making the movie and obama said that they would get him. obama said the future doesn't belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam.

Why was it necessary to have that many cops arrest him and keep in jail for so long? Why was it necessary to call the media.

obama didn't care about the probation violation but that he insulted Islam.

Would this have happened if the movie was about Christians?

Lol

 

[Incorruptible]

Lol

LOL

 

[brycejones]

LOL

Lol

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So you defend obama and you haven't attacked the terrorists.

He was arrested for making the movie and obama said that they would get him. obama said the future doesn't belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam.

Why was it necessary to have that many cops arrest him and keep in jail for so long? Why was it necessary to call the media.

obama didn't care about the probation violation but that he insulted Islam.

Would this have happened if the movie was about Christians?

Obama didn't arrest him. The state of California did. He has a lengthy criminal record. He violated the terms of his probation and admitted guilt to doing so.

So basically nothing you've said is true. You can support none of it. It's just something you believe to be true while ignoring the reality of why he was arrested. The man is a career criminal as documented by his lengthy criminal history. And you wouldn't defend him if he didn't make a video slamming Islam.

What I have said is supportable by facts. Please show what part of my stated facts is inaccurate.

 

[brycejones]

Obama didn't arrest him. The state of California did. He has a lengthy criminal record. He violated the terms of his probation and admitted guilt to doing so.

So basically nothing you've said is true. You can support none of it. It's just something you believe to be true while ignoring the reality of why he was arrested. The man is a career criminal as documented by his lengthy criminal history. And you wouldn't defend him if he didn't make a video slamming Islam.

What I have said is supportable by facts. Please show what part of my stated facts is inaccurate.

Facts don't matter to him. He will either ignore your post or just post the same junk again.

 

[michal1980]

It wasn't an embassy. The embassy is in Tripoli. If Stevens evacuated to Tripoli like the British did, he and his men would still be alive.

sorry misspoke. The rest of the statement still holds true.

 

[theeedude]

sorry misspoke. The rest of the statement still holds true.

In a limited resource world we live in, not all objects are going to be equally well protected. Embassies in capitals are more protected than outposts in a warzone.
Ambassador Stevens was aware of the level of protection in Benghazi. It was his decision to stay at that location on 9/11 instead of evacuating to the embassy in Tripoli which was more protected. The British chose to evacuate.
The guy liked to take risks, which is cool, until it blows up in your face.

 

[werepossum]

It's not that. It's that the whole thing is conspiracy theory bullshit, always was.

You intimate that somebody might "come forward" to reveal the conspiracy, just to maintain the conspiracy theory, right?

Because you're just sure that there is a conspiracy, of course. Or at least you want others to entertain the possibility.

You really need to take a course in remedial reading comprehension, dude. I'm not at all sure that there is a conspiracy or any egregious acts (as opposed to simple screw-ups) over which to conspire. I'm saying that for Republicans to come out ahead:
1. Something damaging to Obama and/or Hillary (assuming she runs in 2016) had to have happened which is known to some people.
2. If #1 is true, the Republicans have to find out about it.
3. If #1 & #2 are satisfied, the Republicans need some way to convince the public. Given that the public has no more reason to trust the Pubbies than the Dems and Obama, that requires eyewitnesses or persons otherwise having knowledge and provenance.
4. As these people are under Obama's chain of command, he would do everything reasonable to ensure they do not come forward.
5. If someone does come forward, the public would have no way of knowing whether he is telling the truth. Even people who are not politicians sometimes lie for political (or other) reasons. Therefore at least two or three would be needed unless it was someone of unimpeachable integrity as perceived by the public.
6. If #5 happened, the Obama attack machine would go into action to discredit the accusations.

To sum it all up, for the Republicans to come out ahead:
Obama and/or Hillary had to do something illegal, immoral or otherwise unethical; Republicans have to learn what it is; Republicans have to have witnesses with sufficient gravitas and provenance to be believed; and Republicans have to overcome the Democrat effort to discredit the claims.

Nothing about this assumes that there is anything to cover up. (In fact, perception being reality in politics that is arguably the least important element and the only one which could conceivably fail, yet leave the Pubbies coming out ahead on Benghazi by selling the notion that there is something to cover up when there is not.) All I'm saying is that IF there is something damaging to Team Obama, the Republicans would still face an uphill battle coming out on top and are unlikely to succeed. Since I see nothing particularly damaging to Obama or even Hillary, and I can see the uphill battle the Pubbies would face if there is something damaging, I see no way the Republicans come out ahead on Benghazi.

One could even make the argument that the Republicans stand a better chance of damaging Obama if there is no basis, for if there is information that is personally damaging Obama would surely expend a lot more energy keeping the eyewitnesses away from Republicans than if this is a knee-jerk reaction that nothing they say can help him and it might possibly hurt him whether or not he did anything wrong, so it's best these people are not accessible to Republican Congressional investigators.

 

[berzerker60]

Not sure if this is what's brought on today's Benghazi 'outrage,' but the Senate Intelligence Committee just put out a report. It's long and lots going on, but some headlines via NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/w...nds-benghazi-attack-was-preventable.html?_r=0

A stinging report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Wednesday concluded that the attack 16 months ago that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, could have been prevented, singling out the State Department for criticism for its failure to bolster security in response to intelligence warnings about a growing security crisis around the city. The report is broadly consistent with the findings of previous inquiries into the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, but it is the first public examination of a breakdown in communications between the State Department and the C.I.A. during the weeks leading up to the deadly episode at the diplomatic compound where J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, died.


It is also the first report to implicitly criticize Mr. Stevens, raising questions about his judgment and actions in the weeks before his death. Like previous inquiries, the Senate investigation does not cite any specific intelligence warnings about an impending attack.
...

The report does not break significant new ground on the issue of administration statements about the episode, or on the infamous “talking points” drawn up after the attack for a television appearance by Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser. But it is unsparing in its criticism of the State Department for failing to provide adequate security to the mission even as violence spiked in Benghazi in June 2012. In contrast, the report said, the C.I.A. quickly bolstered security at its annex about a mile away.

...
Together with the conclusions of previous investigations, the new Senate findings are likely to increase pressure on Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management, whose office oversees diplomatic security. Republicans on the committee noted that Mr. Kennedy held a similar job in the prelude to the bombings of two American Embassies in East Africa in 1998 and should be held accountable for the Benghazi tragedy.



On the contentious issue of the role of Al Qaeda or other international terrorist organizations in the attack on the diplomatic mission, the Senate committee’s report found that individuals “affiliated with” many such groups had participated in the attack but that none of them appeared to have planned or led the assault.
The report found that among the many terrorist groups with which individual attackers had some affiliation were Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda’s North African affiliate, Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, and the Egyptian network led by Muhammad Jamal. But the report said “intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic.”


“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”
The American-made video, which denigrated Islam and was posted on YouTube, set off a number of protests across the Middle East. An investigation published by The New York Times last month found that anger over the video had played a significant role in precipitating the Benghazi attack.


...
At times Mr. Stevens requested additional security personnel from the State Department in Washington. But the inquiry also found that in June 2012, around the time the threats were mounting, Mr. Stevens recommended hiring and training local Libyan guards to form security teams in Tripoli and Benghazi. The plan showed a faith in local Libyan support that proved misplaced on the night of the attack.
...
After reading the cable, Gen. Carter F. Ham, then the commander of the United States Africa Command, called Mr. Stevens to ask if the embassy in Tripoli needed additional military personnel, potentially for use in Benghazi, “but Stevens told Ham it did not,” the report said. A short time later, General Ham reiterated the offer at a meeting in Germany, and “Stevens again declined,” the report said.
...
The White House largely lined up behind the report’s findings. “This reinforces what other investigations have found,” a White House spokesman, Jay Carney, told reporters on Wednesday.
The State Department has been racing to fulfill 29 recommendations made in December 2012 by an independent review panel as part of its investigation into the attacks. Those include sending dozens of additional diplomatic security agents to high-threat embassies and installing millions of dollars in advanced fire-survival gear.

 

[OutHouse]

Ny times, lol fail.

Called it.

 

[compuwiz1]

http://americanoverlook.com/video-t...ation-is-about-to-get-really-interesting/8976

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a prominent voice on the House Judiciary Committee, is calling for Hillary Clinton to be publically tried for her involvement in four Americans’ murders. Clinton acted indifferently and incompetently. “A prudent person” never would’ve let this happen, Gowdy said.

Watch the video. It's far from over. Hillary's feet are going to be held to the fire.

"You will want to follow the hearings that are coming up - Trey Gowdy"

 

[UberNeuman]

http://americanoverlook.com/video-t...ation-is-about-to-get-really-interesting/8976



Watch the video. It's far from over. Hillary's feet are going to be held to the fire.

"You will want to follow the hearings that are coming up - Trey Gowdy"

ah, yes, feet.. Feet you're unwilling to remove from your mouth from...

\keep sucking at those toes... FOR JUSTICE!
\\why you keep choosing to be a fool is beyond me..

 

[compuwiz1]

ah, yes, feet.. Feet your unwilling to remove from your mouth...

\keep sucking at those toes... FOR JUSTICE!
\\why you keep choosing to be a fool is beyond me..

You just don't pay attention, do you? You don't get it and never will. I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.

Obama - Liar
Hillary - Liar
Susan Rice - Liar

Decent people can't condone this kind of behavior. You are not decent people.....just another disingenuous liberal. Go fuck yourself!

 

[UberNeuman]

You just don't pay attention, do you? You don't get it and never will. I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.

Obama - Liar
Hillary - Liar
Susan Rice - Liar

Decent people can't condone this kind of behavior. You are not decent people.....just another disingenuous liberal. Go fuck yourself!

Well, that's nice.... Get something more than speculation to make your point.... or continue rambling on like the mad nutter with a sandwich board proclaiming "The End is Nigh!"

 

[theeedude]

http://americanoverlook.com/video-t...ation-is-about-to-get-really-interesting/8976



Watch the video. It's far from over. Hillary's feet are going to be held to the fire.

"You will want to follow the hearings that are coming up - Trey Gowdy"

That was from last April. We already saw the hearings that came up, they were not interesting. It's not far from over, it is over.