Posted on 12/29/2013 7:09:16 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
David D. Kirkpatrick of the New York Times has published a lengthy account of the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. While much in Kirkpatrick's 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 Times's glaring omissions, not much.
Kirkpatrick's piece totals more than 7,000 words and yet he fingers only one suspect out of the dozens who took part in the attack. Another suspect, an ex-Guantanamo detainee, is briefly mentioned, but only then to dismiss the notion of his involvement.
Left out of the Times' account are the many leads tying the attackers to al Qaeda's international network.
For instance, there is no mention of Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, an Egyptian, in Kirkpatrick's retelling. This is odd, for many reasons.
On Oct. 29, 2012, three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamal's 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."
Jamal was trained by al Qaeda in the late 1980s, and has been loyal to Ayman al Zawahiri since at least the 1990s. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at longwarjournal.org ...
The commie libs at the Slimes are trying to run interference for Slick Willie’s wife. This is going to come back and bite her on the ass if she tries to run for the presidency.
Well, the NYT wanted to hire Islamists as correspondents, so . . .
Documentation File for Impeached Bill Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi Coverup for Mrs. Bill Clinton.
They know full well that it doesn't matter.
They're betting that the NYT won't be around in a few years. The senior people at that paper have all been promised cushy spots in Hillary's administration.
This is just setting up a bunch of career paths.
Everyone already knows that they plan to push Hillery’s election so why do they care what they print that is so stupid after the fact! They always do that, try to protect their Democrats even if that means evading the truth. They are a corrupt and vile part of our media these days - way past time to ignore them altogether! Many more factual news organizations exists today.
Too bad that the leftists continue to use them as their crutch which forces the Republicans to counter crap...geez!
... this is all about running interference for Clinton. The NYT knows that the low information voter will hold the info garnered from them will be accepted as near gospel ..... despite the fact that their reputation for being a factual news source is actually lower than that of MAD Magazine .
Kirkpatrick himself is probably gunning for press secretary. He’ll be as good a liar for hellary as Carney is for Obama.
Never thought of that. It does make sense. In such an easily-refutable way, they chose to lie outright (re-blaming the Youtube video).
This is their final death spasm.
Even though the “unbalanced David Gregory” reported on this on his unwatchable show, with a Dem toadie on the link-up, and pizzaface Andria Mitchell sitting across from him.
Absolutely no attempt to have a reasoned discussion, just an unabashed set up to support Her Thighness “What difference does it make at this point”, on her quest for fame and fortune.
They are a corrupt and vile part of our media these days - way past time to ignore them altogether! Many more factual news organizations exists today.
Yep. I'm sure people are sitting around New York Times headquarters this evening basking in all the attention. They may be cheap whores, but they're noticeable cheap whores.
This is the start of Hillary’s run for the Oval Office and possibly John McCain’s run for Reid’s position-———http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/12/29/the-new-york-times-begins-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-to-obfuscate-benghazi-libya/
And Susan Rice was named national security adviser rather than secretary of state which would have required approval by the Senate. The confirmation process would have put Rice under oath, the thought of which gave Obama the heebie jeebies.
Unfortunately yes - still, although I don’t understand why!
But at this point, does it really matter anymore???
Apparently not to what occupies the seats of power now...
they kniow it happened, no denying that, just delay long enough to get through a couple of elections, and poof...No mo problem...
Easy breezy...
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.