An exclusive report in the New York Times today, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” attempts to clarify the people and events that led to the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The kicker? The New York Times found no link to Al Qaeda.
Exclusive: No Qaeda Link Seen in Benghazi Attack; Interviews Show Militia and Insults to Islam Fueled Assaulthttp://t.co/dfMvxWUX3Y
— The New York Times (@nytimes) December 28, 2013
Insults to Islam fueled the assault? Are we still talking about that YouTube video? It seems we are:
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.
Hmm. NYT claims Benghazi attack "fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam" http://t.co/Ha8SC9jWe0
— Toby Harnden (@tobyharnden) December 28, 2013
What difference, at this point, does it make? Well, having a YouTube video to blame certainly would smooth the road ahead for one certain candidate for president.
.@nytimes investigation of Benghazi would seem to neutralize Hillary Clinton problem, vindicate Rice talking points. http://t.co/kAMBtxIa82
— Jill Lawrence (@JillDLawrence) December 28, 2013
@JillDLawrence Democratic Paper's Investigation Conveniently Acquits Frontrunner for 2016 Democratic Nomination. Film at 11.
— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) December 28, 2013
.@JillDLawrence Yep, after the @nytimes article, liberals no longer care about 4 dead Americans. Unlike before the NYT article. #caring
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 28, 2013
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/417017514611474432
The New York Times piece is timed to be a topic of discussion on Sunday shows. I don't trust GOP politicians to get the messaging right.
— ??? ????????? ⏳ (@stranahan) December 28, 2013
We don’t either, sadly. But what has inspired the New York Times to at last take a serious look at Benghazi?
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/417018266859872256
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/417019162930974721
The whole article is worth a look, but as reporter David D. Kirkpatrick puts it, the real story is far murkier than anything we’ve heard so far. However, some points that seemed to have been settled are overlooked.
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/417019758798987264
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/417020745467060224
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/417023242227167233
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/417039002882306048
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/417039069982777344
I'm going to dig into the NYT report later. Confirms my reporting on the video but the Al Qaeda no involvement claim is misleading
— ??? ????????? ⏳ (@stranahan) December 28, 2013
It's beyond hairsplitting on the part of NYT — the threat is the global jihadist movement. That's Al Qaeda + the Muslim Brotherhood & more.
— ??? ????????? ⏳ (@stranahan) December 28, 2013
Watch out for giddy liberals running around with their copy of the NYT #Benghazi article today. If it's in #nyt it must be so? #jasonblair
— Ted Crumpet (@Tcrumps) December 28, 2013
Shorter NYT: “You’re welcome, Hillary. Call us?”
— RBe (@RBPundit) December 28, 2013
Join the conversation as a VIP Member