A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

[Valin]

NY Times:

David D. Kirkpatrick

December 28, 2013

 

A boyish-looking American diplomat was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libyas most formidable militias.

 

It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.

 

Since Benghazi isnt safe, it is better for you to leave now, Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible.

 

Yet as the militiamen snacked on Twinkie-style cakes with their American guests, they also gushed about their gratitude for President Obamas support in their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonalds and KFC.

 

 

(Snip)

 

Then We Get to This

 

 

 

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. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATOs 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.

 

(Snip)

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Love Ya Dave!

[Valin]

http://youtu.be/1NGXBvercPw

[Valin]

White House doesn't dispute report finding no al Qaeda role in Benghazi attack

Kristen Welker and Becky Bratu, NBC News

12/28/13

 

A senior Obama administration official said the White House does not dispute a New York Times article published Saturday about the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which found no evidence al Qaeda was involved.

 

According to the in-depth report, the Times found no proof that al Qaeda or any international terrorist groups played any role in the assault, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

 

The six-part report goes on to say that an American-made video mocking Islam largely triggered the attack, which was not well-planned.

 

(Snip)

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

The White House...NY Times...NBC all agree. I guess its time to

Move Along...nothing to see here

[Draggingtree]

Benghazi – Murders, Cover Ups and Smokescreens

 

By: littletboca (Diary) | December 28th, 2013 at 11:14 PM

 

Will the Benghazi murders of our four brave American men ever be solved? Probably not because the key players have snubbed their noses at Americans pretty much saying, “catch me if you can.”

 

Darrell Issa has fallen prey to Washington politics anyway you cut it.

 

This in no way means Darrell Issa has been a willing victim of our defunct judicial system, but it does mean that the Obama Administration has been protected by Obama’s Executive Privilege and Executive immunity.

 

Darrell Issa did his job and subpoenaed the correct information including telephone calls, emails and other communication sources, but the Obama Administration picked and chose what information would be given to Issa leaving out the pertinent information that would expose or connect him to the Benghazi murders.

 

If Mr. Issa could have been privy to all telephone calls, emails and communications the night of the Benghazi massacre, there would be numerous people behind bars as we speak. But this isn’t the way the Obama Administration works, they altered, changed and rewrote

http://www.redstate.com/littletboca/2013/12/28/benghazi-murders-cover-ups-and-smokescreens/

[Valin]

And now DU

[Valin]

Congress, in bipartisan tone, disputes report Al Qaeda not involved in deadly Benghazi attack

 

House lawmakers on Sunday disputed a new report that concludes Al Qaeda played no role in the fatal 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

 

The report, published Saturday in The New York Times, found no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had a role in the assault that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, and that it appeared that the attack was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed.

 

“I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,” Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.”

 

He also repeatedly said the story was “not accurate.”

 

Rogers was joined on the show by California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, “intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.”

[Valin]

Why Do I want to smack Dave the dufus Gregory upside the head?

http://youtu.be/1DGgsVJk6vg

[Valin]

Times Ignores Evidence of Al Qaeda Link to Benghazi

Contradicts previous reporting from the New York TImes.

STEPHEN F. HAYES

Dec 29, 2013

 

Let’s start by giving David Kirkpatrick credit. Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief of the New York Times and author of this weekend’s much-discussed piece on Benghazi, provides many new on-the-ground, minute-by-minute details of the attacks and the weeks and months leading up to them. Some of the reporting is incredible. Kirkpatrick describes the vase in the living room of the home belonging to the mother of Abu Khattala, a main suspect in those attacks. He reports on how the fighting in the consulate paused when Abu Khattala entered the compound, a revealing fact. Citing security camera video footage, the author describes how one of the attackers paused amidst the bedlam in the consulate to pour some Hershey’s chocolate syrup down his throat. Kirkpatrick obviously spent considerable time on the ground in Benghazi and interviewed several anti-Western Islamists, including some involved in the attacks. There’s little doubt he took considerable risks as he reported his piece.

 

While much of Kirkpatrick’s reporting is admirable and while these details add to our knowledge of certain aspects of the attack, they do not tell the whole story. And that’s where the piece ultimately fails.

 

The piece makes two main claims that challenge much of the previous reporting about Benghazi: 1) The Times asserts that there is “no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault;” and, 2) that the attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

 

 

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi

THOMAS JOSCELYN

Dec 29, 2013

 

David D. Kirkpatrick of the New York Times has published a lengthy account of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. While much in Kirkpatricks report is not new, the piece is receiving a considerable amount of attention because of this sweeping conclusion: 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.

 

But how much effort did Kirkpatrick expend to uncover any possible al Qaeda ties? * Judging by the Timess glaring omissions, not much.

 

(Snip)

 

On October 29, 2012 three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamals network, in addition to a known al Qaeda branch (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), was directly involved in the assault. The Times reported (emphasis added): Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.

 

 

(Snip)

 

* The forthcoming book may correct this article

[Valin]

[clearvision]

Time to get off O'care I see.

[Valin]

Time to get off O'care I see.

 

That would be a NO! One way to look at this is, this is a way to sell a book. As I understand it this is excerpts from a book David is written.

 

 

From the You Never Know what You'll Find File...

 

New York Times Benghazi Feature Author Kirkpatrick Known Clinton Propagandist & Pant Suit Protector

 

Question: What does the Whitewater scandal, Vince Fosters suicide, Paula Jones, Mohamed Morsi, and Benghazi have in common?

 

Answer: Hillary Clinton and David Kirkpatrick.

 

The New York Times article was written by David Kirkpatrick, who was the Middle East correspondent and Cairo Egypt bureau chief for the Times. But he had a different life before then. In 2002, he did a series of interviews for the New York Times Learning Network, and it is still on line. He references his work as a research assistant on Bloodsport as being part of his life for two years. A screen shot is below, since things have a way of disappearing from the internet.

 

Of course, no one has really questioned how a reporter with almost no background in the middle east became the head of the Cairo Bureau for the New York Times. Unless, of course, one realizes that he went to Egypt when Hillary Clinton was named Secretary of State. That explains a lot, when you consider his background in carrying the water for Hillary Clinton.

[Valin]

5 Takeaways From the New York Times Benghazi Investigation

 

Al-Qaeda was not involved; Innocence of Muslims video motivated the initial assault

 

 

 

The NY Times has spoken...

That Is All The People Need To Know!

[Valin]

Politico Jumps in the Benghazi Debate
THOMAS JOSCELYN
10:35 AM, Dec 30, 2013

Blake Hounshell of Politico takes a look at the latest back and forth over Benghazi sparked by David Kirkpatrick’s 7,000-plus word piece for the New York Times.

Much of Hounshell’s piece deals with the politics of Benghazi, which isn’t the focus of my reporting. However, Hounshell does refer to my response to the Times in a few passages and this leads me to make some additional points.

 

But first, Hounshell’s concluding point is an important one. He writes that while we are likely to keep talking about the Benghazi terrorist attack, Libya will not receive the attention it deserves. “What we’re not likely to argue much about: Libya itself, a deeply troubled country that Americans once thought was important enough to liberate—and then, scarred by a mysterious attack, left to its fate,” he writes.

 

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

Twitchy: NYT: We had a reporter on the scene talking to the attackers during the Benghazi attack; Updated

[Valin]

http://youtu.be/pD69-tEnlJ4

ouch!

[Valin]

David Kirkpatrick doubles down on bogus\

Paul Mirengoff

1/1/14

 

David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times continues to claim that, notwithstanding the reporting of his own newspaper, claims of an al Qaeda connection to the Benghazi attack are bogus or, alternatively, tenuous (which is it, David?). How does Kirkpatrick square his claim with the Times reporting? By mischaracterizing that reporting. He told Anderson Cooper:

 

 

I think that the reporting in our paper [of involvement by Muhammad Jamal's terrorist group which is linked to al Qaeda] was citing some congressional officials saying they thought this Jamal group might have been involved. And the congressional officials in turn were citing a report in the Wall Street Journal and that report seems to me to the best of my knowledge to have come from Egyptian intelligence. And at the end of the day, what it asserts is just that this character Jamal may have run a training camp someplace and people who had been at that training camp may have been involved in the attack.

However, as Tom Joscelyn points out in the Weekly Standard, the Times cited U.S. officials, not congressional officials. Here is what the Times reported:

 

Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.

 

(Snip)

[SrWoodchuck]

http://youtu.be/pD69-tEnlJ4

 

 

ouch!

 

 

Via iOTW

[Valin]

 

http://youtu.be/pD69-tEnlJ4

 

 

ouch!

 

Via iOTW

 

 

Sexist!!!

[SrWoodchuck]

 

 

http://youtu.be/pD69-tEnlJ4

 

 

ouch!

 

Via iOTW

 

 

Sexist!!!

 

 

 

Via TheoSpark

[Valin]

 

Sexist!!!

 

Via TheoSpark

 

 

Oh we can't be bothered by those old silly little details. Beside What Does It Matter!

[SrWoodchuck]

 

 

Sexist!!!

 

Via TheoSpark

 

 

Oh we can't be bothered by those old silly little details. Beside What Does It Matter!

 

 

@Valin!

 

 

Via TheoSpark

[clearvision]

 

 

 

 

 

Via TheoSpark

 

 

ROFL!!

[Valin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Via TheoSpark

 

ROFL!!

 

 

I'm not sure, but I think someone has just been insulted......I can only hope its not me.

[SrWoodchuck]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Via TheoSpark

 

ROFL!!

 

 

I'm not sure, but I think someone has just been insulted......I can only hope its not me.

 

 

Not you, @Valin! You asked, "....what does it matter?" I was simply illustrating the LOFO-MOFO's.......