The NYT & Benghazi
The other day we talked about the New York Times faulty assessment that al Qaeda wasn’t involved in the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 and that some poorly made YouTube video is at fault. Of course, we’re having this discussion because the public hasn’t been granted access to the reports on the attacks to begin with, but folks in the intelligence community dispute the New York Times article, according to the Washington Times;
[Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia Republican] said The New York Times evidently spoke with many militants and other sources on the ground inside Libya for its article, but he got “kind of a shock” that it appeared the paper was making assertions without having interviewed any of the U.S. intelligence officials on the ground at the CIA annex in Benghazi when it came under attack last year.
[…]
Although transcripts of the testimony provided by intelligence officials during the October hearing remain classified, Mr. Westmoreland said that “from their observation, it was a planned attack.”
“These guys just saw that the attackers had at least some type of training, or coordinated movements about where to go and what each person was going to do when they were on the ground,” Mr. Westmoreland said. “So from that standpoint, it was a coordinated attack.”
Furthermore, he said, the overall assessment provided to the committee by the intelligence community “just leads you to believe, or to know that [the attackers] were al Qaeda-related.”
Of course, most people think that the New York Times manufactured this assessment in order to “clear the decks” of the issue for the expected run at the presidency by Hillary Clinton. The New York Times‘ Andrew Rosenthal writes today in the Times that nothing could be further from the truth;
Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton. We have not chosen anyone. I can also state definitively that there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing about the Benghazi article until I read it in the paper on Sunday.
Yeah, he’s such a big deal at the Times, yet he didn’t know that their biggest story of the past few weeks was going to be in the paper. And anyone who doesn’t believe that the New York Times’ choice for 2016 wasn’t made in 2008, I have a bridge in New York City that I can sell you, cheap.
Category: Media, Terror War
The New York Times and most other print media are still relevant and credible these days, other than maybe in their home cities and even that’s a stretch?
2 other Congressman on the House Intelligence Comittee (one from each party) came out yesterday on Fox News and stated unequivocally that AQ was most definitely involved and that “report” by the Times was innacurate in its conclusions about who and why.
Mr. Rosenthal, nobody believes you.
How much do you want for that bridge, JL?
Me, I don’t give a shit about what the NYT does or doesn’t say about Benghazi EXCEPT to the extent that the NYT keeps the event alive. I cannot help but think that H. Wide Load Clinton now wishes the NYT had just ignored the matter like most of the rest of the US media have.
I’m sure that Hillary is already screeching at Bill that the NYT screwed up and brought the whole Benghazi thing back in front of people.
So, Mr. Rosenthal, have you fired anyone for publishing this grossly inaccurate “news” story?
No? Why not? I am much more concerned about that conspiracy than whether you knew prior to it being published. Because even if you did not know about this specific story, you set the tone for what is written at your newspaper.
So just caught this on Twitchy from the writer of the article NYT.
David D. Kirkpatrick @ddknyt
Follow
@RichardGrenell we had a reporter on the scene talking to the attackers during the attack- still invaluable
So they had a reporter embedded with the attackers? With no story at the time? How does that work? Just how do you go about embedding a reporter with a terrorist group…Oh wait it’s the NYT!
I read yesterday that some people who were there are pissed enough that they may come forward publicly, even though they risk their jobs because they are under White House gag orders.
The NYT may have stirred the hornet’s nest.
@8 – I hope so!
I can’t imagine the screeching coming out of Hillary right now. She thought this was dead and gone. I mean, “what difference does it make now!” To her. But now and going into what looks like another investigation into Benghazi, it will make a lot of difference to her. I hope she falls over, breaks her leg and we get to see the gravy come out. Kinda’ like the big, fat, baked potato eating, Obama lovin’ Oprah! Two turd sisters from different mothers.
Sorry for the off topic post but… Happy New Year to all my TAH brothers and sisters…as well as my new girlfriend, Ex-PH2! 😀 I hope the New Year brings great things for all of you. I hope it brings better things for our nation and our troops. God Bless the United States of America!
Personally, I usually like The New York Times, but the original was a lame story and The Times should be ashamed of itself for having run it. In the first place, it’s 15 months after the fact and based largely on a bunch of Benghazi sources who are either unidentified or are demonstrable liars. And who all seem to help the NYT cover its butt by having supported the White House narrative of October 2012. There also seemed to be some real twisted logic going on. When Susan Rice trotted out the goofy video story, what she was really doing was dropping a giant guilt trip on the American people by making it seem like Benghazi was our fault for letting some idiot be, gosh, so mean to a bunch of Islamic extremists who would probably just as soon see us all dead even without the video. Then along comes Mike Rogers who gets it right about whether it was a planned attack, but makes the mistake possibly of being vague by using Al Qaeda as a generic term for terrorist organization instead of saying, for example, the Whamma Lamma Ding Dong faction of the Zippity Doo Dah Liberation Front, or whatever. A faction which might also be sorta-kinda pals with Al Qaeda, but maybe not, because it’s not as if Al Qaeda members go around wearing t-shirts that say, “I’m Al Qaeda, bitch.” Which, in an alternate universe, means Rice is right and Rogers is wrong. Andrew Rosenthal’s contention that he wasn’t aware of Kirkpatrick’s story is actually somewhat plausible; the NYT has about 1000 people working news side and all of the departments, such as Rosenthal’s editorial page, might not know what each other are doing at any given time. It’s also true that they haven’t formally endorsed Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. Part of the problem with the NYT is that although it is supposed to be somewhat the national newspaper of record, there are times when it can be very parochial. Hillary Clinton is the former Senator from New York. Her agenda fits… Read more »
Planet Manhattan…. I like that.
He’s been with the Times since 1987, he’s been the foreign news editor, Washington editor, editorial editor and we are to believe he has no idea major piece on a major scandal completely escaped his attention prior to publishing, but he quickly defended it on his blog…it’s also odd he would say they hadn’t chosen Hillary when they did choose Hillary in 2008….
Rosenthal has been full of sh1t for close to three decades, I expect nothing less today than more of the same. The truly sad part is the stupid b4stard thinks he’s an objective journalist, but he’s really just another subjective hack unable to separate his own feelings and viewpoint from the stories he attempts to cover or edit.
These journalists don’t believe the truth is a simple matter of black and white, they believe it’s a veritable rainbow of grays…their work exemplifies their beliefs.
So Mr. Rosenthal, in the interest of remaining relevant perhaps taking an hour of four to actually do some basic research before running your mouth or approving the words of another subjective hack might make your reports a bit more accurate and a bit less dishonest and partisan. But I’m certain you stopped caring about the truth a long time ago so I don’t expect anything to change under your supervision.
Trey Gowdy’s comments
http://patdollard.com/2013/12/trey-gowdys-epic-takedown-of-the-fake-ny-times-benghazi-report/
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Sorry, had to go there. Everyone and their retarded democrat brother knows it was a planned attack. Yet, the Department of Propaganda is still trying to tell everyone it was over a video that nobody even knew existed until the White House started squawking about it like a retarded parrot.
I’m annoyed w/ nytimes scapegoating youtube video guy b/c
1) It’s a total lie & I hate being lied to
2) It rationalizes Al Qaeda’s murder of a US ambassador, ie Americans deserve to be killed if we allow uppitty dhimmis to post blasphemous videos
3) It rationalizes Obama’s UN speech where he promotes anti-free speech anti-blasphemy laws
4) It excuses Clinton et al for not having foresight to protect US embassies on SEPT 11 duh! a date that’s not a coincidence for murdering terrorists
I hope the NYT goes bankrupt in a flash of noise, fire, and smoke. And the sooner, the better.