Geeez ,, no talk of this , Big breaking story today ..
 

You'll hear it all week . http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bombsh...210144227.html

You won't hear any Hillary haters talking about this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

New York times report ?
May as well have Chris Matthews do a story on it !

60 minutes too .. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entert...231145141.html

60 minutes CBS liberal ass kissing network just like NBC & ABC
The you got CNN MSLeftBC and the other liberal ass kissing networks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The loyalty of local militias there can change on a whim. Street credibility and respect rise from their "deeds." Not far off from gang turf wars in our cities. Mission was understaffed and had been for a long time. The former SEAL who died there is the son of a fraternity brother, and his sister lives here in town...... It is a suck deal any way you cut it.

The nytimes report only helps to confirm the obvious...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Confirms that liberal rag is part of the cover up

And the other half kiss whos ass???

Divided we fall.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK Alex Jones. Where do you get your news from then?

News? HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

-spence

Rep Michael Grimm just said on CNN that it was 100 percent al Qaeda. When pushed for proof he provided nothing but opinion and kept stumbling. He tried to say that if it was A Q or Al Shariah it didn't make a difference bc they communicate.

From the link above -"The Times says that Republicans are confusing local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah for al-Qaeda’s international terrorist network. That organization was planning the attack when the video was released."


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because the months and months of House investigations haven't turned up anything. Where's the Tea Party decrying the waste of taxpayer money???

-spence

Geez, give me some time to edit my post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The accuracy of the article is in question.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/12/3.../?subscriber=1

There are also some internal contradictions in the article as well as contradictions of previous NY Times articles. That the reporter interviewed all those folks with his pointed questions this long after the event and considering the threat any of them would be under if they expressed any incriminating "facts," and considering a Muslim tenet that lying to one's enemy is a tactic not a sin, it would have been extraordinary if there would have been much "revelation" in the answers to the questions. Nor does the article clear the administration of bungling the affair in terms of what has been pointed out ad nauseam as their lack of proper response, etc. It seems to be an attempt to clear the way for Hillary.

Nor does it explain why the administration kept changing its story and why it didn't stick to its original assertion that the attack was solely about a video. Nor of what importance it is, if true, which is in question, that it was solely local militias with no al Qaida influence. As Hillary might say--what's the difference?!! The embassy was ill-prepared against such an attack no matter by who, and, as the NY Times article points out, there were warnings.

Fine, I'm a Hilary-hater, let's talk about it. I want the truth here as much as anyone. If it wasn't Al Queda, let's say it, learn what we need to learn from it, and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

That doesn't absolve her from her pathetic screeching "what diference does it make" at the hearings. These were her employees at the time, and she says, on the record, that it makes no difference to her whether they were murdered by terrorists or if they died of natural causes.

If you're OK with that, that's your right. Many people find it repugnant, almost as vile as her lies about being shot at in Kosovo or wherever. How does THAT not end your career, how do you come back from that lie? Easy, I guess, if your name is Clinton or Kennedy...

GOPUSA? Really???

The initial story was that the video sparked the event and extremists quickly moved in. That fit with the evidence at the time. Nothing has really contradicted this and the NYT story seems to give it additional credibility.

-spence

That's not at all what she said, once again Jim your opinion appears to be formed from snippets rather than due diligence.

So goes the way of the world.

-spence

Here is what she said, when pressed about whether the attack was sparked by terrorism or the video...

"“What difference, at this point, does it make?”"

Here's the answer...the truth matters. Especially in these situations...do you tell your kids differently, Spence? Do you tel your kids to only tell the truth when it's convenient? And to lie when lying is more convenient?

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/193...quotes-of-2013

Tell me where I am wrong, please?

Yep, so you try and prove your point by referencing yet another snippet taken out of context. Read the full transcript...

-spence

First, you claimed that she didn't say what I claimed she said. Then, after I proved she said what I claimed, you say that I'm taking it out of context. Keep moving the goalposts, Spence!

Spence, I have seen the video. Please put her remarks in a context that's more benign than I made it out to be. I'm all ears...

Amazing how something can be made to "fit with the evidence." Isn't that usually the case when you attempt to create a story of deniable plausibility? Yes, things have really contradicted the "fit with the evidence." But it is apparently useless to hash it out once again since any contradictory "evidence" seems to fall on deaf or unreceptive ears.

No, you claimed she said it didn't matter, that's not true...read Jim, think...do a little homework. Have an open mind...

-spence

Snobbery? I think the NYT still has some pretty credible journalistic standards. Your GOP site is just regurgitating remarks from House members, the basis of which have gone nowhere in their "investigation."

I think the NYT piece captures the most likely scenario pretty well.

State took a lot of grief over this event from the non-partisan investigations already complete.

So far, what we've seen is a strained attempt to fit the facts with a conspiracy theory that's gone no where.

-spence

ok, I claimed she said "it doesn't matter", when what she said was, "what difference does it make".

Now. Spence. Please. Tell. Me. Where. I. Was.. Wrong.

See? I even used monosyllabic words, so that even you would have a chance of understanding the question! You're welcome!

The NY Times article which you claim captures the most likely scenario does not preclude a conspiracy. It tries to minimize it and distance it from major Islamist "extremists." And it doesn't mention the name Hillary Clinton.

Ahhh yes, the old "it hasn't been totally dis-proven either" argument. Let's just keep looking until we find the smoking gun, or the 2016 election...which ever comes sooner.

I don't think the NYT report is dismissive of alQaeda links at all, rather, they get down to what it really means. Sharing some common viewpoints isn't an "affiliation". Having some level of acquaintance isn't "coordination". The important question is if core alQaeda influenced/funded/collaborated etc... in the attack. I've still not seen anything that indicated this is the case.

alQaeda seems to have become almost a generic word for terrorism when it suits the agenda.

Good perspective here...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-al-qaeda.html

The article doesn't contradict the Administration's initial claims of the video, if anything it bolsters them. There appears to be substantial evidence indicating the video played a role, likely the timing for the attack which had only been loosely planned to that point. The fact that heavily armed extremists quickly moved in was a central line to the Administration narrative from the beginning...

-spence

Atleast we moved beyond the issue of who changed the talking points.

It was George Bush's fault!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure Jim will get us back full circle.

-spence

I agree with Nebe...Bush was to busy squeezing utters on the ranch to care...:)

Spence, you laughed!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:cheers:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The NYT article as well as this one don't actually bolster the Administration's claims, they try to deflect from the incompetence of the Administrations handling of the affair. Like the magician who actively uses one hand to create "magic" and all the while distracts the viewer from focusing on the other hand which is manipulating the "slight of hand." Both articles focus, on the one hand, on the rather bogus issue of al Qaeda participation rather than, on the other hand, the actual security issues and disregard for calls to help. As Hillary would say "what does it matter" if it was al Qaeda or unconnected local militias? The results are the same. Handling the situation would not have to differ in either case.

But, though focusing on al Qaeda or no al Qaeda distracts from the handling, focusing on your author's assertion that "turning al Qaeda into a radically loose term is different from observing, correctly, that al Qaeda today involves decentralized local affiliates" does something other than bolster the Administrations "narrative." It shows its incompetence in another, more dangerous way. The author of your article makes the statement as if it were a new, profound, revelation.

The fact is, what he describes has been known for quite a while. Witness Wiki's definitions. There have been many articles, interviews, radio talk shows with Middle East "experts" and Jihadist "experts" who have specifically pointed out that al Qaeda is comprised not only of a small "core," but is disseminated through many diverse affiliated groups, many of which, as they did in Benghazi, fly the black flag. It has been known that "core" al Qaeda has long since disguised itself through infiltrated or created groups with other names. And though your author's assertion that the Administration not being aware of the diversity should allow "in a rational political environment, the President's opponents" to "see this as damning", the contrary fact that they don't see the connection, the similarities of the diverse elements, is even more incompetent.

Both your article and the NYT article actually condemn the Administration in their attempt to exonerate it.

For further explanation of al Qaeda involvement see
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/rya...ltrated-libya/

See also:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...te_772398.html

And see also a more lengthy:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/aq-libya-loc.pdf

Even the attack on the Cairo embassy was not inspired by the video.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rew-c-mccarthy

one politician was talkin junk about rebuilding syria
with what? our looks?

if we don't take a step backwards we'll have
good samaritaned ourselves to death monitarilly

meanwhile CHINA is gonna Spank jAPAN

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/h...azi-video-lie/

Both her and her husband lie. It's who they are & what they do.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, at least that's an unbiased opinion :jump1:

All this smoking gun talk is hilarious. The letter doesn't appear to contradict anything from the numerous investigations. Further, if you actually read the email -- rather than just the snipped being reported -- the author goes into detail specifically about the protests at various sites that certainly were a result of the video...

Of course, that's not really important as 99.9% won't bother.

-spence

Well, since the memo was sent just after the Benghazi fiasco, it would stand to reason that Benghazi was at least a part of the motivation for writing it. If not, it would be an abnormally strong message. And it desperately tries to tie the "protests" to the video and not to policy as in the memo's second bullet point:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Why would it be necessary to create a talking point for Susan Rice which would emphasize that it wasn't policy failure? And why be so emphatic that it was about a video when they already had much stronger evidence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack not related to the video . . . and an attack planned by Al Qaida affiliates?

And the first bullet point:

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

Why was that talking point necessary. Haven't we always assumed that we would do everything required to protect our people? Why, if not to deflect from not having done so in Benghazi?

And if the memo was not about Benghazi, why was it provided in a request through the freedom of information for Benghazi documents?

The memo was about making the administration look good in a bad situation. I understand that the purpose of talking points is mostly to do that. But when they willingly stray far from the truth to paint a picture, or the promise of a picture, of steady, successful leadership in circumstances of abject failure, they are . . . I'll let you provide the word for what they are . . . even a biased one.