Skip to comments.The Facts About Benghazi (NYT claims 'authoritative narrative')
Posted on 12/31/2013 7:58:19 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
An exhaustive investigation by The Times goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
The report by David Kirkpatrick, The Timess Cairo bureau chief, and his team turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group had any role in the assault, as Republicans have insisted without proof for more than a year. The report concluded that the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATOs air power and other support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and that it was fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
In a rational world, that would settle the dispute over Benghazi, which has further poisoned the poisonous political discourse in Washington and kept Republicans and Democrats from working cooperatively on myriad challenges, including how best to help Libyans stabilize their country and build a democracy. But Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Slimes is struggling to save a dying Hillary for president movement. Keep stonewalling BHO and HRC, it just make everyone think the worst.
The NY Times is actually losing more credibility eachd ay STILL pursuing the video narrative.
Well... if the NY Times investigated it then it must be true!
Who needs that whole government oversight anyway- The media propagandists will tell everyone what to believe
They’re only making it worse for themselves. And hillary looks more like hilarity.
NYT, “We heard it in revelation from our lord god Obama as he descended from hevvin on his rainbow and skittle farting unicorn!”
We asked Hillary and here's what she told us.....
Well just bless their heart.
I guess they are the only knowers of truth.
Or as my grandmother used to say FI DA!!!
The page celebrating the august Editorial Board illustrates the alienation of The Times leadership from normal society.
In New York Times land, it’s NATO that took out Qadaffi.....Hillary and Obama were just at home doing their homework. The New York Times....paid liars for the Democrats.
....hanging around Hilda’s neck like a winnie mandela truck tire..
Yeah, and if I ignore any data that doesn't fit my preconceived notions, like the NYT does all the time, I could "prove" Obama never won the Presidency.
Any information they don't like is dismissed as "not credible". With investigative techniques like that, you can prove that the moon really is made of green cheese.
Ambassador Stevens issues a communique worried about security threats and increasing violence on August 8th, because he’s worried about Islamic reaction to a cheap video that was shown on Egyptian TV on September 8th. Makes sense.
Read the New York Times article carefully. They are very pointedly saying that Al Qaeda wasn’t involved in the attack in Benghazi. That is the main point of the article. Why?
The New York Times is afraid that the Republicans have evidence linking support from the Obama administration to Al Qaeda. That would be treason. That would be very, very, extremely bad for the Democrat party. Treason is a hanging offense. People start hearing about getting hung, and their mouths open up and all kinds of juicy information starts coming out. Why, there might even be information that could land the New York Times in the crapper.
The New York Times is doing a desperate pre-emptive strike on treason to try and save themselves and the Democrat party. They can’t pull the Obama administration out of this and they can’t change the legal definition of treason, so they have to try and show that Al Qaeda really isn’t an enemy. Folks, that’s the act of desperate people.
The Summer homes in the Hampton's, the family estate in Connecticut are over for them.
They have become what they dislike the most the last of a dying breed who lost the family Manor ( Newspaper Empire) so why not take the country with them.
What is being overlooked is the Times is calling Obama a liar. Recall during the second or third debate between Romney and Obama, Obama stated that he said early on that terrorists were involved in Bengahzi and even had Candy Crowley come up with supposed documentation supporting that during the debate. Guess the Times forgot that.
“what precipitated the attack” is only one of the questions.
What happened immediately after the initial attack?
Why wasn’t help sent during the attack?
(we think) it went on for about 6 hours. So libs claim help couldn’t have arrived in time (very arguable). But they didn’t know at the start that it would only be 6 hours. What if it had gone for 9, 12, 24 hours? At what point would Obama think “hey, maybe we should send help”?
Lack of security in the weeks/months before the attack is certainly something to be looked at. And propaganda/cover-up after is something we can dispute. And we probably get nowhere on either. But leadership during is a pretty clear cut issue that we deserve answers on.
What principles does the administration use on deciding to send help?
How were those principles applied during this attack?
What was learned?
Was there a failure or or is this considered “normal” risk for workers in this environment?
If there was a failure, what changes have been made for next time?
If this isn’t considered a failure, have any principles changed to improve things next time?
I would think that any American working outside the US would like answers to these questions. Especially those working in dangerous areas.
Leadership isn’t about getting everything right. Leadership is about having principles (and plans) then following them in crisis than taking responsibility and improving things for next time. Leadership can be displayed even with a catastrophic outcome. Was ANY leadership displayed here during the crisis or in the postmortem review to plan for next time?
Glen Dougherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith.
There, how much additional space would that have taken?
RIP to these heroes.
Good grief. *picking jaw up off the floor*
Even if there had been a battalion of marines in ships five miles away Obama wouldn't have attempted a rescue. He was afraid of violating Libyan sovereignty and airspace. And to get authorization from a marginally functioning Libyan government might have taken days. Obama was afraid any armed U.S. incursion into Libya could have unraveled, possibly embarrassing him and angering the Arab masses. This during the campaign season.
A decision was made to cut losses and write off the consulate and the annex before the fight was even over. For the last five years the foreign policy decisions—including Benghazi—coming out of the White House are not shaped by Obama’s foreign policy experts but by his political advisers.
IMHO, that analysis is incomplete. The same person didn't mind directly intervening to have cruise missiles launched to kill Qaddafi, without any notification to Congress or any declaration of war, and bragged about specifically targeting that family.
That happened after the French and British had joined the fight on behalf of the rebels and Obama had much of the news media and at least some members of Congress calling for intervention.
Benghazi was a problem that required immediate unilateral action—the “3 a.m. phone call.” And that's where he failed .