Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by chompalot, Dec 29, 2013.
Calling the NYT responsible is enormously generous.
This thread is a joke, right? Some investigative reporting ... over a year after the fact. And I bet O.J. was innocent since the glove didn't fit.
NYT going to bat for Obama. Really weak.
The Times loves prezBO and will say anything they can to defend him-
Stopped my subscription to the NY Times years ago. If I want to hear lies, I will just drop in at the local bar.
And lest we forget... since September 11, 2001 there have been 13 embassy attacks that occurred “on United States property”, killing a total of 98 people.
Wow, they were protesting the video before it was even made. I noticed that Al-Qaeda was involved in most of those. So you are now saying that despite the al Qaeda involvement in the earlier attacks, BenGhazi was different? Just a protest over a video.
They weren't all Al Qaeda's doing.
I didn't say they were, I said most.
Those were Clinton's fault.
Fwiw, Peter Bergen today called this the authoritative story on what happened, and he called the guy who wrote it one of the most knowledgable journalists on the Middle East.
If you read it they say the administration completely miscalculated on how the local miliatias would react after the uprising and transition. We thought they would side with us and didn't plan accordingly, which in part led to this tragedy.
You also don't need anything more than a cleric or two to claim the video was blasphemous, we know it set off protests in other parts of the Middle East with the same limited viewership.
In the end, what Hillary said is partially true - the details, while important to understand, aren't the primary concern - what matters is that we are prepared for any contingency at our embassies around the world and that the right information gets to the right people to make those security decisions . Clearly here we failed on both, and the fact that after the attack we were still bickering internally on what happened underscores that point.
The liberal mainstream media is rising to the defense of Hillary. Next will be a story about how Whitewater was a legitimate real estate investment.
and the earth is flat
So, in your view, it was only coincidence that the date of the attack was Sept. 11...
I read the entire article. It seems very well researched including interviews with many who were there and some who participated. There seemed to be a lot of local militias including some islamists who did not need a real good reason to attack. There were several reasons available to those who perpetuated the attack including fervent anti-Americanism, the rumor that embassy personnel had shot a protester without provocation, and yes the effect that the video had when amplified by partisan internet sites and by some fiery clerics who maintain their following by fomenting outrage. Believe it or don't believe it. It is the most factual and least political treatment I have read on the incident. The NYT is to be commended for this effort. Glad i subscribe.
If you recall on 9/11/12 there were a series of protests and violence that began in Egypt and quickly spread to other countries in response to the YouTube trailer for a film called The Innocents of Muslims. Why is it so inconceivable to you that such a video might also help fuel the Benghazi attack and perhaps even initiate a planned attack prematurely in order to coincide with the responses by the other protests and violence that was going on?
Did you read it?
Wait, you just linked an article about 13 previous embassy attacks that all happened before the video was made. Make up your mind! Is it al-Qaeda or not?
Like the article proclaims, it wasn't al-Qaeda. We already discussed that link and agreed that all of those other attacks weren't all done by al-Qaeda.
The reason I posted a link that lists the other attacks on US embassies/consulates was to remind the righties on here that, in regards to the number of people that were killed, the Benghazi attack wasn't the most significant attack on US property within the last 11 years as the NYT article indicates. Now if the author wanted to base most significant to mean a US ambassador was killed, I could see his point. Nevertheless, we must not forget these other attacks and think that an attack only happened on Obama's watch.
Unfortunately, with the Benghazi attack, some of the people that we relied on to guard and protect the embassy were in cahoots with the attackers. But from what I've heard from Rep. Issa, if an attack in Libya were to occur again we would have a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams (FAST) that would be readily available.
As for the CIA outpost, it was there to identify and disarm the bad guys in Benghazi. It's a shame that they weren't able to effectively do this. They were too busy trying to identify al-Qaeda affiliates and overlooked other groups that might be hostile to us and that we provided arms to.
It's not AQ? That's like saying K-Mart isn't Sears Lite.
The heck with the facts. But Fox says! But Fox says!