'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report

FOXNEWS ^ | 12/29/13 | Adam Housley

[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.

[FreeReign]

I think the NYT has jumped themselves jumping the shark.

Picture Fonzie jumping over Fonzie jumping over a shark.

[blueunicorn6]

The Democrats send out a fundraising letter warning that the Republicans are going to try and impeach Obama. Why would they do that? The New York Times writes a huge article claiming that Al Qaeda wasn’t involved in the attack at Benghazi. Why would they do that? A Democrat introduces a bill to try and remove the death penalty for treason? Why would they do that?

[Sirius Lee]

Good work, TE.

[exit82]

Obama lies, and the NY Times swears to it.

[TigersEye]

Thank you.

Ambassador Stevens

Trusted Hillary

[Steven Tyler]

Yeah, and the Guy that ran the Al Queda flag up the pole at the Government building did not have the support and permission of the locals

[Mark17]

This is about protecting Hillary. She can't have Benghazi around her neck when she runs for office. She got the 3AM call and did nothing. The NYT is beginning the process of erasing & changing history to protect their girl.

This could very well be true. On the other hand, it has been said that the Obungler could roast babies, like marshmallows, on the White House lawn, and get away with it. The same can be said about the Hildabeast. There is nothing she can not get away with, ever. If she runs for president, maybe against Christie, she will win in a landslide. I hope I am wrong, but we have a country full of idiots now, and unfortunately, they vote. We haven't even counted the millions of new rats yet, otherwise known as illegal aliens.

[Graewoulf]

Documentation File for Impeached Bill Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi Coverup for Mrs. Bill Clinton.

[IWONDR]

“This is about protecting Hillary. She can’t have Benghazi around her neck when she runs for office. She got the 3AM call and did nothing. The NYT is beginning the process of erasing & changing history to protect their girl.”

Absolutely, spot on. trying to clear the way for the coronation of Hill. MSM will be saying in 2016, regarding Benghazi, that Hill is just being attacked by those women-hating white men in the Republican party. That this is old news “so what does it matter.” Then John McCain will chime in to suggest the GOP backoff of attacking poor Hill over this.

[glorgau]

The article was actually written by Walter Duranty:

There is no al-queda in Libya or famine in the Ukraine.

[twyn1]

I agree that Hillary really does not need this “help”. Many of my liberal acquaintances are already dizzy with excitement over the thought of Hillary getting the nomination in 2016. The words they use in describing her are so over the top adoring, she is their epitome of both what a woman and a President should be. And most of the women among the group are almost as excited (or more-so) at the thought of Bill being back in the White House. They just LOVE him!!! (I am not kidding).

[cyn]

BUMP.