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

[Vic]

Go back 10 years and it was the Democrats prophesying doom and gloom and the end of the Constitution, all because the other guy won. I laughed at them too.

 

[theeedude]

My bad. Clearly the New York Times is a more reliable source than the people who were actually there at the time. That also explains why the ambassador never reported a protest - he knew that more than a year later, the New York Times would handle that for him.

NYT is an exceptionally reliable source.

 

[Zorkorist]

SOMA

Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

-John

 

[UberNeuman]

SOMA

Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

-John

FOX

For ThOse Xenophobic - UberNeuman

 

[werepossum]

NYT is an exceptionally reliable source.

Sorry, I thought we were being serious there for a moment. You totally had me going.

 

[Zorkorist]

FOX

For ThOse Xenophobic - UberNeuman

Inconsequential. Uber inconsequential.

-John

 

[theeedude]

Sorry, I thought we were being serious there for a moment. You totally had me going.

Go back to watching O'Reilly and reading WSJ then.

 

[compuwiz1]

Go back to watching O'Reilly and reading WSJ then.

Judge Jeanine Piro and Megyn Kelly are where it's at. O'Reilly is old hat.

 

[boomerang]

When I was in eighth grade, our social studies teacher would get us all worked up about current events. He'd talk about an Iranian threat to close the Straights of Hormuz and how that would cause an oil crisis that would threaten our entire country and world. Another day he'd talk about how military preparedness or something was super low, and whatever the story was that week, he'd basically scare us all about how we were in immediate need of urgent change politically. In retrospect, he gave us a hell of an education, because eventually you figured out that you can spin any story you want to be a convincing end of the world scenario if you really want, but the truth is, the world pretty much always gets through its messes and few big scary conspiracies or 'country falling into decay' or whatever actually ever comes to pass.

I guess my point is, I wish you'd also had my social studies teacher, so you could seriously consider the idea that you're just not seeing reality super clearly. Hilary Clinton isn't ideal (no one is), but she's not actually a monster - nor would President Romney have been. Obama's not actually doing any substantial harm to the country. Bush I and Bill Clinton were also pretty innocuous. There's really no need to get worked up. The country is doing great and has a bright future, despite its deep problems. It might not be a future that sticks to your "moral compass," but that's the beauty of democracy - it's not obligated to cater to the pearl clutching and moral outrage of groups losing their unearned dominance of society, no matter how entitled they feel to it.

I'm glad I didn't have your Social Studies teacher. Anyone that would fill my head with phrases like "unearned dominance of society" is not someone I would have wanted to 'teach' me. You think in a simple way because you were taught to think in a simple way. What you considered to be a lesson taught to you by a teacher is really little more than common sense. I wasn't there, but I don't think your teacher was teaching you what you learned from his class. I think he was a loon that was not teaching at all, just ranting to school kids about his own fears. Which brings me to your interpretation of my post.

You assume, based on your education my post is one based in fear. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Because the truth is that things suck right now and they could be so much better. They could be better if instead of a government hell bent on fundamental transformation, we had one hell bent on bringing jobs back to the country. Just to scratch the surface of our problems.

Hillary Clinton would either be in prison or have already served her time if it were not for powerful connections. She has no qualifications for the presidency as does our current commander-in-chief. Why subject the nation to 12 or possibly 16 years of incompetent and in this case wholly corrupt leadership when there are other options? It makes no sense.

Research Ms. Clinton's background (a few links are in my sig to get you started) and choose to not ignore what you find. That is the important part - don't ignore what you find. Quit judging people on their intentions and start judging a potential president on results and their history to date. Another round of incompetency mixed in with criminality is not what we need right now. You've been taught that second tier is good enough. We can have better.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tell that to Detroit and the entire state of California. You have it all wrong. Liberalism is a failed experiment. You're kind just won't see the truth. Democrats ruin everything they touch. The most recent example of that is the Obamacare train wreck. Fail! Want a great congress again......vote properly.

Heh. The Denial is profound. Detroit & environs came apart at the seams because they depended for entirely too long on one capitalist enterprise, the auto biz. When the great & wonderful jerb creators moved the jobs away & automated them, Detroit got screwed. They're just at the worst end of the rust belt phenomenon left behind by American Capitalism. It's all part of externalizing liabilities & costs, maximizing profit. When they decide to move again, they'll leave the wreckage of the past behind for somebody else to deal with all over again.

It's merely convenient to have Dems to blame. It's red meat to feed the delusions of the Teahadi base, and they're always hungry for more.

 

[Matt1970]

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 ...

You still don't know what "If memory serves" means do you?

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.

Actually they are. How many people were at all the other protest with rocket launchers but just decided not to use them? People didn't just go there to protest and then decide to destroy our Embassy and murder anyone there. And, here is the kicker, they are so mutually exclusive it took Obama and his administration 2 weeks to admit they were terrorists. At least a flip-flopper is honest half the time, you are being dishonest 100% of the time.

 

[boomerang]

Heh. The Denial is profound. Detroit & environs came apart at the seams because they depended for entirely too long on one capitalist enterprise, the auto biz. When the great & wonderful jerb creators moved the jobs away & automated them, Detroit got screwed. They're just at the worst end of the rust belt phenomenon left behind by American Capitalism. It's all part of externalizing liabilities & costs, maximizing profit. When they decide to move again, they'll leave the wreckage of the past behind for somebody else to deal with all over again.

It's merely convenient to have Dems to blame. It's red meat to feed the delusions of the Teahadi base, and they're always hungry for more.

You speak a convenient truth that is in reality false. You only think you know what led to the demise of Detroit. A simple look at the timeline of the downfall would tell you a lot that you would ignore anyway. The great and powerful Democrat machine is pulling only the correct levers behind the magic curtain people! We are blameless when things turn to shit!

Which of you kids broke the lamp? The answer: A chorus of wasn't me's!

 

[Matt1970]

Heh. The Denial is profound. Detroit & environs came apart at the seams because they depended for entirely too long on one capitalist enterprise, the auto biz. When the great & wonderful jerb creators moved the jobs away & automated them, Detroit got screwed. They're just at the worst end of the rust belt phenomenon left behind by American Capitalism. It's all part of externalizing liabilities & costs, maximizing profit. When they decide to move again, they'll leave the wreckage of the past behind for somebody else to deal with all over again.

It's merely convenient to have Dems to blame. It's red meat to feed the delusions of the Teahadi base, and they're always hungry for more.

Classic Jhhnn. America cuts buying American made cars by more than half. A city tries to compensate for the loss of revenue by racking up massive amounts of debt, Jhhnn blames the corporations.

 

[PokerGuy]

NYT is an exceptionally reliable source.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah Good one

 

[Bowfinger]

You still don't know what "If memory serves" means do you?. ...

I'm not interested in teaching Remedial English to someone who is more interested in arguing than learning. We'll just add quotation marks to the list of English things you refuse to understand, along with dictionaries.

 

[theeedude]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah Good one

It's a good newspaper, for sure.

 

[Incorruptible]

It's a good newspaper, for sure.

That's your opinion.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Actually they are. How many people were at all the other protest with rocket launchers but just decided not to use them? People didn't just go there to protest and then decide to destroy our Embassy and murder anyone there. And, here is the kicker, they are so mutually exclusive it took Obama and his administration 2 weeks to admit they were terrorists. At least a flip-flopper is honest half the time, you are being dishonest 100% of the time.

You really need to learn to think before you post. There are countless examples of the same cause triggering different responses. For example, there are lots of suspicious-looking kids in hoodies walking around. Rarely are they shot. Same cause, different responses. Most OWS protests were non-violent, but some were. (Or conversely, most OWS protests didn't have a cop methodically spraying pepper spray on peaceful protestors, but at least one did.) Same cause, different responses. How many abortion protestors bomb clinics or kill doctors? Same cause, different responses. How many Vietnam protests resulted in four students getting killed by the National Guard? Same cause, different responses.

The fact that the video triggered less violent protests elsewhere in the region doesn't in any way, shape, or form preclude it from triggering (or more precisely, helping to trigger) unprecedented violence in Benghazi. Same cause, different actors, different response. The fact remains that according to an actual investigation (as opposed to your emotional opinions), that video was a factor in that heavily-armed attack that night in Benghazi.

 

[theeedude]

That's your opinion.

Yes, and your posts are your opinions. You going somewhere with this?

 

[TerryMathews]

yet they offered it. Do you despair the albatross draped upon your shoulders....

\take your cloak and wear it well...

So President Obama's crowning achievement is an albatross?

Worst. President. Ever.

 

[Bowfinger]

So President Obama's crowning achievement is an albatross?

Worst. President. Ever.

Worst Congress ever, I'll grant you (or at least, one of the worst). As far as Presidents go, time will tell, but he'll probably fall somewhere in the middle. Faux scandals like Benghazi won't be a factor. Fixing some of the structural flaws in the ACA will.

 

[Tom]

So President Obama's crowning achievement is an albatross?

Worst. President. Ever.

1. reversed the worst "recession" in 80 years.
2. got us out of the war in Iraq.
3. will get us out of Afghanistan.
4. reversed most of the disastrous Bush tax cuts.
5. millions of people have health insurance that didn't before. And its entirely possible Obamacare will work out quite well.

He's easily the best President of the 21st century, so far.

 

[Mani]

Well there is no comparison between those two but that paper is biased as hell.

And I'm sure you guys came to this conclusion because you have extensively read the NYT, right?

 

[TerryMathews]

1. reversed the worst "recession" in 80 years.
2. got us out of the war in Iraq.
3. will get us out of Afghanistan.
4. reversed most of the disastrous Bush tax cuts.
5. millions of people have health insurance that didn't before. And its entirely possible Obamacare will work out quite well.

He's easily the best President of the 21st century, so far.

The scary part is that youre serious about this.

 

[Matt1970]

1. reversed the worst "recession" in 80 years.
2. got us out of the war in Iraq.
3. will get us out of Afghanistan.
4. reversed most of the disastrous Bush tax cuts.
5. millions of people have health insurance that didn't before. And its entirely possible Obamacare will work out quite well.

He's easily the best President of the 21st century, so far.

This again?

1. Stimulus efforts failed.
2. Kicked out of Iraq.
3. Yet to be seen.
4. Wrong, made most of them permanent.
5. 10 Million kicked off insurance