Search This Blog

Monday, December 30, 2013

Trey Gowdy Rips NY Times Benghazi Report

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?

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.


  Growing outrage over NY Times Benghazi report

Rep. Chaffetz: Truth has not yet been told on Benghazi

 New York Times claims Benghazi raid triggered by film

For a comprehensive list of videos related to Benghazi...check out Mass Tea Party Benghazigate channel on You Tube


No comments:

Post a Comment