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....
Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.
December 28, 2013
"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."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
100 comments:
Uhh, bullshit?
But the real important question remains unanswered, is that poor filmmaker still rotting in jail?
Told you so. But of course this investigation will be rejected, because then cries of "Benghazi!" would be sort of silly. Well buck up, ya still got "Obamacare!"
12 unnamed sources plus an unnamed govt source.
Hillary campaign in gear now. Awesome work NYT.
NYT apparently had a chance to interview the Libyan perpetrators that President Mideast in Flames has not yet brought to justice.
But primarily - agreed, pure bullshit
It appears Bill still has friends at the Times.
"Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan" just happened to be wondering by carrying around 82mm mortar tubes, assoc base-plates and numerous rounds, along with heavy machine guns in their back-pockets along with the knowledge and training to effectively operate same....no planning there....nothing to see here, just move along.......riiiight..
Ambassador Stevens, it is 911, do you know who is protecting your consulate?
NYT is air brushing history to cover for Hillary. As a propagandist, NYT bests Mao's People's Daily and Stalin's Pravda.
##"wandering by"
Why should we believe this account, as opposed to alternative ones?
A video no one over there had really seen? This is absolutely bullshit. So, those kind of folks just carry around mortars and have the compound exactly measured out so they can target accurately. Bullshit.
You see, the unmitigated gall, the chutzpah of the NYT crowd is that they know that we know they are lying thru their teeth, but they sit there cool and calm daring anyone to call them on it serenely confident that their air of moral superiority will cow anyone from doing so openly for fear of character assassination..
when we get a republican President and attorney general, can we file RICO charges against the MSM?
NYT to the rescue. If this were a case of simple video protest, why were the CIA conducting weekly polygraph of officers?
They don't even attempt subtlety anymore, do they?
Inga opens wide and swallows whole.
She's shooting for Gauleiter next promotion cycle.
Riiiight....a bunch of irrate Libyans went out and bought four motars, and trained themselves how to use them professionally because they were pissed off about a video no one had ever heard of.
...it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam....
Hey, this didn't work the first time 'round, but hey, people have short memories, let's trot it out again and see if it sticks! If not, hey, 2016 is a long way off in political years - maybe third time'll be the charm!
Only one? These rebels either have no contact with the outside world, which would suggest that the video was shown with an express purpose; or The New York Times is lying as it has a history to do.
Why would the rebels kill their cash cow and create an obstacle to receiving additional arms? That would be an unmitigated disaster for them.
I wonder how the administration will rationalize the fomenting of civil war in Egypt and Syria, and now extending their wars to the heart of Africa.
Actually, the most amusing aspect of the story is not blood-thirsty Democrats, that is a given; but, that they still maintain a pretense of caring about human rights, truth, dignity, etc. Their leverage must be slipping if they are resorting to extreme contortions and distortions to protect their interests.
It looks as if the NYT has failed with its "analysis".
Of course the NYT found no signs of Al Quada involvement. So far they have found no signs of any trouble with ObamaCare, either.
What difference at this point does it make?
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.
I really don't see any of that contradicting what the Obama administration critics have posited.
pm317's got it! I'll begin to credit this kind of story with possibly having some merit, once folks on are own side are no longer prohibited from talking to the appropriate Congressional committees (sworn under oath.)
Space aliens meet with Obama.
So, we are supposed to blindly trust NYT? Isn't it same NYT that also investigated the claims about Golodomor in Russia in the 1930ies and reported that it was all a myth? Same NYT?
Does the byline read "Walter Duranty III?"
Poor Sheryl Attkisson at CBS. NYT has no use for her superb investigative talents. They can just manufacture whatever Obama fairytale they want.
Just a late Christmas gift from the Times to Team O.
That's all.
m317 said...
Poor Sheryl Attkisson at CBS. NYT has no use for her superb investigative talents. They can just manufacture whatever Obama fairytale they want
Actually, as has already been pointed out, this is a Clinton fairy tale is the NYT's first salvo in the Hillary reconstruction project prior to her nomination.
It is a necessary first step to be able to use one of the classic and oldest Clinton lines: "That's "old" news"
BTW, congress has still had no access, none, to the key middle rank player/decision makers in the Benghazi operation even though they were in the middle of the action.
I wonder why?
Does not explain the panic reaction from the State Department nor the astounding behavior of the entire panoply of Government agencies involved in the "investigation" since.
EMD said...
Does the byline read "Walter Duranty III?"
The Inga's of the world actually still believe that the Soviets had created the future, and it worked!
They also still believe that any talk of Soviet purges, mass arrests/executions and forced starvation for millions are all just capitalist lies!!!
Oh, and Hiss is innocent too!!
Further, it looks like Billy boy will be handling the swearing in duties for far leftist mayor De Blasio in NY.
The Clintons are taking no chances this time around with any challenger from the farther left.
Gee that makes sense. Its so brilliant an investigation, it could otherwise be seen as making stuff up. 2016 is closing in.
You still believe what you read in the New York Times, Althouse?
"an American-made video"
Assuming this is talking about Innocence of Muslims, in what sense is it "American-made"? Because it happened to be made within the territorial boundaries of the USA?
@Drago, agree. Obama is again one lucky bastard that Hillary was involved in this. Clinton people lend their competence in covering it all up. But what all of us want to know is where Obama was that night and what did he do.
"Senior White House staff expressed gratitude to the New York Times for its investigative work. 'We don't have the time, or the resources, for that sort of investigation,' said one senior aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she may have a role in a Clinton '16 campaign.
"'We weren't sure how any of this might come out; we never wanted to say anything about Benghazi,' said another aide, who worked in the Clinton White House before accepting a position in the Obama Administration. 'We don't know what the heck happened over there, so we all read the Times' story with a mixture of fear and relief. We knew that we could count on the Times. Everybody reads the Times.' Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined comment."
Althouse's excerpt is enough (almost anything is enough) to keep me from reading the NYT. I have to agree with those who point out that one rarely takes his mortar and machine gun to a spontaneous protest, also that we have so little from our side to flesh out any scenario.
It's very difficult for me to believe that a reporter from the NYT can obtain access to, and evaluate, intel from reliable sources that have not been available to anyone else for the last year. Was this written by that Blair kid who just makes stuff up?
Someone please tell Winston Smith that Heavy Mortar attacks are not "spontaneous".
Can we have the names of these "investigators" and "reporters" at the NYTs? We're making a list.
The NYT made a fatal error in constructing this fabricated narrative.
"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."
I paid close attention in real time to this fiasco. Every single time a new source for the 'video made them do it' was named, the media went to the named agency and asked for confirmation. Never, not once did any of agencies questioned claim responsibility for the intel that a video fueled the spontaneous riot.
So here in this fantasy the NYT is peddling, notice the NYT does not identify which agency issued the 'intelligence' cited by Rice.
The State Dept did not make the claim, The CIA did not make the claim. The DoD did not make the claim. The NSA did not make the claim.
So which specific agency provided the intelligence?
And of course if the NYT is so adapt at figuring this out, why did they not interview the survivors of the attack....err
spontaneous riot?
@Kirk Parker, I can't wait for Larry J's take down of this NYT BS.
I tell you what, Mzzzz Clinton has herself some damn decent writers on her staff. Repubs better be worried come election time.
I truly liked the format and presentation of this fictional retelling. Fantastic.
NO! I never want this phony scandal to go away!
It was a spontaneous, spur of the moment outburst, much like the one that took out bin Laden.
NYT is Obama's water boy.
NO! I never want this phony scandal to go away!
Phew! For a minute I thought Stevens and the others were really dead.
garage mahal: "NO! I never want this phony scandal to go away!"
Garage believes heavy mortars just appear spontaneously at demonstrations!
What a lucky break for Hillary!
Who could have seen this coming?
And to think it's on top of the dangerous "bullet dodging" episode!
Speaking of Clinton swearing in DiBlasio, go look at the Drudge headline right now (11:06AST)
IMPEACHED CLINTON TO SWEAR IN NYC MAYOR
Perhaps now we have a way of distinguishing the 2 Clintons. One will be the "Impeached Clinton", the other can be the "non-impeached Clinton"
And how does he get to do the swearing in? Clinton holds no more govt position than I or the random hobo off the street do.
Don't they need to have a judge or something?
John Henry
"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."
This is a damning indictment of the Obama Administration's leadership from behind. If you continue to read the article from that point of view -- in terms of who we were supporting and why -- you realize that the Times has put together a dossier of administration incompetence.
Don't get distracted by the video story again.
* * *
Reading the story, it's clear that the Times is committing the same mistake that the politicians have made. They're putting together a narrative. They have an interesting villain. They have colorful locals. They have a timeline of events in which the characters they have chosen to highlight march back and forth like puppets in two-dimensions.
War, terrorism, regime collapse: none of these things are subject to simple narratives.
Despite [Ambassador Stevens'] expertise and the C.I.A.'s presence, though, “there was little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to U.S. interests,” a State Department investigation into the mission attack later concluded.
When you read that -- the bland but fatal criticism of one of our best Arabist diplomats -- consider whether or not you wish to believe the Times's authoritative voice.
* * *
Several additional, unrelated notes:
1) There's no reason to cry conspiracy and let lose the dogs of stupidity. This is a well-researched article and provides a great deal of information about the Benghazi incident that we didn't have before. Whatever you do, don't read the video quote out of the context of the rest of the article. It's the least important reporting in the whole thing.
2) The article offers an important lesson about terrorism, summed up by this quote: “They told each other that the Americans had killed a Libyan,” Mr. Gharabi said. “For that reason, everybody would go.”. Terrorism export David Kilcullen documents this kind of response in detail in his book The Accidental Guerilla. In a militia-dominated region in which a foreign power, however tractable, is highly visible, violence cascades target the foreign power.
3) Will Obama walk back again? Remember that the President wouldn't call the incident terrorism, then he insisted that he had always called it terrorism. Such is the power of the narrative.
Hillary for Pr*esident*, err, Pr*ison* 2016. Damn overstrike is not acceptable.
Will Obama walk back again? Remember that the President wouldn't call the incident terrorism, then he insisted that he had always called it terrorism.
Memo to White House staff -- Somebody get Candy Crowley on the phone asap!
Russ got here first, but my only reaction was "bullshit".
so...we are expected to believe an "investigation" by the media company that was obsessed with Romney's dog as carved in stone fact. Not to mention what virgil xenophon said up thread........and what Michael said.
Would we accept an exoneration based on an investigation by the Democratic National Committee? Surely most of us would not. If so, why would we accept an exoneration based on an investigation by the DNC's house organ?
They do this because of the low information voter. The Wikipedia crowd. This can now be linked to on Wikipedia by a "reliable source" the new York times and make a perfect DWS talking point on the Sunday news shows. Hey, even the new York times found blah blah blah!
Takes the sting and the power out of a republican criticism. Doesn't help our foreign policy or the victims friends and family get any closer to the truth, and hurts the safety of future diplomats to the region, but hey, gotta break a few eggs to get a Hillary omelet.
The most interesting thing here is how debased the brand of the NYT is. I'm not as quick to cry "bullshit" as some of the other commenters, but I'm gonna need a bunch of other sources before I believe this. I don't automatically assume every word in the NYT is a lie, but I always consider it highly probable. I think of the NYT at a trust level slightly lower than Fox News. (Lower because Fox is more self-aware and honest about it's biases.) The people who still think of the NYT as the "paper of record" are on an intellectual level with people who take Fox as gospel.
Ah yes, epistemic closure once again.
What is this!! Cindy Crowley clearly proved that Obama said it was terrorism the day after it happened. Is the messiah wrong? Dis he lie and blame the islamoterrorists for a simple group protest? I cant believe the ability of these guys to think that two different causes were occurring that both resulted in the same event. This is ghastly.
What is this!! Cindy Crowley clearly proved that Obama said it was terrorism the day after it happened. Is the messiah wrong? Dis he lie and blame the islamoterrorists for a simple group protest? I cant believe the ability of these guys to think that two different causes were occurring that both resulted in the same event. This is ghastly.
Contrary to Hillary's histrionic, apparently, based on this tall tale, it does make a difference.
There is no other reason for this newspaper prostitution.
Happily, it makes a difference. It should.
Nothing to see here. An unofficial US Embassy Consulate facility that had no legitimate reason to exist. A CIA contingent nearby. A black ops meeting between our Ambassador Stephens and a Turkish minister perhaps involving unofficial help to the Syrian rebels.
But Al Qaeda was put out of business with military drone attacks killing off its leadership. Gosh - don't you people read the NY Fishwrap?
ROTFLMAO!
The New York Fucking Times! Man this is too too much, Hilarious. Talk about rolling the dice. I give 'em 5 years at the outside and they'll be based in Mexico City being run by a cartel cutout.
If they're not already.
GOP congressman blasts NY Times Benghazi claims as ‘misleading’:
"New York Rep. Peter King, member and former chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Fox News the argument that the most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah – not Al Qaeda – led the attack is an academic argument over semantics, considering Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda.
'It’s misleading,' King said. 'It’s a distinction without a difference.'
The claims by the New York Times also conflicts with other evidence, including the testimony of Greg Hicks, the deputy of Ambassador Christopher Stevens who was killed in the attack. Hicks described the video as 'a non-event in Libya' at that time, and consequently not a significant trigger for the attack
It would also contradict a separate report by a leading social media firm that found that the first reference to the anti-Islam film that was initially blamed for sparking the attack was not detected on social media until a day later."
NO! I never want this phony scandal to go away!
Don't worry, Garage. I hear Phil Robertson is changing his name to Ben Ghazi to become the ultimate and perfect GOP candidate in 2016.
Inga said...
Ah yes, epistemic closure once again.
I always have to google the term epistemic closure because I confuse it with "peristaltic closure" which refers to what happens when normal colonic function is impeded and the shit backs up.
somefeller said...
Don't worry, Garage. I hear Phil Robertson is changing his name to Ben Ghazi to become the ultimate and perfect GOP candidate in 2016.
Nonsense. Americans haven't elected a man with a beard since Benjamin Harrison.
[What about 2008? - ed.]
Hey, one lame repeat is worth another.
The video as cause issue is irrelevant. The video may or may not have been a trigger. AQ may or may not have been formally involved. These are red herrings.
The issue is the failure to secure American diplomats, and failure to have a workable policy to deal with Libya after the revolution. The article is a tale of complete and utter failure by an American agency run by a woman who now believes that she should be president.
It's a damning portrait of Hillary Clinton as a leader, even though she is never mentioned.
This is not a Clinton friendly article, although the writers may not even realize that this is so.
It will fall to others to connect this to Mrs. Clinton, I suppose, but the groundwork has been laid.
If you look back at the Althouse archives around 9/11/12 when the Benghazi story first broke, only two Althouse commenters were fully convinced of the Administration's video story line: Inga (aka Allie Oops) and Cedarford.
Coincidence?
Why is everyone seeing this article as an exoneration?
It is whitewash of sorts, since there is not the slightest notion that the State Department had leadership above the level of ambassador. (And he, God rest his brave and somewhat credulous soul, lacked either the capacity or the authority to shut down the whole mission as both unproductive and dangerous.)
If anyone thinks about this story in context, it is a damning portrait of Obama and Clinton. Their defense is detachment from the policy, diplomatic and security failures. It's a terrible defense. Especially for Clinton. Only by portraying herself as remote and disengaged can she avoid direct responsibility.
Use this story as a baseline, drop the irrelevant issue of whether the video enflamed the locals and focus on the real failure, which was caused by the stupidity, disengagement and foolishness of our very top leaders.
Hillary's defense is "I didn't know anything then, and it doesn't matter now." Some defense.
"Extensive interviews with American survivors..."
Oh, wait. Never mind.
The video is small potatoes, and this article is no exoneration.
Go back and read what Henry said at 9:25. He made the point better than I did.
I agree that we shouldn't fixate on the video, but, unfortunately, you know it's what the MSM and White House are going to emphasize.
And nothing in the NY Times piece proves it was the instigating factor. On the contrary, the full article is vague when mentioning it again and instead clearly shows that planning was involved.
So, for starters, it's important to point out the fact that Greg Hicks, Ambassador Stevens's deputy, has already testified that the video was "a non-event in Libya" at that time, and so not a significant trigger for the attack.
It requires a suspension of disbelief to read the NYT.
EMD @ 7:25 FTW.
And pop goes another balloon.
Well, there's always Darrell Issa.
The NY Times is still pretty authoritative amongst maybe 1/3 of the population, I'm guessing.
Other than that, they'll have to work for authority and/or readership like everyone else.
The article is an embarrassing political lie in service to Obama. How pathetic.
Quit being such a suckass, Inga.
As much as I liked Reagan or Bush, even I wasn't such a suckass.
Yea, this is battle space prep for Hillary to run in 2016 as well.
So, Inga what's the explanation of the deployment of mortars with accuracy, which is NOT a weapon used in spontaneous riots?
The accurate use of mortars suggests they had someone inside who walked off the measurements of the compound in preparation for the attack. We caught spies do just that in Iraq from time to time.
"Senior White House staff expressed gratitude to the New York Times for its investigative work. 'We don't have the time, or the resources, for that sort of investigation,' said one senior aide.
Yea, other than the ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, CID Or any military BDA team, the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES LIKE THE NYT DOES.
Are they for real?
Oh my GOD that is the MOST brazen in your face LIE I've seen yet from these clowns.
NO! I never want this phony scandal to go away!
We know you don't, garage, but the rest of us are tired of your "John Doe" Walker conspiracy wheezing.
'We don't have the time, or the resources, for that sort of investigation,' said one senior aide.
That's the answer to the question that people wanted answered. Why was a $4 trillion organization sitting on its ass?
Well, that, and the dispersal rate and composition of Gaddafi's arsenal, from Tripoli to Algeria, to Damascus, etc.
"Senior White House staff expressed gratitude to the New York Times for its investigative work. 'We don't have the time, or the resources, for that sort of investigation,' said one senior aide.
This line here shows that the article was coordinated with the Obama Administration along their political handlers and fixers to protect both Obama and Hillary by coming up with what is going to be the Party Line through 2016.
"We're SO grateful you are covering our asses for us! THANK YOU, NYT!!!"
"...turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault."
This is a lie. Read this:
Within hours of the attack U.S. intelligence had identified some of the attackers. The group, Ansar Al-Sharia, which is certainly linked to Al Qaeda, was identified as one of the key participants in the attack.
"Senior White House staff expressed gratitude to the New York Times for its investigative work. 'We don't have the time, or the resources, for that sort of investigation,' said one senior aide."
Did the NYT "investigation" turn up what Obama did that night while U.S. diplomats were under attack? Because we've never been told.
What Sgt Ted said.
And all those agencies and more have been working their tails off ever since to get to the bottom of this, according to sworn testimony before the U.S. Congress, with nothing to show for it, so indeed, The NYT tops them all!
SGT TED. Agreed. Jaw dropping. Perhaps he was trying to make the point that in addition to the video there was sequester and racist and bigot in the way of their getting to the bottom of it all
Meanwhile the press usually blames their own shallow work on the lack of resources because of economic injustice bigot racism.
Even Kirkpatrick is soft pedaling this conclusion on Meet the Press. Apparently "Not Al Qaeda" = "Not directed by bin Laden".
They would have been better off just shutting up about it and trying to let it die down for 2 more years, rather than collude to tell such obvious whoppers and making it front and center again.
Such an obvious Obama coordinated propaganda piece. Duranty would be proud that his legacy of lies in service to the left is still the Gold Standard at the NYT.
In 2016 this article will be cited to show that Hillary was totally honest when she said the video caused the attack. That is the purpose of the article and the "investigation".
Some armed and organized Islamists that wish to kill us call themselves AQ. Others go by a different name. Sometimes they use cartoons as a pretext for killing us. Other times they use a video. It's not hard to find a pretext......The attack happened on 9/11, and, despite a fringe of looters, showed some evidence of malevolent planning.......It probably didn't go down the way Hillary's critics posit, but it certainly didn't go down the way Susan Rice claimed.
Thanks to this bit of BS, every time "Benghazi" is mentioned in the future, liberals will sneer about how those unhinged teabagger allegations have been "debunked," despite nothing of the sort being true, and that it's time to "move on."
From the beginning, the Govt/NYT version of events was just as preposterous as was "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
If Inga is convinced by it, that tells me all I need to know!!
El Pollo Raylan said...
If you look back at the Althouse archives around 9/11/12 when the Benghazi story first broke, only two Althouse commenters were fully convinced of the Administration's video story line: Inga (aka Allie Oops) and Cedarford.
Coincidence?
==================
Jewish sophistry.
At the time, I said the right wingers 1st Amendment hero Nakoula was a criminal scumbag that sought to harm or kill Americans with his video release. And nearly did as the day before Benghazi, embassies in Cairo, Tunisa, Pakistan, and Yemen were attacked by mobs and Americans elsewhere were in significant risk.
As for Benghazi, I said there were 3 things the Obama people lied about. The bad security beforehand, why no military rescue happened, and the coverup later blaming the video and absolving Obama and Hillary for their inactions.
Raylan Pollo's Jewish neocon sophistry nonwithstanding. America has had its fill of the neocons, John McCain, Samantha Power. No more wars of adventure for America...no more nation-building...no more "boots on the ground" only to learn we must keep GIs there 20-30 years.
"only two Althouse commenters were fully convinced of the Administration's video story line: Inga (aka Allie Oops) and Cedarford."
Have they ever been seen in the same place at the same time? C-fudd is a little "funny", if you follow my drift. By the way, Fudd, you still whitewashing ass-raping child molesters like Polanski and Sandusky?
Who gave the order for the rescuers to stand down?
So the impromptu protesters got RPGs and mortars and split into squads and fire teams just, uh, on the spur of the moment?
Just got some guys to spot the mortar fire and direct the first and second attack?
Ok, sure. BUT... WHERE WAS HILLARY AND OBAMA? WHO GAVE THE STAND DOWN ORDER???
Post a Comment