Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Benghazi Cover-up, Uncovered; Too Much Skin??Follow

#1 Dec 30 2013 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
The NY Times just put out a 6-part report on the attack made on the US Consulate in Benghazi.

They conclude that there's no evidence of Al Qaeda involvement, that perhaps it was fueled, at least in part, by the 'movie' and while there was much ineptness by the government, there was no cover-up.

Fox News is claiming the report is 'completely false and Huffington Post that it's simply inaccurate.

I've not read the whole 6-part report but there are some good graphics - pictures, maps, timelines etc.




____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Dec 30 2013 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
*******
50,767 posts
It's hard to ever really take Fox News serious, ever, but after they nearly broke their arms patting themselves on the back from taking credit for the 60 Minutes interview that ended up being completely false you'd think they'd not stick their necks out so far again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Dec 30 2013 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
******
27,272 posts
It's not like they get any less viewers for talking out of their *** so why would they stop?
#4 Dec 30 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Benghazi is what happens when you try and show support of a weak coalition of tribes you put into power. If they heightened security it would have sent the wrong message about the new government they were trying to establish. They took the calculated risk that less security was the better choice, and it blew up in their face. Now queue 20 years of fighting over the details of who said what and why it's super important... Smiley: rolleyes

Anyway, Mr. Putin has been on a roll lately, between this, Snowden, and Syria he's got a whole list of "I told you so" moments over the last couple of years.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5 Dec 30 2013 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Anyway, Mr. Putin has been on a roll lately, between this, Snowden, and Syria he's got a whole list of "I told you so" moments over the last couple of years.

This weekend might have taken some wind out of his sails.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Dec 30 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
No kidding. Don't drink and suicide bomb!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Dec 30 2013 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's hard to ever really take Fox News serious, ever, but after they nearly broke their arms patting themselves on the back from taking credit for the 60 Minutes interview that ended up being completely false you'd think they'd not stick their necks out so far again.


I'm not sure how critiquing the NY Times piece is sticking their necks out at all. It's a critique. It's the NYT sticking its neck out with a story that is at best misleading and at worse a clear desire to rewrite the facts in order to fit into a narrative helpful to a future political campaign. When Fox News and Huff Post agree that your piece is factually questionable (to varying degrees), it's a good bet that your facts are questionable.

As to the piece itself, the whole Al Queda link or no link thing is really a meaningless distinction. Al Queda hasn't been a single cohesive until for nearly a decade, and wasn't really then either. Today, it's so splintered and factioned that you can argue that any Islamic terrorist group engaged in active Jihad against the US and its allies is "linked to Al Queda". And you could take every single one of those groups and argue similarly that there is "no link to Al Queda", based solely on how restrictive your definition of Al Queda is.

At the end of the day, what the group called itself, or who they reported to, or worked actively with, is somewhat irrelevant. When the point of saying "They're an Al Queda related group" is to say "it's an Islamic extremist group engaging in terrorist acts against the US", getting technical about what exactly comprises "Al Queda" kinda misses the whole point.


And the bigger issue is that while we can debate endlessly over whether we can technically call the group that engaged in the attacks "Al Queda linked", there is no evidence outside of wild speculation from within the US itself that the video in question had anything at all to do with the attack. It was an absurd claim when it was made and it's even more absurd now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Dec 30 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Was Huffington Post critical of the report? This story doesn't seem all that worked up about it. A search on the site turns up mainly "noise" but that seems to be the only major article on HP in the past 24 hours on the subject.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Dec 30 2013 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
When Fox News and Huff Post agree that your piece is factually questionable (to varying degrees), it's a good bet that your facts are questionable.
When Fox News says something it's a good bet that it's questionable. Congratulations on curing your cynicism, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Dec 30 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's a stupid argument anyway. You could just as easily say "The NYT piece must be a well researched report that fails to appease both conservative and liberal fantasies of what happened since both Fox News and HuffPo are upset by it".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Dec 30 2013 at 7:08 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
You could, but who here would rewrite the facts to fit their narrative?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#12 Dec 30 2013 at 10:26 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
It's hard to ever really take Fox News serious, ever, but after they nearly broke their arms patting themselves on the back from taking credit for the 60 Minutes interview that ended up being completely false you'd think they'd not stick their necks out so far again.


I'm not sure how critiquing the NY Times piece is sticking their necks out at all. It's a critique. It's the NYT sticking its neck out with a story that is at best misleading and at worse a clear desire to rewrite the facts in order to fit into a narrative helpful to a future political campaign. When Fox News and Huff Post agree that your piece is factually questionable (to varying degrees), it's a good bet that your facts are questionable.

As to the piece itself, the whole Al Queda link or no link thing is really a meaningless distinction. Al Queda hasn't been a single cohesive until for nearly a decade, and wasn't really then either. Today, it's so splintered and factioned that you can argue that any Islamic terrorist group engaged in active Jihad against the US and its allies is "linked to Al Queda". And you could take every single one of those groups and argue similarly that there is "no link to Al Queda", based solely on how restrictive your definition of Al Queda is.

At the end of the day, what the group called itself, or who they reported to, or worked actively with, is somewhat irrelevant. When the point of saying "They're an Al Queda related group" is to say "it's an Islamic extremist group engaging in terrorist acts against the US", getting technical about what exactly comprises "Al Queda" kinda misses the whole point.


And the bigger issue is that while we can debate endlessly over whether we can technically call the group that engaged in the attacks "Al Queda linked", there is no evidence outside of wild speculation from within the US itself that the video in question had anything at all to do with the attack. It was an absurd claim when it was made and it's even more absurd now.


It is truly semantics used for political purposes. Republicans were using "Al Queda" in the cohesive sense to chip away the political bump that President Obama achieved after killing Osama Bin Laden. The goal was to tell US citizens that we aren't any safer now than before, knowing that the average person will conflate Al Queda with Bin Laden. The point of the article was to point out that it isn't as black and white as portrayed on both sides. The fault of the article is that it then assured 100% certainty in something that was claimed not to have 100% certainty. However, to be fair, if taken in context, it makes sense.

Edited, Dec 31st 2013 6:27am by Almalieque
#13 Dec 30 2013 at 11:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji was gloating after the attack that...
Quote:
Let's not forget that the attack occurred something like a week after Obama gave a big speech to the UN about how Al Queda was on the ropes and more or less a non-threat, so we should move on. Ooops!

...funny how the distinction wasn't so important then when there were political points to be won.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Dec 31 2013 at 1:54 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji was gloating after the attack that...
Quote:
Let's not forget that the attack occurred something like a week after Obama gave a big speech to the UN about how Al Queda was on the ropes and more or less a non-threat, so we should move on. Ooops!

...funny how the distinction wasn't so important then when there were political points to be won.


Exactly...
#15 Dec 31 2013 at 7:05 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Benghazi is what happens when you try and show support of a weak coalition of tribes you put into power. If they heightened security it would have sent the wrong message about the new government they were trying to establish. They took the calculated risk that less security was the better choice, and it blew up in their face. Now queue 20 years of fighting over the details of who said what and why it's super important... Smiley: rolleyes

Anyway, Mr. Putin has been on a roll lately, between this, Snowden, and Syria he's got a whole list of "I told you so" moments over the last couple of years.


'cept for the recent blow ups. Too soon?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#16 Dec 31 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
angrymnk wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Benghazi is what happens when you try and show support of a weak coalition of tribes you put into power. If they heightened security it would have sent the wrong message about the new government they were trying to establish. They took the calculated risk that less security was the better choice, and it blew up in their face. Now queue 20 years of fighting over the details of who said what and why it's super important... Smiley: rolleyes

Anyway, Mr. Putin has been on a roll lately, between this, Snowden, and Syria he's got a whole list of "I told you so" moments over the last couple of years.


'cept for the recent blow ups. Too soon?

Too late.

Yesterday morning after skimming the NYtimes report I had glanced at the headlines: The two I noted were this one on HP:
Quote:
Mike Rogers: New York Times Benghazi Report 'Just Not Accurate'
...and one from FOX that claimed the whole thing was completely false.

The HP headline however is merely quoting a republican congressperson, this Mike Rogers fellow. My inattention to detail picked up the wrong idea, transferred it here and gbaji ran with it. Kinda cool how that works.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#17 Dec 31 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
gbaji wrote:
Al Queda hasn't been a single cohesive until for nearly a decade, and wasn't really then either. Today, it's so splintered and factioned that you can argue that any Islamic terrorist group engaged in active Jihad against the US and its allies is "linked to Al Queda". And you could take every single one of those groups and argue similarly that there is "no link to Al Queda", based solely on how restrictive your definition of Al Queda is.


Much cohesive, many single.
#18 Dec 31 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
The funniest thing to come of all this Bengahzi sh*t is when Beck said Goonswarm Federation (an EVE Online Alliance) was literally the CIA.

(a claim he made4 because Sean Smith AKA Vile Rat happened to have sent messages to his friends in Goonswarm on several occasions about the circumstances at the time.)



Edited, Dec 31st 2013 6:29pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#19 Jan 01 2014 at 2:07 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
OMG
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#20 Nov 21 2014 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
Via the Associated Press: wrote:
A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#21 Nov 22 2014 at 3:56 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
What difference does it make!!!! Republicans will still stick it to HRC in 2016.
#22 Nov 22 2014 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Via the Associated Press: wrote:
A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees. Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

That actually reads like it's from The Onion.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#23 Nov 24 2014 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Lindsay Graham, "I think the report is full of crap". Smiley: lol

Rest assured there's been another committee appointed to get to investigate this incident.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#24 Nov 24 2014 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Clearly the report is by a liberal-bias committee who are siding with the liberal agenda because they want to keep their liberal jobs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#25 Nov 24 2014 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, luckily now they can create a Senate committee to reach the conclusions that the House committee was supposed to reach.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Nov 24 2014 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More interestingly, although they said that the post-attack talking points were flawed, they also found no evidence that the White House attempted to deceive anyone or that the talking points were crafted in bad faith.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 200 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (200)