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

[Angry Irishman]

The real story of the Benghazi incident is one that will probably never be told -- Republicans became emotionally involved and invested in wasting time and effort investigating a small terrorist attack when they should have been trying to solve our nation's health care and economic problems. In other words, the Republicans are more concerned about trying to pin a scandal on a president from the opposing party than they are with addressing the nation's real problems.

Yea, fuck that crazy concept of accountability and responsibility.

 

[bshole]

Yea, fuck that crazy concept of accountability and responsibility.

Still waiting for Bush to be tried for his lies in getting us into Iraq. Do you give a fuck about the thousands of dead Americans and 10s of thousands of disabled veterans who were wasted in that?

Speaking of accountability, all of the Republicans who have attempted to politicize Ben Ghazi should be dragged into court and tried for treason. They should be held accountable for their reprehensible behaviour. I don't understand why they are getting a free pass.

 

[Matt1970]

Still waiting for Bush to be tried for his lies in getting us into Iraq. Do you give a fuck about the thousands of dead Americans and 10s of thousands of disabled veterans who were wasted in that?

Speaking of accountability, all of the Republicans who have attempted to politicize Ben Ghazi should be dragged into court and tried for treason. They should be held accountable for their reprehensible behaviour. I don't understand why they are getting a free pass.

To summarize, Bush lied, make him accountable, Obama lied, make Republicans accountable.

 

[bshole]

To summarize, Bush lied, make him accountable, Obama lied, make Republicans accountable.

Um... yes, except that Obama didn't lie, the Republicans did. Matt, you really should pay more attention.

 

[berzerker60]

To summarize, Bush lied, make him accountable, Obama lied, make Republicans accountable.

It's hard to take seriously arguments that are so obviously partisan sniping transparently 'disguised' behind 'accountability' and 'responsibility,' despite ample evidence over decades that Republican politicians are never held to any standard, much less the same one. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq war, plenty of embassy attacks and bombings under every president; yet Benghazi, of all of those, makes for calls for impeachment. Two wrongs don't make a right, but calling out and dramatically inflating one of those wrongs (and ignoring the other) because it helps your team is pretty tough to stomach.

 

[werepossum]

The real story of the Benghazi incident is one that will probably never be told -- Republicans became emotionally involved and invested in wasting time and effort investigating a small terrorist attack when they should have been trying to solve our nation's health care and economic problems. In other words, the Republicans are more concerned about trying to pin a scandal on a president from the opposing party than they are with addressing the nation's real problems.

And the Democrats are more concerned about preventing that scandal being pinned on Obama (or the separate and real scandal of Obamacare) than they are with addressing the nation's real problems. Funny how that works.

It's hard to take seriously arguments that are so obviously partisan sniping transparently 'disguised' behind 'accountability' and 'responsibility,' despite ample evidence over decades that Republican politicians are never held to any standard, much less the same one. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq war, plenty of embassy attacks and bombings under every president; yet Benghazi, of all of those, makes for calls for impeachment. Two wrongs don't make a right, but calling out and dramatically inflating one of those wrongs (and ignoring the other) because it helps your team is pretty tough to stomach.

All those things brought calls for impeachment. In Nixon's case, had he not resigned he would definitely have been impeached and removed.

 

[Matt1970]

It's hard to take seriously arguments that are so obviously partisan sniping transparently 'disguised' behind 'accountability' and 'responsibility,' despite ample evidence over decades that Republican politicians are never held to any standard, much less the same one. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq war, plenty of embassy attacks and bombings under every president; yet Benghazi, of all of those, makes for calls for impeachment. Two wrongs don't make a right, but calling out and dramatically inflating one of those wrongs (and ignoring the other) because it helps your team is pretty tough to stomach.

Fine, lets prosecute everyone you mentioned. You want the first or second shift digging up Nixon and Reagan? Iraq war, yes Bush should answer for that. "Plenty of embassy attacks and bombings under every president" I don't remember any other President blaming them on YouTube videos.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Um... yes, except that Obama didn't lie, the Republicans did. Matt, you really should pay more attention.

Hahahhahhhaaaahaaaaaa! You're a nut.

 

[Incorruptible]

Hahahhahhhaaaahaaaaaa! You're a nut.

He's a liberal whackjob and reminds me on Chris Matthews. The NY Times came up with this to protect Hillary.

 

[Bowfinger]

To summarize, Bush lied, make him accountable, Obama lied, make Republicans accountable.

What did Obama lie about with respect to Benghazi? Be specific.

I'm betting dollars to doughnuts you cannot provide any Obama Benghazi quotes while citing credible sources demonstrating the quote was known to be false at that time. I know it's right-wing dogma that Benghazi was Obama's fault somehow, and that he lied his ass off about it, but I don't believe you have actual facts on your side. Remember, no matter how badly Benghazi "scandal" mongers want to ignore this, the fact remains that the original CIA talking points stated the attacks appeared to have been motivated by that infamous video. (This was also just corroborated by the NYT investigation.) So, what were those alleged lies?

 

[Matt1970]

What did Obama lie about with respect to Benghazi? Be specific.

I'm betting dollars to doughnuts you cannot provide any Obama Benghazi quotes while citing credible sources demonstrating the quote was known to be false at that time. I know it's right-wing dogma that Benghazi was Obama's fault somehow, and that he lied his ass off about it, but I don't believe you have actual facts on your side. Remember, no matter how badly Benghazi "scandal" mongers want to ignore this, the fact remains that the original CIA talking points stated the attacks appeared to have been motivated by that infamous video. (This was also just corroborated by the NYT investigation.) So, what were those alleged lies?

This is the problem you run into when you back a flip-flopping pathological liar. First it was a protest over a video that got out of hand, then it was well armed terrorist attack, now we are back to the video. When someone has 2 distinct accounts of what happened, you don't have to know which on is a lie to know he is a liar. If memory serves, when you though Obama had lied about Benghazi, you referred to it as him "Handing public information poorly".

 

[theeedude]

This is the problem you run into when you back a flip-flopping pathological liar. First it was a protest over a video that got out of hand, then it was well armed terrorist attack, now we are back to the video. When someone has 2 distinct accounts of what happened, you don't have to know which on is a lie to know he is a liar. If memory serves, when you though Obama had lied about Benghazi, you referred to it as him "Handing public information poorly".

These are not two distinct accounts. Protest about a video that got out of hand and a well armed terrorist attack are not mutually exclusive. As NY Times is reporting it was a complex situation on the ground with different parties involved with different motivations. Maybe if instead of rabidly trying to blame Obama and/or Clinton for something you actually gathered information first and understood it second, you wouldn't be so ignorant.

 

[Matt1970]

These are not two distinct accounts. Protest about a video that got out of hand and a well armed terrorist attack are not mutually exclusive. As NY Times is reporting it was a complex situation on the ground with different parties involved with different motivations. Maybe if instead of rabidly trying to blame Obama and/or Clinton for something you actually gathered information first and understood it second, you wouldn't be so ignorant.

Ya, they actually are. This is why everyone in the entire world can look at the video and right off the bat knew it was a terrorist attack. People don't take rocket launchers to protests.

 

[theeedude]

Ya, they actually are. This is why everyone in the entire world can look at the video and right off the bat knew it was a terrorist attack. People don't take rocket launchers to protests.

Says who? You? This is Benghazi, not the Washington Mall. Grow up and face reality.

 

[Matt1970]

Says who? You? This is Benghazi, not the Washington Mall. Grow up and face reality.

Grow up? I probably have T-shirts older than you. Remove your head from Obama's ass and you will see things a little more clearly.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is the problem you run into when you back a flip-flopping pathological liar.

Irony.

First it was a protest over a video that got out of hand, then it was well armed terrorist attack, now we are back to the video. When someone has 2 distinct accounts of what happened, you don't have to know which on is a lie to know he is a liar.

/facepalm

Umm, Sparky, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. It was absolutely a well-armed terrorist attack, an attack that appears to have been spurred, at least in part, by the video. They aren't two distinct accounts at all. Further, that has absolutely zero to do with whether Obama lied. On the contrary, if the CIA gave him new information and Obama revised his comments to reflect this, that is the opposite of lying.

If memory serves, when you though Obama had lied about Benghazi, you referred to it as him "Handing public information poorly".

I don't believe that's the quote (so putting it in quotation marks is dishonest) but yes, I did and do believe the Obama administration should have been more forthcoming initially. I didn't say Obama lied, and as we gained more information, it appears Rice, et al, were more forthcoming than I originally thought. To be clear, I freely acknowledge he may have lied. We rarely know what POTUS really knew and when he knew it.

The point remains that you guys keep asserting as fact that Obama did lie, yet when pressed for specifics you either parrot disinformation or pussy out ... just like now. In short, put up or shut up. Prove Obama lied about Benghazi, or find a new talking point.

 

[theeedude]

Grow up? I probably have T-shirts older than you. Remove your head from Obama's ass and you will see things a little more clearly.

Well, then your advanced years have not rewarded you with correspondingly advanced intellect.
I know it's a complete shock to you, but in some places, especially countries emerging from a civil war, people do bring heavy weapons to protests, and they try to use them for their own goals. Your world view is so dependent on believing that Obama lied that you fail to see any alternative explanation.

 

[Matt1970]

Irony.


/facepalm

Umm, Sparky, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. It was absolutely a well-armed terrorist attack, an attack that appears to have been spurred, at least in part, by the video. They aren't two distinct accounts at all. Further, that has absolutely zero to do with whether Obama lied. On the contrary, if the CIA gave him new information and Obama revised his comments to reflect this, that is the opposite of lying.



I don't believe that's the quote (so putting it in quotation marks is dishonest) but yes, I did and do believe the Obama administration should have been more forthcoming initially. I didn't say Obama lied, and as we gained more information, it appears Rice, et al, were more forthcoming than I originally thought. To be clear, I freely acknowledge he may have lied. We rarely know what POTUS really knew and when he knew it.

The point remains that you guys keep asserting as fact that Obama did lie, yet when pressed for specifics you either parrot disinformation or pussy out ... just like now. In short, put up or shut up. Prove Obama lied about Benghazi, or find a new talking point.

Here is the actual quote:

While I don't like the way the Obama administration handled public communications

I did say "If memory serves", for Pete's sake you even quoted it. I am certainly closer to the truth than your dear leader has been most of the time. I wish you luck in your journey. It has clearly been a tough road for you following a man who clearly changes his views at a whim.

 

[werepossum]

Well, then your advanced years have not rewarded you with correspondingly advanced intellect.
I know it's a complete shock to you, but in some places, especially countries emerging from a civil war, people do bring heavy weapons to protests, and they try to use them for their own goals. Your world view is so dependent on believing that Obama lied that you fail to see any alternative explanation.

Problem is Team Obama knew immediately that there had been no protest, merely an attack. This was covered by an earlier link. When Susan Rice went out peddling her spontaneous uprising story, she absolutely knew it was not true. Same thing with Hilary and Obama.

I'm not particularly bent out of shape with it since Team Romney was spinning an interpretation that is almost certainly as false, that Obama himself was responsible for there being grossly inadequate security for the ambassador. I can't imagine that happening even on Obama's top foreign policy issue. (Unless there was something classified going on, in which case I have no way to evaluate his decision anyway.) To me, Obama merely took the least damaging though utterly unlikely possibility and decided to use that one until it was disproven (with the caveat that it wouldn't be disproven until after the election.) I don't like it, but it's the rule in politics, find the least politically damaging theory and run with it until either the crisis has passed or it becomes untenable.

 

[Matt1970]

Well, then your advanced years have not rewarded you with correspondingly advanced intellect.
I know it's a complete shock to you, but in some places, especially countries emerging from a civil war, people do bring heavy weapons to protests, and they try to use them for their own goals. Your world view is so dependent on believing that Obama lied that you fail to see any alternative explanation.

It's funny though, there were plenty of protest happening all over the world, but only one had rocket launchers and heavily armed militants storming our Embassy. Does that tell you that one incident was much, much different than the others? That's what my intellect tells me, how about yours Einstein?

 

[Incorruptible]

Grow up? I probably have T-shirts older than you. Remove your head from Obama's ass and you will see things a little more clearly.

It won't happen from him. The filmmaker was arrested and put in jail yet the leftist idiots didn't complain when they claim to be for free speech. This is just more double standards by them.

 

[Jhhnn]

It won't happen from him. The filmmaker was arrested and put in jail yet the leftist idiots didn't complain when they claim to be for free speech. This is just more double standards by them.

Link?

 

[Bowfinger]

Here is the actual quote:

I did say "If memory serves", for Pete's sake you even quoted it.

Yes dear. The fact remains that in written English, you don't put it in quotes unless it's an actual quotation (with certain strict rules as to how one can mark changes to clarify an ambiguous pronoun or revise tense). That's English 101. All you needed to do was leave off the quotes and you would have been fine.

Now that we're done with your little distraction ...

I am certainly closer to the truth than your dear leader has been most of the time. I wish you luck in your journey. It has clearly been a tough road for you following a man who clearly changes his views at a whim.

In other words, you're going to pussy out again because you cannot support your continued assertion Obama lied, yet you lack the maturity and integrity to concede your error. Predictable.

Here, let's try it again, only we'll focus on the critical 95% of my post that you ignored rather than the 5% you tried to hide behind:

This is the problem you run into when you back a flip-flopping pathological liar.

Irony.

First it was a protest over a video that got out of hand, then it was well armed terrorist attack, now we are back to the video. When someone has 2 distinct accounts of what happened, you don't have to know which on is a lie to know he is a liar. ...

/facepalm

Umm, Sparky, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. It was absolutely a well-armed terrorist attack, an attack that appears to have been spurred, at least in part, by the video. They aren't two distinct accounts at all. Further, that has absolutely zero to do with whether Obama lied. On the contrary, if the CIA gave him new information and Obama revised his comments to reflect this, that is the opposite of lying.

Yes, I did and do believe the Obama administration should have been more forthcoming initially. I didn't say Obama lied, and as we gained more information, it appears Rice, et al, were more forthcoming than I originally thought. To be clear, I freely acknowledge he may have lied. We rarely know what POTUS really knew and when he knew it.

The point remains that you guys keep asserting as fact that Obama did lie, yet when pressed for specifics you either parrot disinformation or pussy out ... just like now. In short, put up or shut up. Prove Obama lied about Benghazi, or find a new talking point.

 

[theeedude]

Problem is Team Obama knew immediately that there had been no protest, merely an attack. This was covered by an earlier link. When Susan Rice went out peddling her spontaneous uprising story, she absolutely knew it was not true. Same thing with Hilary and Obama.

I'm not particularly bent out of shape with it since Team Romney was spinning an interpretation that is almost certainly as false, that Obama himself was responsible for there being grossly inadequate security for the ambassador. I can't imagine that happening even on Obama's top foreign policy issue. (Unless there was something classified going on, in which case I have no way to evaluate his decision anyway.) To me, Obama merely took the least damaging though utterly unlikely possibility and decided to use that one until it was disproven (with the caveat that it wouldn't be disproven until after the election.) I don't like it, but it's the rule in politics, find the least politically damaging theory and run with it until either the crisis has passed or it becomes untenable.

NY Times reporting contradicts what you are saying about there not being a protest.

 

[theeedude]

It's funny though, there were plenty of protest happening all over the world, but only one had rocket launchers and heavily armed militants storming our Embassy. Does that tell you that one incident was much, much different than the others? That's what my intellect tells me, how about yours Einstein?

Something stopping heavily armed militants with rocket launchers from showing up to a protest? What does your "intellect" tell you?