NY Times Inserts Itself Into Benghazi-gate

The NY Times attempts to revive a narrative that just isn’t there and even if it was, it does not absolve anyone of their responsibility in the murders of 4 Americans. This scandal has had enough scapegoating and shirking of duty to last 10 Presidencies. The buck stops here, right Mr. President? You’ve made that promise a few times.

Obama in 2008 on National Security: The Buck Will Stop With Me

Obama in 2010 on National Security: The buck stops with me

Via FOX, emphasis added:

Opening:

The State Department has not ruled out the possibility that the deadly terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were motivated by an anti-Islamic video, despite a growing chorus of criticism over the Obama administration’s initial claims that the violence was a “spontaneous” outgrowth of a protest over the video.

*SNIP*

The news report, by a New York Times reporter based in Cairo, cites interviews with people in Libya who said the attackers suggested shortly after the attack that they “did it in retaliation for the video.”

The Times also noted a news conference held the day after the attack by a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah, the militant group suspected of being responsible for the killings. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the Prophet,” the spokesman said. The Prophet Muhammad was the focus of the offensive video.

And the story suggests that the group, though perhaps in contact with elements of Al Qaeda, had a predominantly local focus.

Such details seem to lends credence to at least part of the explanation given by Rice, who has said she was basing her assessment on the intelligence at hand. Even so, the Times article underscores other evidence that the attack was planned in advance and that there was no protest outside the consulate before the strike, contrary to the picture Rice and other administration officials were painting early on.

The NY Times desperately wants to have their cake and eat it too. The claim by NY Times that the locals say it had something to do with the video is in direct contradiction with that of the position of Libyan officials.

A senior Libyan official says the attack was organized and planned by foreigners – some with links to al Qaida – involved a local Islamic militia, and was timed for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Moreover, the Libyan official appeared to question whether there was a protest beforehand.

“The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing a specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think that this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, pre-determined,” Mohammad Magarief, the head of the Libyan National Congress, the recently elected interim government, said Sunday. – Source: The State

Indeed.

The NY Times is barking up the wrong tree.  Meanwhile, Nakoula is still locked up in isolation for ‘probation violations’ and is therefore effectively silenced. Convenient.
The fact remains that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi had nothing to do with a YouTube video, yet this administration has lied about the incident repeatedly and continues to do so.

  1. Libya was already unstable. There had been multiple attacks in the 6 months leading up to 9/11.  The timeline is damning.
  2. There was no protest at the consulate beforehand. The State Department insisted, on the night before the Benghazi Oversight hearings, they never concluded the attack was related to the video. The statements from the State Department days after the attack suggest otherwise. One such attack was a near miss for the British Ambassador.
  3. This administration was warned in advance.
  4. Security that was there was woefully unprepared and untrained.
  5. Lack of security was not due to lack of funding, but willful ignorance of the requests for more and better defenses. On top of that, this administration withdrew what trained forced there were there and told the consulate to stop asking for anything more.
  6. This President decided to go to bed instead of finding out the fate of an embassy he knew was under attack. It then took 17 days for the President to acknowledge Benghazi had been a planned terrorist attack. A lie he just repeated last night in a national debate and also spun by his Vice President in the VP debate. Coincidentally, or not, it took DNI 17 days to acknowledge it was an organized terrorist attack as well.

 

 

 

About these ads

About ladyliberty1885

I'm a Conservative minded mother and wife living in the Triangle area of NC. I began writing in 2009 via my LadyLiberty1885 blog. My writing can also be found at DaTechGuy, StopCommonCoreNC.org, TheConMom and at WizBang, among others. I participated in Glenn Beck's Common Core Call to Action, "We Will Not Conform" at the PR/Messaging table in July, 2014. I also write science fiction novellas that are, as of yet, unpublished and dabble in other genres from time to time.
This entry was posted in Foreign Affairs, Media Bias, Obama and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to NY Times Inserts Itself Into Benghazi-gate

  1. Pingback: The Morning Links (10/18/12) | Lady Liberty 1885

Comments are closed.