All Quiet on Benghazi (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


cloudboy -> All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 4:18:02 PM)

The NYT last Sunday published a definitive investigative report about what happened in Benghazi. Why has this been ignored by the Right Wing who was obsessed by the attack for months on end?

Gotta love the right wing. GWB is in office not a peep about the deficit or Iraq. Then it can't shut up about Benghazi under Obama, but none of it's news organizations even try to investigate what really happened. Then when a investigative news report is finally issued, crickets.





DaNewAgeViking -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 4:20:21 PM)

Because it shoots down their wild claims that Obama somehow was responsible for not seeing it, or not accepting that Al Caida was responsible for it, or something - anything to make the Prez look bad.
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]




HipPoindexter -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 4:21:54 PM)

they haven't ignored it. they've been attacking it with an enviable, dimwitted savagery.

that is, the ones who don't just say "new york times lol."


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


The NYT last Sunday published a definitive investigative report about what happened in Benghazi. Why has this been ignored by the Right Wing who was obsessed by the attack for months on end?





popeye1250 -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 5:32:15 PM)

Nothing about that "Youtube video that started it all?"




TheHeretic -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 5:48:12 PM)

Because the once proud New York Times label doesn't mean shit anymore.

Got a solution to that?





HipPoindexter -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 6:11:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Because the once proud New York Times label doesn't mean shit anymore.

Got a solution to that?




see? voila!




cloudboy -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 6:12:42 PM)


You called it.




Lucylastic -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 6:17:23 PM)

That was brilliant

They hardly murmured about the 60 minutes debacle




FellowSlave -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 8:05:49 PM)

I speculate the Clintons are behind attempts to shut down the Benghazi issue. Reptoid Mrs. Clinton must be certain it is gone before jumping into Oval office seat hunt with full force.
From the NYT:
"An exhaustive investigation by The Times goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. "

Give me a break, is this a joke!?




Phydeaux -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 8:08:54 PM)

Thats cause anyone that knew anything about the facts on the ground knew it was ridiculous a year ago.

Regarding the NYTimes 'definitive' report.

Because the report is flat out bullshit that if you actually read any real sources you would *know* it was bullshit.

For example - it claims the attack wasn't pre-planned. Sean Smith (the IT guy that died) said they caught people casing the joint. Said they were pre-warned of the attack in advance. The local guards that provided protection didn't show.

The guy that planned the attack entered the country 4 weeks before the attack.

Spontaneous attacks do not involve road blocks, preplotted mortar firing coordinates.

How about because the embassy logs from the date of the attack had NO mention of a protest.

Top to bottom the report is whitewash for hillary clinton and absolute drivel.

And before you just bash me as a right wing nut - how about contesting the facts?




jlf1961 -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 8:18:21 PM)

I have a simple solution to make at least part of the American citizens happy.

The US Air Force has a lot of dumb bombs stockpiled, my suggestion is that we use them all up on Benghazi, Syria, Iran, and North Korea.




TheHeretic -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 9:02:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
You called it.



You wish.

The Grey Lady turned into a cheap whore for Obama. Would you happen to recall how they rewrote his Obamacare lie for him?

What credibility do they have left?







cloudboy -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 9:17:33 PM)


You clearly didn't read the report.




Kirata -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 9:30:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The NYT last Sunday published a definitive investigative report about what happened in Benghazi.

It may please certain people to style the report as "definitive," but they do so at the cost of their contact with reality.

Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt. ~NY Times

The top U.S. intelligence authority issued an unusual public statement on Friday declaring it now believed the September 11 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, was a "deliberate and organized terrorist attack." ~Reuters

U.S. intelligence believes that assailants connected to al Qaeda in Iraq were among the core group that attacked the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, a U.S. government official told CNN. That would represent the second al Qaeda affiliate associated with the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. ~CNN

Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has pronounced the Times report "incomplete" and "deficient." According to Schiff, "the intelligence indicates that al Qaeda was involved," noting that the Times "didn’t have the same access to people who were not aware they were being listened to. They were heavily reliant obviously on people that they interviewed who had a reason to provide the story that they did." ~Source (video)

Al-Qaeda in Libya: A Profile ~Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

K.




Kana -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 10:19:20 PM)

Let's see-The times is responsible for printing Judith Millers errors on WMD, Jayson Blairs plagiarism, Tawanna Bradley, Selena Roberts despicable attacks and blatant mistruths re the Duke Lacrosse case.
The article re Benghazi also quite inconveniently contradicts their own prior reporting re the assault.
It also contradicts many of the administrations ex post facto (Often long afterwards too) revisions of events.
There's also the minor fact that the Times has admitted having certain biases:
quote:


MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thanks, Joanne. Great to be here.

LIPMAN: So let's dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about "The New York Times" -- I don't know if it's the most frequent but it's certainly the loudest -- is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?

SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column -- and I think the headline said something like "Is 'The Times' a Liberal Newspaper?"

And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.

I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think.

LIPMAN: So it is a yes?

SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.


So yeah, I think people have a right to be skeptical.

Not to mention that the administration has stonewalled on the situation, which never looks good, changed their base story a few times, and,how to put this kindly,proven to be less than credible on certain serious issues in the past.
That's a bad combination and one that's going to lead to uncertainty at best, conspiracy theorizing at worst.

Personally, I don't find the attack itself,or the unprepared state of security to be that surprising. Same with the difficulty with the response. Sad to say,these sorts of things happen in the government. Too many people from too many agencies operating for too many individual agendas, not to mention the communications and logistical difficulties, in this budget slashing day and age where everyone in the govt is expected to do more with less-a tragedy was almost inevitable.
There's also the rather large possibility that Benghazi was a deep sanctioned black ops CIA front/mission and the admin was covering up to prevent disclosing far greater secrets.
So yeah,the successful attack doesn't bother me too much. Regrettably,these things happen.Unfortunately in this instance people died, which sucks.
But I do kinda suspect that the administration,when they found out about it, saw it in terms of politics. As in, OMFG, this is an election year and we could look really bad,this could really hurt us and Romney is sure to use it against us (And ooooh he would have) so they tried to gloss it over and cover it up.
That ridiculous story about the movie is an example. And then a few weeks later they essentially said,"Blame it on a movie.Hah-we never did that. We thought it was a terrorist attack from Day 1."
Huh-cuz there were riots across the Mideast after the admin pointed the movie finger.Innocent people died in them. Others had their property and livelihood ruined. All because the administration proved to be incapable of saying "Fuck,we dropped the ball here."
And I have issues with that. I have moral issues with people dying to cover others asses

In other words, like always, I have way more problems with the coverup than the crime.Hey, people make errors.Nobody is 100%. And in an entity as monolithic and sprawling as the US Govt, they are inevitable.En masse, nonetheless. But the thing to do is admit em and move on,ala Kennnedy and the Bay of Pigs.
Don't lie and coverup though. That's when the shit gets deep and the knives come out
The cover up is what killed LBJ.It buried Nixon. It killed Clinton. It buried Bush.
It's just fucking stupid.
Especially when you have run on a platform of being the most transparent administration in history and changing the way government works. The US populace by and large is very forgiving, both of celebs and politicos (I mean fuck,DC re-elected Barry after he got caught smoking crack on camera and the whole "Bitch set me up" deal),who admit their fuckups.But lie to em and they get all sorts of sanctimonious. Watch the funk out then cuz blood will just make the wolves thirstier. That's whats happening here

Kinda reminds of that movie about Enron,"The Smartest Guys in the Room."

Too smart for their own damn good is what the real deal is




popeye1250 -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/4/2014 11:22:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The NYT last Sunday published a definitive investigative report about what happened in Benghazi. Why has this been ignored by the Right Wing who was obsessed by the attack for months on end?

Gotta love the right wing. GWB is in office not a peep about the deficit or Iraq. Then it can't shut up about Benghazi under Obama, but none of it's news organizations even try to investigate what really happened. Then when a investigative news report is finally issued, crickets.




Cloud, you seem to be framing this in a "Democrat vs Republican bent."
Wouldn't *anyone* and *everyone* want to find out the truth in this?
When H. Clinton tries to sell us on a video from Youtube being the cause of this there's something terribly wrong, does she think that the American People are that stupid?
If there's no-one talking about this it'd be her and President Snow.
The quickest way to put this to bed would be to put them both under oath!




cloudboy -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/5/2014 6:56:41 AM)


Crickets from the right wing. Instead of discussing what's in the NYT report and the varacity of its findings, the right just attacks the NYT. (As predicted by a respondent on this thread.)

Some right wing sources have even suggested that the NYT investigation is tainted by it's desire to put Hillary Clinton in the White House in 2016. Heaven forbid it just try and get the facts on the matter.

As for myself, I'll take the NYT methodology of fact finding and reporting over just about any source. I say this b/c I read the paper nearly every day, and no other daily paper compares to it in terms of resources and end product. The BAL SUN is a shell of its former self. TV news is mostly a joke.




hot4bondage -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/5/2014 8:09:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Crickets from the right wing. Instead of discussing what's in the NYT report and the varacity of its findings, the right just attacks the NYT. (As predicted by a respondent on this thread.)

Some right wing sources have even suggested that the NYT investigation is tainted by it's desire to put Hillary Clinton in the White House in 2016. Heaven forbid it just try and get the facts on the matter.

As for myself, I'll take the NYT methodology of fact finding and reporting over just about any source. I say this b/c I read the paper nearly every day, and no other daily paper compares to it in terms of resources and end product. The BAL SUN is a shell of its former self. TV news is mostly a joke.


The youtube video was old and obscure. Any uprisings it may have caused weren't any more spontaneous than the riots that happened in response to the Mohammed cartoons, months after they were published. Find the people who dug up and translated the video to inflame their followers, and you might find the people who planned the attack. The consulate also had security cameras which should make it easy to tell if it was a spontaneous protest or a planned attack. Where's the footage?

From WMDs in Iraq to last week's column by David Brooks against legalizing marijuana, the NYT isn't liberal, it's statist.




TheHeretic -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/5/2014 10:03:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Crickets from the right wing. Instead of discussing what's in the NYT report



Are you this clueless? NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHAT IT SAYS. The New York Times is no longer definitive, no matter how much they claim the mantle.

Quit replying to avatars, based on your assumptions, Cloudboy, and see what we are saying.

You have made this case based on an appeal to the authority of the New York Times. We are pointing out that they lost any authoritative status long ago. That's not attacking the source. That is attacking your position.





cloudboy -> RE: All Quiet on Benghazi (1/5/2014 11:13:55 AM)

I'm afraid to even ask what your news sources are. Frankly your reaction (which was well-predicted) reminds me of the Stephen Colbert quote about the current pope.

THE POPE IS INFALLIBLE, BUT HE'S WRONG ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.

I know it's sad to be debunked --- to not have a real scandal to sink Obama. The rage-machine needs food, but you'll have to look in another cupboard.

-----------

Salient sections:

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

----------

Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875