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

NY Slimes is a national disgrace.

JimK on December 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM

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

Not at all. Expect the witch to point to this article during the next presidential campaign.

dogsoldier on December 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM

This is just another fine example of the fifth column approach to protecting the tyrant. The media is no longer the fourth estate. They. Are. The. Enemy.

HomeoftheBrave on December 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM

They are pushing strong to change history to support cankles.

stephana on December 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Yeah right. Coming from the fair and balanced New York Times makes it an undeniable truth. Like Obama, every time they utter a word you have to figure out if it’s a lie or the truth. Anything to try and protect their anointed one for 2016.

iamsaved on December 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

So how does this justify not sending help?

Flange on December 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

What does it matter?

There’s NO – NONE link showing the terrorist attack on our embassy was in direct response to that video.

Secondly, if that video was indeed the cause then Hillary knew it and did nothing.

No matter how you spin or defend it Hillary was in dereliction of duty ad directly led to the deaths of those at Benghazi.

Hey she’ll make a great President according to the NY Times though, right?

Skywise on December 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

So the video which hit the internets at least a couple months prior to the attack was just noticed? And O and Shrillary never noticed it?

Ha. Whatever.

OT:

Sweet: Piers Morgan drilled.
http://www.sportsgrid.com/video/piers-morgan-drilled-by-90-mph-cricket-bowl-because-there-is-a-god/

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Out: Humping Obama

In: Humping Hillary

stenwin77 on December 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Of course, all of this excuses Obama from leaving his command as people died. Vegas was far more important for the boy king.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Stay tuned.

Next they’ll be telling us Chris Christie was in that YouTube video.

fogw on December 29, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Here is the money quote from the NYT article that attempts to exonerate HRC on Benghazi:

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…

To summarize, the people Soetoro helped in Libya were the people who burned the consulate and killed a US ambassador, fueled by rage over a privately-made “American” video denigrating the prophet of Islam.

Saying AQ had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack is like saying that while WW II Japan may have done some unpleasant things in places like Nanking, they had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

The Benghazi attack was still the work of intolerant Islamo-fascists, in this case the work of Islamo-fascists brought to power by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The NYT article does nothing to challenge this fact.

MidniteRambler on December 29, 2013 at 10:44 AM

II remember leading how Soviet disinformation agents would plant stories in minor developing world newspapers (easy) and then the Soviet government could point to those stories as being legitimate. Posting bombshell articles on Saturday during a holiday week smells just like that.

ParisParamus on December 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Ha ha ha, yeah that’s rich, too far down the rabbit hole for that weaksauce.

John the Libertarian on December 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Oh please. Clinton and obama knew well in advance that this planned attack, on the anniversary of 9/11, was imminent. Ambassador Stevens and the embassy staff also knew the attack was coming, which is why they BEGGED Clinton many times for increased security.

Clinton and obama did nothing to prevent the attack, and obama, in fact, PURPOSELY assisted the attackers by giving the “STAND DOWN” order which prevented anyone from helping Stevens, Smith, Doherty, Woods, and the embassy staff, during the attack.

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?

It’s really no surprise that the NYT, an official obama/democrat propaganda outlet, would run cover for Clinton and the administration.

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

stenwin77 on December 29, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Out: “All non-progressives are racist bigots!”

In: “All non-progressives are sexist bigots!”

MidniteRambler on December 29, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Can it be deciphered on YouTube how many views a video has had on specific dates? I know too much emphasis is being put on this video from both sides and it is obscuring the real problems but it still seems like such a stupid argument. Those folks aren’t usually shy about letting people know what they are p.o.’d about.

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2013 at 10:51 AM

So is the film maker who was put in jail for this still in jail? How about those who actually killed the Americans?

UnderstandingisPower on December 29, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Hillary is dead meat and any attempt to put lipstick on that pig at this point won’t make any difference.

tim c on December 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Even in true, the response was to track down the producer of the vid and toss his butt into federal lockup because a bunch of 9th century savages can’t control their emotions and decided to KILL everyone because of that vid.

“I’m sorry my short skirt caused you to rape me.”

Bishop on December 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

‘Revisionist account’?

The lie is SOP for this mendacious Administration in order to advance their agenda. This President is nearly pathological in his history of lying. Given this, it’s no wonder that the old gray lady, ever willing to shill for the progressive ideological agenda, embraces it’s Walter Duranty past, and lies to protect Barack Obama’s last few crumbs of credibility.

Athos on December 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Bishop on December 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM

There have to be thousands of videos that could rile up the Muslim masses . Will we go after them all?

Hillary failed. Obama failed. They got their scapegoat and the NYT will oblige.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Got to give them credit, they stick with their lies to the bitter end.

I bet there are thousands of videos all over utube just like that one, or worse(better).

It was ridiculous then, and it’s ridiculous now. 7th century barbarians give thumbs down to utube video.

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Excuses Obama jetting off to Vegas. Makes sense.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM

There have to be thousands of videos that could rile up the Muslim masses . Will we go after them all?

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Yes, because inclusiveness!

Ya homophobe.

Bishop on December 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . if an esteemed publication as the NYTimes says it . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on December 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Imagine if the NY Times had reported evidence exposing a cover up by the Obama admin. The loud minority far right bunch that infest this site would be claiming the Times was finally doing its job.
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

Paving the way……..

BallisticBob on December 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Awww. Early endorsement of The Clenis. Early rejection of BO.

/Who’da ever saw this coming? Why my fellows, it would appear that the esteemed New York Times has decided to align itself with the likes of Politico.

How stupid.

Key West Reader on December 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Cindy- I have a 45 second video of me starting up a junk motorcycle that had more views on that date.

It was reported that his video had <150 views.

That's the oops I clicked on the wrong video stats.

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Reports of the video were just beginning to spread on Sept. 9….

Timeline: Wasn’t Ambassador Stevens petitioning for tighter security way, way before this (weeks, months)? The NYT is a pathetic rag.

DaveDief on December 29, 2013 at 11:08 AM

WHERE THE HELL IS THE FOOTBALL THREAD!!!
Some of us look forward to owning Ed every week, lol.
Gonna be a long 8 months.

abobo on December 29, 2013 at 11:12 AM

If the youtube video had something to do with it then why is the video still on line and no one ever from any where has ever objected. Talk about running interference for 2016.

jpcpt03 on December 29, 2013 at 11:13 AM

cairo was reaction to the trailer.
benghazi used cairo as cover.
people seem to forget cairo was ongoing before benghazi started.

dmacleo on December 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM

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

Question:

Are you really this far gone in terms of some sort of tank? Not a fish tank, or a military tank or anything like that. I’m talking about a septic tank… or for your type… perhaps port-a-potty would be a more familiar term. Port-a-potties have tanks! (Ask Occupy Peeps – they were the last vestige of Obama psychopants) SIC.

This is shameful reporting and bootlicking at its worst yet finest, published by none other than the allegedly esteemed NYT, who has aligned itself with the likes of the Huffington Post. Kinda like aligning itself with Pajama Boy Nation.

You need a new nic, pal.

Key West Reader on December 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM

loveofcountry on December 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

The real shame is that you don’t go back to KOS and STAY THERE.

BeachBum on December 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Timeline: Wasn’t Ambassador Stevens petitioning for tighter security way, way before this (weeks, months)? The NYT is a pathetic rag.

DaveDief on December 29, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Nah, that’s all been scrubbed off the internets.

The printer is your friend.

Key West Reader on December 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Hillary is dead meat and any attempt to put lipstick on that pig at this point won’t make any difference.

tim c on December 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Her Party lost the college graduate vote in 2012 and still retained the pResidency. That’s all you need to know.

Del Dolemonte on December 29, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Lyin’ liars lie.

Another reason to disown my hometown.

NavyMustang on December 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Hillary is dead meat and any attempt to put lipstick on that pig at this point won’t make any difference.

tim c on December 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Prepare to be suprised.

BallisticBob on December 29, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Hillary Clinton 2016: “I married a liar, I worked for a liar, what difference, at this point, does lying make, America?”

Warner Todd Huston on December 29, 2013 at 11:21 AM

The Slimes: “So see, folks, our crack reporting has revealed that it was all really Pastor Terry Jones’ fault.”

SickofLibs on December 29, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Lies upon lies upon lies.
And if one writes them enough they become the truth to many.

If John Kerry runs in 2016, he will be a problem for Hillary.

albill on December 29, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Did the slimes mention gun running to Syria?

No?

There’s you conspiracy, lostmommyboy.

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

How about that FBI investigation…?

d1carter on December 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Imagine if the NY Times had reported evidence exposing a cover up by the Obama admin. The loud minority far right bunch that infest this site would be claiming the Times was finally doing its job.
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

Agreed, it’s stupid to expect a major media outlet to publish information reported at dozens of other outlets.

Why would anyone be happy that the media is engaged in cover up and obfuscation on behalf of ANY politician? Besides you, I mean.

Bishop on December 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM

This one man “investigation” is over a year later..? Has he got a book coming out soon?

d1carter on December 29, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Notice LoveofanythingbutthisCountry could not address the story that gave life to this post. So typical.

You’re a joke.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 11:34 AM

And Loveofcountry….you support this government and their means. Seriously- PHuck You.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Imagine if the NY Times had reported evidence exposing a cover up by the Obama admin. The loud minority far right bunch that infest this site would be claiming the Times was finally doing its job.

Of course if the story doesn’t support their conspiratorial world view, they attack the Times. What a shame.

Frank Rich on December 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Fixed.

Oh, and F-

Del Dolemonte on December 29, 2013 at 11:36 AM

How widespread was the video?

This one has 1,000x more views than his did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd9CxIlkjpk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Let’s all pretend Zawahiri didn’t issue a video ordering revenge for the killing of al-Libi. Huh? Wha? UNpossible! Remembering stuff is hard.

Christien on December 29, 2013 at 11:37 AM

OT- Spain celebrates tighter abortion law.

http://news.yahoo.com/huge-crowds-hold-madrid-mass-abortion-law-153013004.html

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Imagine of the NYT slammed Obama.Loveofcountry would slam them or avoid their point all together. Laughable little troll. One of our dimmest. Congrats.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM

loveofcountry on December 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Fact. This article shows bidirectional link between the videos and the planned terrorist attacks.
Fact. There were no protests at the embassies just the planned terrorist attack

Articles conclusion – therefore the videos caused great Islamic rage leading to the emotional attacks.

That’s not a logical conclusion from the presented articles.

If the NYTimes had published an article saying that there was no yellowcake but Bush was correct in assuming there was, would you have treated it as settled science or a propagandistic coverup?

Skywise on December 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM

People couldn’t tell Zarqawi from Zawahiri if their lives depended on it.

Christien on December 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM

10,000x more views and much more apropos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA&feature=youtube_gdata_player.

But hey, maybe muslims watch a lot more utube than we do.

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Before and after Obama and Clinton produced their commercial advertising the video?

Ben Hur on December 29, 2013 at 11:46 AM

speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

That right there tells me this terrorist is lying.

GWB on December 29, 2013 at 11:50 AM

I HIGHLY doubt they got all that fire and man power together to assault our outpost because of a barely seen – low production youtube video. They might of had that as a convenient excuse on the ready but cmon. These were trained jidadis. They don’t waste the soldiers on youtube videos. They have plenty of unemployable crazy people, unmarried women and little children for their suicide runs. NO, doesn’t make sense if you aren’t a naive believing pundit. Some big imman offered up expensive troops and big guns for a youtube video? I DON’T THINK SO. A lot of money went into that assault.

BoxHead1 on December 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Always thought the real reason for the cover up was the sheer scale of CIA’s involvement in the whole Arab Spring movement. Our government doesn’t want Arabs and other middle eastern sheep to know how easy it is to manipulate them.

legalimmigrant on December 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Yes, because inclusiveness!

Ya homophobe.

Bishop on December 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Interestingly enough, the Innocence of Muslims is still available on youtube – albeit with a disclaimer…….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsIqjg3VkrE&bpctr=1388337473

Solaratov on December 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Imagine if the NY Times had reported evidence exposing a cover up by the Obama admin. The loud minority far right bunch that infest this site would be claiming the Times was finally doing its job.
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

Imagine if you had even half a brain…and didn’t hate America.

And, btw, you and other America-hating trolls are the ones who “infest” this site. Rather like roaches infesr an otherwise-clean kitchen.
Why don’t you and your type just leave?

Solaratov on December 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM

“infesr” = infest

Solaratov on December 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM

At this point, what difference does it make?

Oxymoron on December 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM

First, I would love to know how many hits that video had, when the attack took place. I’m betting the majority of hits took place after the attack and were mostly from Americans, looking to see what it could possibly have to do with an attack of this sort.

It’s obvious the NY Times is going to help rehabilitate Sec. Clinton’s image. I can see the 3 a.m. phone call commercial now and I doubt the Times can lie enough to rehabilitate either the Administration or Sec. Clinton on this fiasco, but I’m sure they’ll do their best. Right now lying is the best they have and that’s what we’ll be getting, from now until 2016.

bflat879 on December 29, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Ansar Al Sharia is supported by The Brotherhood in finances and logistics.

The Brotherhood’s Cairo riots was strategy from Abdul Rahman’s sons who had been protesting the embassy for nearly a year, and Zawahiri’s brother, who was just released by Morsi.

The Cairo riots were about pushing for Abdul Rahman’s release. That was always the stated intention.

The 9/11 anniversary and Benghazi were targeted as a warning of what was to come if he wasn’t released.

That’s not my conjecture.

That’s from Egyptian video and blog sources. Not media. Individual people who were in the mix, on the ground, because they live there.

What Barry wants to cover, is it all stems from the removal of Mubarak.

What NYT editors set out to do was provide a “coverup” dismissal for media heads by force inclusion of the video.

They know the Obama Admin is not capable of spinning Benghazi.

They know the CIA will pin Hillary’s State is her people try and make a defense.

So the NYT decided to create a defensive line.

Win the Senate, start an independent counsel.

budfox on December 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM

How about that FBI investigation…?

d1carter on December 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Ongoing……

or, at least, it will be…as soon as the FBI gets permission to go to the consulate.

Solaratov on December 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM

From the paper that published Walter Duranty?

Not surprising.

Murphy9 on December 29, 2013 at 12:12 PM

bflat879 on December 29, 2013 at 12:01 PM

At the time, I remember them reporting <150 views.
It ran in some crummy offbeat theatre and less than 20 people showed up.

At least that's what I remember.

wolly4321 on December 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Every time someone says “well I read in the New York Times…” I think to myself, “jackass”.

True story!

jeff_from_mpls on December 29, 2013 at 12:22 PM

/**RANT ON
It’s too bad that the GOP and the conservative press still act like the NYT is the standard for journalism. The NYT is just gov. propaganda. They have better writers then USA today but they don’t go deep and they rarely just report. And the “investigative” reporting is a joke. What stories do they break? Sure propaganda like this story. Or hit pieces on republican presidential candidates.

The NYT should lumped in with MSNBC. If it weren’t for the centrist squishes still giving them props they would have faded away faster. It can’t come soon enough for me. Look at the opinion pieces. They are un-serious, almost joke articles.

That guy, Friedman, is a egomaniac nut job. He likes chinese communism and authoritarianism and he believes in a grand bargain – that’s it! That’s his whole brilliant political philosophy.It’s not deep, people.

And Maureen Dowd – Whenever I feel like I’ve posted an embarrassing ramble, I think of Dowd. She embarrasses herself far worst all the time. She’s some old crunchy weirdo trying to stay “cool”. Her and friedman are college level deep – with better editors.

/**RANT broke can’t turn off.

BoxHead1 on December 29, 2013 at 12:26 PM

The sycophants in the lapdog media are going to treble down on sacrificing the last vestiges of their credibility in order to protect the Administration, and more importantly, the progressive-fascist agenda in anticipation of the 2014 midterms.

The lies will become bolder and more blatant. They will be focused towards the LIV and the progressive-fascist base, not unlike how the NYT and other NY media outlets shilled for de Blasio and his Detroit / SF style populist agenda.

Athos on December 29, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Mrs. Clinton was a gross incompetent in foreign affairs, scoring 0 to negative in every arena…Bengazi proves it,,and what about Egypt…wasn’t her policy molded by her strong affections for Huma and family, BFF’s of the Morsi’s, et. al.? Wow..and Bill sure cleaned up with his foundation: a literal dumpster for foreign monies.

gracie on December 29, 2013 at 12:36 PM

So it was the movie all along. The big lesson here is that critical views of Islam should be criminalized for the sake of peace. No bad talk about Islam = no bad Muslims. Pretty simple.

BL@KBIRD on December 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Good to see that this issue is back in the news. It still comes down to a US ambassador dying because of State Department incompetence and the administration doing nothing in response.

kcewa on December 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Our next “historic” president… unless the GOP nominates a female candidate, which we won’t.

MT on December 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM

How BIG is that turd polishing machine at the New York Times?

ProfShadow on December 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM

NYT: No evidence of al-Qaida role in Benghazi attack

Absence of evidence of al-Qaida is not evidence of absence of al-Qaida.

It’s not beyond belief that the NYT simply failed, or refused, to find any evidence of their involvement.

Insufficiently Sensitive on December 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM

It doesn’t matter, what matters most to me is this administration and the NSA claim that all the spying is based on preventing terrorist attacks and if that were the case they should have known this was a volatile area and predicted an attack and provided better security or better yet, not have placed our citizens in grave danger in the first place. And they have yet to explain why they were there in the first place, among other things. It was utter incompetence on the part of multiple agencies as well as the WH, on many different levels.

scalleywag on December 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Paul Mirengoff nails it here:

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.

And here:

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.

From Paul’s keyboard to Issa’s eyes. Yes, using the NYT revisionist piece to launch additional investigations is the perfect response to this kind of agitprop.

petefrt on December 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Allahpundit’s exit question: “What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?”

Trading arms for the wild ones in Syria, via Turkey.

The question the media should continue to ask “what was ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi, officially and unofficially, on the anniv. of 9/11?”

The protocol for such days is that the ambassador be in the capital, Tripoli, not only in the embassy, but in its bunker.

Officially he was there to trade the arms, for obama and Hillary/Rice.

Unofficially he was there to get some boys, as payback for his work in overthrowing Qaddafi.

The big untold story – the ONLY reason Quaddafi was killed was that he and a few other related lands had formed a pact to NO longer take US dollars for their oil.

The same reason gave you the Iran obama-pajama-deal…petrodollars.

Wake up already.

All else are big lies and cover-ups.

Hillary and obama have lots of blood on their hands. The NY Slimes washes it away.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Of course if the story doesn’t support their conspiratorial world view, they attack the Times. What a shame.

lovehateofcountry on December 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

The shame is you. You are a bigger sow than is Hillary, if that’s possible.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM

NYT: No evidence of al-Qaida role in Benghazi attack

Ture – it wasn’t Al-Qaida; it was an arm of Al-Qaida, for all the fools in the world, incl. hateofcountry, one of the HA pigs.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:20 PM

New York Times exclusive:
“Youtube video caused Obamacare failures”

whatcat on December 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Petraeus is a whole other aspect to this story that’s fascinating.

Nothing fascinating about Petraeus, who s/b named “BetrayUs”. He and SC justice Roberts are two of the biggest traitors of the land.

Both knew the truth and felt for obama’s threats, instead of following their oaths to the constitution. May they both burn, slowly.

In the end both were exposed anyway and they deserve a hot hell on Earth.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM

The timeline of the accounts of that day as reported in the article don’t even support that the attack was a response to the video.

At 7AM that day, people were caught scoping out the consulate that very morning. Doubtful this was the act of people who were planning a spontaneous protest.

Words of the protests in Cairo and the video didn’t start getting sent out until 6:30PM that night in Benghazi and that is based on heresay from the articles writer. Social media history doesn’t indicate that the video was a hot topic the evening of the 11th.

Amb Stevens took a call around 8:30PM he didn’t express any concern or note that there were crowds milling around.

The initial attack began shortly after 9:42PM after the police car there for protection drove off early. There was no mention of protesting, rock throwing, or flag burning that usually precedes a “protest”. There was an immediate attack. Hardly a spontaneous protest.

The initial attack was done by just 12 attackers. No indication that they were there in protest of a video that was just brought to their attention less than 3 hours earlier. Seems if you were going to protest you’d bring more people. The attack escalated upon news that the Americans had killed one of the attackers. The hundreds in the mob that followed were there to avenge this alleged death…not because of some YouTube video.

Interesting as well that the “journolist” was a contributor to the obama campaign.

HumpBot Salvation on December 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM

NYT’s newsflash

“Obamacare is now named GWBcare”.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

“I read this report and I was really incredulous,” he said. “It seems to be an effort to revive this discredited theory that the anti-Islam video was behind it. But when you read behind the article closely, there’s various statements where the author seems to downplay the links to terrorist groups.”

whatcat on December 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

NYT Breaking News:

“Obama forced to take yet another long vacation due to a YouTube video”.

whatcat on December 29, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Do you trust the Slimes and Susan Rice, or the people with the evidence?

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Petraeus is a whole other aspect to this story that’s fascinating.

Nothing fascinating about Petraeus, who s/b named “BetrayUs”. He and SC justice Roberts are two of the biggest traitors of the land.

Both knew the truth and felt for obama’s threats, instead of following their oaths to the constitution. May they both burn, slowly.

In the end both were exposed anyway and they deserve a hot hell on Earth.

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Just curious, what specifically were the threats that O’bama made to these two that they “felt” for? And links would be nice.

Del Dolemonte on December 29, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Every time someone says “well I read in the New York Times…” I think to myself, “jackass”.

True story!

jeff_from_mpls on December 29, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Whenever I see someone purchase the NYT I always ask them if they’re housebreaking a puppy.

True story

Rio Linda Refugee on December 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM

I won’t read the article…but was there a timeline of Hillary’s actions to save the four Americans that were killed in Benghazi the night of 9/11/12?

d1carter on December 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM

There are videos online of the black flag of Kourasan in Benghazi after the attack.

No mention of that here… obviously.

tetriskid on December 29, 2013 at 1:54 PM

After reading the NYT account, it seems obvious to me that the Times is running interference for Hillary. Expect more of this as the time approaches for her to announce a “listening tour” , or exploratory committee for a 2016 run for queen of America. In otherwords, nothing newsworthy here, the propaganda mill is just tuning its gears.

simkeith on December 29, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2