DescentBB

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/us/libya- ... yt-report/
I'd post the Fox rebuttal reports, largely full of nameless 'on-the-ground' people, who claim fear for their jobs, etc, but I'm sure others will post them. Still, sort of amazing how this became the sole foreign policy focus of one of our two major parties, and a lot of knee-jerk Obamaphobes for so long. As the chart in the first post wonders, what would the response have been were 9/11/01 on Obama's watch??

I see you got that scare tactic email from the DNC. glad you fell for it.

CUDA wrote:I see you got that scare tactic email from the DNC. glad you fell for it.

funny, a loon we both knew posted a report, but I didn't see that one.......then again, as I've told you for years, I HAVE NO CONTACT with the DNC.
Also, to save an extra post, let's make note of the most admired man and woman in the US, shall we?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2 ... d/4249593/


as I said elsewhere, the next 3 years are going to be SO much fun!

OH and FYI the NYT report has already been debunked.

CUDA wrote:OH and FYI the NYT report has already been debunked.

not by anyone reputable. As I said, the right has produced nameless 'eyewitnesses' and 'insiders', but no real rebuttal of the Times reportage, or the earlier CNN reportage.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:OH and FYI the NYT report has already been debunked.

not by anyone reputable.

So Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is not reputable? Or:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif."

So both a Republican and a Democrat refute the story. So wrong once again slick. (Oh and in the future don't go on about how I'm wrong all the time.)

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:OH and FYI the NYT report has already been debunked.

not by anyone reputable.

So Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is not reputable? Or:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif."

So both a Republican and a Democrat refute the story. So wrong once again slick. (Oh and in the future don't go on about how I'm wrong all the time.)

Rogers is a complete incompetent ideologue, long-proven. Schiff, in NO WAY concurs with Rogers' overall thrust(which all would see had you bothered to publish the entire set of quotes), but instead COMPLETELY agrees with the NYT and CNN assessments. In other words, yes, there were some elements of Al-Qaeda around, but the operation was not planned, not an Al-Q action, involved a group of different militias, etc, etc. Nice try.

The nyt is still pushing the Muhammed video for crying out loud! Even though a study of social media shows NO INTEREST in the video until AFTER it was used by the Obama administration as a scapegoat!

This recent offering from the nyt is nothing but the Hillary defense....creating what can be deflected as "old news" when the details are trotted out to slam her during her run for President. And you, slick, know that very well. Which is why you are so eager to join that effort. You are a good little democrat.

Tell me slick, which one of those attacks on Americans under previous presidents came right after the ambassador requested more security and he cited a growing contingent of Muslim fundamentalist terrorists congregating in the area? Which one of those other attacks came upon us because we were actually gathering surface to air missiles and the CIA, operating under the supposed cover of the ambassadors activity, were shipping those arms off to a bunch of terrorists in Syria?

Maybe if you use those criteria you will find other Presidents DID get called out by the media.....in fact....much more so than Obama ever will!
Unless you see a serious special prosecutor go after him, a la Iran Contra your whole ridiculous analogy is only ridiculous.

woodchip wrote:So Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is not reputable? Or:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif."

So both a Republican and a Democrat refute the story. So wrong once again slick. (Oh and in the future don't go on about how I'm wrong all the time.)

You believe what politicians say ? Wow.

Could someone please tell me why I cannot ban the next ★■◆● that brings up Benghazi? I want to ban them all, please! Can I? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

One of these days, I might just do it.

Maybe I should add it to the profanity filter while I'm at it.

Grendel wrote:

woodchip wrote:So Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is not reputable? Or:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif."

So both a Republican and a Democrat refute the story. So wrong once again slick. (Oh and in the future don't go on about how I'm wrong all the time.)

You believe what politicians say ? Wow.

No more than you but in Rogers case (and Issa) there were hearings and people testified under oath that AQ was involved and that the video had no part in the attack. And here's another Dem:

"I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif."

So who u gonna believe? The NYT with anonymous sources or witness who testified under oath?

Krom wrote:Could someone please tell me why I cannot ban the next ★■◆● that brings up Benghazi? I want to ban them all, please! Can I? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

One of these days, I might just do it.

Maybe I should add it to the profanity filter while I'm at it.

Bear might grant me the powers to ban any mod who bans any poster who posts about a subject that the mod feels should be banned.

woodchip wrote:So who u gonna believe? The NYT with anonymous sources or witness who testified under oath?

I believe he's already answered that question

I guess its easier to believe an anonymous source, then it is to believe someone that would be charged with perjury

I think slick’s posts are aimed at the very young, and those with short memories… I remember Reagan getting holy hell over the Marine barracks getting bombed in Lebanon.

I also think the difference between Ben…err and many other events…was the way the office handled it…leaving the door open for all of the crap.

And to expect the loyal troops to hang a president over anything is just wishful thinking.

Apples to apples…please.

Twist and shout.

I believe the outrage was more about the Lie and the cover-up then the actual attack. I think most people would have understood.

but the only ones that swallowed the lie about the Video are those on the extreme left and those that are protecting Hillary

Will Robinson wrote:The nyt is still pushing the Muhammed video for crying out loud! Even though a study of social media shows NO INTEREST in the video until AFTER it was used by the Obama administration as a scapegoat!

yet, dozens of militia member who actually live in that region of Libya claim it WAS inflammatory.

Tell me slick, which one of those attacks on Americans under previous presidents came right after the ambassador requested more security and he cited a growing contingent of Muslim fundamentalist terrorists congregating in the area? Which one of those other attacks came upon us because we were actually gathering surface to air missiles and the CIA, operating under the supposed cover of the ambassadors activity, were shipping those arms off to a bunch of terrorists in Syria?

dunno, but I do know of one that came less than a month after the National Security Advisor handed the President a memo warning of militants using airplanes as weapons.

CUDA wrote:

woodchip wrote:So who u gonna believe? The NYT with anonymous sources or witness who testified under oath?

I believe he's already answered that question

I guess its easier to believe an anonymous source, then it is to believe someone that would be charged with perjury

except that the Times DID name their sources in several cases that I read.

Krom wrote:Could someone please tell me why I cannot ban the next ★■◆● that brings up Benghazi? I want to ban them all, please! Can I? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

One of these days, I might just do it.

Maybe I should add it to the profanity filter while I'm at it.

Hell Krom, right wingers have to have something to blame on this president, even if it wasn't his fault that a bunch of idiots he had absolutely no connection with made an inflammatory video about Muslims, which was posted on the internet and royally pissed off a bunch on crazy, militant Libyans who then went all ballistic on our butts. Poor right wingers, who to blame? Well, perhaps IT WAS THAT STUPID VIDEO! Lesser things have started full scale wars.

They're also forgetting that the CIA was mixed up in this somehow. THEY never revealed how many people they had on the ground, and THEY covered up what THEY were doing there.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01 ... zi-attack/

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

woodchip wrote:So who u gonna believe? The NYT with anonymous sources or witness who testified under oath?

I believe he's already answered that question

I guess its easier to believe an anonymous source, then it is to believe someone that would be charged with perjury

except that the Times DID name their sources in several cases that I read.

Care to point them out as we all know how protective the newsies are of their sources.

Woody, if you read the articles involved, you will note that they INTERVIEWED some folks who actually gave their names.

tunnelcat wrote:

Krom wrote:Could someone please tell me why I cannot ban the next ★■◆● that brings up Benghazi? I want to ban them all, please! Can I? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

One of these days, I might just do it.

Maybe I should add it to the profanity filter while I'm at it.

Hell Krom, right wingers have to have something to blame on this president, even if it wasn't his fault that a bunch of idiots he had absolutely no connection with made an inflammatory video about Muslims, which was posted on the internet and royally pissed off a bunch on crazy, militant Libyans who then went all ballistic on our butts. Poor right wingers, who to blame? Well, perhaps IT WAS THAT STUPID VIDEO! Lesser things have started full scale wars.

They're also forgetting that the CIA was mixed up in this somehow. THEY never revealed how many people they had on the ground, and THEY covered up what THEY were doing there.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01 ... zi-attack/

TC you do realize the video was posted in July,months before the attacks. Curious how the outrage over it came about on 9/11.

Krom wrote:Could someone please tell me why I cannot ban the next ★■◆● that brings up Benghazi? I want to ban them all, please! Can I? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

One of these days, I might just do it.

Maybe I should add it to the profanity filter while I'm at it.

you'll be a busy boy, I'd suspect, from now until Hillary's inauguration address.

woodchip wrote:TC you do realize the video was posted in July,months before the attacks. Curious how the outrage over it came about on 9/11.

heck, people on this very board are about a century behind reality, whose to blame Libyans for a 5 week delay?

Conservatives want to blame Obama so much for this fiasco that they won't even believe an actual militant who participated in the attack!

woodchip wrote:TC you do realize the video was posted in July,months before the attacks. Curious how the outrage over it came about on 9/11.

It's the third world woody. How long do you think it took for something like that to percolate around to all the uninformed masses and then cause rage? The tipping point and the right circumstances may not have been reached in Libya until September.

tunnelcat wrote:

Krom wrote:Could someone please tell me why I cannot ban the next ★■◆● that brings up Benghazi? I want to ban them all, please! Can I? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

One of these days, I might just do it.

Maybe I should add it to the profanity filter while I'm at it.

Hell Krom, right wingers have to have something to blame on this president, even if it wasn't his fault that a bunch of idiots he had absolutely no connection with made an inflammatory video about Muslims, which was posted on the internet and royally pissed off a bunch on crazy, militant Libyans who then went all ballistic on our butts. Poor right wingers, who to blame? Well, perhaps IT WAS THAT STUPID VIDEO! Lesser things have started full scale wars.

They're also forgetting that the CIA was mixed up in this somehow. THEY never revealed how many people they had on the ground, and THEY covered up what THEY were doing there.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01 ... zi-attack/

You mean how you need to blame Bush for everything that's wrong with the world even 5 years after he is out of office. look at the bright side. at least us right wingers are living in the present

tunnelcat wrote:Conservatives want to blame Obama so much for this fiasco that they won't even believe an actual militant who participated in the attack!

woodchip wrote:TC you do realize the video was posted in July,months before the attacks. Curious how the outrage over it came about on 9/11.

It's the third world woody. How long do you think it took for something like that to percolate around to all the uninformed masses and then cause rage? The tipping point and the right circumstances may not have been reached in Libya until September.

RIGHT...... it was all just an complete coincidence the date and all

callmeslick wrote:Woody, if you read the articles involved, you will note that they INTERVIEWED some folks who actually gave their names.

and all those people they interviewed were under oath by penalty of law too weren't they

callmeslick wrote:Woody, if you read the articles involved, you will note that they INTERVIEWED some folks who actually gave their names.

Well I don't know how trust worthy those named sources are as:

"Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack"

CUDA wrote:You mean how you need to blame Bush for everything that's wrong with the world even 5 years after he is out of office. look at the bright side. at least us right wingers are living in the present

What Bush did had inertia. And take a look at the image Slick posted at the top of this thread. Bush, waaaaaaaay worse for shear number of consulate attacks. Obama, blown waaaaaaaaay out of proportion.

woodchip wrote:Well I don't know how trust worthy those named sources are as:

"Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack"

Hmmm. To clear this all up, maybe the CIA should answer a few questions. THEY were actually THERE as it happened!

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:You mean how you need to blame Bush for everything that's wrong with the world even 5 years after he is out of office. look at the bright side. at least us right wingers are living in the present

What Bush did had inertia. And take a look at the image Slick posted at the top of this thread. Bush, waaaaaaaay worse for shear number of consulate attacks. Obama, blown waaaaaaaaay out of proportion.

woodchip wrote:Well I don't know how trust worthy those named sources are as:

"Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack"

Hmmm. To clear this all up, maybe the CIA should answer a few questions. THEY were actually THERE as it happened!

Better yet get the NSA because they prolly have the actual AQ conversations

Woodchip may have a point, but good luck trying to supoena them......

Maybe all we need is Snowden

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:You mean how you need to blame Bush for everything that's wrong with the world even 5 years after he is out of office. look at the bright side. at least us right wingers are living in the present

What Bush did had inertia. And take a look at the image Slick posted at the top of this thread. Bush, waaaaaaaay worse for shear number of consulate attacks. Obama, blown waaaaaaaaay out of proportion.

I wrote:I believe the outrage was more about the Lie and the cover-up then the actual attack. I think most people would have understood.

but the only ones that swallowed the lie about the Video are those on the extreme left and those that are protecting Hillary

please show me where Bush Lied and made ★■◆● up about ANY of those attacks

CUDA wrote:please show me where Bush Lied and made **** up about ANY of those attacks

hard to tell.....so much of that truth was obscured. Given the track record that led us to Iraq, the chances are good.

If the chances were good, it would of been front page news.

Lol! TC actually believes the attack was about a video!

No wonder they can get away with the things they do. We're doomed if she is any indication of the current level of willful ignorance in the electorate!

The NYT claims they know what happened in bengazi because they had a reporter on the ground during the attack

twitter wrote:David D. Kirkpatrick @

@RichardGrenell we had a reporter on the scene talking to the attackers during the attack- still invaluable

(kirkpatrick has been a reporter for the NYT since 2000)

what luck!!!!! Having a reporter on the ground in a major city like Bengazi Libya during a spontaneous attack on our embassy over an Internet video. I mean WHAT ARE THE CHANCES...... I hope those guys play the lottery.

Hrm funny how this didnt come out in 2012 right after the attack.

WOW this adds so much credibility to the report. How could we possibly question it now.

funny, to a West Coast guy, likely unaware of the size and scope of the Times operations and foreign bureaus, that might sound odd. To anyone who has been familiar with the paper, it sound exactly correct.

Funny how the administration apologist didn't address the fact that it took 15 months for the NYT to state they had a corespondent on the ground interviewing the attackers, DURING THE ATTACK. I guess it wasn't news back then when those same attackers were murdering an American Ambassador on the anniversary of 9-11.