It was the video after all.

[mostpost]

A year long investigation by the New York Times has revealed that the attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi was triggered by Muslim outrage against an anti-Muslim video. Neither Al Qaeda nor any other international terrorist organization were involved in the attack.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

Let's be clear what the report doesn't say. It does not say that there was a spontaneous demonstration that spiraled out of control. Nor does it say that armed attackers took advantage of demonstrations to attack the compound.

According to the NYT report. Armed Libyan militia members learned of the video via Egyptian TV. A plan was formed to attack the compound in retaliation. Local leaders and militia who had worked in concert with the United States to overthrow Ghaddafi, participated in the attack.

The NYT report is based on hundreds of interviews with Libyans close to the situation and with US and Libyan government officials,

[OntheRail]

And I have a bridge to sell you...

With leading questions you can arrive at "your" answer... yes?

[mostpost]

And I have a bridge to sell you...

With leading questions you can arrive at "your" answer... yes?
I don't need a bridge and neither do you since you've already bought the one the Republicans are selling. Did you read the article? I doubt if you did.

[Saratoga_Mike]

A year long investigation by the New York Times has revealed that the attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi was triggered by Muslim outrage against an anti-Muslim video. Neither Al Qaeda nor any other international terrorist organization were involved in the attack.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

Let's be clear what the report doesn't say. It does not say that there was a spontaneous demonstration that spiraled out of control. Nor does it say that armed attackers took advantage of demonstrations to attack the compound.

According to the NYT report. Armed Libyan militia members learned of the video via Egyptian TV. A plan was formed to attack the compound in retaliation. Local leaders and militia who had worked in concert with the United States to overthrow Ghaddafi, participated in the attack.

The NYT report is based on hundreds of interviews with Libyans close to the situation and with US and Libyan government officials,

The most important point, imo: it was not a spontaneous attack - it was planned.

Thank you Most.

[Tom]

When I saw this on TV this morning, my first thought was who would be stupid enough to buy this obviously pro-Hillary campaign piece.
:confused:

















Now I know. :lol:

[Clocker]

That certainly puts the lie to the administration narrative of a spontaneous demonstration.

Neither Al Qaeda nor any other international terrorist organization were involved in the attack.

Scoff. There is no question that terrorist organizations were involved. Which ones, or whether or not they were "international" is moot. From the UK Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10408176/Benghazi-consulate-attack-British-contractor-warned-US-repeatedly-about-security.html):

US authorities were reported in August to have filed sealed criminal charges over the attack against several people, including Ahmed Abu Khattala, a senior figure in the Libyan Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia.

The administration lied, or was criminally incompetent in not knowing, about a spontaneous demonstration and about the role of terror organizations.

[Shemp Howard]

Has anyone been arrested??

I recall our Presidente exclaiming the will be no rest until those responsible have been brought to justice.

[woodtoo]

Has anyone been arrested??

I recall our Presidente exclaiming the will be no rest until those responsible have been brought to justice.

No, he's been sipping pina colados on the seaside.

[Greyfox]

A year long investigation by the New York Times has revealed that the attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi was triggered by Muslim outrage against an anti-Muslim video.


You can believe that if you want and even if it is true, which is unlikely, that still does not dismiss the gross incompetency of the State Department and White House with respect to adequately protecting the Ambassador and his staff.

[woodtoo]

Anyone who believes that video hype at this stage of the game
is more than just grasping for straws they have their head firmly
buried in the Libyan sand.

[Shemp Howard]

No, he's been sipping pina colados on the seaside.


FORE!!!!!!

[LottaKash]

No, he's been sipping pina colados on the seaside.

Or maybe a brew or two....:jump:

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/obama-beer-thumbs-up_zpsdb4d92bc.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/obama-beer-thumbs-up_zpsdb4d92bc.jpg.html)

[OntheRail]

Did you read the article? I doubt if you did.
Swing and a miss.

Keep pushing that turd all you like as Hilary "What Difference Does It Makes". That story sunk at the beginning and has not lost any of it's stench with time.

I'm waiting for the remake of her famous, when the phone rings at 3 am who will answer it ad. Now we know NO Democrat. :sleeping:

Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring....Bring Bring.... Bring Bring... Bring Bring... Bring

[woodtoo]

Or maybe a brew or two....:jump:

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/obama-beer-thumbs-up_zpsdb4d92bc.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/obama-beer-thumbs-up_zpsdb4d92bc.jpg.html)

At least hes looking in all the right places.:D

[JustRalph]

Kirsten Powers and others are mocking the story on twitter. Read from the bottom up

[Clocker]

A year long investigation by the New York Times has revealed that the attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi was triggered by Muslim outrage against an anti-Muslim video. Neither Al Qaeda nor any other international terrorist organization were involved in the attack.

The NYT claims that the Libyan terror group Ansar al-Shariah is a "local" group with no ties to Al Qaeda. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle call BS on that.

The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.

“I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,” Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.”

He also repeatedly said the story was “not accurate.”

Rogers was joined on the show by California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, “intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.”



New York Rep. Peter King, member and former chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said the same thing yesterday.

New York Rep. Peter King, member and former chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Fox News the argument that the most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah – not Al Qaeda – led the attack is an academic argument over semantics, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda.

“It’s misleading,” King said. “It’s a distinction without a difference.”



Story here. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/29/congress-in-bipartisan-tone-disputes-report-al-qaeda-not-involved-in-benghazi/?intcmp=trending)

[rastajenk]

Here is one pundit's take on this story (http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2013/12/29/benghazi-the-new-york-times-vs-the-truth/2/) that I happen to think is probably accurate: It's all about The Hillary.

Barack Obama is yesterday’s news, and unless and until he is impeached and removed from office he will be pretty much forgotten by purveyors of all the Newspeak fit to print. They have their eyes on another player in the Benghazi scandal, namely Hilary Clinton. If anyone emerged from that shameful episode more discredited than Barack Obama, it was Ms. Clinton. But time is passing fast, and there is a lot of remedial work to do if Hilary Clinton is to be suitably repackaged as the Democratic candidate for president. That ambition, I believe, stands behind this elaborate, breathtaking exercise in journalistic mendacity.

[davew]

it is sad the administration and some of the intelligence and security agencies have lied so much in recent years, that even politicians do not know what to believe.

[BlueShoe]

So according to Mosty's source, the New York Slimes, the poor, misunderstood Ragheads had their feelings hurt because of some film clip? So that makes it okay for them to destroy our embassy and kill Americans? :mad: When does the Western World get it? The code of Islam is conquer or die. Either we become Muslims or we die is their goal. If we do not cut their throats first, most surely will they cut ours. Why is it that only a few of us seem to get this? :bang:

[woodtoo]

it is sad the administration and some of the intelligence and security agencies have lied so much in recent years, that even politicians do not know what to believe.


Its a hell of a lot more than just sad,its a G%D#F& travesty the way they
behaved and reacted to this event,they should rot in hell.

[Clocker]

Here is one pundit's take on this story (http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2013/12/29/benghazi-the-new-york-times-vs-the-truth/2/) that I happen to think is probably accurate: It's all about The Hillary.

If the goal was to rehabilitate Hillary, I'd say they failed. The administration narrative was that the whole thing was a spontaneous demonstration. The Times story concludes that was wrong. Hillary's famous "What difference at this point does it make" was about whether or not it was a spontaneous demonstration. So figure on seeing that little film clip about a bazillion times in 2016.

Also, the Times conclusion that the attack was the work of Ansar al-Shariah, a "local" group with no ties to Al Qaeda, is being refuted by people on both sides of the aisle. This was also the administration position, so that issue remains as ammo against Hillary.

[Tom]

A good commercial would be to show her asking that who will answer the phone at 3AM, then show a phone ringing, ringing, ringing....then show the ambassador and the rioters.......over, and over, and over.

This campaign has got to get dirty - real dirty.

[Clocker]

This campaign has got to get dirty - real dirty.

The Clintons play that game well. I think they toned it down in the 2000 primaries for fear of being called racist in attacking Obama. All bets are off in 2016.

[ArlJim78]

WSJ - Setting The Record Straight (http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-setting-the-record-straight-on-benghazi/4A4C0452-E877-4668-8ECC-CB9F9479C204.html#!5CC040E3-ECE5-4041-A9B6-B8C94DC8E656)
regarding the Times Benghazi whitewash.

[Clocker]

WSJ - Setting The Record Straight (http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-setting-the-record-straight-on-benghazi/4A4C0452-E877-4668-8ECC-CB9F9479C204.html#!5CC040E3-ECE5-4041-A9B6-B8C94DC8E656)
regarding the Times Benghazi whitewash.

The writer interviewed in that video, Thomas Joscelyn, wrote an article detailing the problems with the NY Times article. His article is HERE. (http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html) Libs will be along shortly to reject the article out of hand based on the source.

As mentioned in the interview, the NY Times has written in the past that Al Qaeda and other international terror groups were involved in the attack. From one previous NY Times article he cites:

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.

The author of the NY Times article makes no mention of the previous Times story, nor of the official position at the time that Al Qaeda and other international groups were involved. And he presents no evidence that on-going investigations since then have found any evidence to change that position.

[dartman51]

Every time one of the resident lefties, come on here and try to defend the indefensible, it reminds me of that old line. "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?" :eek:

[HUSKER55]

it is called "being in denial"

[Saratoga_Mike]

A good commercial would be to show her asking that who will answer the phone at 3AM, then show a phone ringing, ringing, ringing....then show the ambassador and the rioters.......over, and over, and over.

This campaign has got to get dirty - real dirty.

Politically speaking, this dog don't hunt. It happened in the Middle East, a place the vast majority of Americans perceive as inherently dangerous, and she wasn't prez (that's where the buck stops). I'm not defending her or downplaying the loss of life...I'm talking politics. It won't matter.

[mostpost]

The writer interviewed in that video, Thomas Joscelyn, wrote an article detailing the problems with the NY Times article. His article is HERE. (http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html) Libs will be along shortly to reject the article out of hand based on the source.

As mentioned in the interview, the NY Times has written in the past that Al Qaeda and other international terror groups were involved in the attack. From one previous NY Times article he cites:



The author of the NY Times article makes no mention of the previous Times story, nor of the official position at the time that Al Qaeda and other international groups were involved. And he presents no evidence that on-going investigations since then have found any evidence to change that position.
The question is not "Did individuals from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, participate in the attack on the Benghazi compound?" The question is, "Were those attacks coordinated, planned and carried out by Al Qaeda leadership?"

Mr. Joscelyn provides no compelling evidence that they were. He quotes a March 2013 New York Times article which quotes officials as saying that members of the above group participated in the attacks, but those officials stopped short of naming Al Qaeda as the author of the attacks.

Mr. Joscelyn goes to great lengths to connect Muhammed Jamal with Al Qaeda, but fails to note that Jamal was not in Libya on the day of the attack.

The other person mentioned by Mr. Joscelyn as someone not referred to by the NYT was Faraj al Shibli (Chabali) who was held by the Libyans and the Americans for some time, but was released for lack of evidence.

[mostpost]

Here is one pundit's take on this story (http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2013/12/29/benghazi-the-new-york-times-vs-the-truth/2/) that I happen to think is probably accurate: It's all about The Hillary.
Merriam Webster defines pundit as: a person who knows a lot about a particular subject and who expresses ideas and opinions about that subject publicly (such as by speaking on television and radio shows)

There are pundits and there are people who call themselves pundits. A person who thinks Barack Obama is the least effective, most destructive president in the history of the republic is not a pundit. When you add the fact that the same person thinks Obama should be impeached you have a strong case that person is a fool.

Hillary Clinton does not need rehabilitation with normal people. Normal people recognize that Hillary Clinton did an outstanding job as First Lady, as Senator from New York and as Secretary of State. Abnormal people don't matter.
Fortunately there are more normal people than abnormal people.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Abnormal people don't matter. ...

:D

I wish that we could still use other poster's statements as our signature line.

[Clocker]

Merriam Webster defines pundit as: a person who knows a lot about a particular subject and who expresses ideas and opinions about that subject publicly...


A person who thinks Barack Obama is the least effective, most destructive president in the history of the republic is not a pundit.

Correct. Calling Obama ineffective and destructive does not demonstrate knowledge of a subject. It merely demonstrates a mastery of the obvious.

[Clocker]

The question is not "Did individuals from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, participate in the attack on the Benghazi compound?" The question is, "Were those attacks coordinated, planned and carried out by Al Qaeda leadership?"

No, the question centers on the following statement by the author of the article:

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 State Department, Congressional investigations, and even the NY Times have found connection between the attack and Al Qaeda. The degree of the connection, or any leadership, has not been established, mainly because the administration has not finished, or has not released, its investigation into who was behind the attack. If the Times reporter couldn't find any evidence, he couldn't find a pork chop in a meat market.

[davew]

I find it interesting the mob of disconnects without any advanced planning were using motion detectors to help find people inside the compound... like I am sure most random demonstrators there in that country walk around carrying those things.

Clearly someone did some advanced planning - does it really matter who or what they call themselves now?

[Clocker]

Clearly someone did some advanced planning - does it really matter who or what they call themselves now?

More on this from the propaganda misinformation masters at Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/completely-false-sources-on-ground-in-benghazi-challenge-nyt-report/):

Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.

"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.

"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."

The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I find it interesting the mob of disconnects without any advanced planning were using motion detectors to help find people inside the compound... like I am sure most random demonstrators there in that country walk around carrying those things.

Clearly someone did some advanced planning - does it really matter who or what they call themselves now?

Yes, we know this from Most's NY Times story.

[classhandicapper]

Serious question.

Who still reads the NY Times if they want to have any clue at all what's really going on in the world or how it really works?

Honestly, I have no idea about the accuracy of this report, but I do know the the NY Times has a lot in common with this publication:

http://www.hightimes.com/

[Tom]

So mostie is saying that the security force assigned to protect our diplomats did fail to stop a planned, coordinated terror attack by Al Qeda, but instead, they failed to stop a spur of the moment "pick-up" riot?

Impressive.

[JustRalph]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administrations-benghazi-bombshell_773986.html

Sure, it was the video..........

[ArlJim78]

so much for the highly touted NYT report on Benghazi claiming no al-Qaeda links. according to the WaPo 2 days ago;

U.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Militiamen under the command of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah, participated in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, U.S. officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-guantanamo-detainee-implicated-in-benghazi-attack/2014/01/07/c73fdf78-77d5-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html

the icing on the cake is that this is exactly what Fox News reported barely a week after the attack happened in 2012!

Fox News Exclusive: Intel Sources Say Libya Attack Tied To Al-Qaeda and Ex Gitmo Detainee Sufyan Ben Qumu (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/19/just-in-intel-sources-say-libya-attack-tied-to-al-qaeda-and-former-gitmo-detainee-sufyan-ben-qumu/)

[JustRalph]

The last two posts in this thread have gone ignored....both proclaiming his admin's position. Toss in Tom's being ignored......Mosties must be on vacation

[Clocker]

The last two posts in this thread have gone ignored....both proclaiming his admin's position. Toss in Tom's being ignored......Mosties must be on vacation

The administration is scrambling to define this issue away by recalibrating the meanings of the terms used. The official party line on definitions will have to filter down to the bottom of the food chain before it appears here. As summarized in several recent administration briefings, the key is that while the Benghazi attack was organized and carried out by terrorist organizations, those groups are not "official affiliates" of "core Al Qaeda".

Since only the administration knows what "official affiliates" and "core Al Qaeda" mean, argument is futile.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Story here. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/08/state-department-benghazi-not-planned-by-core-al-qaeda.html)

[sam4022]

Take a look at http://www.terror101.com containing a video promoting "My Days in the Beast" (The Diary of a Holy warrior in America).

[woodtoo]

What does it really matter if they are "official affiliates" or not.
It doesn't,their goal is the same death to the infidel.

[Clocker]

What does it really matter if they are "official affiliates" or not.
It doesn't,their goal is the same death to the infidel.

It is all about politics and posturing. Obama has said repeatedly that Al Qaeda has been decimated, making it sound like he did it personally. If Al Qaeda is still active and effective, that indicates that Obama is either a liar or an incompetent.

[woodtoo]

I'd say an incompetent liar. :lol:

[dartman51]

It is all about politics and posturing. Obama has said repeatedly that Al Qaeda has been decimated, making it sound like he did it personally. If Al Qaeda is still active and effective, that indicates that Obama is either a liar or an incompetent.

Or D: ALL OF THE ABOVE. :ThmbUp:

[dartman51]

I'd say an incompetent liar. :lol:

Actually, he's VERY competent at lying.

[Clocker]

Actually, he's VERY competent at lying.

Agree. Let's give the man credit where credit is due. He does so few things well.

[woodtoo]

Okay how about a lying incompetent.

[woodtoo]

New declassified documents confirm what everyone knew from the get go,it was a terrorist attack plain and simple.It was Ozero,Hillory or both
who dreamed up the false narrative of the protest. This comes from Leon Panetta and Gen. Ham and Dempsey who shared this with the White house within 15 min. of the attack.One big ass lie America.

link at Foxnews:Politics

[JustRalph]

It was the video.............yeah right. Senate committee says it was terrorism.

****cross posted in Benghazi takes a turn

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

[fast4522]

It was lame then as it is lame now, and the administration only had to buy time with lame.