Al Quada not involved in Bengahzi attack, crude video in part to blame (NY Times investigation)

Links to the news reports:

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013...azi/#/?chapt=0

http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/29...nghazi-report/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4515537.html

It was interesting watching Darryl Issa and other GOP leaders squirming over this scathing report and they had nothing to come back with except lame old talking points that just didn't hold muster.

So the "rebuild Hillary's credibility" has already started.

The NY Times got their marching orders, I am sure the rest of the ultra liberal main stream media will follow suite.

Joe Biden must be happy.........NOT.

So the "rebuild Hillary's credibility" has already started.

The NY Times got their marching orders, I am sure the rest of the ultra liberal main stream media will follow suite.

Joe Biden must be happy.........NOT. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I bet you didn't even bother to read the report and that news article did you?

I think it is telling when you and others will dismiss such news reports or investigations when the results don't line up and confirm your Republican stance on it.

Had they come out and said they did the investigation and found there was evidence of direct Al Qaeda involvement you would be touting the report as factual and proof of all those silly "witch hunt" talking points by the Darryl Issa and others and being vindicated.

It is a very nuanced situation.

My guess is this will be a nonissues to the voters that decide in the general election, the Indy's. It will be a topic in the GOP primary but not at the DNC.

Very much like in this forum, some folks still get their panties in a wad over this and some folks understand that bad shit happens. We can not protect everyone in the world, including our own.

We would never go to war if we based every decision if their was a chance we would lose lives. My question is why after Clinton. Gen Petratrus was head of CIA and responsible for this as Hillary. Yet not a word against him. So yes folks in the middle understand that this is gotchya politics.


Members of the local militia groups that the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile. The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.

the rightwingers will only believe their truth, regardless.

"What difference does it make"

Well if she does actually win, a big if, my guess is folks will blame the so call MSM for their defeat.

So in the big picture , she was right. ''What difference does it make now.'' People forget the 'now' part.

Is this ANOTHER Benghazi thread?

the rightwingers will only believe their truth, regardless. Originally Posted by CJ7

What do you "Independents" think?

Links to the news reports:

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013...azi/#/?chapt=0

http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/29...nghazi-report/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4515537.html

It was interesting watching Darryl Issa and other GOP leaders squirming over this scathing report and they had nothing to come back with except lame old talking points that just didn't hold muster. Originally Posted by Stan.Dupp

Squirming???? I don't think so. The White House squirmed when the charge first came out. They denied it and denied it but then.......they admitted that it was correct! Why would they admit that it was terrorism if the NYT was right and it wasn't? Seems to me that the White House is caught between a rock and a hard place. They lied at some point.

Washington (CNN) -- Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill Friday that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politi...hazi-hearings/

Uh, the CIA didn't say that. A disgraced, soon to be ousted former general (there are LOTS of them, don't you think?) said that more than a year ago.

Didn't you have a problem with Betrayus back when, Corpy?

Ahhh... I spoze when the foo shits, you wear it!

What do you "Independents" think? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Benghazi is being used as a political tool ... Romney tried it, and it didn't work ... The right will use it in 2016 against their opponents, and IMO it won't work then either.

So the "rebuild Hillary's credibility" has already started.

The NY Times got their marching orders, I am sure the rest of the ultra liberal main stream media will follow suite.

Joe Biden must be happy.........NOT. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Your belief that Hillary Clinton's credibility has taken a hit because of your make-believe scandal is misplaced. The folks that already hated her still hate her. The folks that love her still love her. The folks you're trying to sway with your fantasy "scandal" don't care about Benghazi. Can you truly not figure that out?

The NYT performs the finest investigative journalism in the world. That's an indisputable fact. But, I think we should all listen to you, Admiral Dunce and Darrell Issa, psycho ultra-partisan republitard from California.

Right.

Uh, the CIA didn't say that. A disgraced, soon to be ousted former general (there are LOTS of them, don't you think?) said that more than a year ago.

Didn't you have a problem with Betrayus back when, Corpy?

Ahhh... I spoze when the foo shits, you wear it! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Washington (CNN) -- Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill Friday that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politi...hazi-hearings/



CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...s_722032.html#