Benghazi...Again.

 Post Reply    Back to Forums
1–25 out of 36 messages
Author Message

mpdodgson Posted - 12/29/2013 1:18:41 PM | show profile | flag this post

"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."

"The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras."

The six part series starts here:
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?emc=edit_na_20131228#/?chapt=0

(I thought Lib blogger Diane Sweet nailed it: "Right-wing conspiracy theorists were dealt a heavy blow today by The New York Times, as actual investigative journalism reared its head. Will there be apologies forthcoming for Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, or Obama? Not likely. Persons like Lindsey Graham, and Darryl Issa would have to admit that he was wrong about something for that to happen.

More than likely, the entire report will be dismissed by the conspiracy theorists on the right as a liberal leaning news paper trying to protect a Liberal-Socialist-Marxist-Administration."

cruiser Posted - 12/29/2013 3:32:28 PM | show profile | flag this post

Nope

It's the image of the Democrat party's 2016 candidate they're trying to protect. Hillary was the Secretary of State during the Benghazi debacle and the one who petulantly asked, "What difference...at this point...does it make?"

Dishonesty by a sitting president and/or any of the cabinet officers makes a HUGE difference. It goes to the confidence that is lost when an administration official is dishonest...as MANY of them have been during Obama's presidency...even the president himself.

mpdodgson Posted - 12/29/2013 6:09:08 PM | show profile | flag this post

Thanks for not dissapointing.

"...party's 2016 candidate they're trying to protect..." See?? 'THEY', some mysterious neferious 'they', are trying to protect Hillary. That's the reason for the thouroughly researched article. When Sweet predicted "conspiracy theorists on the right "? She had morons like cruise in mind.

"the Benghazi debacle". Well, there you're right. It was an intelligence failure too, and if if you read the piece you would know the NYT points that out several times. But then that ruin your narrative.

"the one who petulantly asked, "What difference...at this point...does it make?" It wasn't done "petulantly" you turd, it was done in frustration--because the questioning was all a bunch of lies. Try some context; actual testimony:

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that. (FACT: THAT is what happened)

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

THAT was the whole answer. And knowing what we know now--the truth--it was the best answer possible and the only answer possible. But then when did truth ever stand in your way cruise.







Quinntessential Posted - 12/29/2013 6:48:56 PM | show profile | flag this post

Pretty weak. Certainly nothing to start demanding apologies over.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mpdodgson, how are you and your family doing?

I remember over the summer your wife was ill. I hope all is well.



Quinntessential Posted - 12/29/2013 7:07:03 PM | show profile | flag this post

Ed Morrissey ask some questions the Times failed to answer.

The State Department was repeatedly warned about the chaos in Benghazi and the increasing aggressiveness of the Islamist militias and terror networks in the area after the US-prompted NATO mission decapitated the Qaddafi regime — including escalating demands for security from the US mission in Libya.

Why did State ignore these demands?

Other Western nations bailed out of Benghazi because of increasing terrorism. Why did the US stay put when even the UK pulled out? Especially without increasing security?

The attack took place on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 in an area with active al-Qaeda affiliates, as well as terrorist networks with murkier alliances. Why wasn’t the US prepared to respond to an attack on its most vulnerable diplomatic outpost?

Where was Barack Obama and what was he doing after his 5 pm meeting with Leon Panetta at the beginning of the attack?

If the YouTube video was such an issue, why didn’t anyone in Benghazi or Tripoli know it, and why did the White House end up retracting that claim after a couple of weeks?

Who told the Accountability Review Board to ignore the actions of higher-ranking State Department officials such as Patrick Kennedy, who ignored the pleas for more security, and focus blame on lower-ranking career officials for the unpreparedness of State for the attack?

What was the CIA doing in Benghazi, and how did they miss the rise of Ansar al-Shariah? Kirkpatrick notes that no one seemed aware of its danger until after the attack.

And this-

Addendum: Does anyone else think it strange that the Times published this on a Saturday afternoon in the middle of the Christmas doldrums?


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/29/ny-times-hey-that-youtube-did-have-something-to-do-with-benghazi-attack-after-all/

Strange yes. Things that make you go hmmmm.

mpdodgson Posted - 12/29/2013 9:27:59 PM | show profile | flag this post

Quint...

First of all (and sincerely) Thank you Sir. I've been back at work full time, while the beloved is in/out of the hospital. Our hopes are high. (And thank God for Medicare). And right back at ya--Hope all is well with your family.

Back at being antagonists (lol)--

C'mon, please tell me you can do better than a washed up dude like Ed Morrissey. AKA 'Allahdipshit'. Seriously. "Where was Barack Obama and what was he doing after his 5 pm meeting..." Uh, I dunno. At the WH doing his job??...while something unforseen was happening elsewhere? Would he be given a pass if he was reading a book to schoolchildren?? (jab jab)

And really; "Does anyone else think it strange that the Times published this on a Saturday afternoon in the middle of the Christmas doldrums?"

No. Unless you're a conspiracy nut. Did 60 Minutes time their flawed Benghazi report right before Halloween because they thought ghouls like Issa would lap it up? The NYT report (again) is a series, you're going to hear about this all week, not just on a Saturday night. Good journalism like this (unlike the Blaze, or Fox, or God help us, HotAir & blowhards like Morrissey) has a tendency to stick around for a while.

IMO, and again, thank you.



etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/30/2013 8:46:14 AM | show profile | flag this post

Cruzo said...

" the one who petulantly asked, 'What difference...at this point...does it make?'"

Again, a right winger failing to learn from mistakes of the past that helped cost his side the White House in 2012. Here, cruzo takes Clinton WAY out of context.

She wasn't being "petulant." She was, quite remarkably, putting a a Senator trying to politicize a tragedy into his place.

You seem to have left out her next line:

"It is OUR job to figure out what happened and make sure it never happens again, Senator."

Watch the full exchange here -- in context.

http://youtu.be/TC0AKNQBV80

Makes the the GOP look like a bunch of clueless goofs.

I chuckle every time a right wing, political neovite like cruzo brings up that line. You know the Hillary campaign has that tape already edited into a response ad that will blow the charge out of the water and paint Republicans as politicizing the deaths of Americans.

It's like when the Romney Campaign took Obama's "you didn't build that" line about the Interstate Highway System out of context and claimed it applied to Steve Jobs not building Apple Computers. It blew up in the GOP's face big time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-unoriginal-obama-quote-taken-out-of-context/2012/07/20/gJQAdG7hyW_blog.html

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/30/2013 8:47:03 AM | show profile | flag this post

Shoulda been

"neophyte"

Grateful Deadline Posted - 12/30/2013 9:57:26 AM | show profile | flag this post

*** "Does anyone else think it strange that the Times published this on a Saturday afternoon in the middle of the Christmas doldrums?" ***

Oh, how funny! Honestly, I laughed so loud, they probably heard me in the next county!

No, I think it's strange that our resident fake media professional doesn't know that Sunday papers hit the newsstands on Saturday afternoon, and that's when the websites also get updated. That's so basic that even the drunk guy who lives across the street knows it.

I think it's also strange that our faker doesn't know that news organizations plan packages and evergreens to run during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day, when there's less breaking news than usual to cover. Perhaps our faker doesn't know that the ads determine the size of the paper, not vice versa. Let's see, when did I learn about that? Oh, yeah -- in high school.

And, oh, yes, don't you just love that cute, fluffy word "petulant" applied to Clinton, as if she were a sulky little teenage girl? So disrespectful, so misogynistic, yet so predictable.

Quinntessential Posted - 12/30/2013 10:07:55 AM | show profile | flag this post

Oh, Grateful, that just went way over your head. You shouldn't spar with those who are above your professional and educational level.

Punching up will get you knocked out.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 12/30/2013 10:10:51 AM | show profile | flag this post

P.S. Tip for faking it: If you want to pretend that you are or ever were in print or online news, never say that you took the week off between Christmas and New Year's. It's all hands on deck this week to produce enterprise. (If you don't know what enterprise is, ask.)

Quinntessential Posted - 12/30/2013 10:20:11 AM | show profile | flag this post

Well, if anyone knows about faking it-it would be you, Grateful.

Keep trying...One day you will figure it out.

cruiser Posted - 12/30/2013 10:58:42 AM | show profile | flag this post

There is an organized, widespread and concerted effort

to protect Hillary Rodham Clinton from bad publicity by any means possible in the run-up to the 2016 election. In addition to the NYT denying documented involvement by al Qaeda in the Benghazi attack on the US consulate, an unidentified entity has hacked into the personal email of a State Department whistleblower and deleted four years worth of emails, some of which would be very damaging to Clinton.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/30/state-dept-whistleblower-has-email-hacked-deleted/

cruster Posted - 12/30/2013 1:08:39 PM | show profile | flag this post

But we want a scandal!!!

Oh cowboy Quinn and bold cruiser, you do not disappoint.

Sorry, Benghazi is only a scandal on Fox News, where Santa Claus is real and white as Jesus.

Oh, and there are some very encouraging reports about the Affordable Care Act or Romneylandslidecare, ooops! I meant Obamacare.

Sorry guys.

Oh but hey, I hear the Obama's new dog may have pooped on a carpet in the White House. Poopgate?

Indubitably egregious.


mpdodgson Posted - 12/30/2013 2:10:19 PM | show profile | flag this post

A conspiracy under every rock.

"There is an organized, widespread and concerted effort to protect Hillary Rodham Clinton from bad publicity by any means possible in the run-up to the 2016 election."

By whom? And what evidence do you have? Now if you mean 'Hillary supporters' trying to protect the [still potential] candidate from "bad publicity"....So?? Don't Boehners Pauls Cruzs Lees McConnells Palins Santorums Perrys Newts Rushs Grahams McCains Rubins and countless others...don't the supporters of those people try to protect their favorite from "bad publicity"??? Where were going with that??

"In addition to the NYT denying documented involvement by al Qaeda in the Benghazi attack on the US consulate," What documented involvement?? Eyewitness testimony?? From people who weren't even there?? (Cue Lara Logan). You already embarassed yourself with your total lack of knowledge of how newspapers do investigative series--and I'm guessing you haven't read the piece in the first place, so stop making a fool of yourself.

As far as AQ is concerned: "David Kirkpatrick, author of the Times piece. “I think honestly if you asked anyone in the U.S. Intelligence business, they would tell you the same thing,” Kirkpatrick said when asked about his conclusion the attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi bore no link to al Qaida. “It’s just obvious.”

Kirpatrick said the only way one could claim al Qaida involvement was, "If you're using the term al Qaida to describe even a local group of Islamist militants who dislike democracy or have a grudge against the United States. If you're going to call anybody like that 'al Qaeda,' then, okay.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/#53936014

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 12/30/2013 2:24:14 PM | show profile | flag this post

Actually, cruzo...

there is a concerted effort to try to smear Hillary Clinton on a nearly daily basis by the RNC.

They know they're going to have a really tough time trying to challenge her in 2016.

What's sad is the extent Republicans have gone to in politicizing the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi as their ONLY hope of derailing her candidacy.

But the facts haven't been there for the GOPers.

This latest investigative report simply shows the fantasy world Rep. Issa still lives in.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 12/31/2013 8:48:47 AM | show profile | flag this post

*** Well, if anyone knows about faking it-it would be you, Grateful.

Keep trying...One day you will figure it out. ***

Is that what it takes to make you feel grown up?

cruiser Posted - 12/31/2013 12:13:24 PM | show profile | flag this post

"If you're using the term al Qaida to describe

even a local group of Islamist militants who dislike democracy..."

The term is used to describe an organized and heavily armed group of operatives who brought in and erected the black al Qaeda war flag during the attack...a group that had heavy weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, truck-mounted machine guns, etc. These are NOT the kinds of weapons civilian movie critics are likely to have in their pockets during an ad hoc demonstration.

Why is it so important to the left wing fringe to mendaciously draw distinctions between the Libyan branch of Ansar al-Sharia and several other branches in North Africa and the Middle East...which definitely ARE linked to al Qaeda?

And the New York Times erred in only talking to people who deliberately made themseves accessible to tell a false or misleading story.

cruiser Posted - 1/1/2014 10:00:46 AM | show profile | flag this post

The Washington Times is reporting today that

the intelligence community is contradicting the New York Times' story about who participated in the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

The report says the intel community's assessment remains unchanged: "The consensus remains today, as it has for more than a year, that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda and its evolving North African affiliates executed the attack."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/30/intel-community-still-insists-on-al-qaeda-ties-in-/

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 1/2/2014 8:45:41 AM | show profile | flag this post

Well...

if the Moonie Times is reporting it...

cruiser Posted - 1/2/2014 9:42:39 AM | show profile | flag this post

It doesn't matter who is reporting it

What matters are the facts...which I'm aware are embarrassing to the left wing fringe ever since Susan Rice's appearance on five talking head shows. They've tried hard to deny Benghazi is a scandal plaguing President Obama and members of his administration, including former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who petulantly asked, "What difference...at this point...does it make?"

If I had a choice between the assessment of the intel community and that of a proven liar (Obama) it's a no-brainer.

Clearly, the left wing fringe has no facts with which to contradict the intel community so...true to form...they attempt to "shoot the messenger."

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 1/2/2014 10:12:46 AM | show profile | flag this post

Cruzo hammered hard with facts...

once again he raises the Hillary quote -- and takes it way out of context:

'What difference...at this point...does it make?'"

Again, a right winger failing to learn from mistakes of the past that helped cost his side the White House in 2012. Here, cruzo takes Clinton WAY out of context.

She wasn't being "petulant." She was, quite remarkably, putting a a Senator trying to politicize a tragedy into his place.

You seem to have left out her next line:

"It is OUR job to figure out what happened and make sure it never happens again, Senator."

Watch the full exchange here -- in context.

http://youtu.be/TC0AKNQBV80

Makes the the GOP look like a bunch of clueless goofs.


cruiser Posted - 1/2/2014 10:43:41 AM | show profile | flag this post

"It is OUR job to figure out what happened"

And she has not done so. Neither have her successor or the rest of the Obama administration. The suspected perpetrators are living openly and, apparently, proudly in and around Benghazi while the Obama administration cowers in a corner.

Several different news organizations have discovered the whereabouts of some of the Benghazi attackers while our government cannot...or, more likely, WILL not.

con Posted - 1/2/2014 11:19:14 AM | show profile | flag this post

nothing like the liberal media using the benghazi attack-not to expose the truth and dear leader's incompetence-but to help goddess hillary kick off her 2016 campaign.

this should erase any doubt hillary will have the media inside her bra cup.

republicans better be more prepared to handle a biased media. or goddess hillary will win......

blackedtaped Posted - 1/2/2014 11:25:09 AM | show profile | flag this post

Hillary has been misquoted..

What she said was "It's the New York Times' job to find out what happened". Right?
And of course there has NEVER been any instances of the NYT making up stories or creating fictitious sources now has there? Funny how our government could not find these sources. Maybe they should be listening in on the Times reporters' phone calls.

Happy New year everybody! 2014 promises to be a very interesting year.


1–25 out of 36 messages

 Post Reply    Back to Forums