As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

The NYTs’ Self-Contradictory Benghazi Report

Amid claims being made that the New York Times has exonerated the Obama administration of the charge that it misled the public by claiming the attack on Benghazi was motivated by an anti-Islamic video, I’m left to wonder, has ANYONE ACTUALLY READ THE TIMES STORY.

The Sunday piece, supposedly based on ten years of research, or something, doesn’t really make much sense.

On the one hand, the author, David Kirkpatrick stipulates:

Contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

But he also notes the following:

The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

And this:

By 7 a.m. on Sept. 11, guards at the American Mission had spotted a man taking photographs with a cellphone on the second floor of an unfinished building next to the Venezia Restaurant across the street, according to interviews with the compound’s Libyan guards as well as the State Department report.

At 9:42 p.m., according to American officials who have viewed the security camera footage, a police vehicle stationed outside turned on its ignition and drove slowly away.

A moment later a solitary figure strolled by the main gate, kicking pebbles and looking around — a final once-over, according to the officials.

On the one hand, Kirkpatrick describes the attack as an eruption related to the video. On the other, he describes obvious planning by obvious terrorists who hate the United States and admire al Qaeda, and whose leader, one Ahmed Abu Khattala, stood outside the U.S. compound directing the assault.

Kirkpatrick throws in statements like this:

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack.

Spontaneous elements? How does that get you to saying the attack was “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

Kirkpatrick says the initial wave of the assault was prompted by the video. And yet he also writes this:

The attack began with just a few dozen fighters, according to those officials. The invaders fired their Kalashnikovs at the lights around the gate and broke through with ease.

The evidence Kirkpatrick offers for a video-inspired assault is flimsy. Here, in fact, is the sum of it:

A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

That’s it. What’s more, he acknowledges that many showed up at the scene because of a rumor that Americans were shooting Libyans.

Contrary to what you may have read, Kirkpatrick does not quite claim that there was no al Qaeda connection. He says he didn’t uncover any evidence of one. But any conclusion that al Qaeda was not at all involved is contradicted by both Republican and Democratic members of the House intelligence committee.

Here they are Sunday on Fox News:

Even the Obama administration isn’t really still claiming this assault was provoked by a video. I’m not sure the White House will make much use of this story. What Hillary will do with it is another matter. Benghazi is probably more critical to her future than Obama’s.

What should be causing an uproar, actually, is Kirkpatrick’s claim that the United States knows who is behind this, and isn’t going after him:

By last summer, United States investigators had interviewed hundreds of witnesses and formally asked the Libyan government to arrest Mr. Abu Khattala, along with about a dozen others wanted for questioning. The United States military also prepared a plan to capture him on its own, pending presidential approval, officials said. But the administration held back, fearing that unilateral United States military action could set off a backlash that would undermine the fragile Libyan government.

Yet another example of Obama failing to take bold action to back up a promise, in this case that we would hold the murderers of our people accountable. Now that’s the news here. Unless, with some justification, you claim that Obama reneging on a promise isn’t new anymore.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

57 Responses to The NYTs’ Self-Contradictory Benghazi Report

  1. Even on MJ they could not really say this was a smoking gun–as I said on another thread. Issa held his own against Gregory and MrsG yesterday, I thought. You re right, Keith, the NYT standard contained a lot “not fit to print.”

    • It is not fit to print, but on the other hand, we know that the big lies can be put out there and someone will believe them. Very discouraging. And the NYT is working on the basis that the MSM pretty much kept the Benghazi story down from the beginning so that many are not interested anyway>

      • Stupid question, which NO ONE in the “WH press corps” has EVER asked:
        -Where was Obama on the night of the Benghazi attack? (Sept. 11, 2012)…???

        • I can remember Hillary at some type of gathering. Where she was smiling and having a good time. It was within the week after the attack. I did not note at the time where she was. Point: She did not belong there she should have been working on what happened in Benghazi. As far as Obama, there should have been some type of news update of what he was doing or what he thought in regard to the attack.
          This week I tried to google where they both were. I could not find anything. Maybe I was not typing in the exact question needed to find the answer.

        • Thank You! We saw the “situation room” during the raid in Pakistan that terminated UBL. During the attack on our consulate in Bengazi, crickets! It is deplorable what transpired there and the missing administration officials that evening makes the case at the outset of a major coverup.

  2. Rehabilitating Hillary Clinton is the goal of the NYT article to which you refer, and it was just yesterday or the day before that the NYT followed up with another article which stated that Ambassador Stevens ‘may have been in over his head’. Nice. A good example of blaming the victim for some other person’s negligence.

  3. Obama lied, conspired with Candy Crowley, and got himself re-elected. Hillary won’t be so lucky. The anti-Muslim video had 35 You Tube hits before the attack. End of story.

    Hillary refused to comply with requests for more security b/c she wanted to keep a low US profile in Libya – no armed guards. No American guards.

    The question that will never be answered is: Where was Obama after his scheduled mtg with Panetta at 5:00 the night of the attack and who gave the stand-down order.
    Obama and Hillary were both MIA. They are forever linked to the scandal.

    And finally, the shameless $70,000 Obama/Hillary State Dept. video made for Pakistani TV:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/20/State-Dept-Obama-Hillary-Pakistan-Ad

    • Hillary doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning an election.
      If she tries to come out clean on this one she will have to blame Barry of something.
      Given the baggage that she has collected over the years,…she makes Jacob Marley look like a piker !

  4. I haven’t read the , the, I don’t know what it is…a description of what might have or did happen. The NYT only allows non-subscribers limited access, sooo it’s the end of the month and I’m out of favor until Jan1.

    They can say, hint, imply whatever they choose without any regard to actual events or motives of the participants.
    It doesn’t matter if it was a video, or a terrorist group, or a a mean flash mob,;what does matter is the non-response to AmbStevens plea for more security, and the refusal to send anyone to his aid when he was under attack.
    What matters is that PresObama, and MrsClinton lied about the event, then sent MsRice out to lie some more about the evert, and the CIA refused to disclose what they were doing in Benghazi.

    Where was BarackObama that night and who made the ultimate decision not to lift a finger to help our people?

  5. Trying to quiet the roiling waters for Hillary’s run for the WH. She is responsible for the utter failing of the government to protect its own. Benghazi needs to be cemented around her neck so when she goes under she stays under.

  6. Between watching Rice, Hilarious, and President Pinocchio attempt to explain the whole Benghazi debacle a couple dozen different ways, along with articles of no substance like this, the Keystone Kops have nothing on these guys.

    The only difference is….I enjoyed the comedic value of the Keystone Kops. I’m just sick to my stomach that these jokers are in charge of this great country. There is no comedic value in it for me at all. It’s just a sad, pathetic display of complete inadequacy that will have far reaching impacts on many.

  7. I didn’t read the article because I can’t read the NYT anymore (too much prog spin). but I bet they didn’t mention that Susan Rice not only lied to We The People on those Sunday talk shows, she also p*ssed off Libyan officials. when they heard her blame the video they were so incensed (and astonished, because they knew it was a lie) they refused to let our FBI guys into the country to examine the “crime scene” for several weeks.

  8. I am only interested in whose decision was it to leave those men behind to die. And where was Obama and what was he doing between the time of the attack and when he left for the Las Vegas fundrai

  9. Which newspaper if any put the NYT in its place?
    We all saw this unfold on TV. We all saw no one was on their way to help them.
    That is the ISSUE. I don’t care if you are rebulican or democratic, that was our citizens that were being attack. Everyone who is being blindsided by this administration, need to look their children in the eye. Tell them If that would have been you over there, I still feel this administration handled outstanding!

  10. New York Times is helping Hillary Clinton, lies, constant lies from the democrats, they are not the party they were in the past, just socialists and baby killing power hungry rich people. The low I.Q. people will fall for the lies and more lies. It is obvious Hillary needs to clear her name of murdering four Americans. She could care less about our murdered Americans,only cares about being theFIRST NOVELTY WOMAN PRESIDENT!!!! No compassion, no truth comes from her and she does not deserve being President just because she’s a woman, she is nothing but an old 60’s communist/hippie who has this need for a tremendous power trip.

  11. Great points on the inconsistency of the story, but I think the unreported story is WHY the Times published such an inaccurate and incomplete story and came to the conclusions that they did. Of course, the reason is to take heat off of Obama and to “clear” Hillary for 2016. Interesting that nobody (as far as I can tell) is looking at the motivation behind the article.

  12. Key points about the Benghazi terrorist attack the NYT doesn’t address: 1. What were we doing in Benghazi, 2. What was Obama doing the night of the attack? 3. Where was he? 4.Obama was the only person on planet Earth who could have legitimately ordered the stand down. Why did he do that?