Quoted from Box A Rox

Remember all the cover up stories???
Today's NY Times:
No Evidence Al Qaeda 'Had Any Role' In Benghazi Attack

The Times' investigation relied on "extensive" interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had
direct knowledge of the attack. The report concludes that the attack was led by local fighters
who "had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the
uprising against Colonel Qaddafi.
" And -- contrary to claims made by Republicans --
the Times also reports that the incident "was fueled in large
part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?emc=edit_na_20131228#/?chapt=0

A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of the truth.

Indeed, scientists have shown that people will go to absurd lengths - and engage in mental gymnastics – in order to cling to their belief in what those in authority have said.

If this was true, that means that everyone who testified to Congress that were there (public and private) were liars?

If this was true, then why did the Obama change the talking points after five days if it really was because of a video?

If this was true, the WH made Susan Rice take the fall (that cost her the Sec. of State job) because she told the truth?

I do know one thing that is true......

This 'non-issue', this 'distraction' as Boxy has called it, has become front page news again. What's worse is, because the NYT ran this, we have two VERY different takes on what really happened.

There is going to be a backlash and everything about Bengazi is going to be revisited with a flea comb.

I'm sure Barry and Hillary were on the phone with the NYT tanking them for bringing this back to the forefront.

Quoted from BuckStrider

If this was true, that means that everyone who testified to Congress that were there (public and private) were liars?

If this was true, then why did the Obama change the talking points after five days if it really was because of a video?

If this was true, the WH made Susan Rice take the fall (that cost her the Sec. of State job) because she told the truth?

I do know one thing that is true......

This 'non-issue', this 'distraction' as Boxy has called it, has become front page news again. What's worse is, because the NYT ran this, we have two VERY different takes on what really happened.

There is going to be a backlash and everything about Bengazi is going to be revisited with a flea comb.

I'm sure Barry and Hillary were on the phone with the NYT tanking them for bringing this back to the forefront.

The Righties... they can't handle the truth!  

WOW!  NYT reporters interviewing random unnamed Libyans over a year later now equates to an "official" investigation.   Luckily for Obama and the Dems, Americans ARE that gullible, and many will accept a couple of paragraphs as enough evidence for them to go around and parrot it as FACT.  

Quoted from Box A Rox

The Righties... they can't handle the truth!  

It's not that righties can't handle the truth, it's the lefties that can't stop lying.

Quoted from BuckStrider

It's not that righties can't handle the truth, it's the lefties that can't stop lying.

And the lie??? The NY Times lies (when it disagrees with the Rightie Agenda, but they
tell the truth when it fits!)

This must be that 'selective truth' that is so handy for the Rabid Right.

Quoted from Box A Rox

And the lie??? The NY Times lies (when it disagrees with the Rightie Agenda, but they
tell the truth when it fits!)

This must be that 'selective truth' that is so handy for the Rabid Right.

And again, you don't address the issue, let alone trying to even answer one of my three incredibly basic questions above.

You would rather use a 'DNC Approved' meme.

If you don't know what the lie is, then you need to go back to page one and get up to speed.

If you do bother to do that, you'll also figure out why I have an interest in this case.

Anyway, like I said, it's back to being front page news.  

Quoted from CICERO

WOW!  NYT reporters interviewing random unnamed Libyans over a year later now equates to an "official" investigation.  

It's not an "official" investigation....it's and INDEPENDANT investigation that has not
been validated or corroborated by any other independent or government activity.
Until it is something more, then it remains, and INDEPENDANT investigation by one source.

Quoted from BuckStrider

And again, you don't address the issue, let alone trying to even answer one of my three incredibly basic questions above.
You would rather use a 'DNC Approved' meme.
If you don't know what the lie is, then you need to go back to page one and get up to speed.
If you do bother to do that, you'll also figure out why I have an interest in this case.
Anyway, like I said, it's back to being front page news.  

Quoted Text

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said Sunday that the deadly attack
against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a “spontaneous reaction” to an anti-Islam
video and not a premeditated assault.

Rice said the “best information at present” indicates the violence that has spread across
the Middle East has been a direct response to the “Innocence of Muslims” film.
The Blaze

Rice agreed with the Times report???  When questioned (at the time) many people were
reporting the best information available AT THAT TIME.

Since there has been conflicting testimony, much of it because some (LIKE THE 60 MINUTES
INTERVIEW LATER SHOWED) were lies.  Others were mistaken but truthful.

Benghazi is the Rabid Right's only hope of keeping Hillary from the white house.  So...
the BS will continue at least until 2016.  

Which was it box?  An act of terror or spontaneous protest?  Obama said "act of terror", Rice said "spontaneous protest".  Which is it?

validation....hhhhmmm....interesting.....validation accreditation validation corroboration validation......

who what gets to do that?

Quoted from CICERO

Which was it box?  An act of terror or spontaneous protest?  Obama said "act of terror", Rice said "spontaneous protest".  Which is it?

Lets see... how about a "spontaneous protest, which was an act of terror!"  
CNN
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....+Political+Ticker%29

Quoted from Box A Rox

Lets see... how about a "spontaneous protest, which was an act of terror!"  
CNN
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....+Political+Ticker%29

Ahhh...Both...Hmmm...Very interesting.  A spontaneous terror attack that was not planned by Al Qaeda, and over 1 year later we still don't know who planned this spontaneous terror attack killing 4 Americans including an ambassador.  It seems to be a pretty sophisticated attack for being spontaneous - RPG's and all.  At least we can rule out Al Qaeda based on the NYT's anonymous sources.

Quoted from CICERO

Ahhh...Both...Hmmm...Very interesting.  A spontaneous terror attack that was not planned by Al Qaeda, and over 1 year later we still don't know who planned this spontaneous terror attack killing 4 Americans including an ambassador.  It seems to be a pretty sophisticated attack for being spontaneous - RPG's and all.  At least we can rule out Al Qaeda based on the NYT's anonymous sources.

it's like planning birth control before spontaneous sex....hahahahahaha....it's all about the abortion in Box's mind.....

Seems some people don't believe the NYT report.   But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.

The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.