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

[berzerker60]

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

I think Obama is a mediocre president at best, but

1. They only 'failed' in that they weren't big enough, but they still did a great deal of good (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html)
2. Okay, sure
3. Agreed
4. Agreed
5. Oh no, people had to get better insurance (how many of them won't be signing up for any new insurance and are permanently 'kicked off'? I can't imagine very many), meanwhile many (at least 4) million people got added to Medicaid alone, plus kids staying on parents' plans, plus whoever does end up signing up over the next year. I know "Obamacare is a disaster!" is a religious tenet in the right-wing community, but the jury is still out. We probably won't have a real idea for another decade or two, but it's a mixed bag at worst right now.

 

[ivwshane]

So President Obama's crowning achievement is an albatross?

Worst. President. Ever.

The scary part is that youre serious about this.

 

[Matt1970]

I think Obama is a mediocre president at best, but

1. They only 'failed' in that they weren't big enough, but they still did a great deal of good (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html)
2. Okay, sure
3. Agreed
4. Agreed
5. Oh no, people had to get better insurance (how many of them won't be signing up for any new insurance and are permanently 'kicked off'? I can't imagine very many), meanwhile many (at least 4) million people got added to Medicaid alone, plus kids staying on parents' plans, plus whoever does end up signing up over the next year. I know "Obamacare is a disaster!" is a religious tenet in the right-wing community, but the jury is still out. We probably won't have a real idea for another decade or two, but it's a mixed bag at worst right now.

1. According to Obama all the best experts claimed this is all we needed to get the economy back on track. Saying it wasn't enough is armchair quarterbacking.
5. I don't remember anyone campaigning the Obamacare was about getting people on better insurance or on Medicaid. 20 years to find out if Obamacare was a success or not? Uhhh, no.

 

[theeedude]

1. According to Obama all the best experts claimed this is all we needed to get the economy back on track. Saying it wasn't enough is armchair quarterbacking.
5. I don't remember anyone campaigning the Obamacare was about getting people on better insurance or on Medicaid. 20 years to find out if Obamacare was a success or not? Uhhh, no.

What are you talking about? Pretty much every economic expert said it wasn't enough at the time. Stimulus has to be sustained until economy recovers to be effective. Obamacare is getting people both better insurance and Medicaid where states are expanding it.

 

[Matt1970]

What are you talking about? Pretty much every economic expert said it wasn't enough at the time. Stimulus has to be sustained until economy recovers to be effective. Obamacare is getting people both better insurance and Medicaid where states are expanding it.

Link please?

 

[TerryMathews]

The scary part is that youre serious about this.

A- I was reusing the albatross quote from Uber
B- Evidently not a one of you has ever watched the Simpsons. Son, you are disappoint.

 

[theeedude]

Link please?

1. According to Obama all the best experts claimed this is allwe needed to get the economy back on track. Saying it wasn't enough is armchair quarterbacking.

You first.

 

[Bowfinger]

You first.

Hey, wait. I'm still waiting for him to prove Obama lied about Benghazi. One talking point at a time.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Hey, wait. I'm still waiting for him to prove Obama lied about Benghazi. One talking point at a time.

I'll play.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
• Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
• Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
• Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

 

[theeedude]

I'll play.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack

Unless you had a reporter on the ground at the time, like NYT, how would you know that?

 

[Incorruptible]

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.

So you're alright with him pandering to radical Islam and locking up an innocent man?

 

[Matt1970]

You first.

Crap, I can't find it. I did find him saying it is the right size and the right scope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kuGOfWSJ1fM#t=134

 

[theeedude]

Crap, I can't find it. I did find him saying it is the right size and the right scope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kuGOfWSJ1fM#t=134

It was, but not the right duration, since it was stopped too early.

 

[Matt1970]

Hey, wait. I'm still waiting for him to prove Obama lied about Benghazi. One talking point at a time.

I don't have to approve anything. Obama did that on his own by blaming two separate things. When you do that, one is the truth, and one is a lie. Your political agenda won't allow you to see them as separate.

 

[Matt1970]

It was, but not the right duration, since it was stopped too early.

Stopped to early? It was spread out over years. If anything it would have had better effects if it were spent quicker. You don't put out a fire by sprinkling water on it.

 

[ivwshane]

Link please?

Before the stimulus was even finalized:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/economist-obama-stimulus-not-enough/

Shortly after:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13fri1.html?ref=opinion

Several months later:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2009/07/artificial_stimulus.html

In 2012 he asked for more stimulus spending as well:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/12/obama-pushes-billion-dollar-stimulus-plan/


Get out of your fucking bubble! Your posts are reaching the level of incorruptible's and nobody should want that!

 

[Incorruptible]

Before the stimulus was even finalized:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/economist-obama-stimulus-not-enough/

Shortly after:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13fri1.html?ref=opinion

Several months later:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2009/07/artificial_stimulus.html



Get out of your fucking bubble! Your posts are reaching the level of incorruptible's and nobody should want that!

Resorting to personal attacks, Not surprised that a scumbag like you would do that.

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't have to approve anything. Obama did that on his own by blaming two separate things. When you do that, one is the truth, and one is a lie. Your political agenda won't allow you to see them as separate.

You remain wrong, I showed you why you are wrong, and you're simply too dishonest, too partisan, and/or too immature to acknowledge that you are wrong. The same cause can and often does produce different responses. No matter how dearly you don't want to accept that fact, it is, nonetheless, a fact.

 

[werepossum]

Unless you had a reporter on the ground at the time, like NYT, how would you know that?

Not everyone at the mission that day was killed, dude. Although not being NYT reporters, clearly they could not tell if a massive spontaneous protest was occurring around them, so I suppose their observations are useless.

Dumbass.

 

[Matt1970]

You remain wrong, I showed you why you are wrong, and you're simply too dishonest, too partisan, and/or too immature to acknowledge that you are wrong. The same cause can and often does produce different responses. No matter how dearly you don't want to accept that fact, it is, nonetheless, a fact.

And I proved to you how they were mutually exclusive. There were tons of protests all over the world at the time, and with the exception of Benghazi the worst thing I could find was someone lighting a tree on fire. You just think it's natural for this one to have a whole group of heavily armed individuals when none of the others seemed to. It fits your political agenda and the odds aren't zero, so run with it. Whether you want to see the truth or not is entirely up to you. Remember the only one in life you have to be really honest with is yourself.


BTW, if they weren't mutually exclusive than the administration wouldn't have had a problem calling them terrorists from day 1.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'll play.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

• There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
• Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
• Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
• Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

That's a much better effort than anything Matt has done -- ever -- but it falls short of proving Obama personally lied about Benghazi (Matt's assertion). Note that Factcheck also recognizes this:

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent.

This was in one of the paragraphs leading up to the list you copied. Lying requires knowing and willful intent.

Where that list falls short is it doesn't provide any actual Obama quotes. It makes generalized statements. It is also inconsistent in giving dates, and doesn't show that Obama was making statements contradicted by the CIA or other intel he would be expected to accept at face value. For example, while it's notable that the Libyan President asserted it was a planned attack, the CIA may not yet have reached that conclusion. Remember that in any breaking story, all sorts of people make all sorts of claims that later turn out to be erroneous.

I will also note that in all of the statements and appearances I personally saw, Obama (and Rice) always qualified their statements. Yes, they said the attack appeared to have been tied to the video protests, but they always added a comment that we were still investigating possible terrorist connections. That's why I'd like to see exact quotes. If Obama ever claimed there were no terrorist ties, that would have been a lie since the very first CIA talking points acknowledged terrorist elements were involved. What those points did not state, however, is that those terrorist elements planned or led the attacks.

In summary, while I concede it is quite possible Obama lied, I've yet to see proof he lied. The evidence I have seen shows he stuck to the CIA's points. I agree he downplayed the terrorist angle, but he always acknowledged that it was a possibility they were still investigating.

Finally, to the usual droolers ready to jump into one of your usual brainless attacks about Obama worship, consider this. I have also stated multiple times that I cannot state as fact that GW Bush lied about Iraq's (fictional) WMDs. His administration lied, to be sure, but we do not know whether Bush had honest information, or whether he was simply repeating the official talking points given to him (just like Obama and Benghazi). My standard for calling someone a liar is they must knowingly and willfully intend to make false claims. We cannot prove this for either Obama-Benghazi or Bush-WMDs.

 

[Bowfinger]

And I proved to you how they were mutually exclusive. There were tons of protests all over the world at the time, and with the exception of Benghazi the worst thing I could find was someone lighting a tree on fire. You just think it's natural for this one to have a whole group of heavily armed individuals when none of the others seemed to. It fits your political agenda and the odds aren't zero, so run with it. Whether you want to see the truth or not is entirely up to you. Remember the only one in life you have to be really honest with is yourself.


BTW, if they weren't mutually exclusive than the administration wouldn't have had a problem calling them terrorists from day 1.

Listen up, twit for brains. There were thousands of Vietnam protests too, but only one Kent State. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of abortion protests, yet very few bombings. Etc. Etc. Etc. The same cause will yield different responses by different actors in different circumstances. It's a simple enough concept that I'm confident even your slimy little brain can grasp it. Therefore, I can state that since you are knowingly and willingly making false comments, you are a liar. Kindly join Inconsequential in the club of totally useless P&N noisebots.

 

[berzerker60]

Where that list falls short is it doesn't provide any actual Obama quotes. ... I will also note that in all of the statements and appearances I personally saw, Obama (and Rice) always qualified their statements. Yes, they said the attack appeared to have been tied to the video protests, but they always added a comment that we were still investigating possible terrorist connections. That's why I'd like to see exact quotes. If Obama ever claimed there were no terrorist ties, that would have been a lie since the very first CIA talking points acknowledged terrorist elements were involved. What those points did not state, however, is that those terrorist elements planned or led the attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13
“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

...

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”​

OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

​

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

I disagree with that link's conclusion, which seems silly and pedantic to me, but it does include other quotes from Obama. In all of them, he's careful with his language, but in my mind, of fucking course he's careful with his language. What is to be gained by saying "Oh hey it's definitely terrorists 100%" when the investigation is ongoing? It sometimes takes time to figure shit out, though. Assuming there were real attempts to capture those involved, who gives a shit what he called it?

He certainly didn't deny that it was terrorism, so there's clearly no lie.

 

[schmuckley]

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

When was this? If his lips are moving;He's lying.
Q:Who got the "pants on fire" of the year award?
I'm glad he's on vacation,because it's bad if he's "on the job."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/8/obama-white-house-earn-top-liar-labels-obamacare-f/
eh..not the bestest link..but OK.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
I disagree with that link's conclusion, which seems silly and pedantic to me, but it does include other quotes from Obama. In all of them, he's careful with his language, but in my mind, of fucking course he's careful with his language. What is to be gained by saying "Oh hey it's definitely terrorists 100%" when the investigation is ongoing? It sometimes takes time to figure shit out, though. Assuming there were real attempts to capture those involved, who gives a shit what he called it?

He certainly didn't deny that it was terrorism, so there's clearly no lie.

Thanks, good examples. That was my sense as well, that Obama was always careful to acknowledge they were still investigating the terrorist angle even as he talked about the video protests. I have not seen or read every single Obama quote on the matter, however, so if anyone can provide a quote where he denies any terrorist connection I will reconsider my position.