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

[michal1980]

That Al Qaeda didn't have. All of those things are situation dependent, and the local militia would know them far better than Al Qaeda, living right next to the Americans and being able to observe them.

Yeah, this guy looks like a Sun Tzu scholar:

Obama sure is. Right?

The guy is so smart he must have chosen to let the ambassador die. Because that outcome was better then upsetting the locals with more security.

Except Obama with all his spying on everyone still failed to secure the embassy.

But don't worry Senseamp, we should just ban youtube

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well, you certainly didn't hear it from me, or from Schiff, either.

OTOH, it being what you wanted to hear really explains everything.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and was mistaken to do so. Schiff clearly said that AQ was involved with some level of planning the attack. Not extensive planning, and not no involvement either as the NYT article states. It appears that reading comprehension is not your forte.

 

[Jhhnn]

That Al Qaeda didn't have. All of those things are situation dependent, and the local militia would know them far better than Al Qaeda, living right next to the Americans and being able to observe them.

Too obvious. He's just trying to get the facts to fit the agenda, which is the whole Benghazi whoop-ti-doo in a nutshell.

Oh, and he's really, really reaching with that one. Desperate to defend his position, he'll say anything, and there's the proof of it.

 

[Jhhnn]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and was mistaken to do so. Schiff clearly said that AQ was involved with some level of planning the attack. Not extensive planning, and not no involvement either as the NYT article states. It appears that reading comprehension is not your forte.

Sigh.

Schiff says two things-

1- that there was some level of planning, in an extremely vague way.

2- that Al Qaeda was involved somehow in the attack, equally as vague.

He did not say that they were the same thing. You seem to think that he did.

Not that it matters in the slightest. The sad truth is that the right wing will go to shameful lengths to discredit the Obama Admin, exploit any tragedy, argue minutiae, & create pseudo-realities to serve that agenda.

They've done the usual great job with the Faithful, who don't seem to understand why it didn't work on everybody else.

I'll clue you in. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. It's contrived bullshit, and was from the moment the Romney campaign started in on it. It may be a rallying point for the Faithful, but it just looks like you're all trying to get back in the clown car to everybody else.

Give it up, fools.

 

[theeedude]

Obama sure is. Right?

The guy is so smart he must have chosen to let the ambassador die. Because that outcome was better then upsetting the locals with more security.

Except Obama with all his spying on everyone still failed to secure the embassy.

But don't worry Senseamp, we should just ban youtube

Too bad GOP decided to harp on the talking points and the video instead.

 

[blankslate]

oh and

proof that Duck Dynasty cause Benghazi....


because Osama wasn't killed he escaped and assumed the identity of Phil

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sigh.

Schiff says two things-

1- that there was some level of planning, in an extremely vague way.

2- that Al Qaeda was involved somehow in the attack, equally as vague.

He did not say that they were the same thing. You seem to think that he did.

Not that it matters in the slightest. The sad truth is that the right wing will go to shameful lengths to discredit the Obama Admin, exploit any tragedy, argue minutiae, & create pseudo-realities to serve that agenda.

They've done the usual great job with the Faithful, who don't seem to understand why it didn't work on everybody else.

I'll clue you in. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. It's contrived bullshit, and was from the moment the Romney campaign started in on it. It may be a rallying point for the Faithful, but it just looks like you're all trying to get back in the clown car to everybody else.

Give it up, fools.

The Susan Rice story was proven to be contrived bullshit and that's what started this whole fiasco. She said the attack was not premeditated. She said attack was a spontaneous event arising out of some obscure youtube video. We now know differently. Some people don't appreciated being lied to by our government...or by our media for that matter either.

 

[berzerker60]

The Susan Rice story was proven to be contrived bullshit and that's what started this whole fiasco. She said the attack was not premeditated. She said attack was a spontaneous event arising out of some obscure youtube video. We now know differently. Some people don't appreciated being lied to by our government...or by our media for that matter either.

Yo it's possible to be wrong without lying.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yo it's possible to be wrong without lying.

It was either willful lying or abject incompetence....you choose.

 

[berzerker60]

How about 'when shit happens sometimes aspects are unclear for a while as information floods in, some of it contradictory, and it's entirely possible to be wrong about things at first'? I guess that's less than omniscience, and can be incompetence, but need not be. It's easy to shit on people with hindsight for not immediately understanding what's obvious now, but not very productive or fair.

If you don't know for sure you should definitely avoid saying things as if they are certainty, so if Rice did that she screwed up for sure (I haven't read the transcripts closely). It just seems really over-the-top and contrary to Occam's Razor to just assume she knew perfect information and lied about it.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Susan Rice story was proven to be contrived bullshit and that's what started this whole fiasco. She said the attack was not premeditated. She said attack was a spontaneous event arising out of some obscure youtube video. We now know differently. Some people don't appreciated being lied to by our government...or by our media for that matter either.

We don't appreciate the full force of the Administration backing up that lie and no one being held accountable. It's corruption.

 

[hal2kilo]

How about 'when shit happens sometimes aspects are unclear for a while as information floods in, some of it contradictory, and it's entirely possible to be wrong about things at first'? I guess that's less than omniscience, and can be incompetence, but need not be. It's easy to shit on people with hindsight for not immediately understanding what's obvious now, but not very productive or fair.

If you don't know for sure you should definitely avoid saying things as if they are certainty, so if Rice did that she screwed up for sure (I haven't read the transcripts closely). It just seems really over-the-top and contrary to Occam's Razor to just assume she knew perfect information and lied about it.

:thumbsup:

It's so clear to the hindsighted.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

:thumbsup:

It's so clear to the hindsighted.

Hindsight? The stench of bullshit was evident from the get-go.

 

[HomerJS]

I saw clips from the knee jerk reactive chours on Fox News. They all have their talking points down that this is all made up to clear the way for Hillary.

Since the Foxbots are so powerful (#1 and all) why didn't they do their own investigation? Do you think they have any evidence to refute the NYT article? I mean evidence not just bitching and moaning.

 

[First]

It's interesting that P&N conservatives tend to have the most trouble with the definitions of words. Rice was reading intel community conclusions, something David Petraeus confirmed in Congressional testimony. Hopefully we can assume David Petraeus is not also a liar. You can't be lying unless you knowingly give people false or misleading information. Not all that complicated.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

oh and

proof that Duck Dynasty cause Benghazi....


because Osama wasn't killed he escaped and assumed the identity of Phil

I suspect both A&E and Duck Dynasty loves the fact that people such as yourself can't let the situation go.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's interesting that P&N conservatives tend to have the most trouble with the definitions of words. Rice was reading intel community conclusions, something David Petraeus confirmed in Congressional testimony. Hopefully we can assume David Petraeus is not also a liar. You can't be lying unless you knowingly give people false or misleading information. Not all that complicated.

Then you chose incompetence...and I'm inclined to agree with you.

 

[Jaskalas]

How about 'when shit happens sometimes aspects are unclear for a while as information floods in, some of it contradictory, and it's entirely possible to be wrong about things at first'? I guess that's less than omniscience, and can be incompetence, but need not be. It's easy to shit on people with hindsight for not immediately understanding what's obvious now, but not very productive or fair.

If you don't know for sure you should definitely avoid saying things as if they are certainty, so if Rice did that she screwed up for sure (I haven't read the transcripts closely). It just seems really over-the-top and contrary to Occam's Razor to just assume she knew perfect information and lied about it.

The media has already covered this ground.

Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"

5 days after the attack Susan Rice goes on-air to tell lies about a youtube protest. 2 weeks later the President HIMSELF goes to the UN and speaks about youtube protests.

 

[fskimospy]

Then you chose incompetence...and I'm inclined to agree with you.

That's a pretty crazy standard for competence in such things then; intelligence is frequently confused and somewhat contradictory in the time immediately following an unexpected event. If you think believing wrong things in that environment is abject incompetence it basically means every intelligence community on earth is incompetent, which at that point kind of destroys the meaning of the word.

I'm not fully up on the exact chain of events there, but simply being wrong early on should be expected to a certain extent.

 

[werepossum]

It's interesting that P&N conservatives tend to have the most trouble with the definitions of words. Rice was reading intel community conclusions, something David Petraeus confirmed in Congressional testimony. Hopefully we can assume David Petraeus is not also a liar. You can't be lying unless you knowingly give people false or misleading information. Not all that complicated.

Rice was an integral player in evolving the intel community conclusions from Team Obama did not want them to say into what Team Obama did want them to say. Doesn't overly bother me as it was a defense against Team Romney's own creative interpretations, but I see no reason to ignore it.

 

[First]

That's a pretty crazy standard for competence in such things then; intelligence is frequently confused and somewhat contradictory in the time immediately following an unexpected event. If you think believing wrong things in that environment is abject incompetence it basically means every intelligence community on earth is incompetent, which at that point kind of destroys the meaning of the word.

I'm not fully up on the exact chain of events there, but simply being wrong early on should be expected to a certain extent.

Yeah, that was a pretty thin conclusion, to put it nicely. To pretend like some P&N poster here can 2nd guess CIA intelligence officers in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack would be funny if it weren't so transparently partisan.

 

[First]

Rice was an integral player in evolving the intel community conclusions from Team Obama did not want them to say into what Team Obama did want them to say. Doesn't overly bother me as it was a defense against Team Romney's own creative interpretations, but I see no reason to ignore it.

I see no credible reports that the Obama admin chose the talking points they liked based on nefarious reasoning (partisan politics or what have you). They apparently chose the wrong pieces of intelligence in the immediate couple weeks proceeding the attack. Nothing particularly scandalous or shocking there.

Frankly, Benghazi is still talked about purely as a partisan tool, nothing more. Doesn't even register with 80% of Americans.

 

[First]

The media has already covered this ground.

Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"

5 days after the attack Susan Rice goes on-air to tell lies about a youtube protest. 2 weeks later the President HIMSELF goes to the UN and speaks about youtube protests.

It's interesting the CBS article transposes "thought" with "knew" in the title, since "thought" is what Hicks actually said, based on that article. His full quote: "I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning".

Of course, their job wasn't to gather foreign intelligence. That's under the CIA's purview.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's a pretty crazy standard for competence in such things then; intelligence is frequently confused and somewhat contradictory in the time immediately following an unexpected event. If you think believing wrong things in that environment is abject incompetence it basically means every intelligence community on earth is incompetent, which at that point kind of destroys the meaning of the word.

I'm not fully up on the exact chain of events there, but simply being wrong early on should be expected to a certain extent.

I don't know much about how the intelligence community works, but I've got to think that they would place a lot of weight on statements from those people on the ground at the time of the attack since, after all, they were actually there. "Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-attack

In my opinion, the WH and/or the intelligence community fucked up. If you think they were competent, that's your perogative. But I beg to differ...and to suggest that I have "pretty crazy standard for competence" for having this opinion is ludicrous.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't know much about how the intelligence community works, but I've got to think that they would place a lot of weight on statements from those people on the ground at the time of the attack since, after all, they were actually there. "Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-attack

In my opinion, the WH and/or the intelligence community fucked up. If you think they were competent, that's your perogative. But I beg to differ...and to suggest that I have "pretty crazy standard for competence" for having this opinion is ludicrous.

Its simple. You must have a brain defect because you dare to have a different opinion. Just ask Moonie.