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

[Oldgamer]

Interesting that no one has put a link to these news reports...LOL

-----------------------------

There was a completed investigation by the NY Times and Darryl Issa and others were in the hot seat yesterday on Meet the Press and other programs. It was interesting watching them squirm and they had very little to say other than their old tired talking points.

Here are the links: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

GOP Leaders dismiss reports

Bengahzi report by GOP just not accurate

 

[OCGuy]

"Al-Qaeda" is a horse-shit label that tries to put the global Jihad into a nice neat little package for average American consumption.

The attack was done by organized radical Islamic extremists and Libyan nationalists that hated the presence of armed infidels, as well as Western culture in general.

What label we put on them or what radical Islamic sect they belong to is irrelevant.

 

[yllus]

I thought about linking to that piece yesterday when I read it, but it was too much effort for a Sunday.

I think what the rather excellent article explains is that everyone was right and everyone was wrong - the video had an impact, but it was also a directed attack. What I got out of it was that friends in the Middle East rarely remain trustworthy when bullets start whizzing.

 

[monovillage]

The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html#

The NY Times was too busy sucking Obama's protuberance to actually research the story.

 

[fskimospy]

I feel like no links happened to that because liberals have long since moved on from Benghazi so they wouldn't post it and this report pretty directly refutes the conservative narrative on the subject, so they wouldn't want to post it.

 

[Oldgamer]

I thought about linking to that piece yesterday when I read it, but it was too much effort for a Sunday.

I think what the rather excellent article explains is that everyone was right and everyone was wrong - the video had an impact, but it was also a directed attack. What I got out of it was that friends in the Middle East rarely remain trustworthy when bullets start whizzing.

yea it showed that the video was partially to blame for some opportunists, and that the people who did the attack were "wanna be" Al Qaeda, but really had no direct link to Al Qaeda.

 

[fskimospy]

The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html#

The NY Times was too busy sucking Obama's protuberance to actually research the story.

lol, the Weekly Standard.

You can just feel the guy who wrote that piece straining to find some way to keep up the conservative mythology. Instead of it being Al-Qaeda, now it's a guy who got some money from Al-Qaeda sometime.

The backpedaling is hilarious.

 

[theeedude]

lol, the Weekly Standard.

You can just feel the guy who wrote that piece straining to find some way to keep up the conservative mythology. Instead of it being Al-Qaeda, now it's a guy who got some money from Al-Qaeda sometime.

The backpedaling is hilarious.

Looking forward to the investigation from Weekly Standard's journalists on the ground in Lybia... BWAHAHAHA :biggrin:
The same neocons who were selling us on Iraq's WMD's are now selling us on the Benghazi song and dance. They fear Hillary, good :thumbsup:

 

[yllus]

The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html#

The NY Times was too busy sucking Obama's protuberance to actually research the story.

It's a whitewash because a blog post by a guy who works for the Foundation For Defence Of Democracies says that a guy who wrote letters to Al Qaeda a few times and a guy who maybe served as Bin Laden's bodyguard in the 90s were maybe involved (but they don't have proof)? Okay.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a whitewash because a blog post by a guy who works for the Foundation For Defence Of Democracies says that a guy who wrote letters to Al Qaeda a few times and a guy who maybe served as Bin Laden's bodyguard in the 90s were maybe involved (but they don't have proof)? Okay.

There is a legitimate issue here, but the WS doesn't even try to address it because they are a conservative activist organization.

Some of the groups believed to be involved in the attack do appear to have had connections to Al-Qaeda, but those connections do not appear to have been large and were not operational in nature. As to what even constitutes an 'Al-Qaeda affiliate' anymore, it's an almost meaningless designation anyway as the groups aren't a cohesive whole anymore and they don't have centralized leadership.

 

[OutHouse]

Ny times, lol fail.

 

[OutHouse]

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.

 

[Oldgamer]

It is a sad time when "right wingers" will only believe their truth.

 

[theeedude]

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.

OutHouse, lol fail.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's a whitewash because a blog post by a guy who works for the Foundation For Defence Of Democracies says that a guy who wrote letters to Al Qaeda a few times and a guy who maybe served as Bin Laden's bodyguard in the 90s were maybe involved (but they don't have proof)? Okay.

Of course. It's been pure conspiracy theory all along. That's all it'll ever be.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Oh, please. The whole thing began with mudslinging from the Romney campaign & was shouted from the rooftops by every right wing pundit in the Repub Stable. Reference this timeline-

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/#

And it's still the same conspiracy theory hogwash. Find a way to blame Obama rather than the perps. That's the shameless exploitation in all of this. Anybody who tries to deny it is a chump or a shill.

 

[werepossum]

There is a legitimate issue here, but the WS doesn't even try to address it because they are a conservative activist organization.

Some of the groups believed to be involved in the attack do appear to have had connections to Al-Qaeda, but those connections do not appear to have been large and were not operational in nature. As to what even constitutes an 'Al-Qaeda affiliate' anymore, it's an almost meaningless designation anyway as the groups aren't a cohesive whole anymore and they don't have centralized leadership.

The conspiracy theory came about mostly from the fact that we knew there was going to be an attack, the CIA warned of an attack, our allies knew there was going to be an attack, our allies closed down their missions to avoid taking casualties because they knew there was going to be an attack, we left our ambassador with no guard and no QRF capable of intervening, and then when our guys were murdered someone in the government strong-armed the official story into a spontaneous reaction to an obscure Internet video - something no one could possibly have predicted ahead of time. That cover-up is obviously Team Obama who needed an excuse for not preventing this that would remain plausible for a couple weeks until the election is over. I can't really get too outraged because Team Obama knew Team Romney was going to spin it as Obama personally getting four Americans killed. It's politics as usual on both sides.

I still don't fault Obama for the actual deaths as surely the President doesn't set security policy for a diplomatic mission except in extraordinary circumstances, in which case we'll likely never know exactly why the decision was made to properly evaluate it. If there were not extraordinary circumstances, then some people screwed up big time, but sometimes that happens. Sometimes intentionally, risking the mission to "send the right message." Would not be my choice, but I can at least understand the logic. Sometimes unintentionally, when people do not understand the capabilities of military forces or assume (due to parallel chains of command, institutional secrecy, and turf wars among the various entities) that assets must be present when in fact they are not. It's a dangerous part of the world and sometimes we're going to get it wrong even for purely military missions with linear chains of command.

 

[fskimospy]

The conspiracy theory came about mostly from the fact that we knew there was going to be an attack, the CIA warned of an attack, our allies knew there was going to be an attack, our allies closed down their missions to avoid taking casualties because they knew there was going to be an attack, we left our ambassador with no guard and no QRF capable of intervening, and then when our guys were murdered someone in the government strong-armed the official story into a spontaneous reaction to an obscure Internet video - something no one could possibly have predicted ahead of time. That cover-up is obviously Team Obama who needed an excuse for not preventing this that would remain plausible for a couple weeks until the election is over. I can't really get too outraged because Team Obama knew Team Romney was going to spin it as Obama personally getting four Americans killed. It's politics as usual on both sides.

You appear to be saying that the NYT's findings that the video was in fact a significant contributing factor and that the Obama administration was correct in this is false? If so, what evidence are you basing this on?

I still don't fault Obama for the actual deaths as surely the President doesn't set security policy for a diplomatic mission except in extraordinary circumstances, in which case we'll likely never know exactly why the decision was made to properly evaluate it. If there were not extraordinary circumstances, then some people screwed up big time, but sometimes that happens. Sometimes intentionally, risking the mission to "send the right message." Would not be my choice, but I can at least understand the logic. Sometimes unintentionally, when people do not understand the capabilities of military forces or assume (due to parallel chains of command, institutional secrecy, and turf wars among the various entities) that assets must be present when in fact they are not. It's a dangerous part of the world and sometimes we're going to get it wrong even for purely military missions with linear chains of command.

Meh, it's perfectly fine to fault Obama for it at least in a general sense. I find the attempts by conservatives to turn this into some huge scandal dishonest and somewhat hypocritical considering the number of people killed at US embassies under GWB, but Obama surely shares some blame here.

 

[bshole]

Its a sad time for this country when a ambassador and his body guards are gunned down in a 6 hour gun fight

ROFLMFAO!! Its a sad time in America when people can't get their facts straight years after the event. Jesus Christ you are really really really ignorant.

News refresher, the ambassador was dead within one hour of the attack starting due to smoke inhalation. Why are conservative the MOST uninformed people on the planet. You would think they would spend some time to at least gain a cursory knowledge of the facts before spouting off their inanities. You can't come within a country mile of cogency when you build from a foundation of idiocy.

10:30 p.m.: Stevens and Smith have taken refuge behind a fortified door with heavy metal bars that keeps the attackers from breaking in, but they set fire to the villa with diesel fuel. Within minutes, Stevens and Smith are overwhelmed by smoke.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/

 

[werepossum]

You appear to be saying that the NYT's findings that the video was in fact a significant contributing factor and that the Obama administration was correct in this is false? If so, what evidence are you basing this on?

Meh, it's perfectly fine to fault Obama for it at least in a general sense. I find the attempts by conservatives to turn this into some huge scandal dishonest and somewhat hypocritical considering the number of people killed at US embassies under GWB, but Obama surely shares some blame here.

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.

 

[Kadarin]

"Al-Qaeda" is a horse-shit label that tries to put the global Jihad into a nice neat little package for average American consumption.

The attack was done by organized radical Islamic extremists and Libyan nationalists that hated the presence of armed infidels, as well as Western culture in general.

What label we put on them or what radical Islamic sect they belong to is irrelevant.

I agree with this.

The Islamic world hates us, and will not stop hating us until we either become Islamic, or we kill all of them first. (I'm not advocating this, just noting that the hatred of things not Islamic is hardwired into their religion.)

 

[Angry Irishman]

ROFLMFAO!! Its a sad time in America when people can't get their facts straight years after the event. Jesus Christ you are really really really ignorant.

News refresher, the ambassador was dead within one hour of the attack starting due to smoke inhalation. Why are conservative the MOST uninformed people on the planet. You would think they would spend some time to at least gain a cursory knowledge of the facts before spouting off their inanities. You can't come within a country mile of cogency when you build from a foundation of idiocy.





http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/

HAHAHAHA! It's all so funny how those Americans died. CNN is about as trustworthy as FOX.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

The NYT article would once again dispute your opinions on this. On what sources are you making such a judgment?

 

[werepossum]

ROFLMFAO!! Its a sad time in America when people can't get their facts straight years after the event. Jesus Christ you are really really really ignorant.

News refresher, the ambassador was dead within one hour of the attack starting due to smoke inhalation. Why are conservative the MOST uninformed people on the planet. You would think they would spend some time to at least gain a cursory knowledge of the facts before spouting off their inanities. You can't come within a country mile of cogency when you build from a foundation of idiocy.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/

A proper American security detail would keep attackers at bay, preventing them from setting fire to the compound, and would also have multiple go-to-hell plans for such contingencies in case they happen. You run drills on how to get the VIPs out of danger in a variety of threat situations. And the death of the two ex-military contractors shows that the leadership in the area did a piss-poor job all around, having no ability to affect the six-hour fight beyond allowing a couple of civilians to go on their own. That MIGHT go back to Obama (with or without a good reason) and probably does go back to Hilary, but it's probably unknowable. Either we can't be told due to classified operations (and at this point no one would believe them if they did say that anyway) or we won't be told due to politics.

Another possibility is a complete breakdown between State and Defense in understanding the available assets' capabilities. It's possible that State assumed Stevens did not need a security team because there was a CIA/Special Forces base so near, without understanding that their capabilities and personnel were quite limited. The CIA's habitual secrecy would have played into that.

 

[bshole]

A proper American security detail would keep attackers at bay, preventing them from setting fire to the compound, and would also have multiple go-to-hell plans for such contingencies in case they happen. You run drills on how to get the VIPs out of danger in a variety of threat situations. And the death of the two ex-military contractors shows that the leadership in the area did a piss-poor job all around, having no ability to affect the six-hour fight beyond allowing a couple of civilians to go on their own. That MIGHT go back to Obama (with or without a good reason) and probably does go back to Hilary, but it's probably unknowable. Either we can't be told due to classified operations (and at this point no one would believe them if they did say that anyway) or we won't be told due to politics.

Another possibility is a complete breakdown between State and Defense in understanding the available assets' capabilities. It's possible that State assumed Stevens did not need a security team because there was a CIA/Special Forces base so near, without understanding that their capabilities and personnel were quite limited. The CIA's habitual secrecy would have played into that.

Jesus Christ, listen to yourself. We have more people killed in school shootings in our own country with even longer response times from law enforcement. Shit happens, get the fuck over it already. The only scandal in this whole incident is the Republican muck-raking, which has been malicious, false, repulsive and downright embarrassing.