…by a newspaper that masquerades itself as a serious journalism producer?
The New York Times published their report on the Benghazi terrorist attack that included the murders of our ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three ex-SEALs who were trying to protect him.
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. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
The NYT spent six “chapters” in that vein.
Never mind actual facts, from eyewitnesses on the ground during the attack. Eyewitnesses who reported no particular gathering for a protest over a video, indeed no protest at all. One special operator said
Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack.
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.
Never mind that the leader of the attack, Ahmad Abu Khattallah, is tied in with Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda’s primary affiliate in Libya.
Never mind that the mortar fire in the second phase of the terrorist attack was too accurate, too rapid-fire for amateurs or spontaneous rioters to have been able to get going at night with no line of sight to their targets.
Never mind real-time reporting from within the compound back to State describing the terrorist attack underway.
Never mind searches that turn up no mention of any video in the social media until after the terrorists’ attack was over.
Never mind pesky any of those facts. It’s Republicans and their sycophants who keep on about them; they can be discounted entirely, given the source.
It’s not even a very puffy piece. Just foolishly fatuous. Another cover-up attempt.