Thread: New York Time's Benghazi investigation

Only started reading it from what it sounds, and what I have heard, it is supposed to be a pretty good article. Of what I have read so far the stories we've heard so far aren't true (well as a whole, parts may be), and I mean the stories from both sides. Worth a read when you have time, since it is fairly long.
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Originally Posted by Nuckle

I probably dismiss the New York Times about like you dismiss Fox News.

Is it a ploy to try and clear up Hilary's name "some" for the upcoming election in 2016?

Either that, or a ploy to wrangle Republicans back into the Benghazi debate, you know, shine the light anywhere but Obamacare.

All i got out of it is.... The Times has no issue contradicting their own reporting over the last 18 months, and in doing so further erodes their credibility as an unbiased source for news. At best, this is an opinion piece that tries to put a spit shine on a turd left on their doorstep by the administration.

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

Either that, or a ploy to wrangle Republicans back into the Benghazi debate, you know, shine the light anywhere but Obamacare.

All i got out of it is.... The Times has no issue contradicting their own reporting over the last 18 months, and in doing so further erodes their credibility as an unbiased source for news. At best, this is an opinion piece that tries to put a spit shine on a turd left on their doorstep by the administration.

Hey, look over here at Phil Robertson, I mean Benghazi, while we steal more of your freedoms over there...

Should figure, some opinion folks say, "Benghazi was Obama's fault, he sucks blah blah blah he lied, blah." People go mental and post in probably a 20 page thread about how terrible it was, Obama lies etc. New York Times does investigative work (which is costly and takes a lot of time) that contradicts quite a bit both sides said and it's, "Omgz! tehy liarz!!!"

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Should figure, some opinion folks say, "Benghazi was Obama's fault, he sucks blah blah blah he lied, blah." People go mental and post in probably a 20 page thread about how terrible it was, Obama lies etc. New York Times does investigative work (which is costly and takes a lot of time) that contradicts quite a bit both sides said and it's, "Omgz! tehy liarz!!!"

Ok, i'll take the heat. Obama did lie, and his staff edited press releases for political gain, repeatedly. No one can dispute this. And im not accusing the Times of being liars... im accusing them of being the administrations bitch when they contradict their own stories in an attempt to draw attention away from other issues plaguing this Whitehouse. They have cherry picked what to report and from whom in order to protect Obama and Hillary.

I mean really, read the article, and do some homework, you will shoot more holes in it than a brick of swiss cheese.

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report | Fox News
The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi | The Weekly Standard

No Al-Qaeda? By their own reporting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/wo...rts.html?_r=1&
Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu - The Guantánamo Docket

But hey, thats like, just my opinion man.

The Fox News articles reeks of "did not read." the NYT article did mention there was at least some planning to the attack. They also said Al-Q had been trying to infiltrate Libya and has now began to get a foothold, just at the time they hadn't managed it. I'll have to go back to the article to compare to the rest. But so far the Fox News one has just repeated stuff in the NYT report, while saying NYT is lying.

In terms of the one gitmo guy, they mentioned him in the article so not like they lied their either

Obamacare and our foreign policy have both been a giant clusterfuck. Hillary rehab? Only for rabid dems.

Sent from here to there using Tapatalk.

By the way, not sure the NYT article would help Hilary, considering it say the US fucked up by focusing just on Al-Q and not the threat of other militant groups (or just not recognizing it). Not exactly positive material there.