Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:13 PM   #1
Banned
 
poet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,065
Benghazi Investigation Confirms Paper's Early Reporting On Video's Role

New York Times Benghazi Investigation Confirms Paper's Early Reporting On Video's Role



NEW YORK -– Following a months-long investigation, The New York Times reported Saturday that it had found no evidence that al-Qaeda, or any international terrorist group, was involved in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. The Times’ David Kirkpatrick also wrote that the attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam,” an assessment that's prompted much chatter on Twitter and the Sunday morning talk shows.

The Obama administration originally pointed to the YouTube video, "Innocence of Muslims," as a primary factor in the attack. But Republicans challenged that version of events, and the media had largely dismissed the notion that the video played a major role.


On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Kirkpatrick reiterated that what happened in Benghazi was "an armed terrorist attack motivated in large part by the video."

But Kirkpatrick, who serves as the Times' Cairo bureau chief, pushed back on host David Gregory's contention that the just-published investigation bolsters Rice's Sept. 16, 2012, claims on the Sunday shows. Kirkpatrick said that Rice made “some clear misstatements.”

"This was not a street protest. And it was not a copycat of what happened in Cairo," Kirkpatrick said, referring to the demonstration the same day in the Egyptian capital in response to the YouTube video. "That was unarmed street protest. This is a group of armed men who, inspired by the video, deliberately attacked the compound."


It was the video, all the long...and not some planned attack...just like I always thought, and many others, as well. - poet
Thanks from Camelot
poet is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:18 PM   #2
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,702
Quote:
The New York Times is out with a revisionist account of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. The Times says that in months of investigating, it “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” The Times also claims that the attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

I suspect that the Times story tells us more about Hillary Clinton’s assessment of the threat Benghazi poses to her likely 2016 run for president than it does about what happened in Benghazi. But to the extent that the Times story is viewed as shedding a new, different light on the Benghazi, perhaps the House should hold new hearings on the attack.

The Times bases its claim that neither al Qaeda nor any other international terrorist group had a role in the attack on its view that Ansar al-Shariah is a “purely local extremist organization.” But Peter King, a member and former chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, points out that Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. King accuses the Times of engaging in mere semantics, and he is probably right.

The Times chooses to focus on a militia leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala, whom it characterizes as “an erratic extremist” and very much his own man. But I believe that other leaders connected to the attack have been tied to al Qaeda or its affiliates. I will try to document this in a future post.

The Times’ claim that the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger” at the video about Islam also seems unpersuasive. Greg Hicks, the deputy to Ambassador Christopher Stevens who was killed in the attack testified to Congress that the video was “a non-event in Libya.” Moreover, an independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings from Benghazi found no reference to the video until the day after the attack.

The New York Times seems to have uncovered social media references to the video that precede the Sept. 11 attack. Even so, the relative absence of such references undermines its claim that the video played a significant role in the attack.

I don’t mean to deny that some of those who attacked the U.S. compound were influenced by the video. But the Times’ own reporting shows that a “grave” threat to American interests in Benghazi predates the controversy over the video. The failure of the Obama administration, and especially Hillary Clinton, to prepare to meet that threat remains indisputable.

The Times stops short of claiming that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous.” It says, instead, that the attack was not “meticulously planned.”

That may or may not be true. But the quality of the planning — good enough, as it turned out — seems irrelevant. Again, what matters is that the State Department should have been prepared for the attack and taken action accordingly. This the New York Times does not dispute.

It also matters that the Obama administration’s account of the attack, per Susan Rice, was inaccurate even if one accepts the Times’ dubious reporting. The Times acknowledges this, though it chooses to characterize Rice’s account as just a “misstatement.”

The adequacy or inadequacy of the Obama administration’s response as the Benghazi attacks unfolded also matters. So does the treatment of those in the State Department who have dared to question Hillary Clinton’s actions relating to Benghazi.

Whatever else the Times story demonstrates, I believe it shows that this story won’t go away as long as Hillary Clinton aspires to be president.

JOHN adds: The Times story tells us little or nothing about Benghazi, but it does remind us that Hillary Clinton is the Times’s preferred nominee for president in 2016, and therefore the Democratic Party’s. The Times article is a preview of the Benghazi defense that Hillary will mount over the next two years. It is, I think, pathetically weak, but then, memories are short. And the Democrats believe that hardly anyone really cares about foreign affairs. If they nominate a former Secretary of State for president, that theory will be tested.
X
Jimmyb is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:20 PM   #3
Banned
 
poet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,065
This message is hidden because Jimmyb is on your ignore list.

Not interested in your take.
poet is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:22 PM   #4
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,702
I wonder where this came from?

Quote:
In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were 'Al Qaeda-leaning,' according to American and European officials.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:26 PM   #5
Supra Et Ultra
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,367
Yep, things look even worse for El Jefe and his crew. A snippet from a very long article --

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The underlying facts are the same. There was a video. Word of it got out in the Middle East. Riots ensued.

However, the difference in the two formulations isn’t mere wordplay. It has policy consequences. In this case, life or death ones.

If the cause of the problem is the object, the correct policy is to get rid of the object. However, if the cause of the problem is people and how they use or respond to the object, then solution is to deal with the people.

The Obama administration clearly thought the problem with the video itself; the ‘digesting, reprehensible’ digital voodoo totem that they discussed endlessly.

It gets worse, though.

Look at the objective facts; what we know for certain the Obama administration did prior to 9/11. There’s a clear, credible threat in the view of the administration. Anger is spreading in the Middle East about the video. And what action does the Obama administration take?

Do they tighten security across the region? Do they issue a strongly worded statement that any protests that get out of hand will be met with a swift, severe response? Do they warn Middle Eastern leader that the United States won’t tolerate the same type barbaric response shown to the Danish cartoon or an episode of South Park?

No.

There’s a credible threat prior to 9/11 and the Obama administration has a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a senior State Department officially call Terry Jones in Florida and ask him not to show the video.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is scandalous.

Last edited by excalibur; December 29th, 2013 at 06:30 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:30 PM   #6
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 23,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by poet View Post
this message is hidden because jimmyb is on your ignore list.

Not interested in your take.
lol, that fetus face is on my list too.
Thanks from poet
Camelot is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:34 PM   #7
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
lol, that fetus face is on my list too.
This communist is not on my ignore list because I am not a coward running from being exposed as a liar.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:47 PM   #8
Supra Et Ultra
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
lol, that fetus face is on my list too.
You are obviously a man of high quality using such an expression, it speaks volumes.
Thanks from Jimmyb and Tony
excalibur is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 06:51 PM   #9
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 23,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
You are obviously a man of high quality using such an expression, it speaks volumes.
Why thank you Excalibur......LOL
Camelot is offline  
Old December 29th, 2013, 07:21 PM   #10
Banned
 
poet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,065
Jimmyb is definitely the bottom of the barrel here. Ad hominem is all he's got. Righties are never credible and never caution their own, hence the racists and bigots are allowed "free reign", which effectively destroys any vestige of credibility they might have had.
Thanks from Camelot
poet is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
benghazi, confirms, early, investigation, paper, reporting, role, video



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Fox News isn't Reporting... tadpole256 Warfare 12 July 23rd, 2007 02:12 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.