|TEL : 04 27 46 23 60|
FAX : 04 27 46 23 69
58 Chemin de la Bruyère 69570 Dardilly
Pages vues depuis 01/01/2008 : 18 447 049
- Nb. de Membres : 338
- Nb. d'Articles : 221
- Nb. de Forums : 9
- Nb. de Sujets : 8
- Nb. de Critiques : 2
Top 10 Statistiques
| Posté : 05-08-2012 17:42|
chouette, les valises s'inclinent d'après la presse...mais s'inclinetnt en capacité d'emport !!!...31 minable litre de capacité d'emport !!!...Mr triumph, laisses tes valises tranquilles et rajoutes du plastique pour les faire plus grandes !!!
| Posté : 30-12-2013 05:56|
A New York Times report on the September 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans -- including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens -- in Benghazi, Libya, calls into question much of what Republicans accusing the Obama administration of a cover-up have said about the incident.The three main points of contention have been whether the attack was planned, whether it was sparked by an anti-Muslim video, and whether al Qaeda was involved.
However, the Times says, the administration's version, focusing on outrage over the inflammatory video, and first delivered by then-ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Sunday morning talk shows five days later, isn't exactly right, either."The reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs," according to David D. Kirkpatrick's article in the Times.
It's a conclusion that CNN has drawn in its previous reporting.The attack at the Benghazi diplomatic compound has become a political flashpoint in a long-running battle between the White House and Republicans, who accuse the Obama administration of not bolstering security before the attack, of botching the response to it and of misleading the public for political gain less than two months before the November election.The GOP suggests the administration removed specific terror references and stuck to the explanation advanced by Rice -- later proved untrue -- that the attack was the result of spontaneous demonstrations over the U.S.-produced film "Innocence of Muslims," which contained scenes some Muslims considered blasphemous.The White House and its allies in Congress have said any confusion and conflicting information in the early hours and days after the assault stemmed from the "fog of war," not any deliberate effort to mislead the public.