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

[Bowfinger]

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

If you actually bothered to read Schiff's comments, you might note that he generally gave the NYT good marks for their investigation and the information it added re. the Benghazi story. His single point of contention is the statement that the attack was not connected to al Qaeda. That may just be a semantics issue, it may be that Schiff has classified information demonstrating more substantial AQ involvement, or it may be that as a big government authoritarian, Schiff has a vested interest in preserving the "War on Terror" bogeyman that Uncle Sam has abused to erode Americans' rights. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains Schiff was generally supportive of the NYT piece.

 

[Matt1970]

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.

Hundreds of thousands now? I referring to those who think Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, but then again you knew that already didn't you?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If you actually bothered to read Schiff's comments, you might note that he generally gave the NYT good marks for their investigation and the information it added re. the Benghazi story. His single point of contention is the statement that the attack was not connected to al Qaeda. That may just be a semantics issue, it may be that Schiff has classified information demonstrating more substantial AQ involvement, or it may be that as a big government authoritarian, Schiff has a vested interest in preserving the "War on Terror" bogeyman that Uncle Sam has abused to erode Americans' rights. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains Schiff was generally supportive of the NYT piece.

Wow. I fully understand what Schiff said and his general support for many aspects of the article. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point. He plainly confirmed that AQ was involved in planning the attack which is in direct conflict with the NYT article. Semantics issue my ass. Credibility issue my ass as well.

 

[werepossum]

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.

If unintentional irony could break the Internet, your post would never be read. Your "they had no idea there was going to be an attack, they left because it was too dangerous" gem is the standard to which all logical fallacies can only aspire.

 

[Bowfinger]

Wow. I fully understand what Schiff said and his general support for many aspects of the article. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point. He plainly confirmed that AQ was involved in planning the attack which is in direct conflict with the NYT article. Semantics issue my ass. Credibility issue my ass as well.

You seem predisposed to be a raging asshat in everything you say. I directly concede that Schiff contradicts the NYT on the issue of AQ involvement. I also then point out that we lack any detailed explanation of Schiff's basis for that disagreement. I thus offered speculation on the range of possibilities behind Schiff's remark.

Your so-called point, at least in your comment to which I replied, was a sarcastic dig about "Schiff "carrying water for the Republicans". My point was that there is a middle ground, that Schiff disagreeing with a specific point hardly suggests he is in the same boat with RNC propagandists like Issa.

Following the thread back, the initial comment to which you launched this diatribe was Woolfe's comment about the predictable self-serving noise about media bias. Schiff said not a word suggesting the NYT report was biased, only that it was factually incorrect on this specific issue. So, if your point was Schiff supports your cries of media bias, you are wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

If unintentional irony could break the Internet, your post would never be read. Your "they had no idea there was going to be an attack, they left because it was too dangerous" gem is the standard to which all logical fallacies can only aspire.

You're lying again, little boy. That doesn't even resemble what I said. Sadly, your dishonesty is all too predictable. You remain the king of straw man arguments.

In other words, still more substance-free hand-waving. You are still trying to bluff your way through this with your random walls of text. You've yet again failed to specifically cite the relevant portions you pretend supports your aforementioned giant pack of lies. You've fallen to a butt-hurt troll lobbing meaningless personal attacks. Grow up.

Your original post was a giant pack of lies, no matter how vigorously you blow smoke and wave your hands. Own your duplicity instead of trying to shoot the messenger. The tragedy is Benghazi was awful enough without the slimy RNC propaganda machine then exploiting it into a series of dishonest attacks. It is a repugnant, almost traitorous example of putting party over country, and it's shameful that so many Americans are not only willing, but eager to swallow this propaganda. You are but one example.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You seem predisposed to be a raging asshat in everything you say. I directly concede that Schiff contradicts the NYT on the issue of AQ involvement. I also then point out that we lack any detailed explanation of Schiff's basis for that disagreement. I thus offered speculation on the range of possibilities behind Schiff's remark.

Your so-called point, at least in your comment to which I replied, was a sarcastic dig about "Schiff "carrying water for the Republicans". My point was that there is a middle ground, that Schiff disagreeing with a specific point hardly suggests he is in the same boat with RNC propagandists like Issa.

Following the thread back, the initial comment to which you launched this diatribe was Woolfe's comment about the predictable self-serving noise about media bias. Schiff said not a word suggesting the NYT report was biased, only that it was factually incorrect on this specific issue. So, if your point was Schiff supports your cries of media bias, you are wrong.

I never suggested that Schiff is in the same boat as Issa...that's all you. Also, I never said Schiff's statements support my "cries of media bias". You're quite an interesting fellow...making up complete bullshit as if it somehow represents reality. The real kicker is you personally insulting me just after complaining about insults and logical fallacies in this forum a few posts earlier. You sir are a piece of work.

 

[Tom]

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.

I think you put it quite well. We probably don't have the same opinion as to where this falls along the continuum but at least you acknowledge there is one.

 

[Double Trouble]

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.

You think it's "America's newspaper of record", I think it's generally a heavily biased news outlet. When it comes to political matters, NYT is not much different than infowars or any other 'news' outlet: they have an agenda and will spin any story to suit that agenda. Hardly the hallmark of an organization I would find trustworthy. I'm just surprised this article didn't find a way to blame the entire fiasco on republicans somehow

 

[Bowfinger]

I never suggested that Schiff is in the same boat as Issa...that's all you. Also, I never said Schiff's statements support my "cries of media bias". You're quite an interesting fellow...making up complete bullshit as if it somehow represents reality. The real kicker is you personally insulting me just after complaining about insults and logical fallacies in this forum a few posts earlier. You sir are a piece of work.

Whatever. I replied to your actual words, trying to address the points you seem to be struggling to make through sarcasm and innuendo. Perhaps you might spend as much effort stating your points directly and clearly as you do complaining about what your points are not?

As best I could interpret you, one of your points was that Schiff refuted the NYT's findings, and that disagreeing with this insinuates Schiff was "carrying water" for the Republicans (a nebulous phrase that suggests much, but allows you to backpedal whenever one tries to pin you down). My response was that Schiff generally supported their findings, but did challenge the specific conclusion about an AQ connection. My position falls between those two extremes of Schiff supporting every facet of the NYT investigation or Schiff carrying water for Republicans (which would put him in the same boat as Issa). If you were not trying to suggest that false dichotomy, and if you acknowledge that Schiff's stated point of contention was the AQ connection, you could have simply stated you agreed with me instead of adopting the raging asshat routine. This exchange would have ended several posts ago.

Re. media bias, it was a primary focal point of Woolfe's post, a post you disputed by citing Rogers and Schiff. I responded that IF you claimed Schiff supported that view of media bias, you were wrong. Big word there, "IF". So my "making up complete bullshit" was actually trying to get you to clarify your ambiguous comments. Once again, if you agree that Schiff did NOT suggest the NYT was biased, all you had to do was say so instead of flying off the handle.

So that is my interpretation of your points, and that's what I responded to. If those were not your points, stop playing games and state them directly.

Finally, re. insults, I'm not complaining about them at all. (Point of fact, I don't believe I even mentioned insults, though I did talk about personal attacks. Different, but related.) I simply pointed out that that's what Werepossum is now offering instead of actually backing the lies he told, and that personal attacks are common in DC, even though they are supposed to be prohibited. Both comments are observations, not complaints.

 

[Jhhnn]

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?

Didn't say that. I suspect Schiff may just be a victim of his own pride, as I offered.

Schiff doesn't claim that involvement by other groups was more than incidental, anyway. Nobody's claiming that the word came down from the great Al Q mothership, either.

 

[Incorruptible]

It's always amazing how idiots will blame free speech for what happened. Americans have the right to make these videos and insult any religion yet the extremists who get angry never get blamed. This is too much political correctness and pandering. And the story was released to help Hillary Clinton.

 

[UberNeuman]

So, Bengahzi. After all this time. After all the effort to make some political hay out of it.

Is it now a thing?

\8-ball says no and go get fucked for feasting on the bones of the dead....

 

[compuwiz1]

It's always amazing how idiots will blame free speech for what happened. Americans have the right to make these videos and insult any religion yet the extremists who get angry never get blamed. This is too much political correctness and pandering. And the story was released to help Hillary Clinton.

You're probably right, but I find it laughable that there are people out there who still think Hillary is worthy of the oval office.

 

[UberNeuman]

You're probably right, but I find it laughable that there are people out there who still think Hillary is worthy of the oval office.

You should consider the company you keep.

 

[werepossum]

I think you put it quite well. We probably don't have the same opinion as to where this falls along the continuum but at least you acknowledge there is one.

Actually we're probably close. I don't see any reason that Obama or even Hilary would be directly involved in setting security for a diplomatic mission, even one that involves Obama's then-top priority and has an ambassador. I also don't understand why State would deny security, but that's a different mindset and I've seen State do things I consider equally foolish. And I can understand that it's possible there are classified projects going on that made necessary such a gamble. Probably not one that would satisfy me, but that's not necessarily malfeasance or incompetence. I only take issue with idiots like Bowfinger who must preserve Obama's godhead from even tarnish by association with failure by turning this into some five hundred year storm or worse, just a random and unorganized attack we brought on ourselves.

 

[werepossum]

For the record, in spite of factual information being provided here multiple times, almost everything you say below is wrong:

False, false, and more false. The attack alert was for our embassy in Cairo. That's in Egypt, by the way, not Libya.

False. They had withdrawn from Benghazi because of at least two previous attacks against foreign officials. One was an attack on a vehicle, I don't remember the circumstances of the other. Yes, Benghazi was known to be becoming a dangerous place. No, were no specific warnings of upcoming attacks.

False. There were security forces for our Benghazi mission, and we spent millions of dollars upgrading security there, though they were clearly not adequate for this attack ("unprecedented" in its ferocity and duration, according to sworn Congressional testimony). The sixteen men who were not extended were for the embassy in Tripoli, not Benghazi. Let's also remember that the Republican House cut State's security budget request.

Apparently true, at least given the circumstances of this attack. The question you've never answered, however, is if such forces are common for our hundreds of overseas facilities. It is easy with 20/20 hindsight to see the need in Benghazi, but we have lots of people scattered in dangerous places around the world. Without such hindsight, what would it cost to have sufficient forces positioned everywhere, ready to respond to anything and everything? Is that even feasible, or do we have to be realistic and accept that bad things sometimes happen?

Lulz! Nice conspiracy theory, empty speculation posturing as fact. Speaking of which, the very first draft of the CIA talking points stated right up front that this attack appeared to be related to prior demonstrations about that video. The New York Times investigation corroborates this initial report. I know that doesn't fit the RNC propaganda war, but them's the breaks.

Finally, "obscure" Internet video? More lulz, RNC revisionist history at its finest. The prior demonstrations spawned by this video were front page news in the U.S., and were reportedly even bigger news in the Middle East. There was nothing obscure about it.

You're lying again, little boy. That doesn't even resemble what I said. Sadly, your dishonesty is all too predictable. You remain the king of straw man arguments.

In other words, still more substance-free hand-waving. You are still trying to bluff your way through this with your random walls of text. You've yet again failed to specifically cite the relevant portions you pretend supports your aforementioned giant pack of lies. You've fallen to a butt-hurt troll lobbing meaningless personal attacks. Grow up.

Your original post was a giant pack of lies, no matter how vigorously you blow smoke and wave your hands. Own your duplicity instead of trying to shoot the messenger. The tragedy is Benghazi was awful enough without the slimy RNC propaganda machine then exploiting it into a series of dishonest attacks. It is a repugnant, almost traitorous example of putting party over country, and it's shameful that so many Americans are not only willing, but eager to swallow this propaganda. You are but one example.

You specifically said Benghazi was known to be becoming a dangerous place. Dangerous place implies coming attacks, not an abundance of fuzzy bunnies. Trying to spin it otherwise is almost too sad to be funny. Almost. It's also amusing to see you come foaming and sputtering into every thread, spouting the hardest Democrat line every time, every issue, while calling everyone who deviates from that line a liar and GOP propagandist and every argument they make a straw man. If caricatures could vote on it, they would surely make you their king.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Whatever. I replied to your actual words, trying to address the points you seem to be struggling to make through sarcasm and innuendo. Perhaps you might spend as much effort stating your points directly and clearly as you do complaining about what your points are not?

On numerous occasions you've read meaning into my words that wasn't there. If you have a problem understanding the points I'm making, then I suggest that you ask for clarification instead of making up crap and then knocking down your imagined strawmen. You come across as an angry man who's combative and insulting in almost every post you make. I find that reasonable and honest dialog with you is nearly impossible, and frankly, not worth the effort.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Didn't say that. I suspect Schiff may just be a victim of his own pride, as I offered.

Schiff doesn't claim that involvement by other groups was more than incidental, anyway. Nobody's claiming that the word came down from the great Al Q mothership, either.

I never said that you said that...I was asking for clarification of what you meant as you didn't specifically mention Schiff in your original post. You said "Rogers et al" and I was actually wondering whether or not you knew that Schiff (D) confirmed Roger's statements as well.

So you think Schiff is a victim of his own pride and that's what motivated him to confirm that AQ was involved in the planning of the attack? Do you believe he was lying or telling the truth? Again...these are clarifying questions...not trying to be a smart ass (at least yet).

 

[Jhhnn]

I never said that you said that...I was asking for clarification of what you meant as you didn't specifically mention Schiff in your original post. So said "Rogers et al" and I was actually wondering whether or not you knew that Schiff (D) confirmed Roger's statements as well.

So you think Schiff is a victim of his own pride and that's what motivated him to confirm that AQ was involved in the planning of the attack? Do you believe he was lying or telling the truth? Again...these are clarifying questions...not trying to be a smart ass (at least yet).

It's hard to tell from here, but Rogers & Schiff seem to find significance where others don't. I'm certainly not prepared to grant Rogers much in the way of credibility, even if Schiff does. Which is not to question Schiff's sincerity in the slightest.

I'd appreciate you quoting Schiff wrt Al Q planning in the attack as well. I'm having some trouble finding it in the links.

 

[berzerker60]

You think it's "America's newspaper of record", I think it's generally a heavily biased news outlet. When it comes to political matters, NYT is not much different than infowars or any other 'news' outlet: they have an agenda and will spin any story to suit that agenda. Hardly the hallmark of an organization I would find trustworthy. I'm just surprised this article didn't find a way to blame the entire fiasco on republicans somehow

This is really sad. I guess there's no reaching someone once he's written off all connection to reality and only believes sources that tell him exactly what he wants to hear. You do understand it's not just 'his opinion vs. your opinion, both of which are equally valid,' and that there's actually a reality out there to measure things against, right? The NYT is one of the most widely respected and read papers in the world, based on its consistent high quality including things like breaking major stories such as the Pentagon Papers. Infowars is a conspiracy theory website. That's the beauty of conspiracy theory thinking, though - anything that might contradict your beliefs are just part of the conspiracy/cover-up, while anything that support it, however worthless the source, must be a brave voice being persecuted!

You truly are a brilliant snowflake, internet user Double Trouble! Congratulations on being so very smart and special, seeing through the nasty calls for 'evidence' and 'rational thinking' and understanding YOUR truths, which must be as good as everyone else's!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's hard to tell from here, but Rogers & Schiff seem to find significance where others don't. I'm certainly not prepared to grant Rogers much in the way of credibility, even if Schiff does. Which is not to question Schiff's sincerity in the slightest.

I'd appreciate you quoting Schiff wrt Al Q planning in the attack as well. I'm having some trouble finding it in the links.

Schiff has been investigating this for quite some time now and has access to tons of classified information the NYT doesn't have access to. Do you think Schiff is lying or telling the truth? (see bolded below)

WALLACE: Before we get to the NSA, "The New York Times" has an extensive investigation this morning into the Benghazi attack on its front page. It reports, quote, "No evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault." It goes on, "And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at, yes, an American made video denigrating Islam."
Congressman Rogers, I think it's fair to say that "The Times" report directly contradicts what you've been saying.

ROGERS: Yes, I don't know it was an exhaustive investigation. We have gone through some 4,000 different classified cables leading up to the event, talk to people on the ground during the event, done the postmortem on the event through the committee investigation.

WALLACE: What did they get wrong?

ROGERS: That al Qaeda was not involved. There was some level of preplanning, we know that. There was aspiration to conduct an attack by Al Qaeda and their affiliates in Libya. We know that.

The individuals on the ground talked about a planned tactical movement on the compound even -- this is the compound before they went to the annex. All of that would directly contradict what the "New York Times" definitively says was an exhaustive investigation, tells me they didn't talk to the people on the ground who were doing the fighting, the shooting and the intelligence gathering.

When you put that volume of information, I think it proves that story is just not accurate.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you one specific thing. There was one group that everybody says was involved, Ansar al-Sharia. They say it's really an independent radical Islamic group, but it doesn't have links to Al Qaeda.

ROGERS: I dispute that, and I think the intelligence to a large volume disputes that al-Sharia.

Now, did they have differences of opinion with Al Qaeda core? Yes. Do they have affiliations with al Qaeda core? Definitely.

WALLACE: Do you think there is a political motivation to this "Times" report? Some people have suggested, well, this is trying to clear the deck for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

ROGERS: Yes. I don't know, but I found it was interesting that there's this rollout of stories, including Susan Rice, would go on TV and have a direct discussion, when we still have ongoing investigation in the House Intelligence Committee.

WALLACE: But, again, do you think that's a different tactic?

ROGERS: I find the timing odd. I don't want to speculate on why they might do it. But I can tell you that the information that's being presented in a way that we've heard before and through the investigation have been able to determine is not accurate in its portrayal.

WALLACE: Congressman Schiff, does "The Times" report in your opinion exonerate the Obama administration from the president, to Susan Rice, to Hillary Clinton?

SCHIFF: Well, I don't think "The New York Times" report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the State Department that left our people vulnerable. I do think it adds some valuable insights. 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.

I think the intelligence paints a portrait that some came to murder, some people came to destroy property, some merely came to loot, and some came in part motivated by those videos. So it is a complex picture. There was some planning, as Mike points out, but it was not extensive. I don't think it's either accurate to characterize this as a long-term preplanned core Al Qaeda operation or something completely unaffiliated.

And I think, Chris, where the New York Times report both adds value and also is deficient is they didn't have the same access to people who were not aware that they were being listened to. They were heavily reliant, obviously, on people that they interviewed who had a reason to provide the story that they did.

Sometimes, though, the intelligence which has the advantage of hearing what people say when they don't know they are being listened to, that could be misleading as well when people make claims, they boast of things that they were not involved in for various purposes.

So I think it adds some insights, but I don't think it's complete. And I don't think either paradigm is really accurate here.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hillary team ....errrr... I mean, New York Times posts drivel article supporting the democrat party line. News @ 11. It's so transparent it's pathetic.

I don't see how you can directly blame our village idiot in chief for this debacle, I doubt he personally made the security arrangements. What you can blame him and his minions for is the subsequent lies blaming the mess on some obscure video, which is an obvious lie. This article is just an attempt to provide more credibility for that lie for the administration through one of their propaganda outlets.

 

[fskimospy]

Hillary team ....errrr... I mean, New York Times posts drivel article supporting the democrat party line. News @ 11. It's so transparent it's pathetic.

I don't see how you can directly blame our village idiot in chief for this debacle, I doubt he personally made the security arrangements. What you can blame him and his minions for is the subsequent lies blaming the mess on some obscure video, which is an obvious lie. This article is just an attempt to provide more credibility for that lie for the administration through one of their propaganda outlets.

lol.

Like I said, this belief in media bias is an article of religious faith. You guys won't let facts harm your bubble any more than the fundamentalists let the fossil record undermine their faith in creationism.

Must be nice.

 

[werepossum]

Hillary team ....errrr... I mean, New York Times posts drivel article supporting the democrat party line. News @ 11. It's so transparent it's pathetic.

I don't see how you can directly blame our village idiot in chief for this debacle, I doubt he personally made the security arrangements. What you can blame him and his minions for is the subsequent lies blaming the mess on some obscure video, which is an obvious lie. This article is just an attempt to provide more credibility for that lie for the administration through one of their propaganda outlets.

Pretty much how I see it too. I just can't get bent out of shape at Obama for spinning this as an unavoidable spontaneous uprising when Romney (and I'm a Romney guy) was simultaneously spinning it as a personal Obama failing. Politics is a nasty business, but both sides have to be held to the same standards.

I think the Pubbies also overstepped by blaming this on al Qaeda. While all these groups interact and exchange information and methods, Libyan Islamist groups are not going to allow an al Qaeda operation inside Libya unless and until they are about to lose the war for control of Libya. Clearly this was a well-planned, well-executed attack, not a spontaneous uprising, but by Libyan groups.