Translate

Sunday, December 29, 2013

The New York Times proves once and for all that it's rightly earned death is drawing near


Benghazi in the news again after one of the most ridiculous outpouring of nonsense from NY Times delusional "journalist" David D. Kirkpatrick.

....The other, favored by Republicans,    holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that 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........

Denver Nicks writing at Time:
...An in-depth New York Times investigation published Saturday sheds new light on questions surrounding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens. Questions surrounding the attack have become a major political flashpoint in Washington, but the report reveals a truth much murkier than either the Obama administration or its critics in the GOP-led Congress has grasped upon.

Here are five major revelations from the report:

1. Al Qaeda was not involved in the assault. It has become an article of faith for some in the GOP that the Benghazi attack was a highly orchestrated terrorist attack led by the same group that carried out the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. “It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event,” said Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in an interview on Fox News in November. But according to the Times report, there is no evidence to support this assertion.

2. Anger at the “Innocence of Muslims” video motivated the initial assault and fueled the anger that powered the attack. After the film appeared online dubbed into Arabic in September 2012, media in Cairo played a major role in stoking the rage that led to an assault on the American embassy in Benghazi. Witnesses on the ground at the attack recount numerous ways in which leaders of the assault used the video to stoke the rage of militiamen.

3. The spontaneous response to the video stoked another attack that was already in the works, planned by smaller militia not affiliated with Al Qaeda. Evidence suggests that hardline elements within the complex web of Islamist militias operating in Benghazi, including an uneducated loner and contrarian named Ahmed Abu Khattala, had been planning an attack, though it’s unclear when they had intended to strike. The U.S. government has sought to have Khattala apprehended in order to press charges, but authorities and powerful Islamist elements in Libya have closed ranks around the hardliner..............

2 comments:

  1. No evidence? If I remember correctly, after pointing out over and over again, and, before the Presidential debating even began, that warning was given of an eminent attack on our embassy and the need to pull our people out, and the source of the attack and the reason why, Romney was made to look like a fool by the spin doctors of the Obama camp, as always is their bullying technique to shut up opposers since day one of his first campaign. Yet, it was quite apparent to all that Romney spoke the truth and that the liberal media, yet again, was going to great lengths to cover for this horrific mistake of a President. The truth of the matter was then sealed at the resignation/firing of Hillary Clinton and assigning John Kerry to take her place?
    Will you now begin to defend Obamacare as a great idea? Because 'us conservative free thinkers' knew it sucked from the moment we heard that our dear representatives signed without reading it, and that they themselves were exempt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right about the bullying tactics of the Left... but then why do we let them intimidate us into silence or in curtailing our freedom of speech? Very few people on the right stand up to the bullying. The Tea Party, although maligned on all fronts is the only entity that still raises its voice but is seldom heard because the other lukewarm people on the Right have let themselves be cowed down.
      An overall sad situation that bullies are getting away because of Republican cowardice in the face of being labelled racist, etc.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.