U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (3 Viewers)

[tommyGunZ]

Max Nutjob turns the Benghazi thread into a Obamacare bashing party.

Doctor Coward responds with more nonsense. Get a life, loser, and stop stalking me around the forums.

So are you going to answer the question why the NY Times article was as you put it, "bull####?" I'm guessing you aren't, Jim 11 II. I can hear you foaming at the mouth over there. lol

Surprised you can hear anything with Obama's nutsack halfway down your throat.

Are you ok over there?

Sure. Never been better. How are you?

If you whine this much when you're peaking, you must be awful when times aren't good.

 

[Rove!]

NYT has once a great paper, but, over time as slowly become more and more like Newsmax

 

[BigSteelThrill]

NYT has once a great paper, but, over time as slowly become more and more like Newsmax

Issa insisted. “There’s a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with Al-Qaeda. Now, Al-Qaeda is not a central command and control. It was, in fact, a loose group that could take general statements and act on them.”

But even frontman Rep Darryl Issa agrees with the NYT. After a year of pushing the conservative fairytale to make it into an attack, his tune is now damage control.

 

[jamny]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The NYT article is lengthy but well worth your time.

It proves what I said 50 pages ago...nothing to see here.

The NYT article is lengthy but well worth your time.

And it's a load of ####.

Which you can't hang on Hillary in 2016, as much as you hoped it would actually turn out to be some major coverup.

Sure we can. The NYT article is nothing but convenient, political cover for Hillary. No one believes that story except loony liberals.

The NYT is not a credible source of info when it comes to politics - they've established themselves as being in the pocket of the left.

KooK says what?

 

[timschochet]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment. My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

 

[tommyGunZ]

"Bigger than Watergate"

 

[jamny]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

 

[Rove!]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

The governmnet claimed that the attackj was a spontaneous protest gone wild.

It was not spontaneous and it was not a protest. So we were lied to again (like Iraq) and you cheerleaders just go along with it because it makes you feel smart somehow.....

 

[timschochet]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

The governmnet claimed that the attackj was a spontaneous protest gone wild.

It was not spontaneous and it was not a protest. So we were lied to again (like Iraq) and you cheerleaders just go along with it because it makes you feel smart somehow.....

You're grasping at straws. The government claimed the attack was the result of the YouTube video. That was the claim that has been attacked and ridiculed by Fox News and other conservatives for over a year. Now it turns out that claim was correct all along.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

 

[jamny]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

 

[timschochet]

jammy, when an article says "months of investigation" proves that it was the video all along, it's pretty weak of you to dismiss that as an "opinion piece".

 

[timschochet]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

IPhone problems- supposed to be pretend

 

[timschochet]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

IPhone problems- supposed to be pretend

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

IPhone problems- supposed to be pretend

I figured. Just busting your chops.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

IPhone problems- supposed to be pretend

I figured. Just busting your chops.

 

[jamny]

jammy, when an article says "months of investigation" proves that it was the video all along, it's pretty weak of you to dismiss that as an "opinion piece".

So I'm supposed to believe it because they say they did "months of investigation"? Sorry if I expect a little more detail before falling in line.

 

[Rove!]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

The governmnet claimed that the attackj was a spontaneous protest gone wild.

It was not spontaneous and it was not a protest. So we were lied to again (like Iraq) and you cheerleaders just go along with it because it makes you feel smart somehow.....

You're grasping at straws. The government claimed the attack was the result of the YouTube video. That was the claim that has been attacked and ridiculed by Fox News and other conservatives for over a year. Now it turns out that claim was correct all along.

If you belive that this was a "spontaneous uprising" then you are a bigger fool than anybody here ever imagined you to be.

Franky, the cover story that Muslims spontaneously murdered an Ambassador out of offense smacks of xenophobia.

 

[Lutherman2112]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

The one posted on the last page contains the first part of a six part story.

The complete NYT article is here.

 

[jamny]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

The one posted on the last page contains the first part of a six part story.

The complete NYT article is here.

Oh, ok...thanks!

Will read later.

 

[pantherclub]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

jammy, when an article says "months of investigation" proves that it was the video all along, it's pretty weak of you to dismiss that as an "opinion piece".

So I'm supposed to believe it because they say they did "months of investigation"? Sorry if I expect a little more detail before falling in line.

This thread is moving into the Zimmerman thread territory. Full of lols

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

Let the ignoring begin.

Keep chasing ghosts jamny.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

Let the ignoring begin.

Keep chasing ghosts jamny.

Says the sheep who will believe anything the NYT tells them and pretty much ignores anything remotely negative about Obama (much like Tim).

The NYT has no credibility. Zero. They've proven they're nothing more than the propoganda arm for the left. Using them as a source is like using The Onion as a source.

 

[jamny]

Let the ignoring begin.
Keep chasing ghosts jamny.

lol

When someone posts an article with no link, I assume they're posting the whole article. My fault for believing that was the whole thing. Hopefully the rest clears up a lot of issues. Like I said, I've never been much on the conspiracy angle, believing it had more to do with a series of mistakes and miscalculations. It was a terrorist attack and I hate laying blame on anyone but the people who actually did it. That's why my biggest concern is seeing those people brought to trial.

 

[timschochet]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

Let the ignoring begin.

Keep chasing ghosts jamny.

Says the sheep who will believe anything the NYT tells them and pretty much ignores anything remotely negative about Obama (much like Tim).

The NYT has no credibility. Zero. They've proven they're nothing more than the propoganda arm for the left. Using them as a source is like using The Onion as a source.

This is sad in so many ways. Are you trying to sound foolish here?

 

[pantherclub]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for month previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

Let the ignoring begin.

Keep chasing ghosts jamny.

Says the sheep who will believe anything the NYT tells them and pretty much ignores anything remotely negative about Obama (much like Tim).

The NYT has no credibility. Zero. They've proven they're nothing more than the propoganda arm for the left. Using them as a source is like using The Onion as a source.

yes max. The Times has zero credibility. None at all.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for months previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

Let the ignoring begin.

Keep chasing ghosts jamny.

Says the sheep who will believe anything the NYT tells them and pretty much ignores anything remotely negative about Obama (much like Tim).

The NYT has no credibility. Zero. They've proven they're nothing more than the propoganda arm for the left. Using them as a source is like using The Onion as a source.

This is sad in so many ways. Are you trying to sound foolish here?

When it comes to anything political, the NYT is nothing but propoganda for the left.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I don't get how the NYT article is being used as support on the left. It doesn't dispute the fact that there were warnings for month previous to the attack on Western targets in the region. It shows that while there were protests related to the video, the actual attack was organized by, maybe not Al Qaeda, but Ansar al-Sharia. They even say it wasn't spontaneous. If anything it shows a continued lack of knowledge about the different groups in the area. Too many people are hung up on the name Al Qaeda as if it's one all-encompassing entity.

I've never been on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm still just waiting to see who they hold accountable for this since it was promised that our government was doing everything in it's power to capture and bring them to justice.

The point is that conseevatives have been arguing for months that the attacks had nothing to do with that video- the YouTube video was used by the Obama administration to cover up either incompetence or a deliberate crime. Bow we come to learn that it really did have to do with video all along? What an embarrassment.My prediction is this is the last you'll hear about Benghazi from conservatives. After all like Max said, they've got Obamacare to talk about now. So they'll just pretentious this faux scandal never happened.

How does that article prove anything?

It won't prove anything to you guys who have been trying to assign malice and politicize the attack for the last 15 months.

For those interested in the actual facts, this article appears to be the most accurate and thorough account of what actually happened on 9/11/12. This, coupled with the report from the BARB, should end all of the conspiracy nonsense. But those who have ignored the facts all along will simply ignore this article as well.

Is there a different NY Times article than the one posted on the last page? Because that one reads like an opinion piece with nothing backing up the results it claims to prove?

Let the ignoring begin.

Keep chasing ghosts jamny.

Says the sheep who will believe anything the NYT tells them and pretty much ignores anything remotely negative about Obama (much like Tim).

The NYT has no credibility. Zero. They've proven they're nothing more than the propoganda arm for the left. Using them as a source is like using The Onion as a source.

yes max. The Times has zero credibility. None at all.

BOOM!

 

[squistion]

Says the sheep who will believe anything the NYT tells them and pretty much ignores anything remotely negative about Obama (much like Tim).

The NYT has no credibility. Zero. They've proven they're nothing more than the propoganda arm for the left. Using them as a source is like using The Onion as a source.

This is sad in so many ways. Are you trying to sound foolish here?

When it comes to anything political, the NYT is nothing but propoganda for the left.

 

[timschochet]

The scary thing is that millions of Americans on the right believe what Max does. They've been told for over 20 years now by Rush Limbaugh and others that the New York Times represents the "liberal elite", the "drive by media" and cannot be trusted as an objective source. For those who are especially susceptible to conspiracy theories, this just reinforces their suspicions: Benghazi was a conspiracy. If the NYTimes denies this, then that proves that the Times is part of the conspiracy. Using such logic, there is no way to disprove a conspiracy.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The scary thing is that millions of Americans on the right believe what Max does. They've been told for over 20 years now by Rush Limbaugh and others that the New York Times represents the "liberal elite", the "drive by media" and cannot be trusted as an objective source. For those who are especially susceptible to conspiracy theories, this just reinforces their suspicions: Benghazi was a conspiracy. If the NYTimes denies this, then that proves that the Times is part of the conspiracy. Using such logic, there is no way to disprove a conspiracy.

How is this post any different than what the left tells you? That if someone doesn't believe what they (the left) espouse then they are "crazy"?

You have no idea who I am or what I do yet you know that i watch/listen to Rush? Well, I don't. Now what? That kind of blows a hole in everything else you were told to believe in, doesn't it?

 

[timschochet]

OK Max. I'm ready to be educated. Since you don't consider the New York Times to be a credible source of objective news, please list the sources that you do consider to be credible and objective.

 

[squistion]

OK Max. I'm ready to be educated. Since you don't consider the New York Times to be a credible source of objective news, please list the sources that you do consider to be credible and objective.

 

[timschochet]

OK Max. I'm ready to be educated. Since you don't consider the New York Times to be a credible source of objective news, please list the sources that you do consider to be credible and objective.

Bump. Still waiting for this vital information.

 

[Todd Andrews]

We need some good KooKSources, Max. Help us out.

 

[jamny]

After having read the whole NYT article, I don't see how anyone could come away with thinking it was anything but a planned, organized attack. Maybe it was spurred on by the release of the video but it doesn't seem to be the reason for it. If anything, it seems to have escalated after a false report that Americans were shooting at Libyans.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Here's some: National Review. American Spectator, Victor Davis Hanson, Krauthammer. Washington Examiner.

I do TRY and read the lefty garbage to see if they make ANY sense on the specific issue I'm reading, but most of the time it's nothing but Obama platitudes, misdirection and half-truths.

 

[MaxThreshold]

We need some good KooKSources, Max. Help us out.

You do realize that everyone thinks YOUR the kook, right?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's some: National Review. American Spectator, Victor Davis Hanson, Krauthammer. Washington Examiner.

I do TRY and read the lefty garbage to see if they make ANY sense on the specific issue I'm reading, but most of the time it's nothing but Obama platitudes, misdirection and half-truths.

Trolling 101: Don't show your cards like this. You gotta make people thing you're actually serious, otherwise the while scam breaks down. Come on.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

We need some good KooKSources, Max. Help us out.

You do realize that everyone thinks YOUR the kook, right?

Nice use of all caps here

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Yeah this has to be shtick, not sure how I missed it before. Krauthammer is pretty much ignored by anyone with a brain, even Bone Yard Dog thinks he's ridiculous.

 

[MaxThreshold]

We need some good KooKSources, Max. Help us out.

You do realize that everyone thinks YOUR the kook, right?

Nice use of all caps here

Thanks!

 

[mad sweeney]

The scary thing is that millions of Americans on the right believe what Max does. They've been told for over 20 years now by Rush Limbaugh and others that the New York Times represents the "liberal elite", the "drive by media" and cannot be trusted as an objective source. For those who are especially susceptible to conspiracy theories, this just reinforces their suspicions: Benghazi was a conspiracy. If the NYTimes denies this, then that proves that the Times is part of the conspiracy. Using such logic, there is no way to disprove a conspiracy.

How is this post any different than what the left tells you? That if someone doesn't believe what they (the left) espouse then they are "crazy"?

You have no idea who I am or what I do yet you know that i watch/listen to Rush? Well, I don't. Now what? That kind of blows a hole in everything else you were told to believe in, doesn't it?

Hmmm. Let's have an English review here. I'll bold the subject of Tim's paragraph. It's in the first sentence. It's also the antecedent for "them" in the next sentence. So since "millions of Americans" are "them", and it's "them" that watch Fox news, where does he say that you watch Fox News? Sounds pretty much like you see what you want to see in a post. Guess that blows up your whole alleged point about blowing up, doesn't it?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Yeah this has to be shtick, not sure how I missed it before. Krauthammer is pretty much ignored by anyone with a brain, even Bone Yard Dog thinks he's ridiculous.

Yeah, okay, buddy. Whatever you say.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Yeah this has to be shtick, not sure how I missed it before. Krauthammer is pretty much ignored by anyone with a brain, even Bone Yard Dog thinks he's ridiculous.

Yeah, okay, buddy. Whatever you say.

I like Krauthammer's hair though, reminds me of Wayne Newton. Wayne came to Bosnia and we took him on a helicopter mission which required him to wear a helmet. As we were heading back I looked over and he had black streaks all down his face and all over the BDU uniform he was wearing, it was hilarious. Not sure if Wayne writes op ed political pieces though.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Yeah this has to be shtick, not sure how I missed it before. Krauthammer is pretty much ignored by anyone with a brain, even Bone Yard Dog thinks he's ridiculous.

Yeah, okay, buddy. Whatever you say.

I like Krauthammer's hair though, reminds me of Wayne Newton. Wayne came to Bosnia and we took him on a helicopter mission which required him to wear a helmet. As we were heading back I looked over and he had black streaks all down his face and all over the BDU uniform he was wearing, it was hilarious. Not sure if Wayne writes op ed political pieces though.

Fantastic. Did he look as goofy as this guy?

 

[TheIronSheik]

OK Max. I'm ready to be educated. Since you don't consider the New York Times to be a credible source of objective news, please list the sources that you do consider to be credible and objective.

Serious question here. As someone who doesn't really read the news that much anymore, I actually have no idea what are the left or right leaning news sources currently. Is there still such a thing as unbiased news sources? And if so, what are the main ones?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Yeah this has to be shtick, not sure how I missed it before. Krauthammer is pretty much ignored by anyone with a brain, even Bone Yard Dog thinks he's ridiculous.

Yeah, okay, buddy. Whatever you say.

I like Krauthammer's hair though, reminds me of Wayne Newton. Wayne came to Bosnia and we took him on a helicopter mission which required him to wear a helmet. As we were heading back I looked over and he had black streaks all down his face and all over the BDU uniform he was wearing, it was hilarious. Not sure if Wayne writes op ed political pieces though.

Fantastic. Did he look as goofy as this guy?

Not sure if you think a velvet jump suit is goofy or not, that would make the determination.