Metal Sludge Gossip Board

The New York Times wrote:Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Click the link, folks. Don't be lazy.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/be ... #/?chapt=0

Yep, THAT solves it!

NY Times?

Fucking liberal rag....

But hey..."what difference does it make?



I'll bet that I can come up with a 1/2 a dozen other "investigations" that come to 1/2 a dozen other conclusions.

Hillary 2016!!!! deflect and defend!

Goldman/Sachs 2016

Dr J Jones wrote:Yep, THAT solves it!

NY Times?

Fucking liberal rag....

But hey..."what difference does it make?

You say liberal like it's a bad thing.

Dr J Jones wrote:I'll bet that I can come up with a 1/2 a dozen other "investigations" that come to 1/2 a dozen other conclusions.

Hillary 2016!!!! deflect and defend!

Goldman/Sachs 2016

I take your bet. What are the terms?

Most of us already knew this shit. You're just preaching to the choir.

I know. It seems even the Benghazigate crowd has finally given up on it.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that the government is a lying sack of shit. They will say and do anything to protect their own and maintain power. That is all they are interested in...power. And their followers eat that shit up...it's both sad and a little entertaining.

The deflect and defend campaign is off to a running start to try to clear Hillary's deservedly tarnished image before the next power grab season aka 2016. None of this matters though. We are destined to get another corporate owned, hawkish, inept president just like the last two.

Why don't the American people hold their elected officials accountable?

The Bush regime skated....
The Obama regime skated...


And yes...I called them regimes because that is what they are.
An administration is compiled of competent individuals who are held accountable for their poor performance.

A regime is full of inept cronies who have zero accountability and are allowed to run the country into the ground.

As far as the Benghazi incident...Hillary is directly responsible for whatever happened that day. No matter if it was caused by a silly video, or a failed gun running operation, or a failed CIA mission, or what ever you choose to believe. SHE and SHE alone is responsible. And yet ...people still think she should be president...

Brilliant.

Dr J Jones wrote:
Why don't the American people hold their elected officials accountable?

We know why you don't, Mr. Status Quo.

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

Dr J Jones wrote:
Why don't the American people hold their elected officials accountable?

We know why you don't, Mr. Status Quo.

Actually, a vote for the corporate Shillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo.
That is what you will be doing...

I wouldn't trust her to walk my fucking dog...I certainly won't be voting for her to be president.

Dr J Jones wrote: And yes...I called them regimes because that is what they are.

You called them regimes because that what Alex Jones and the rest of the Birchers call them.

Where is the economic collapse you predicted a few years ago? Still waiting for it to happen. How about you sit down and shut up until you get something right.

Dr J Jones wrote:

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

Dr J Jones wrote:
Why don't the American people hold their elected officials accountable?

We know why you don't, Mr. Status Quo.

Actually, a vote for the corporate Shillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo.
That is what you will be doing...

I wouldn't trust her to walk my fucking dog...I certainly won't be voting for her to be president.

Who do you recommend? Who do you wish would run? Are there any candidates out there that you support? Any at all, local, state or national? Bitching on Sludge does nothing. If you want things to change, you have to be more than a whiny cunt.

Anyways, about your bet offer: I accept. When can I expect your half dozen other investigations or are you just going to welsh right now and save us both the trouble?

DEATH ROW JOE wrote:

Dr J Jones wrote: And yes...I called them regimes because that is what they are.

You called them regimes because that what Alex Jones and the rest of the Birchers call them.

Where is the economic collapse you predicted a few years ago? Still waiting for it to happen. How about you sit down and shut up until you get something right.

Typical Liberal progressive response...

I don't recall predicting an economic collapse but...If the Fed stops buying bonds (aka propping it up) we will certainly see some sort of economic downturn...and it would be ugly.

And I called them regimes for the reasons stated...it has nothing to do with a talk show host or some silly society..

Goldman/Sachs 2016

Dr J Jones wrote: And I called them regimes for the reasons stated...it has nothing to do with a talk show host or some silly society..

Dr J Jones wrote:A regime is full of inept cronies who have zero accountability and are allowed to run the country into the ground.

Merriam Webster wrote:Full Definition of REGIME
1
a : regimen
b : a regular pattern of occurrence or action (as of seasonal rainfall)
c : the characteristic behavior or orderly procedure of a natural phenomenon or process
2
a : mode of rule or management
b : a form of government <a socialist regime>
c : a government in power
d : a period of rule

Where did you get your definition if not from Alex Jones or Glenn Beck? I think you parroted what others said and made up your own definition because you assumed it must be a perjorative word when Rush, Coulter and Hannity used it. You gotta tell us.

Before you forget:

I already wrote:Who do you recommend? Who do you wish would run? Are there any candidates out there that you support? Any at all, local, state or national? Bitching on Sludge does nothing. If you want things to change, you have to be more than a whiny cunt.

Anyways, about your bet offer: I accept. When can I expect your half dozen other investigations or are you just going to welsh right now and save us both the trouble?

Dr J Jones wrote:

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

Dr J Jones wrote:
Why don't the American people hold their elected officials accountable?

We know why you don't, Mr. Status Quo.

Actually, a vote for the corporate Shillary Clinton is a vote for the status quo.
That is what you will be doing...

I wouldn't trust her to walk my fucking dog...I certainly won't be voting for her to be president.

For political advice and guidance, I always look to people like you who can't stop themselves from calling people by "clever" names that have been echoing over the right-wing airwaves. I wish I could think like a grade-school kid.

Now impress us one more time with how you think both sides are exactly the same, a conclusion you probably came to right after Obama was elected and it was OK for republicans to turn on Bush.

BlackCrypt wrote:So was YouTube to blame?

For your apparent laziness which must be preventing you from reading the article? I'm not Alex Jones or Glenn Beck so don't expect me to spoon feed you this too.

I wish republicans were at least half as outraged at Bush for leading us into an unnecessary war in Iraq that cost thousands and thousands of American lives, as they are at Obama for fucking up in Benghazi and costing four American lives. Selective outrage!

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

BlackCrypt wrote:So was YouTube to blame?

For your apparent laziness which must be preventing you from reading the article? I'm not Alex Jones or Glenn Beck so don't expect me to spoon feed you this too.

Why read it when your quote on the initial post referenced it?

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

The New York Times wrote:it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

BlackCrypt wrote:

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

BlackCrypt wrote:So was YouTube to blame?

For your apparent laziness which must be preventing you from reading the article? I'm not Alex Jones or Glenn Beck so don't expect me to spoon feed you this too.

Why read it when your quote on the initial post referenced it?

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

The New York Times wrote:it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Are you actually so stupid that you didn't click the link? Fucking retard.

Danzig in the Dark wrote:Are you actually so stupid that you didn't click the link? Fucking retard.

I read it. It still blames the video to some extent. And they did not get a McDonald’s and KFC when they asked. Is that a reason to kill?

BlackCrypt wrote:

Danzig in the Dark wrote:Are you actually so stupid that you didn't click the link? Fucking retard.

I read it. It still blames the video to some extent. And they did not get a McDonald’s and KFC when they asked. Is that a reason to kill?

Reason and killing rarely go hand in hand.

But wait! Cars were backed up one day in New Jersey!

ROADHEAD wrote:But wait! Cars were backed up one day in New Jersey!

riiiiight, that's all. No biggie.

ROADHEAD wrote:But wait! Cars were backed up one day in New Jersey!

Go back to massaging your prostate with your Paul Stanley doll and leave intelligent discussion to intelligent people.

Not so fast...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/world ... .html?_r=0

That piece, written by the same author in the same publication as the OP's link pretty much discredits the idea that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam movie.

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:Not so fast...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/world ... .html?_r=0

Benghazi!1!1!1!1!1! Holy Shiite! It's Real.
Click the link, Dancing In The Dark. Don't be lazy.

Nevermind wrote:

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:Not so fast...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/world ... .html?_r=0

Benghazi!1!1!1!1!1! Holy Shiite! It's Real.
Click the link, Dancing In The Dark. Don't be lazy.

Nevermind wrote:

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:Not so fast...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/world ... .html?_r=0

Benghazi!1!1!1!1!1! Holy Shiite! It's Real.
Click the link, Dancing In The Dark. Don't be lazy.

Explain to me how this contradicts anything in the original article. I'll be waiting for your expert analysis. Nevermind, if you think you're finally smart enough, you can try to school me too.

Because it's pretty hard to believe that two separate terrorist organizations (one of which operated out of a city hours away from Benghazi) and a lone wolf who may be tied to a third would do anything spontaneously, especially an assault like Benghazi which was coordinated and had multiple targets. You can't believe that 100-150 people could pull off an assault like that without weeks of planning and surveillance.

Also, it's right in your original quote:

" turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. "

From the new article: "The State Department is moving to apply the terrorist designation to two Libyan organizations and one militant believed to have played a role in the deadly attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi in September 2012" (The one militant being Sufian Bin Qumu who has known ties to both Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda).