Anonymous wrote:The evidence does not support the video cause. The NYT article suggests it--but not much else.

Every time that you comment on the NYT article, you offer more evidence that you haven't read it. But, here is just part of what it reports:

"There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet."

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=4

There is more in the article, so why not spend a few minutes to actually read it?

The evidence does not support the video cause. The NYT article suggests it--but not much else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is to try and get Presidential numbers up, nothing more.

Yes, the New York Times, a 162 year old newspaper qwith a long history of integrity is just a propaganda front for the President, and has always helped the President, even when he is violating the law, as shown in 1971. Some random blog with an admitted bias is a much better source.

Interesting that Dianne Feinstein doesn't agree with their conclusions:

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/195327-feinstein-rejects-nyt-on-benghazi

Que a copy and paste job of her spokesman immediately downplaying the plain and simple fact that She. Does. Not. Agree. With. The NYT...

Feinstein appears to be an idiot and and uninformed idiot at that:

"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."

She chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. She should tell us what the evidence says, not what "jibes" with her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is to try and get Presidential numbers up, nothing more.

Yes, the New York Times, a 162 year old newspaper qwith a long history of integrity is just a propaganda front for the President, and has always helped the President, even when he is violating the law, as shown in 1971. Some random blog with an admitted bias is a much better source.

Interesting that Dianne Feinstein doesn't agree with their conclusions:

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/195327-feinstein-rejects-nyt-on-benghazi

Que a copy and paste job of her spokesman immediately downplaying the plain and simple fact that She. Does. Not. Agree. With. The NYT...

Anonymous wrote:And is this supported anywhere but NYT?

You mean in some reputable news source, like... 60 Minutes?

I so love that you capitalized all of BENGHAZI in reference to the nutjob.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody likes the truth

No, it's just that you're boring and I don't care. No matter how many threads you start, you can't change the fact that I don't care, so you lose.

Yet here you are. So obviously he won.

Um, no. Just because someone hears about something, doesn't mean that that will affect his/her political decisions.

The fact that you feel the need to respond shows you care. If you really didn't care, you would have gone away and not said anything. By engaging, you prove that you care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody likes the truth

No, it's just that you're boring and I don't care. No matter how many threads you start, you can't change the fact that I don't care, so you lose.

Yet here you are. So obviously he won.

Um, no. Just because someone hears about something, doesn't mean that that will affect his/her political decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody likes the truth

No, it's just that you're boring and I don't care. No matter how many threads you start, you can't change the fact that I don't care, so you lose.

Yet here you are. So obviously he won.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody likes the truth

No, it's just that you're boring and I don't care. No matter how many threads you start, you can't change the fact that I don't care, so you lose.

Anonymous wrote:This is to try and get Presidential numbers up, nothing more.

Yes, the New York Times, a 162 year old newspaper qwith a long history of integrity is just a propaganda front for the President, and has always helped the President, even when he is violating the law, as shown in 1971. Some random blog with an admitted bias is a much better source.

Anonymous wrote:You trashed the author without touching the issues. Convincing?

I don't see how the contradictions he points out are actual contradictions. For instance, an attack can be triggered by the video yet still be organized. How is that hard to understand?

The premise of the whole piece falls apart based on the first three paragraphs.

Anonymous wrote:You trashed the author without touching the issues. Convincing?

Sure. He's a troll who came up with the blog for a white house hard pass after leaving congress daily. he doesn't actually have an employer.

You trashed the author without touching the issues. Convincing?

Anonymous wrote:http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/12/30/nyts-selfcontradictory-benghazi-report/

Koffler notes some of the contradictions in the NYT piece.

I know Koffler. Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. There's a reason he's writing a blog now.