Posted on 12/29/2013 7:49:33 AM PST by Nachum
A New York Times investigation has found no evidence to support claims al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization had links to the 2012 storming of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The six-part report published Saturday instead blamed the poorly-planned attack on local extremists outraged by an American-made video mocking Islam. The Times refutes claims made by many Republicans that al-Qaeda was involved in the attack despite Obama administration assertions to the contrary. ‘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
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Someone else came up with “All the news that fits, we print”.
The New York Times also found no evidence that Stalin was killing thousands upon thousands of his own people. Not a reliable source.
“Extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context”
So the New York Times can find Libyans who had direct knowledge of the attack but apparently our government can’t. In my opinion this fact makes the administration look more pathetic and impotent than ever.
It was just a bunch of Boy Scouts working on merit badges.
The times are seriously going with the video story?
I’m with you on that, but how many other GOP voices have joined the GOP congressman or is he the only one?
The GOP is not very united when it comes to defending themselves — too many like to reach across the aisle just to “keep the peace”.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/12/29/new-york-times-scrubs-benghazi-narrative-for-the-white-house/
NY times scrubs Benghazi narrative fore the white house
I find it funny that extensive interviews with Libyans (saturated.with Al queda types) led the NYT to their conclusion. What a joke!
Yes isn’t interesting that the NYT takes the word of dozens of Libyans without consulting Hicks who was the Deputy Ambassador.
Indeed!
Peter king rep from NY has already come out with a very strong statement condemning the NYT article.
CIA testimony a couple of weeks ago did in fact say that stand down orders were issued.
The new Journ-O-List has decided our next President should be Hillary.
Yes, you are correct. But cleaning up Hillary's messes is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Bush's reaching across the aisle had a lot to do with why we lost in 2006. It's one of the reasons I say "Read my lips, no new Bushes."
Saying the NYT is credible is like saying Chris Matthewsnis credible. Waste of time.
The aisle is a myth.
Almost all Members of Congress, and almost all Senators, share a worldview and are fundamentally in agreement about the functions of the national government and the powers necessary to carry them out.
Yes, there is some disagreement over details, but in terms of the big (bad) picture there aren't even 50 Members or 10 Senators who are on our side.
It’s phenomenal what you don’t find if you bury your head in the sand.
Documentation File for Impeached Bill Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi Coverup for Mrs. Bill Clinton.
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.