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

[michal1980]

What the republicans may have gotten wrong: That Al-Qaeda’s was behind it.

What Obama lied about - everything else.

Even this NYT fluffy piece says the attack was planned. The keep bring up the video, but can never say it was about the video because it was not. The video only helped fuel the aftermath after the attack started.

The CIA along with Obama with all their spying of American's and data collection missed the fact the no one was friendly to the American's in Libya.

Then after vowing to capture those that started the attacks, Obama pussied out.

By last summer, United States investigators had interviewed hundreds of witnesses and formally asked the Libyan government to arrest Mr. Abu Khattala, along with about a dozen others wanted for questioning. The United States military also prepared a plan to capture him on its own, pending presidential approval, officials said. But the administration held back, fearing that unilateral United States military action could set off a backlash that would undermine the fragile Libyan government.

A backlash, darn. No one in Libya helped the USA during the attack, and we are worried about backlash? LOL.

eskimospy aka Carney will surely spin this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You just linked infowars.

Attacking the source instead of presenting a rational rebuttal. Really? You're slipping my good friend.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/29/benghazi-attack-al-qaeda-republicans/4240117/

One point of contention is whether an Islamic group involved in the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, has ties to the terrorist group al-Qaeda. The Times described Ansar al-Sharia as an independent militia and a "purely local extremist organization."

Rogers said his intelligence disputes that. "Did they have differences of opinion with al-Qaeda core? Yes. Do they have affiliations with al-Qaeda core? Definitely," he said.

Rogers said his assessment is based on more than 4,000 diplomatic cables reviewed by the Intelligence committee as part of its investigation. And one congressional Democrat who serves on that committee backed him up.

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

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

 

[fskimospy]

Attacking the source instead of presenting a rational rebuttal. Really? You're slipping my good friend.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/29/benghazi-attack-al-qaeda-republicans/4240117/

I'm not slipping, you fucking linked infowars. Shame on you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not slipping, you fucking linked infowars. Shame on you.

Was there something factually incorrect with the Infowars article? If not, shame on you.

My point stands...nice attempt to divert though.

 

[compuwiz1]

This whole article [NYT] was manipulated at the behest of ones who will want this to go away well before the mid-terms. Well, it's not. Feet will continue to be held to the fire. Look at the timing. Connect the dots. Obama's media puppets at work again.....surprised?

 

[UberNeuman]

This whole article [NYT] was manipulated at the behest of ones who will want this to go away well before the mid-terms. Well, it's not. Feet will continue to be held to the fire. Look at the timing. Connect the dots. Obama's media puppets at work again.....surprised?

I hope the dots aren't connected before the FEMA camps come into play. The whole plan will be ruined....

 

[Jhhnn]

Attacking the source instead of presenting a rational rebuttal. Really? You're slipping my good friend.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/29/benghazi-attack-al-qaeda-republicans/4240117/

I love the whole "affiliations with al qaeda" bit. Reminds me of Saddam's "Links to al qaeda".

 

[Tom]

Might have fired up someone who participated, but we knew there was going to be an attack way before anyone saw that video. Subscribing to a linear interpretation of time, I conclude the video had little to do with the attack. But again, the cover-up was the claim that the attack was a spontaneous uprising.

As far as Obama, I don't see how this follows. If there was some reason that the President would be deciding to deny security to an ambassador's mission, there must be something classified going on. As we don't know if that is the case, obviously we cannot make a determination about whether that was a reasonable decision. If there was nothing classified going on, then surely that decision does not make it up to the President and probably not even to SecState as anything more than a rubber stamp at most. If the President is investigating four-man (IIRC) diplomatic missions to determine the correct level of security, then he has to be neglecting other duties. And while I really, really dislike the fact that they turned him down in writing yet claimed that he turned them down in person, that's pretty standard CYA and not necessarily down from Obama. I'm treating this like Fast & Furious; if he locks down the government to stop anything coming forth that he doesn't manage, then he has assumed ownership and I'll consider him to blame. If not, I'll assume his involvement was probably not particularly blame-worthy and while some people screwed up and got some Americans killed, that is going to happen. Can't expect to eat the bear every time.

It's not true we "knew" there was going to be an attack.

And there was no more a "cover-up" than there's an ongoing organized effort to turn every opportunity to "get" Obama into whatever it can be turned into.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's not true we "knew" there was going to be an attack.

And there was no more a "cover-up" than there's an ongoing organized effort to turn every opportunity to "get" Obama into whatever it can be turned into.

Whose heads have rolled in this administration? Who have they fired for telling the lie to the American people that this was a youtube protest.

The coverup is their deflection of ALL accountability. It means they stand by it, all the way up to the President. No one has moved to set the record straight, and now their minions attempt to bury it.

If the President will not fire them, then he must be fired in their stead.

 

[Double Trouble]

NYT comes out with a story to help bolster Hillary's credibility and absolve her of all blame. She's also running for president in a few years? You don't say....

Common guys, this is silly. The NYT is no more credible than infowars, and none of us have any insight into the detailed information of what actually happened. We do know for sure that the story about a spontaneous violent reaction to some obscure video is obvious bullshit on so many levels, and that even if it was true, blaming the video (or the makers of the video) is akin to blaming a woman for getting raped because she wore something provocative.

Pretty sad how this went down. Instead of evaluating what happened and taking proper actions to make sure we do better next time, it immediately became a political attack point with a bullshit excuse story to match.

 

[fskimospy]

NYT comes out with a story to help bolster Hillary's credibility and absolve her of all blame. She's also running for president in a few years? You don't say....

Common guys, this is silly. The NYT is no more credible than infowars, and none of us have any insight into the detailed information of what actually happened. We do know for sure that the story about a spontaneous violent reaction to some obscure video is obvious bullshit on so many levels, and that even if it was true, blaming the video (or the makers of the video) is akin to blaming a woman for getting raped because she wore something provocative.

Pretty sad how this went down. Instead of evaluating what happened and taking proper actions to make sure we do better next time, it immediately became a political attack point with a bullshit excuse story to match.

We live in a pretty insane world where people have become so blinded by partisanship that they think America's newspaper of record is no better than a crazy conspiracy website.

 

[fskimospy]

Was there something factually incorrect with the Infowars article? If not, shame on you.

My point stands...nice attempt to divert though.

You're right. Why on earth would I dismiss an article from a website that currently has headlines of "Is your neighbor a CIA snitch?" And "Twerking Miley Cyrus pushes homosexual agenda" on it? This is a source deserving of sober reflection and refutation.

Seriously, do you know what infowars.com is? It is the website of this guy:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

If you have something to say, find a real source. Not batshit crazy conspiracy theory websites.

As for what I think you are trying to say about the NYT article, this seems to be a discussion now about who people consider to be Al-Qaeda. If we use the republican definition of the term then just about every extremist group in the world is Al-Qaeda. That's not helpful.

If there is something else about the report you don't like, mention it specifically and provide rebuttal evidence from a credible source and let's talk about it.

 

[Jhhnn]

The NYT is no more credible than infowars

Delusional often?

 

[Angry Irishman]

Delusional often?

Well there is no comparison between those two but that paper is biased as hell.

 

[Bowfinger]

Well there is no comparison between those two but that paper is biased as hell.

Prove it.

 

[Angry Irishman]

We live in a pretty insane world where people have become so blinded by partisanship that they think America's newspaper of record is no better than a crazy conspiracy website.

Republicans and Democrats aside we certainly live in a country that demands no accountability for inactions or lack of leadership on this issue and a myriad of others.

No I'm not going to reference specific examples and cite each like your going to ask. Even the liberal media has been calling out Obama on his lack of effectiveness and poor leadership.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Prove it.

You know as well as anybody that the NY Times is a left leaning paper.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-bias-is-real-finds-ucla-6664.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Political_persuasion_overall

I'm not doing any more of your homework.

 

[waggy]

Its a sad time for this country when a ambassador and his body guards are gunned down in a 6 hour gun fight Gets turned into a filthy repug/dimocrat finger pointing political pile of shit.

/this

 

[Bowfinger]

Delusional often?

I think the term you're looking for is "brainwashed." These guys have been sucking down the RNC propaganda for so long they have their own reality where down is up and wrong is right. They embrace the bottom feeders of the "news" world because credible news sources terrify them, presenting truths they dare not consider.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I think the term you're looking for is "brainwashed." These guys have been sucking down the RNC propaganda for so long they have their own reality where down is up and wrong is right. They embrace the bottom feeders of the "news" world because credible news sources terrify them, presenting truths they dare not consider.

Apparently brainwashing goes both ways regardless of party affiliation or "accepted" media source. This is demonstrated on these boards over and over.

 

[SparkyJJO]

You know as well as anybody that the NY Times is a left leaning paper.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-bias-is-real-finds-ucla-6664.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Political_persuasion_overall

I'm not doing any more of your homework.

You forgot that liberal bias is no bias at all in their minds.

 

[Bowfinger]

You know as well as anybody that the NY Times is a left leaning paper.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-bias-is-real-finds-ucla-6664.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Political_persuasion_overall

I'm not doing any more of your homework.

ROFLMAO! No, I'm sure you won't because you'll keep getting slapped in the face by just how absurd your emotion-based beliefs are. There have been dozens of studies of media bias. The majority show that mainstream sources like the NYT have negligible bias. You summarily dismiss those studies solely because they contradict your brainwashing. However, you uncritically cling to one study (widely discredited) that supports your brainwashing ... though it was done by former members of a conservative think tank and is so ridiculous that even Drudge and the Wall Street Journal are called liberal. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you support your faith through such transparently biased sources?

 

[Bowfinger]

You forgot that liberal bias is no bias at all in their minds.

Ah, straw men, the easy retort for flaccid tools who cannot contribute anything substantive.

 

[Angry Irishman]

ROFLMAO! No, I'm sure you won't because you'll keep getting slapped in the face by just how absurd your emotion-based beliefs are. There have been dozens of studies of media bias. The majority show that mainstream sources like the NYT have negligible bias. You summarily dismiss those studies solely because they contradict your brainwashing. However, you uncritically cling to one study (widely discredited) that supports your brainwashing ... though it was done by former members of a conservative think tank and is so ridiculous that even Drudge and the Wall Street Journal are called liberal. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you support your faith through such transparently biased sources?

Sure....while you're at it why don't you go ask people in the real world of which you aren't living in. Go ahead, walk down the street and ask random people. Post your studies and I can give you back exactly the same emotional response you just delivered here. You see, that's just all part of the game...I can discount your sources just like you can discount the two I just provided you.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Ah, straw men, the easy retort for flaccid tools who cannot contribute anything substantive.

Amazingly like the behavior you exhibited and the post you made in #69 of this thread. It would appear that name calling is a substantive contribution?

I'm done holding any discussions with you...bed time. It's officially 2014 and I'm not starting this year by arguing.