NY Times: Hey, that YouTube video did have something to do with Benghazi attack after all

posted at 10:31 am on December 29, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The New York Times produced a lengthy update on a story that conservatives complain the media ignores, but most won’t like what it says. David Kirkpatrick traveled to Benghazi to dig into the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, a terrorist attack that left four Americans dead — on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. Kirkpatrick argues that one motive for the attack was indeed the YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims,” clips of which aired days before on Egyptian television and watched by the terror networks in and around Benghazi:

“INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS” PURPORTED TO BE AN ONLINE TRAILER for a film about the mistreatment of Christians in contemporary Egypt. But it included bawdy historical flashbacks that derided the Prophet Muhammad. Someone dubbed it into Arabic around the beginning of September 2012, and a Cairo newspaper embellished the news by reporting that a Florida pastor infamous for burning the Quran was planning to debut the film on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.

No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.

Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests. He conferred with Abdul Salam Bargathi of the Preventive Security Brigade, an Islamist militia with a grandiose name, each recalled separately, and they increased security outside a United Nations office. But they said nothing to the Americans.

Reports of the video were just beginning to spread on Sept. 9 when Mr. McFarland, then the officer normally in charge of politics and economics at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, had his meeting with the Benghazi militia leaders. Among them were some of the same men who had greeted Mr. Stevens when he arrived in Benghazi at the start of the revolt, including Mr. Gharabi, 39, a heavyset former Abu Salim inmate who ran a local sandwich truck before becoming the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati. Another was Wissam bin Hamid, also 39, a slim and slightly hunched mechanic known for his skill with American cars who by then had become the leader of Libya Shield, considered one of the strongest militias in Libya.

Before dismissing this out of hand, the Times isn’t the only voice reporting on this sequence of events. Lee Stranahan has independently reported on the same thing, and has spent considerable time on Twitter and his website arguing that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack triggered by the video — essentially a syncretism of the story from both sides. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a cover-up:

In the days following the attack, the Obama Administration and CNN tried to paint the events in Benghazi that night as muddled and confusing. In official White House statements and news stories, they convinced the American public that nobody could really know what happened. They told the nation that uncovering the truth about Benghazi would be a long process.

Ambassador Susan Rice made five now-infamous appearances on Sunday morning talk shows five days after the attack on September 16, 2012. She repeated the same thing that she told Jake Tapper on ABC’s “This Week”:

Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed.

Ambassador Rice didn’t mention in the any of the five appearances what the Obama administration knew within hours: that the attacks were well organized and had been carried out by Ansar Al Sharia. With the election so close, they needed to run out the clock by muddling the facts.

Part of this cover-up involved not telling the public that they were actually many eyewitnesses at the Embassy that night.

Those eyewitnesses to the attack provided immediate testimony that was clear and consistent; Ansar Al Sharia blocked the roads around the mission and attacked with RPGs and rifles. No witness reported a demonstration like the one in Cairo earlier that day, because there was no such demonstration in Libya. In Benghazi, there was an attack.

There was no demonstration, Kirkpatrick also concludes, only a planned attack:

Mr. Stevens, who spent the day in the compound for security reasons because of the Sept. 11 anniversary, learned about the breach in a phone call from the American Embassy in Tripoli. Then a diplomatic security officer at the Benghazi mission called to tell the C.I.A. team. But as late as 6:40 p.m., Mr. Stevens appeared cheerful when he welcomed the Turkish consul, Ali Akin, for a visit.

There was even less security at the compound than usual, Mr. Akin said. No armed American guards met him at the gate, only a few unarmed Libyans. “No security men, no diplomats, nobody,” he said. “There was no deterrence.”

At 8:30 p.m., British diplomats dropped off their vehicles and weapons before flying back to Tripoli. At 9:42 p.m., according to American officials who have viewed the security camera footage, a police vehicle stationed outside turned on its ignition and drove slowly away.

A moment later a solitary figure strolled by the main gate, kicking pebbles and looking around — a final once-over, according to the officials.

The attack began with just a few dozen fighters, according to those officials. The invaders fired their Kalashnikovs at the lights around the gate and broke through with ease.

In other words, the White House story that this was a demonstration that just got out of control was false. As we have discovered through Congressional testimony and the release of communications from that night, the White House and State Department knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack. If the YouTube video played a part in the motivation, it was nevertheless only possible because of a planned attack on an egregiously undefended facility, in the middle of a region controlled by Islamist militias, on the anniversary of 9/11 — when the US should have had its highest readiness.

In other words, this only addresses the relative import of the YouTube video, not any of the questions of the incompetence from State and the White House. Paul Mirengoff at Power Line calls this a “revisionist account” intended to serve as a distraction:

The New York Times is out with a revisionist account of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. The Times says that in months of investigating, it “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” The Times also claims that the attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

I suspect that the Times story tells us more about Hillary Clinton’s assessment of the threat Benghazi poses to her likely 2016 run for president than it does about what happened in Benghazi. But to the extent that the Times story is viewed as shedding a new, different light on the Benghazi, perhaps the House should hold new hearings on the attack.

The Times bases its claim that neither al Qaeda nor any other international terrorist group had a role in the attack on its view that Ansar al-Shariah is a “purely local extremist organization.” But Peter King, a member and former chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, points out that Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be an affiliate terror group of Al Qaeda. King accuses the Times of engaging in mere semantics, and he is probably right. …

The Times’ claim that the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger” at the video about Islam also seems unpersuasive. Greg Hicks, the deputy to Ambassador Christopher Stevens who was killed in the attack testified to Congress that the video was “a non-event in Libya.” Moreover, an independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings from Benghazi found no reference to the video until the day after the attack.

The New York Times seems to have uncovered social media references to the video that precede the Sept. 11 attack. Even so, the relative absence of such references undermines its claim that the video played a significant role in the attack.

I don’t mean to deny that some of those who attacked the U.S. compound were influenced by the video. But the Times’ own reporting shows that a “grave” threat to American interests in Benghazi predates the controversy over the video. The failure of the Obama administration, and especially Hillary Clinton, to prepare to meet that threat remains indisputable.

Indeed. The recounting of the attack itself reminds us that the Obama administration, including Clinton, tried to avoid blame by casting it as a kind of “black swan” event that no one could have predicted. The YouTube video was used as the basis of this claim, which led critics into attacking that part of the claim itself. But the YouTube video only accounts for a small part of the Benghazi fiasco. Even if one accepts that the YouTube video had something to do with the motive for the attack and the ability of terrorists to recruit fighters for it (and the timing of the broadcast certainly lends that significant credibility), the Times’ reporting doesn’t even begin to answer the larger and more important questions about the Obama administration’s actions before, during, and after the attack:

  1. The State Department was repeatedly warned about the chaos in Benghazi and the increasing aggressiveness of the Islamist militias and terror networks in the area after the US-prompted NATO mission decapitated the Qaddafi regime — including escalating demands for security from the US mission in Libya. Why did State ignore these demands?
  2. Other Western nations bailed out of Benghazi because of increasing terrorism. Why did the US stay put when even the UK pulled out? Especially without increasing security?
  3. The attack took place on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 in an area with active al-Qaeda affiliates, as well as terrorist networks with murkier alliances. Why wasn’t the US prepared to respond to an attack on its most vulnerable diplomatic outpost?
  4. Where was Barack Obama and what was he doing after his 5 pm meeting with Leon Panetta at the beginning of the attack?
  5. If the YouTube video was such an issue, why didn’t anyone in Benghazi or Tripoli know it, and why did the White House end up retracting that claim after a couple of weeks?
  6. Who told the Accountability Review Board to ignore the actions of higher-ranking State Department officials such as Patrick Kennedy, who ignored the pleas for more security, and focus blame on lower-ranking career officials for the unpreparedness of State for the attack?
  7. What was the CIA doing in Benghazi, and how did they miss the rise of Ansar al-Shariah? Kirkpatrick notes that no one seemed aware of its danger until after the attack.

Frankly, the YouTube story is the least of the issues in Benghazi, and for Clinton’s leadership in the events that led up to it.

Addendum: Does anyone else think it strange that the Times published this on a Saturday afternoon in the middle of the Christmas doldrums?

Update: Lee interviewed Pastor Terry Jones, who got interrogated before the attack by high-ranking officials from State and DoD over the video and his intention to air it on the anniversary of 9/11. It’s not like they didn’t know it could be a problem, and yet nothing was done to prepare for the possibility of an attack.

Yahoo’s Olivier Knox weighed in on Twitter:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bmore

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Even if one accepts that the YouTube video had something to do with the motive for the attack and the ability of terrorists to recruit fighters for it (and the timing of the broadcast certainly lends that significant credibility)

It does not lend any credibility.

12.11: Terror plot thwarted, but Benghazi emergency plan warns of many Islamic terrorists still operating in area.

12.27.11: Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy disseminates an ‘ACTION MEMO’ written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman with the subject line: ‘Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya.’ The memo states: ‘With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.’

02.11.12 @1:13 PM: Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy, Eric Nordstrom, emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. ‘I’ll speak with our SST personnel to see if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS’ – Diplomatic Security – ‘is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.’

02.11.12 @5:29 PM: Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, sends a cable to State: ‘Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…’

02.11.12 @8:53 PM: James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, ‘Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’

02.11.12 @9:00 PM: Nordstrom adds ‘the last time we had only 2 agents at post, suspending outside movements for approximately 10 days.’

03.12: Memo from the Research & Information Support Center titled ‘Progress Elusive in Libya,’ based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 ‘reports indicated that al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.’

03.28.12: Ambassador Cretz sends cable to Secretary Clinton requesting additional security assets.

04.06.12: Terrorists throw IED over consulate wall.

04.10.12: An explosive device is thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin.

04.19.12: Cable from State to Cretz, signed by Clinton, acknowledges Ambassador Cretz’s request of 03.28.12 for additional security, but instead articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.

04.21.12 @13:57 (04.21.12 @7:57 AM): Embassy Tripoli employee, Jennifer A. Larson, emails Eric Nordstrom, Ambassador Gene Cretz, et al., writing that it ‘looks like no movement on the full complement of [five DS] personnel for Benghazi, but rather a reassessment to bring the numbers lower.’

05.03.12: State inks a with Blue Mountain, a Welsh security company with little experience in Libya, to provide ‘security guards and patrol services’ for $387,413.68. An extension option brings the tab for protecting the consulate to $783,000. The contract lists only ‘foreign security awardees’ as its recipient.

05.07.12 @19:01 (1:01 PM EST): In an email with the subject line: ‘FW: Special Agent Tony Zamudio’s TDY Performance in Benghazi,’ James Bacigalupo informs Brian Papanu and David Sparrowgrove that the Benghazi Mission is typically staffed with only three DS agents, and sometimes as few as one DS agent.

05.22.12: A rocket-propelled grenade hits the offices of the International Red Cross.

05.30.12: State Dept turns down request from Ambassador’s security team for a DC-3 aircraft.

05.22.12: Terrorists attack Red Cross, warn US of attacks.

06.06.12: Terrorists blow large hole through consulate gate.

06.07.12: Ambassador Stevens arrives in Libya and asks State Dept to keep two MSD (security) teams in Libya.

06.11.12: An RPG hits a convoy carrying the British Ambassador. The U.K. closes its consulate. Col. Wood, military Site Security Team (SST) commander, is in Benghazi, and helps with emergency response.

06.10.12: Al Qaeda forces openly rally in Benghazi.

06.15.12: State Dept official Charlene Lamb tells Eric Nordstrom that security team (SST) contract would not be renewed.

06.22.12: Ambassador Stevens warns State that extremist groups are operating in the open in Benghazi and Libya, as a whole, carrying out terrorists attacks, making threats against Western targets, and that he is a target.

06.25.12: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to the State Department entitled ‘LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY’ and states ‘[f]rom April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organisations and foreign interests,’ describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

06.29.12: Newly-elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi pledges to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh, who he describes as a political prisoner. No mention is made of a film.

06.30.12: A film called ‘The Innocence of Bin Laden’ is shown at a small independent cinema on Hollywood Boulevard called the Vine Theatre to only a handful of viewers in the two showings that evening. It runs less than an hour and is notable for its poor production value. A witness says that the man organising the screening is an Egyptian living in America, who had hired two Egyptian security guards for the evening.

June to July: Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer for Libya at the time, documents over 200 security threats and violent incidents threatening to U.S. personnel in Libya. Some 50 of those incidents occur in Benghazi.

07.02.12: ‘Sam Bacile’ a/k/a Nakoula Basseley Nakoula posts English-language promotional trailers for Innocence of Muslims on YouTube.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Del, here’s one link, with several within, about Roberts.

The Petraeus threat – well documented – called back from Afghanistan, forced to take over the CIA, when he didn’t want it…the threat? To expose his dalliances…which were then exposed.

He should not have lied about Benghazi. He should have told the truth, even though he knew that obama would expose his affair.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Sorry, Del, the link on Roberts.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Del, more here

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Nice, Axe.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM

The New York Times seems to have uncovered social media references to the video that precede the Sept. 11 attack. Even so, the relative absence of such references undermines its claim that the video played a significant role in the attack.

I don’t mean to deny that some of those who attacked the U.S. compound were influenced by the video. But the Times’ own reporting shows that a “grave” threat to American interests in Benghazi predates the controversy over the video. The failure of the Obama administration, and especially Hillary Clinton, to prepare to meet that threat remains indisputable.

The “YouTube video as motive story” is a complete fiction. It was a knee-jerk, political reaction that tried to shift the blame from the Muslim world onto the west, and it was no different from those same reactions trying to shift blame from rapists to evil American society without mental health care, from thieves to evil capitalism.

The attacks were ongoing, organized, and predated any YouTube video. There’s no reason to believe that particular YouTube video played any part in Benghazi.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM

However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.

This would explain the children’s origin from a “Latin American country”, so as to circumvent Irish law.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 1:58 PM

H/T- Sophies timeline?

She thoroughly debunked this notion long ago. It still stands.

(miss her)

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Seth Jones, the associate director for the international security and defense policy center at the RAND Corporation, told the Daily Beast, “There was at least one member and may have been more members from the Mohammed Jamal network on the compound for the attack on Benghazi along with members of Ansar al-Sharia and members of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

The designation released Monday from the State Department does not mention the network’s role in Benghazi. It does state that Jamal has been in close contact with al Qaeda leaders since he traveled to Afghanistan in the late 1980s. When Jamal returned to Egypt in the early 1990s he became the operational commander for Egyptian Islamic Jihad. At the time the group was led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is currently the leader of al Qaeda.

Ansar al-Sharia is an arm of Al-Qaida. So, the NYT claims “it wasn’t Al Qaida”…and Hillary/obama/Rice do too.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:12 PM

OT – obama’s other son and obama’s America, circa 2013.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Nice, Axe.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM

:) Hi, Schad.

H/T- Sophies timeline?

She thoroughly debunked this notion long ago. It still stands.

(miss her)

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I linked it. I’ll link it again.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM

29,000+ more views than the “movie trailer” had on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-LxCvtWNM0&feature=youtube_gdata_player.

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Of course if the story doesn’t support their conspiratorial world view, they attack the Times. What a shame.
loveofcountry on December 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Organic demonstrations that spiral out of control normally involve precise and separate but coordinated mortar attacks.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM

mortar attacks.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM

The attacks which ultimately killed the Americans were incredibly precise…could not have been from amateurs.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Hi Axe. Here’s hoping that Soph gets back soon and well rested.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:31 PM

The New York Times concocts a cover story for Hillary Clinton — color me shocked.

Their “investigation” is a “non-event.”

IndieDogg on December 29, 2013 at 2:36 PM

loveofcountry on December 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Gee, do you actually think that will ever happen? How many scandals do they need? Zero has given us close to twenty.

But hey, keep up that lib mantra, we need the comedy.

dogsoldier on December 29, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Exactly.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Their “investigation” is a “non-event.”

IndieDogg on December 29, 2013 at 2:36 PM

It’s an exercise in creative bullshitting. I almost wrote for profit, but they don’t have any.

dogsoldier on December 29, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Also many of us noted at the time they were incredibly well armed and well trained protestors.

dogsoldier on December 29, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Organic demonstrations that spiral out of control normally involve precise and separate but coordinated mortar attacks.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM

They want us to believe that the r.o.p put real troops with heavy weapons on the ground to attack an AMerican consulate because of a cheap unknown video. It’s one thing to make a big deal out of some danish cartoon and get some crazy muslim upset enough to kill a cartoonist – It’s another thing to plan a military assault on a high value Amercan target. THEY WOULDN’T LAUNCH AN EXPENSIVE RISKY OPERATION LIKE THIS BECAUSE OF A NOBODY WHO MADE A FRKING HOME VIDEO. Common sense debunks the NYT.

BoxHead1 on December 29, 2013 at 2:42 PM

In other words, the White House story that this was a demonstration that just got out of control was false.

It was a lie.

If the YouTube video played a part in the motivation, it was nevertheless only possible because of a planned attack on an egregiously undefended facility, in the middle of a region controlled by Islamist militias, on the anniversary of 9/11 — when the US should have had its highest readiness.

If the YouTube video played a part in the motivation for the attack, it was only possible because the attack was already planned?

– dude.

If apparatchiks are still trying to patch this fiction to sew-up Hillary’s torn immodesty, they should be resisted. What happened in Benghazi had nothing to do with any YouTube video. The good guys are always trying to see if the bad guys have any point at all, so they can honorably concede it — but in this case, we’re well beyond bending over backwards and getting into some hard-core Yoga positions.

It’s relative importance: none.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 2:44 PM

THEY WOULDN’T LAUNCH AN EXPENSIVE RISKY OPERATION LIKE THIS BECAUSE OF A NOBODY WHO MADE A FRKING HOME VIDEO. Common sense debunks the NYT.
BoxHead1 on December 29, 2013 at 2:42 PM

But more importantly than “wouldn’t” is the undeniable fact; they COULDN’T. What was the success rate of the mortar strikes, 3 out of 5, 4 out of 5? And from different locations? All precise and coordinated. Can only be pulled off by professionals. Not to mention the logistics that must be involved in putting all that in place. What the Times, Hillary, and Obama et al expect us to believe defies all reason.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Barack WTF Obama and Hillary CYA Clinton.

Two whores for power who would trample over the body of a dead

ambassador and three guards to stay in office.

Scum

Liars.

Traitors.

Who both deserve orange jumpsuits

and not mom jeans and a pantsuit.

profitsbeard on December 29, 2013 at 2:59 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?

Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?

triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

At some point you defenders (loveofcountry) of this most egregious absurdity are going to have to tap into reason. If you find yourself protecting a worldview which demands you to suspend all reason only to be consistent with said worldview that should trigger some questions. It does involve thinking to do this however.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 3:05 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?
Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?
triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Well lookie here… Case in point from my 2 previous replies.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 3:07 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?

Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?

triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Get book, learn read.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?
triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

What is it about coordinated, precise, mortar attacks that allows you to suspend thinking in order to buy this pap?

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Killary lied and Americans died.

Meanwhile, The Regime still hides who gave the stand-down order not to defend our Benghazi betrayed from Sigonella.

viking01 on December 29, 2013 at 3:15 PM

triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

You must be 3 years old.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Get book, learn read.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Or watch more fox news, amirite?

triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:19 PM

In related news the NY Times blamed Mary Jo for not having keeping SCUBA gear in Teddy’s Oldsmobile and blamed the Janet-barbecued Branch Davidians of Waco for not living in a tank-proof compound which lacked a massacre resistant sprinkler system.

viking01 on December 29, 2013 at 3:23 PM

If tremble’s name were Morris Ronald his neighbors could call him Moe-Ron without feigning courtesy.

viking01 on December 29, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Or watch more fox news, amirite?
triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Oh forget Fox News for a moment. What do you, as a nominally thinking adult, believe the mortar attacks mean with regards to an organic demonstration that just spiraled out of control?

Just think for yourself for one moment. Please.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Or watch more fox news, amirite?

triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:19 PM

So much for reading.

I don’t watch television, but if that’s as far as you can get, Fox might be a good place to start.

Then, if you want to believe an attack was planned by Al Qaeda for the anniversary of September 11 in response to a YouTube video that hadn’t been published yet — you can do that too.

Because thinking for yourself is hard. Amirite?

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 3:36 PM

We’d save ourselves time just to accept that the press (and especially The Slimes) are operatives of the DNC and Obama Regime and spend our energy on doing something about it.

kim roy on December 29, 2013 at 3:37 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?

Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?

triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Not as much as you do.

But that’s fine. Never mind that people couldn’t control themselves over a dimwitted video. Never mind the timing of the attack. Never mind the fact that it is always the State Dept’s/President’s job to ensure the safety of its employees (ambassador).

You must be a liberal to go this far away from reality to try to mitigate blame to those that truly deserve it – the savages that cannot control themselves (if you truly buy the video excuse) and the government that sent unprotected employees into a danger zone and then that no plan to actually do something when it went bad.

Now….. perhaps it’s time to start talking about your feelings.

kim roy on December 29, 2013 at 3:41 PM

So is this supposed to mean that Fort Marcy Park made Killary “Fosterize” the Benghazi Four ?

viking01 on December 29, 2013 at 3:53 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?
 
Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?
 
triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

 
There it is, folks. This frees up any potential qualms over voting for Hillary in 2016, and dispels any doubts regarding her judgement or abilities (or lack of).
 
One has to admit that it’s strangely fascinating to watch, in real-time, the article resonate with the voters it was written for.

rogerb on December 29, 2013 at 3:58 PM

There’s no conspiracy. The Obama administration simply lied about the attack because they didn’t want the public to know that Libya was a dangerous place. They wanted the public to think that Libya was a good, happy place thanks to Obama’s illegal war.

blink on December 29, 2013 at 11:23 AM

hatemycountry doesn’t care for illegal wars…unless they are started by Dummycrats ! Then it’s all A-OK !!

cableguy615 on December 29, 2013 at 3:59 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?

Assuming it was the “right wing” video that “provoked” the attack, you see nothing wrong with responding to an obscure, poorly-made video by laying siege to a consulate and killing an ambassador? An ambassador whose government had nothing to do with the poorly made video?

You probably think a rape victim had it coming if she wore a skirt, too.

MidniteRambler on December 29, 2013 at 4:04 PM

This is such bad journalism and a blatant example of political posturing I have ever sean. At the moment it is a non story BUT it is the main story that can sink Hilary in 2016. By putting it in the public now she can later quote the story as a non-issue. This goes in the same out box as the two non-political motivated life stores that didn’t fly last fall. Many Democrats truly believe in there party and do try to do the best for their people. I am sorry for them since the best they have to support are Obama, Bidden, Read, Kerry, Pelosi and Clinton. All over aged, crooks that are now and always have been out just for themselves and make all others tow the line for the greater good of only themselves.

The NYT wants us to believe that Hillary told the truth and that a random group took out Nave Seals and stood down a CIA detachment and over run our Embassy. Why? So Hilary can be President?

jpcpt03 on December 29, 2013 at 4:04 PM

One has to admit that it’s strangely fascinating to watch, in real-time, the article resonate with the voters it was written for.

rogerb on December 29, 2013 at 3:58 PM

The idiot Bolsheviks waited 80+ years for Lenin’s Soviet Union to be “better” than the Czar.

viking01 on December 29, 2013 at 4:05 PM

The deflectionary “youtube video” was online for months before the Benghazi attack.

Which gave Obama and Hillary months to beef up security.

Did they?

Did they?!?!

Scum.

Liars.

Traitors.

profitsbeard on December 29, 2013 at 4:06 PM

He stole it from Sophie. Yes he did. Bandit.

SparkPlug on December 29, 2013 at 4:12 PM

I was just poking around Fox’s website, since triple is a Fox fan. Pretty interesting stuff.

That it was Al Qaeda related, not some local dust-up:

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” . . . because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Also here: Catherine Herridge/House Intelligence chair: Benghazi attack ‘Al Qaeda-led event’

That there was no demonstration, just an attack:

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

. . . Catherine Herridge/Classified cable warned consulate couldn’t withstand ‘coordinated attack’. The same conclusion that Kirkpatrick reached in the Times article. So there was no demonstration, according to Fox and the New York Times — only a planned attack.

And this is really interesting, and I know triple will want to have this, in fairness: Is time travel possible?

Yes! According to young Hawking:

. . . Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet.

Hawking said once spaceships were built that could fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That’s because — according to Einstein — as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

Yes!

Which also means that Hawking’s theory only applies to moving forwards through time.

. . . oh noes.

Moving backwards is impossible, Hawking says, because it “violates a fundamental rule that cause comes before effect.”

. . . “I believe things cannot make themselves impossible,” Hawking said.

rf. Time Travel Is Possible, Says Stephen Hawking.

So close. But for now, according to physics, a YouTube video made after planning can’t be the motivation for creating a plan.

^ But luckily, we can dismiss all the above because it came via Fox.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 4:16 PM

What Barry BAMSTAHHHHH!!!!!!!! YOU DA MANNN BAMMMMY BABBBBYY !!!! LOVE YA BARRY OL BUDDY OL PALLLL!!!!!!!!!!!! YAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fox on December 29, 2013 at:04 PM

cableguy615 on December 29, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Nice try donk slime buckets.

Blaming the attack on a youtube video is an utter act of desperation. Their is no limit to the absurdity of hillary’s lies. She lies like an Obama.

SparkPlug on December 29, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Every time I want to go out and protest I always grab an RPG and a mortar launcher.

V7_Sport on December 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Does anyone else think it strange that the Times published this on a Saturday afternoon in the middle of the Christmas doldrums?

Oh! Rest assured that the DNC talking points for the New Year will include the fact that the NYT did exhaustive research and found that it wasn’t a lie to blame it all on a YouTube video. By 2016, it will be the leftist mantra.

Happy Nomad on December 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Every time I want to go out and protest I always grab an RPG and a mortar launcher.

V7_Sport on December 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM

And build training camps, and start organizing locals.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Every time I want to go out and protest I always grab an RPG and a mortar launcher.

V7_Sport on December 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM

It’s so much easier to find parking at the protest site that way!

Happy Nomad on December 29, 2013 at 4:22 PM

And stockpiling.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Sorry, Del, the link on Roberts.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Sorry, but that seems to be dipping into tin foil hat territory. It’s written by someone named “helen” (no last name) and her source is someone named “Trip”.

Not convinced, especially since the Democrats could have brought this up during Roberts’ confirmation and didn’t. And remember, Roberts was confirmed 3 years before those Democrats even knew who their own 2008 Presidential candidate would be.

Del Dolemonte on December 29, 2013 at 4:27 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?

Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?

Hillary Clinton on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Balk.

Del Dolemonte on December 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Get book, learn read.

Axe on December 29, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Or watch more fox news, amirite?

balk on December 29, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Weak.

Del Dolemonte on December 29, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Pastor Terry Jones… got interrogated before the attack by high-ranking officials from State and DoD over the video and his intention to air it on the anniversary of 9/11.

So can anyone mocking, exposing, or otherwise commenting unflatteringly on the pedophile “prophet” expect a visit from govt agents?!

Akzed on December 29, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Not so coincidentally, the aversion to respond and continue the discussion happened after these challenges:

Just think for yourself for one moment. Please.
anuts on December 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Because thinking for yourself is hard. Amirite?
Axe on December 29, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Lefties: your enemy is thinking. And it makes sense. To be confronted with what requires a modicum of critical thought leftism must be abandoned. And to a lefty, leftism is preferred than reason and truth. That’s definitional.

anuts on December 29, 2013 at 4:45 PM

When did Candy Crowley start working for the New York Times?

(That’s a joke, son. They’re more like fellow cultists.)

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Good grief, Qadaffi was warning that he was putting the lid on the Islamists/AlQaeda factions in East Libya well before Obysmal embarked on his “leading from behind” adventure. The area was rife with terrorists and training grounds.

Obysmal was intent on his campaign message that AlQaeda was “on the run” and “decimated.” He was not about to have that talking point ruined by the death of an ambassador and four others, after all.

Word has it that the trial of Morsi may shed the truth on who inflamed the jihadists.

The bottom line is that there was criminal negligence in not providing security on/around the significant anniversary of 9/11. Obysmal has been underplaying the importance of this date since he assumed office.

onlineanalyst on December 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

by the death of an ambassador and four three others, after all.

FIFM

onlineanalyst on December 29, 2013 at 5:28 PM

When did Candy Crowley start working for the New York Times?

(That’s a joke, son. They’re more like fellow cultists.)

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Piggy’s Feedbag All-you-can-eat Troughalicious Buffet must have opened a location for Candy next door.

viking01 on December 29, 2013 at 5:41 PM

The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi

David D. Kirkpatrick of the New York Times has published a lengthy account of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. 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.”

But how much effort did Kirkpatrick expend to uncover any possible al Qaeda ties? Judging by the Times’s glaring omissions, not much.

Kirkpatrick’s piece totals more than 7,000 words and yet he fingers only one suspect out of the dozens who took part in the attack. Another suspect, an ex-Guantanamo detainee, is briefly mentioned, but only then to dismiss the notion of his involvement.

Left out of the Times’s account are the many leads tying the attackers to al Qaeda’s international network.

Read the entire thing, it demolishes the NYT piece. h/t to Power Line.

Del Dolemonte on December 29, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I think leftists believe if they can say it wasn’t al Qaeda, then it wasn’t terrorism.

rlwo2008 on December 29, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Never held responsible. Just applying for a better job. It’s the democrat way.

jpcpt03 on December 29, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Four dead in oh-hi-oh memorialized in a song because Nixon was president. Four dead in Benghazi during Obama-what difference does it make now. No, there’s no left wing media bias at all.

jaywemm on December 29, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Patterico is very plausible.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 9:35 PM

The only question left is, why did obama want Stevens (at least) dead, because clearly, obama did. What did Stevens, and others know, that put them on obama’s hit list?

Pork-Chop on December 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Now does that sound like something a government might do to get rid of an inconvenient individual?

Hmmmm.

2 Samuel 11:15 And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.

Naah. That never happens.

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 29, 2013 at 9:47 PM

The only truth in the NYT article is that is was NOT AlQaida.

It was an arm of AlQaida.

The guy wants to sell books, save obama’s pajama azz and wash Hillary’s bloody hands.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 9:51 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?

Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?

triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Quoted just to point out the really strange claim that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video.

What about the video makes it right-wing? Is this just an epithet of choice, now?

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 29, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Pastor Terry Jones… got interrogated before the attack by high-ranking officials from State and DoD over the video and his intention to air it on the anniversary of 9/11.

So can anyone mocking, exposing, or otherwise commenting unflatteringly on the pedophile “prophet” expect a visit from govt agents?!

Akzed on December 29, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I believe the official policy is, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on December 29, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Even.
If.
The.
Video.
Was.
The.
Reason.
It.
Still.
Was.
Terrorism.

PERIOD!

thebrokenrattle on December 30, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Gee, then if the New York Times is right, we ought be having violent demonstrations every other day in the Muslim world since anti-Islamic and Muslim-slandering videos pop up on YouTube that often and has for years.

jamesgreenidge on December 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM

BREAKING… NYT: Scientist Find Moon is Made of Green Cheese after all.

petefrt on December 30, 2013 at 9:26 AM

The video story is bulls**t but, no matter the cause of the attack, three things remain:

Benghazi was dangerous;
HRC personally refused requests for protection; and
Ambassador Stevens and others are dead.

What about that makes Hillary Clinton look good?

All the New York Slime has done is draw renewed attention to the Clinton Clusterfark, not something she needed. If this is their idea of help, she might want to tell them to shut up.

IndieDogg on December 30, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Why was Stevens in Benghazi on the anniv. of 9/11, officially and unofficially?

What was obama doing that night?

Where are the records about Hillary and co. from that night?

Why did Petraeus lie about it all? Because he was blackmailed, just like Roberts on the now re-named “GWBush’care’”

Schadenfreude on December 30, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Why was Stevens in Benghazi on the anniv. of 9/11, officially and unofficially?
What was obama doing that night?
Where are the records about Hillary and co. from that night?
Why did Petraeus lie about it all? Because he was blackmailed, just like Roberts on the now re-named “GWBush’care’”

Schadenfreude on December 30, 2013 at 10:51 AM

And with the NSA gathering information on everyone, the blackmailing will continue, by this administration, as well as the destruction of anyone who resists.This is J. Edgar Hoover taken to the nth degree.

kjatexas on December 30, 2013 at 12:50 PM

When conservatives talk about the response to the attacks, and how obama failed to protect the embassy… why do they ignore the fact that it was a right-wing anti-muslim video that provoked the attack in the first place?

Thanks a lot, guys. Deflect blame much?

triple on December 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Just…. sad. No other words come to mind. Let me guess: public education..?

affenhauer on December 30, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Hill is just an old hag that needs to give it up.

avagreen on December 30, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Absolute “BS” from the pandering, left wing propaganda rag.

rplat on December 31, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Does anyone really believe anything they read out of the new york times? ANYTHING??

mmcnamer1 on December 31, 2013 at 8:06 AM

In presidential elections, image is everything. on the bases of image who would you vote for? Hilary clinton or Phil Robertson?

jpcpt03 on December 31, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2