myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Benghazi-gate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 60, 61, 62 ... 75, 76, 77  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3230

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1555
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4987

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW, in his unrelenting hatred and paranoia, gets quickly from "loosely associated" to a cover up. Nothing like scaring yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13834

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1928
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13834

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5694

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
youwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 490
Location: North Shore High School

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
youwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 490
Location: North Shore High School

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 60, 61, 62 ... 75, 76, 77  Next
Page 61 of 77

 
Jump to:  
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

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group