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

[fskimospy]

You liar. Even a New York Times Editor admitted to bias when he retired.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nyt-public-editor-charges-liberal-bias/
The meta study you cite begins in 1948 and only includes information on Presidential bias and even that admits to a "measurable bias".

Do you ever get tired of spinning and lying ? You, the Iraqi information minister and Carney were picked off the same tree.

lol, it never ceases to amuse me your constant attempts to spin and lie about this issue and the conclusions of that study. As always, I strongly encourage you to post the entirety of their conclusion that you are attempting to cite here.

You won't, because you're a liar and you depend on people not knowing it.

I'll take science and rigorous analysis, you'll take anecdotes that confirm what your political religion tells you.

 

[SparkyJJO]

You guys are ridiculous. Pointing at each other screaming "liar liar!"

In the end it all boils down to this:

Embassy was attacked
People in Washington had warnings and didn't act
People died
Washington has evaded and avoided and tried to shift the blame a billion times instead of just accepting they screwed up
Someone should at least have been fired

Yes, some people are blowing it into something larger than it is. But far too many of you act like you couldn't care less that some Americans were killed.

Is it really too much to ask for you to have a little bit of concern and care for what happened? Is it too much to ask for Washington to take responsibility? Really?

 

[monovillage]

You guys are ridiculous. Pointing at each other screaming "liar liar!"

In the end it all boils down to this:

Embassy was attacked
People in Washington had warnings and didn't act
People died
Washington has evaded and avoided and tried to shift the blame a billion times instead of just accepting they screwed up
Someone should at least have been fired

Yes, some people are blowing it into something larger than it is. But far too many of you act like you couldn't care less that some Americans were killed.

Is it really too much to ask for you to have a little bit of concern and care for what happened? Is it too much to ask for Washington to take responsibility? Really?

You are right.

 

[Oldgamer]

You guys are ridiculous. Pointing at each other screaming "liar liar!"

In the end it all boils down to this:

Embassy was attacked
People in Washington had warnings and didn't act
People died
Washington has evaded and avoided and tried to shift the blame a billion times instead of just accepting they screwed up
Someone should at least have been fired

Yes, some people are blowing it into something larger than it is. But far too many of you act like you couldn't care less that some Americans were killed.

Is it really too much to ask for you to have a little bit of concern and care for what happened? Is it too much to ask for Washington to take responsibility? Really?

mmmhhhmmm... and what about all of the 13 or so attacks of the embassies in Benghazi under Bush's watch? All this outrage, yet so hypocritical.. they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

mmmhhhmmm... and what about all of the 13 or so attacks of the embassies in Benghazi under Bush's watch? All this outrage, yet so hypocritical.. they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."

Just want a little of that transparency we were promised...or is that asking too much?

 

[werepossum]

You guys are ridiculous. Pointing at each other screaming "liar liar!"

In the end it all boils down to this:

Embassy was attacked
People in Washington had warnings and didn't act
People died
Washington has evaded and avoided and tried to shift the blame a billion times instead of just accepting they screwed up
Someone should at least have been fired

Yes, some people are blowing it into something larger than it is. But far too many of you act like you couldn't care less that some Americans were killed.

Is it really too much to ask for you to have a little bit of concern and care for what happened? Is it too much to ask for Washington to take responsibility? Really?

Agreed, but it might not be that easy to determine who screwed up. In one of my walls of text that so befuddled Bowfinger, the State official who denied one of the requests for added security did so for political calculations. Clearly this wasn't American politics as Obama would hardly be faulted for providing an American ambassador with protection, so to what extent is this a screw-up versus a calculated risk in allowing our ambassador to be protected only by an ally we know will not really protect him? Clearly State understood the danger as they increased their danger pay. In hindsight that's a huge screw-up. In my mind and probably yours it was a screw-up immediately - you always honor the threat and you never expose a force without a reserve or QRF - but to some in State this was a reasonable risk for some inexplicable reason, something that kept our diplomats dangling like bait, unprotected, while our allies with much more significant interests in Libya pulled out. Then you have to wonder to what extent if any turf wars played in the decision to deny proper security. Did State assume the CIA base could respond immediately, without understanding it could barely defend itself and had no reserve to come to its aid? If so, to what extent is that a State screw-up and not CIA secrecy? Was there some covert operation which in someone's mind justified leaving a US ambassador unprotected in probably the most dangerous city in the world at the time? There had to be some reason why a US ambassador in Benghazi had so much less protection than the US ambassador in Paris. Maybe that was just a screw-up, but a LOT of people had to know of the multiple denials of protection in spite of acknowledging the danger (e.g. raising danger pay) which makes me believe there must have been some justification, even if it now seems blatantly stupid.

I'm not saying it isn't as simple as someone screwed up or that the someone isn't Hilary or even Obama. I'm just saying we can't assume it is that simple. Diplomacy is in a sense war, and in both you take calculated risks that sometimes come back to bite you. Those of us on the right may be honestly pissed at Obama's cover-up or merely using whatever tools are at hand; those on the left are not only defending their guy but also invested in promoting him as omniscent which requires that the attack not be humanly predictable or stoppable. You in the middle may be right, but let's not assume that there is someone who legitimately screwed up and should be fired, especially given that in D.C. the unfortunate fired would probably be the least politically protected rather than the most responsible.

 

[SparkyJJO]

mmmhhhmmm... and what about all of the 13 or so attacks of the embassies in Benghazi under Bush's watch? All this outrage, yet so hypocritical.. they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."

Oh the old worn out "Bu bu bu BOOOSH" argument. Don't you get tired of it yet?

Just because the guy from one side may have done something doesn't make it OK for the guy on the other side to do the same. Don't think I am giving him a pass on anything rotten he did. I know, blows your mind I don't follow hard party lines, but I don't.

I'd have to go back and research those to see if they were aware of impending attacks or not. If an attack is by surprise, or we knew it was coming and prepared for it, that's one thing. But that wasn't the case with this one. We knew something was up, yet did basically squat. THAT is the issue. Knowing and doing nothing is the crux of the matter.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are right, NY Times really backed themselves into a corner with that one. All someone would need to show is that someone from AQ gave one of the rioters $1 and they're "involved" albeit to a minor degree.

There is no way the NY times has the resources or connections to research the situation to that level of determination.

The NYT says they can't find credible evidence that international terrorists were involved in a meaningful way. Nobody else has, either.

Which means that discussion beyond that point is conjecture or conspiracy theory, take your pick.

 

[theeedude]

It's sad that he died over a stupid video after all.

 

[monovillage]

The NYT says they can't find credible evidence that international terrorists were involved in a meaningful way. Nobody else has, either.

Which means that discussion beyond that point is conjecture or conspiracy theory, take your pick.

The New York Times has published a strange but unsurprising account of the attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012 — strange in that it presents the explanations and testimony of terrorists involved in the attack without comment or context, and unsurprising because that account supports the narrative the Obama administration aggressively promoted for weeks after the massacre.

The first of the Grey Lady’s two key findings: “Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” This means the Times reporter, David Kirkpatrick, has ignored the evidence that al-Qaeda-linked groups, such as the Egypt-based Jamal network, almost surely did have a role in the assault — as reported by the New York Times in October 2012. Such evidence has been uncovered by the American intelligence community, as attested to by Democratic and Republican representatives with knowledge of it.

They found evidence before, maybe they just fucking lost it this time?

http://nationalreview.com/article/367269/credulous-and-tendentious-benghazi-editors

 

[woolfe9998]

This is precisely why I started a thread about this report over in DC, pointing out that posting about it on P&N was a waste of time. I could have told you we'd have pages and pages of fact free assertions about media bias and little to no evidence to refute NYT's findings. Attempts to locate intelligent life on P&N are about as probable on a given day as SETI's efforts to find it somewhere in the universe.

 

[michal1980]

It's sad that he died over a stupid video after all.

It wasn't because of the video moron

 

[michal1980]

lol, it never ceases to amuse me your constant attempts to spin and lie about this issue and the conclusions of that study. As always, I strongly encourage you to post the entirety of their conclusion that you are attempting to cite here.

You won't, because you're a liar and you depend on people not knowing it.

I'll take science and rigorous analysis, you'll take anecdotes that confirm what your political religion tells you.

It's amusing to see you call out someone for spinning a story. You are basically Obama's internet press secretary spinning everything for him

 

[Jhhnn]

They found evidence before, maybe they just fucking lost it this time?

http://nationalreview.com/article/367269/credulous-and-tendentious-benghazi-editors

Or perhaps they reconsidered, recognizing that a lot of people were jumping to conclusions at the time, & still are. From the original NYT piece linked by the Review-

Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.

The NYT never claimed it was more than anonymous officials talking out their asses, but they did it in a nice way.

You seem to be making a lot more out of it than they did.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is precisely why I started a thread about this report over in DC, pointing out that posting about it on P&N was a waste of time. I could have told you we'd have pages and pages of fact free assertions about media bias and little to no evidence to refute NYT's findings. Attempts to locate intelligent life on P&N are about as probable on a given day as SETI's efforts to find it somewhere in the universe.

So you consider the statements of Rogers and Schiff contradicting the NYT article to be "little or no evidence"? I used to think you were reasonably intelligent...now I'm having second thoughts.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is precisely why I started a thread about this report over in DC, pointing out that posting about it on P&N was a waste of time. I could have told you we'd have pages and pages of fact free assertions about media bias and little to no evidence to refute NYT's findings. Attempts to locate intelligent life on P&N are about as probable on a given day as SETI's efforts to find it somewhere in the universe.

I don't know about that. There's at least you.

 

[Moonbeam]

So you consider the statements of Rogers and Schiff contradicting the NYT article to be "little or no evidence"? I used to think you were reasonably intelligent...now I'm having second thoughts.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12...-benghazi-year-attacking-president-obama.html

See how easy it is to find the truth you are looking for.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you consider the statements of Rogers and Schiff contradicting the NYT article to be "little or no evidence"? I used to think you were reasonably intelligent...now I'm having second thoughts.

Rogers et al have made assertions all along that nobody can find evidence to substantiate. When the NYT can't substantiate any of it, Rogers merely re-asserts what he knows the flock wants to believe, and they do.

None of this is difficult, other than for the wannabee believers. Once other people believe your lies, pride takes over & they'll defend those lies on your behalf. That's where the difficulties come in. Which is where you find yourself.

 

[Matt1970]

mmmhhhmmm... and what about all of the 13 or so attacks of the embassies in Benghazi under Bush's watch? All this outrage, yet so hypocritical.. they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."

I have looked all over, I have not found one time that Bush blamed the deaths on a YouTube video.

 

[bshole]

I have looked all over, I have not found one time that Bush blamed the deaths on a YouTube video.

...and the Demorcrats NEVER attempted to parlay the tragic deaths of embassy personnel under Bush's regime into political gain. Only the Republicans have the brass balls to attempt such nefarious machinations.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Rogers et al have made assertions all along that nobody can find evidence to substantiate. When the NYT can't substantiate any of it, Rogers merely re-asserts what he knows the flock wants to believe, and they do.

None of this is difficult, other than for the wannabee believers. Once other people believe your lies, pride takes over & they'll defend those lies on your behalf. That's where the difficulties come in. Which is where you find yourself.

So you think Schiff is now carrying water for the Republicans?

 

[Matt1970]

...and the Demorcrats NEVER attempted to parlay the tragic deaths of embassy personnel under Bush's regime into political gain. Only the Republicans have the brass balls to attempt such nefarious machinations.

Maybe you missed all the shit flung at Bush because of 9/11

 

[Moonbeam]

So you think Schiff is now carrying water for the Republicans?

Don't tell me you're going to believe a liberal.

 

[Bowfinger]

Maybe you missed all the shit flung at Bush because of 9/11

You mean like how he used it as pretense for invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and costing us over a trillion dollars? Golly gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would give him shit over that.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is precisely why I started a thread about this report over in DC, pointing out that posting about it on P&N was a waste of time. I could have told you we'd have pages and pages of fact free assertions about media bias and little to no evidence to refute NYT's findings. Attempts to locate intelligent life on P&N are about as probable on a given day as SETI's efforts to find it somewhere in the universe.

Indeed. While P&N has always offered more noise than signal, it has really plummeted over the last year or two. Unfortunately, IMO DC has never lived up to its potential either. There is little accountability for accurate, supported content, logical fallacies are rampant, and personal attacks are common, though certainly less blatant than P&N.