Trey Gowdy Rips NY Times Benghazi Report
Who benefits most from the 'Paper of Record's' report that Al Qaeda was not involved in the deadly Sept. 11 Benghazi attack?
RELATED ARTICLES/VIDEOS:
For a comprehensive list of videos related to Benghazi...check out Mass Tea Party Benghazigate channel on You Tube
For a comprehensive list of videos related to Benghazi...check out Mass Tea Party Benghazigate channel on You Tube
Obama Administration in Pre-Edited Talking Points: Al Qaeda Behind Benghazi Attack
The recent New York Times article attempting to downplay terrorist involvement in the Benghazi attack that claimed the lives of four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, directly contradicts evidence in the now infamous pre-edited talking points of then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.
“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,”
David D. Kirkpatrick wrote in the Times. “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.”
The Times story seems to back up the administration’s
initial narrative – that a YouTube video sparked a spontaneous uprising,
and that terrorists were not involved in the attack.
Nonetheless, Kirkpatrick attempts to make it appear as though he is
critical of both congressional Republicans like House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and
the Obama administration.
“Fifteen months after [Ambassador Christopher] Stevens’s death, the
question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed
by two contradictory story lines,” Kirkpatrick wrote. He intended his
narrative to walk a middle path:
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. 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.
As others like Breitbart News's Kerry Picket have already noted, the themes of Kirkpatrick’s article directly contradict the reporting of others at the New York Times over the past year or more since the attack in Benghazi. According to Fox News, eyewitnesses to the attack on the ground in Benghazi say there were terror commanders orchestrating the attack and that any claims, like those from the Times's Kirkpatrick, to the contrary are "completely false."
Read More: Breitbart News
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NYT editor defiant on Benghazi report amid lawmaker criticism
A New York Times editor on Monday staunchly defended a controversial
report on the Benghazi attack which largely backed the State
Department's narrative, amid withering criticism from congressional
Republicans and others.
The State Department, as might be expected, also spoke in defense of the New York Times article.
"Much of what's in this in-depth investigation ... tracks with what
the [internal review board] found and with our understanding of the
facts," spokeswoman Marie Harf said Monday.
The lengthy Times report and the subsequent fallout represent the
latest battle over the public narrative of what happened the night of
Sept. 11, 2012. Even the State Department's internal review did not
offer a definitive explanation of what caused the attack and who was
behind it.
The Times investigation, though, aggravated some of the department's
toughest critics by concluding there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or
any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played
a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Roger, R-Mich., told "Fox
News Sunday" that the intelligence community would dispute that. He said
the story was "not accurate."
But in a defiant column, Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal
challenged -- in an almost-mocking tone -- those Republicans, whom he
claimed "ran screaming to television studios" to air their complaints
with the story.
He argued that those trying to claim Al Qaeda was involved were doing so for strictly political reasons.
"For anyone wondering why it's so important to Republicans that Al
Qaeda orchestrated the attack -- or how the Obama administration
described the attack in its immediate aftermath -- the answer is simple.
The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem
as though Mr. Obama doesn't take Al Qaeda seriously," he wrote. "They
also want to throw mud at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who
they fear will run for president in 2016."
Rosenthal also described as "hilarious" the suggestion that the
article was meant to give Clinton a boost in 2016. "Since I will have
more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other
editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton.
We haven't chosen anyone. I can also state definitively that there was
no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing
about the Benghazi investigation article until I read it in the paper on
Sunday," he wrote.
However, while Rosenthal focused only on Republicans' criticism of
the article, the piece also generated considerable pushback from
Democrats as well as U.S. personnel on the ground in Libya.
Read More: FOX NEWS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report
Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the
attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the
press.
But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered
sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue
to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’
findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other
international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in
inciting the initial wave of attacks.
“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything
else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox
News.
Sean Smith, a foreign service officer, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed in the 2012 assault.
The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally
remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without
revealing classified information.
Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.
"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and
using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous
attack,” one special operator said.
"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching
the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and
coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."
The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the
CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working
for the United States in a number of capacities.
According to multiple
sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in
Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a
significant threat in Libya.
Recent reports also suggest that Libyan militia leader Ahmad Abu
Khattallah is the mastermind of the attack and had no real connections
to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations.
READ MORE: FOX NEWS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For a comprehensive list of videos related to Benghazi...check out Mass Tea Party Benghazigate channel on You Tube
No comments:
Post a Comment