Skip to comments.'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report
Posted on 12/29/2013 4:33:24 PM PST by Doogle
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The NYT has finally jumped the shark.
- Obama’a NSA is hacking your computer :
Suspect the DNC ordered the story to help quell some of the panic in ratland, And yes, I’m quite ready to believe that the DNC can control what’s printed in the “newspaper of record”.
BEEN jumping the shark for a pair of decades. Now, they jump it with such a high frequency that the air movement caused by their shark-jumping dries up the water the shark is in.
The NYT lie didn’t last long.
...probably cover for ODUNGOCARE, but this highlights just how corrupt and dishonest they are with the American people.
Maybe that’s why the RATS are mentioning the “I” word.
We live in a banana republic, not a constitutional republic.
The Old Grey Dinosaur is on life support.
Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack CNN, Sept. 13th
Libyans See al Qaeda Hand in Embassy Attack WSJ, Sept. 17th
Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say Fox News, Sept. 20th
Benghazi: A Sea of Al-Qaeda Flags NRO, November 5, 2011
US military official: Some Benghazi consulate attackers had links to al-Qaida in North Africa Nov. 14, 2012
Gen. Ham, commander of Africom.
Since the NYT has a long history of making up stories as it goes along...anything to fit the NYT considered conclusion...why would anyone consider otherwise?
This goes beyond bias and spin, to outright lying. IMHO.
Low quality information
didn’t Obumbler insist during the second debate that he did indeed call it a terror attack?
Like any good storyteller, the NYT knows its audience.
"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.
"The intelligence source said no protests were happening before the attackers struck at about 9:35 p.m. local time last Tuesday. The account backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack."
WASHINGTON - In the months leading up to his death, Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, worried about constant security threats in Benghazi and mentioned that his name was on an al Qaeda hit list, a source familiar with his thinking told CNN.
How do we get NYT and LAT to retract their stories so they can’t be used to try to rewrite history?
How do we hold them accountable for the lies?
Freedom of the press is dead. This is a brazen example of how the press is dictated by politics. Journalists are propagandists now.
Infinite law suits?
There was no surprise about the attack. There was no 'failure of intel.' The attack was predicted in precise detail a month before it occurred. The draw down of security had to be intentional.
The failure to approve a rescue had to be intentional.
Keeping the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) in the dark about the attack had to be intentional.
Tweeting apologies for the 'anti-Muhammed video' beginning early that morning, repeatedly blaming all the violence at all of our embassies on the 'video' and making an apology video to air in Pakistan had to be intentional.
Stevens presence in Benghazi on 9-11 had to be intentional.
Looks like Fox News just did. Did you have something else in mind?
Save thighnness at all costs.
Once again, the NYT has verified the TagLine I’ve adopted as mine. I always know they can be relied upon to make me look good. Frankly, though, I wish I was wrong...but I’m not wrong.
More liberal “prog” lies and false information from the New Yawk Times. So what else is new? LOL!
They refuted it, but somebody can still cite the NYT and/or LAT articles and hope nobody realizes those stories were annihilated by the actual witnesses. As long as those stories stand without any corrections or retractions they will be cited in support of an alternate history whenever the left wants an alternate history. And the stupid masses will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, because the stupid masses don’t sort out complicated issues or trust Fox.
Who didnt expect the Times to run cover for Obama? The NYT has no credibility, no reliability, no journalistic integrity whatsoever. It is on par with the National Enquirer although at least the NE has interesting articles.
the New York Times, the Newspaper of Liars.
You are correct. They don’t care who believes the report. Mark my words, nine months from now near election time you will hear a lefty pundit claim the attack on Benghazi was proven not to be a terrorist event, and the comment will go unchallenged.
The NYT has a history of providing disinformation (i.e. Walter Durranty in the 1930s).
Considering the dumb masses that vote Dem, it is completely plausible that repeating the lie often enough will make it the truth (to them).
But it will last in the minds of those who love to defend Obama and Hillary. They now have something to point to, which is why the Slimes did the story.
Yes, with the prompting of Candy Crowley, to the shock of everyone with two brain cells who was watching. If you read the text of the speech they were referring to, however, he does not specifically say that.
Like most lies, especially those appearing ephemerally on TV during debates, especially later debates with very little time left for refutation, the public was left with the erroneous statements.
Obama did the same thing with the “botched” abortions vote in Illinois. He stated that there was already a perfectly good law on the books and so there was no need to pass another one, and that was why he voted no. As I remember it was a little more complicated than that, but the fact remains that there was next to zero time to refute that statement. It was near the very end of the last debate (2008).
Picture Fonzie jumping over Fonzie jumping over a shark.
The Democrats send out a fundraising letter warning that the Republicans are going to try and impeach Obama. Why would they do that? The New York Times writes a huge article claiming that Al Qaeda wasn’t involved in the attack at Benghazi. Why would they do that? A Democrat introduces a bill to try and remove the death penalty for treason? Why would they do that?
Good work, TE.
Obama lies, and the NY Times swears to it.
Yeah, and the Guy that ran the Al Queda flag up the pole at the Government building did not have the support and permission of the locals
This could very well be true. On the other hand, it has been said that the Obungler could roast babies, like marshmallows, on the White House lawn, and get away with it. The same can be said about the Hildabeast. There is nothing she can not get away with, ever. If she runs for president, maybe against Christie, she will win in a landslide. I hope I am wrong, but we have a country full of idiots now, and unfortunately, they vote. We haven't even counted the millions of new rats yet, otherwise known as illegal aliens.
Documentation File for Impeached Bill Clintons involvement in Benghazi Coverup for Mrs. Bill Clinton.
“This is about protecting Hillary. She can’t have Benghazi around her neck when she runs for office. She got the 3AM call and did nothing. The NYT is beginning the process of erasing & changing history to protect their girl.”
Absolutely, spot on. trying to clear the way for the coronation of Hill. MSM will be saying in 2016, regarding Benghazi, that Hill is just being attacked by those women-hating white men in the Republican party. That this is old news “so what does it matter.” Then John McCain will chime in to suggest the GOP backoff of attacking poor Hill over this.
The article was actually written by Walter Duranty:
There is no al-queda in Libya or famine in the Ukraine.