Monday, December 30, 2013

On the NY Times report about Benghazi

Video: NYT editor defiant on Benghazi report amid lawmaker criticism
From Lucianne:
The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi   "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.' ”
'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report    "Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.
" 'Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.
" 'One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack.' "
From NRO:
Missing the Lessons of Benghazi   "The scary thing is that there are still many in the Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign-policy regime who believe that negotiating with terrorists will lead to positive outcomes. The story of Benghazi is exactly the opposite. Those who hate us will exploit any and every perceived weakness. Benghazi is a sad testament to a failed U.S. foreign policy throughout the Middle East and North Africa" ...

Krauthammer’s Take: Times Benghazi Story Written to Defend the Democrats  

 
... "Krauthammer responded saying that Rosenthal’s defensiveness shows that the reason the Times invested so much time in to the story and put it on the front page was “to protect the Democrats, to deflect the issue, and to protect Hillary who is exposed on this issue.”
“ 'It is obviously a political move,” Krauthammer said."
 
The Good, the Bad, and the Pathetic of the New York Times’ Benghazi Report   ... "What’s most pathetic of all? That 65 years after Arab armies launched their first war of extermination against Israel, 34 years after the hostage crisis, and twelve years after 9/11, we still don’t understand our enemy, and we still blame ourselves for their reckless hate.
From The Weekly Standard:
Times Ignores Evidence of Al Qaeda Link to Benghazi; Contradicts previous reporting from the New York TImes  "Muhammad Jamal, is not mentioned in the Times’s latest piece. Why not? The Times had previously reported the involvement of his network. When Mohammad Jamal was arrested in Egypt in December of 2012, two months after the Times article that mentioned him, the Wall Street Journal reported on his extensive ties to al Qaeda and its senior leadership, as well as his alleged involvement in the Benghazi attacks." STEPHEN F. HAYES

Politico Jumps in the Benghazi Debate  "In the end, Hounshell’s discussion of Benghazi is a welcome sign. It shows that some are still willing to weigh and discuss the actual evidence about what happened in Benghazi – not just the politics of its aftermath.
"Hounshell says that “there will always be some who wonder if we simply haven’t looked hard enough” for evidence of al Qaeda’s ties to the Benghazi attack."
 
From PJ Media:

 "The woman who had lost her promised shot at the presidency to a dishonest neophyte Chicago radical had disgraced herself and betrayed our founding values by promising the father of a heroic SEAL killed in the attack that she would bring justice, not to those who had done the killing, but to the schmuck who’d made the obscure video ridiculing the small-minded, bigoted followers of an ideology currently responsible for a majority of the armed conflicts on earth."

Issa: Evidence Still Proves Benghazi Was a ‘Planned Attack That Came Quickly’   "House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) stood by his committee’s investigation that found an al-Qaeda link to the Benghazi attack, and disputed any assertion that the New York Times story on the attack undercuts that finding."

No comments: