NYT: No Evidence Al-Qaeda Was Involved In Benghazi

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by chompalot, Dec 29, 2013.

  1. surfn1080
    Online

    surfn1080 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +101 / 3 / -2
    NYT is getting a hell storm for this. How could they be so careless? It is like they spit in the family's of those that lost their lives over trying to keep their political favorite in good image.
  2. surfn1080
    Online

    surfn1080 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +101 / 3 / -2
    Show us any "facts" in this article. Remember you want "facts" .
  3. surfn1080
    Online

    surfn1080 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +101 / 3 / -2
    "Demonstrators" with RPG's and directed attack plans...
  4. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    17,606
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +508 / 18 / -2
    Their agenda (clearing Hillary's responsibility in the attacks) is far more important that the truth, or America's interests.

    Yes, the story seems to be falling apart. Both Republicans and Democrats have been coming forward and speaking out against this story. Sadly, it won't change many minds WRT the NYT. It's complete trash.
  5. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    29,679
    Likes Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +738 / 44 / -12

    how does it insult the families?
  6. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    17,606
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +508 / 18 / -2
    Outright lying about the events surrounding the death of their loved ones surely isn't helping.
  7. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    64,376
    Likes Received:
    3,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +5,220 / 140 / -35
  8. FlyingGatorII
    Offline

    FlyingGatorII Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +322 / 15 / -7
    The NYT is about legitimate a news source as your pal Leatherman so I am not shocked you parade their BS here as fact, just like you did for Leatherman. What I do find funny is all the libs that kept telling cons to stop bringing up Benghazi last year now want to talk about it since the Obama/Hillary version of Pravda feels like it's time to start the Hillary for Pres campaign now. Benghazi was/is the living example of the Obama administrations performance to date..massive planning failure, followed by unnecessary tragedy to American citizens, and the inevitable lies and cover ups by both the Obama regime and his fawning press. Obamacare is just the latest example of this reckless amateurs idiocy. To the poster that asked how stupid does the NYT think we are.."we" elected Obama twice so they know just how stupid a majority of the electorate are.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    31,822
    Likes Received:
    2,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,849 / 66 / -30

    What facts? Obama deals in lies and deception...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,993
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +260 / 18 / -3
    There are NO FACTS to support the Times article.
    They, as well as the libs know is that all you have to do to sway the low informed , the gullible and those ignorant of events, is to just write an article, produce a tv or movie that supports their position and they will believe it.
  11. oragator1
    Offline

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,752
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +714 / 35 / -7
    Did anyone even read the full article? People keep talking about the spontaneous element without acknowledging that the article goes into detail about the less spontaneous and more planned portion of that night, and the local militia groups who were behind it. The Egyptian satellite channels were going on about the Terry Jones video and that got people fired up, both civilian and militia. Add the 9/11 anniversary, some of the other anti U.S sentiments on the ground and you have a bad mix, both civilian and militia groups had reason to be angry.

    As far as the Al Qaeda links, that seems to be more semantics. A group "seeking to align" with Al Qaeda doesn't mean that Al Qaeda was involved, nor does it mean that they are wholly disconnected either. Is an Al Qaeda inspired group an Al Qaeda affiliated group, and does it matter?

    Again to my earlier post, all of this obsession with the small things misses the point. We failed to identify the threat properly, failed to prepare a proper defensive posture for our embassy, and failed to have an exit strategy when one was needed. These are the things we need to fix, it doesn't matter now whether it was Al Qaeda, an Al Qaeda affiliate, an Al Qaeda inspired group or a local threat, the article makes a point to makes sure we understand that we gravely miscalculated the mood and factions on the ground - that is where the focus should be. We failed on multiple levels.

    It's also why the whole Benghazi scandal never took off, because most Americans don't think an argument over whether al Qaeda was involved, whether it was or wasn't called a terrorist attack matters, what matters is why were were caught so flat footed and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. ursidman
    Offline

    ursidman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,036 / 4 / -2
    Right, it wasn't AQ. Unfortunately our focus on identifying AQ in the area blinded us to the many violent militias in the area who shared the AQ philosophy. We ignored them, they were just as capable as AQ, and we know the results.

    (This is not to you Gatormb) For those ascribing political motives (the NYT worships BO, they want to get Hillary elected) to the article that was the result of 6 months of investigation, I am reminded of the old lawyer's saying: When the facts are against you, argue the law, when the law is against you argue the facts, when they are both against you call the other lawyer names.
  13. ursidman
    Offline

    ursidman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,036 / 4 / -2
    The NYT article also interviews some of those present that night and it names them. The article in the fox news link above does not name a single source. From the article: ..one witness to the attack told Fox News,…one special operator said.,
    According to multiple sources on the ground,...Recent reports also suggest,...Multiple sources, though, challenged that claim…,..,one source said…,Sources say the terrorist group is,….one said…,Some in the intelligence community…,Fox News has also learned…,

    I don't know which version is correct but One story is the result of several months of investigation, was well-sourced with sources identified and one is a reaction to the first article and does not have a single named source. Which is more likely to have been done thoroughly and well?
    • Like Like x 1
  14. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    10,947
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +761 / 34 / -13
    You do realize that many active military, CIA, and/or State Department officials have to remain anonymous when commenting to the media, lest they become subject to a federal investigation whether or not they disclosed confidential information?

    Particularly when Obama's Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than the past 4 Administrations combined?

    You don't think that might be a reason for discretion and silence?

    If anything, it tells me that the NYT report was rubber-stamped and approved by the Administration if the sources are willing to go publicly on the record with their names. Not that anyone would (or should) be surprised that the NYT works as the propaganda mouthpiece of the Obama Administration for "approved" leaks.
  15. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,218
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +194 / 7 / -3
    Remember the OP also thinks barrycare is a good thing and that Obama is a good president who never tells a lie.
  16. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +132 / 22 / -9
    Benghazi is over, cons. You're just going to have to try to create some other scandal to get Obama with.
  17. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    911
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +189 / 28 / -2
    "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough it will be believed." -Adolf Hitler
  18. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    911
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +189 / 28 / -2
    ^^^
    Keep it up Fred and Chomp! Your hard work will pay off comrades!
  19. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +388 / 106 / -38
    The con butthurt is strong as another RNC narrative goes up in smoke.
  20. creekgator
    Online

    creekgator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +4 / 0 / -0
    If it is over..then who was ultimately held responsible for the failure??

Share This Page