Posted on 12/29/2013 4:33:24 PM PST by Doogle
Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.
But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.
“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How do we get NYT and LAT to retract their stories so they can’t be used to try to rewrite history?
How do we hold them accountable for the lies?
Freedom of the press is dead. This is a brazen example of how the press is dictated by politics. Journalists are propagandists now.
Infinite law suits?
There was no surprise about the attack. There was no 'failure of intel.' The attack was predicted in precise detail a month before it occurred. The draw down of security had to be intentional.
CIA Sources: Obama ordered military not to help Ambassador Stevens
The failure to approve a rescue had to be intentional.
Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack
Keeping the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) in the dark about the attack had to be intentional.
Tweeting apologies for the 'anti-Muhammed video' beginning early that morning, repeatedly blaming all the violence at all of our embassies on the 'video' and making an apology video to air in Pakistan had to be intentional.
Stevens presence in Benghazi on 9-11 had to be intentional.
Looks like Fox News just did. Did you have something else in mind?
Can control???
Save thighnness at all costs.
Once again, the NYT has verified the TagLine I’ve adopted as mine. I always know they can be relied upon to make me look good. Frankly, though, I wish I was wrong...but I’m not wrong.
More liberal “prog” lies and false information from the New Yawk Times. So what else is new? LOL!
They refuted it, but somebody can still cite the NYT and/or LAT articles and hope nobody realizes those stories were annihilated by the actual witnesses. As long as those stories stand without any corrections or retractions they will be cited in support of an alternate history whenever the left wants an alternate history. And the stupid masses will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, because the stupid masses don’t sort out complicated issues or trust Fox.
Bump
OK
Who didnt expect the Times to run cover for Obama? The NYT has no credibility, no reliability, no journalistic integrity whatsoever. It is on par with the National Enquirer although at least the NE has interesting articles.
the New York Times, the Newspaper of Liars.
You are correct. They don’t care who believes the report. Mark my words, nine months from now near election time you will hear a lefty pundit claim the attack on Benghazi was proven not to be a terrorist event, and the comment will go unchallenged.
The NYT has a history of providing disinformation (i.e. Walter Durranty in the 1930s).
Considering the dumb masses that vote Dem, it is completely plausible that repeating the lie often enough will make it the truth (to them).
But it will last in the minds of those who love to defend Obama and Hillary. They now have something to point to, which is why the Slimes did the story.
Yes, with the prompting of Candy Crowley, to the shock of everyone with two brain cells who was watching. If you read the text of the speech they were referring to, however, he does not specifically say that.
Like most lies, especially those appearing ephemerally on TV during debates, especially later debates with very little time left for refutation, the public was left with the erroneous statements.
Obama did the same thing with the “botched” abortions vote in Illinois. He stated that there was already a perfectly good law on the books and so there was no need to pass another one, and that was why he voted no. As I remember it was a little more complicated than that, but the fact remains that there was next to zero time to refute that statement. It was near the very end of the last debate (2008).
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.