Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Facts About Benghazi (NYT claims 'authoritative narrative')
New York Times ^ | December 30, 2013 | The Editorial Board

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 Times’s 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 NATO’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: benghazi; benghazicoverup; davidkirkpatrick; hillary2016; nyt; nytbenghazi; soshillary; whitewash

1 posted on 12/31/2013 7:58:19 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

The Slimes is struggling to save a dying Hillary for president movement. Keep stonewalling BHO and HRC, it just make everyone think the worst.


2 posted on 12/31/2013 8:01:57 AM PST by Rockitz (This is NOT rocket science - Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

The NY Times is actually losing more credibility eachd ay STILL pursuing the video narrative.


3 posted on 12/31/2013 8:02:16 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

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


4 posted on 12/31/2013 8:04:45 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

They’re only making it worse for themselves. And hillary looks more like hilarity.


5 posted on 12/31/2013 8:06:42 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

NYT, “We heard it in revelation from our lord god Obama as he descended from hevvin on his rainbow and skittle farting unicorn!”


6 posted on 12/31/2013 8:08:34 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free..... Even robots will kill for it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
"An exhaustive investigation by The Times......"

We asked Hillary and here's what she told us.....

7 posted on 12/31/2013 8:09:42 AM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Well just bless their heart.

I guess they are the only knowers of truth.

Or as my grandmother used to say FI DA!!!


8 posted on 12/31/2013 8:09:46 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

The page celebrating the august Editorial Board illustrates the alienation of The Times leadership from normal society.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html


9 posted on 12/31/2013 8:10:16 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

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.


10 posted on 12/31/2013 8:15:35 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

....hanging around Hilda’s neck like a winnie mandela truck tire..


11 posted on 12/31/2013 8:16:42 AM PST by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
The report by David Kirkpatrick, The Times’s Cairo bureau chief, and his team turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group had any role in the assault....

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.

12 posted on 12/31/2013 8:18:43 AM PST by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

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.


13 posted on 12/31/2013 8:22:58 AM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

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.


14 posted on 12/31/2013 8:28:33 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
The days of the Och's family as the print media have been over for decades.

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.

15 posted on 12/31/2013 8:35:29 AM PST by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
An exhaustive investigation by The Times ..... Riiiiight, I don't need to read any further.
16 posted on 12/31/2013 8:36:20 AM PST by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

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.


17 posted on 12/31/2013 9:33:36 AM PST by falcon99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

“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?


18 posted on 12/31/2013 9:43:32 AM PST by LostPassword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
...last year that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Glen Dougherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith.

There, how much additional space would that have taken?

RIP to these heroes.

19 posted on 12/31/2013 10:37:31 AM PST by World'sGoneInsane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
If Mr. Rogers has evidence of a direct Al Qaeda role, he should make it public. Otherwise, The Times’s investigation, including extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack, stands as the authoritative narrative.

Good grief. *picking jaw up off the floor*

20 posted on 12/31/2013 2:42:19 PM PST by radu (May God watch over our troops and keep them safe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostPassword
[. . .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”?]

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.

21 posted on 12/31/2013 11:51:20 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
He was afraid of violating Libyan sovereignty and airspace.

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.

22 posted on 01/01/2014 12:04:10 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
[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 .

23 posted on 01/01/2014 12:26:14 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson