View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hilarious.
Thank you Mr. Financial man.
I notice the fake media has stopped interest in the other artificial scandals about Obama and is focusing on this one so Hillary can take Obamas place as the person to blame for everything in America.
Through polling the GOP machine that treats conservatives as fools has found that Americans are pissed at Wall Street and impediments to small business.
They are cranking up the comedy routine claiming that Obama and liberals control Wall Street and are intentionally crushing every Mom and Pop business out there. Even intelligent folks who post here repeat this nonsense.
It is worth remembering that Wall Street is overwhelmingly Republican and Obama is slamming them with huge fines and Volcker Rules .
The definition of small business includes 100 millionaires who own refineries and employ 900 people. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not the only one that believes the NYT are wrong on this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 14, 2014, 06:00 am
Feinstein rejects NYT on Benghazi
By Julian Pecquet
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that key conclusions of a recent New York Times investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack are wrong.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.
“I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda were” involved in the attack, she told The Hill last week. “That’s my understanding.”
She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack.
“It doesn’t jibe with me,” she said.
The months-long Times investigation, which was published late last month, “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” It concluded, after talking to actors on the ground, that “contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”
A spokesman for the senator took issue with The Hill’s characterization of Feinstein’s comments.
“When Senator Feinstein said ‘loosely affiliated’ she clearly was referring to groups not directly connected to (or taking orders from) core AQ in Pakistan — which was essentially the conclusion of The New York Times as well,” said Brian Weiss. “So to say she ‘rejected’ the conclusion of The New York Times is an overstatement.”
Still, Feinstein’s comments represent a departure from the Times’s reporting. The Dec. 28, 2013, article pinned the blame on Ansar al-Sharia, which it deemed a “purely local extremist” organization and “Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia.”
Critics say the Times was overly reliant on militants’ assertion that they had no link to al Qaeda.
They point out that an August 2012 report from the research division of the Library of Congress found that Ansar al-Sharia “has increasingly embodied al Qaeda’s presence in Libya.” And they fault the news outlet for making no mention of the suspected role played by other groups that have known ties with al Qaeda’s senior leadership, such as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, despite previous reporting in the Times itself.
The Times did not respond to a request for comment.
The report has rekindled debate about Benghazi on Capitol Hill. The incident is likely to be a major national security issue in this year’s midterms and the 2016 presidential campaign, especially if Hillary Clinton —who was the secretary of State at the time of the attack — decides to run.
“Of course Secretary Clinton was in charge at the time, and you know there are just now a lot of rumors going and pushing about her running for president in 2016,” House Intelligence panel member Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) told Fox News days after the report was published. “So I think [the Times is] already laying the groundwork.”
Other members of the panel did not impugn the Times’s motives, but said its conclusions were flawed.
Asked what the report got wrong, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) told Fox News the day after the report was published: “That al Qaeda was not involved in this.”
“There was some level of pre-planning; we know that,” Rogers said. “There was aspiration to conduct an attack by al Qaeda and their affiliates in Libya; we know that.”
“I agree with Mike that, however, the intelligence indicates that al Qaeda was involved,” colleague Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), agreed on the same show. “But there are also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al Qaeda that were involved.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), whose panel is scheduled to continue pursuing its investigation into the Benghazi attack in 2014, has ripped the Times’s reporting. Issa has been a main target of Democratic pushback, with some members accusing him of launching a partisan witch hunt to hurt Clinton with little regard for the truth.
“We have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi, a very isolated area, or that it was a leading cause,” Issa said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “What we do know is that [the Benghazi attack] was not an accident.”
He said there was “a group there that was involved that’s linked to al Qaeda.”
The Times has received some high-profile support from Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA. He told CBS that the Times report had “the ring of truth to it.”
“These kinds of events are a lot more nuanced than we would like them to be looking back at them in retrospect,” he said, adding that the Times investigation “kind of bears ... out” his initial assessment that the attack was carried out by a group that was “like-minded or low-end affiliated” with al Qaeda.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/195327-feinstein-rejects-nyt-on-benghazi |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17752 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
NW, in his unrelenting hatred and paranoia, gets quickly from "loosely associated" to a cover up. Nothing like scaring yourself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For the information-deprived fans of BSNBC and the NYT, 450 pages of just-declassified Top Secret congressional Benghazi hearings revealed sworn testimony from 4* Gen Ham and Sec Def Panetta that Obama was briefed that night that the attacks were unquestionably from organized terrorists, not a demonstration. Obama ordered Panetta to stifle his terrorism story and toe the WH narrative about the video, because Obama had an election to win.
That is an impeachable violation of federal law and a grave insult to every citizen, infinitely worse than anything any president before him has done.
****Gen Ham also admitted that the military was totally asleep at the wheel, with no useful assets within 10 hours of Benghazi despite weeks to months of advance threat, the freaking 9/11 date, and the military's promises that the area was defended.
Last edited by isobars on Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Fick-shun wrote: |
That is an impeachable violation of federal law and a grave insult to every citizen, infinitely worse than anything any president before him has done.
|
Mikey, to you, everything Obama does is "an impeachable violation of federal law and a grave insult to every citizen, infinitely worse than anything any president before him has done."
Everything.
Infinitely worse.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DanWeiss
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 2296 Location: Connecticut, USA
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | For the information-deprived fans of BSNBC and the NYT, 450 pages of just-declassified Top Secret congressional Benghazi hearings revealed sworn testimony from 4* Gen Ham and Sec Def Panetta that Obama was briefed that night that the attacks were unquestionably from organized terrorists, not a demonstration. Obama ordered Panetta to stifle his terrorism story and toe the WH narrative about the video, because Obama had an election to win.
That is an impeachable violation of federal law and a grave insult to every citizen, infinitely worse than anything any president before him has done.
Snip |
What about the interaction between Obama and a member of his cabinet stands as a violation of federal law? Please be precise, citing examples of fact and of law. _________________ Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The thread menu sez Weiss posted something. I don't need to look to know he's calling BS on my claim of illegality. To that I say take it up with the professor who made that claim regarding playing overt election politics at the expense of national security in a recent WSJ article. If I run across it I'll say so, but in the meantime law professors trump windsurfers every day for me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan, some folks just make things up or repeat nonsense from hate based radio sites. There is no integrity behind their voices, just lies and baseless innuendo. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012 Posts: 968 Location: Classified
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
swchandler wrote: | Dan, some folks just make things up or repeat nonsense from hate based radio sites. There is no integrity behind their voices, just lies and baseless innuendo. |
Same as it ever was. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012 Posts: 968 Location: Classified
|
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | The thread menu sez Weiss posted something. I don't need to look to know he's calling BS on my claim of illegality. To that I say take it up with the professor who made that claim regarding playing overt election politics at the expense of national security in a recent WSJ article. If I run across it I'll say so, but in the meantime law professors trump windsurfers every day for me. |
What about a windsurfing law professor? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|