Sunday, January 05, 2014

Benghazi: Not a closed case by a long shot

Thomas Joscelyn

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.

Three from Powerline:

Fools and knaves: New York Times edition

The Times story is a transparent attempt to provide cover for Hillary Clinton’s upcoming run for POTUS in 2016. I find it incredible that the Times produced such a lengthy story filled with statements that are so easily refuted by facts that are readily available to anybody with half a brain and an Internet connection. There are so many misstatements that it is hard to know where to begin.

Ansar al Sharia and their link to Al Qaeda…Downplaying the important connection between Al Qaeda and Libya in general as well as Ansar al Sharia specifically is perhaps the most appalling thing about the story the Times tells. The links are deep and extensive which I will demonstrate. The Al Qaeda presence in Libya, contrary to the Time reporting, is wide and deep.

Why won’t Obama target Benghazi ringleader?

The Times has identified Islamic militia leader Abu Khattala as the ringleader in the attack. Yet, as West notes:

Not one sentence in the article explained why the administration allows Khattala to strut freely around Benghazi today. President Obama authorizes drone strikes to kill dozens of Islamists each year. Why is Khattala off-limits? That is the real story.

It certainly is one of them.

David Kirkpatrick doubles down on bogus

David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times continues to claim that, notwithstanding the reporting of his own newspaper, claims of an al Qaeda connection to the Benghazi attack are “bogus” or, alternatively, “tenuous” (which is it, David?). How does Kirkpatrick square his claim with the Times’ reporting? By mischaracterizing that reporting.

No comments: