New York Times Tries to Revive the Benghazi “YouTube Anger” Hoax


obama-benghazi

Major media outlets have a new disinformation tactic. Instead of a fact-check, which used to be their old tactic, they drop a voluminous multi-part essay that claims to be the product of intensive reporting, but doesn’t really offer much of anything new, except an attempt at reviving a discredited liberal narrative, which its own reporting doesn’t support.

That was how the Boston Globe deployed its attempt at rebranding the Tsarnaev brothers from Islamic terrorists to a poor traumatized mentally ill duo. Now the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick is getting his “Ready for Hillary” tag on with another multi-part essay already being trumpeted by Media Matters for discrediting what its leader calls the “Benghazi Hoax”.

The two tangible claims made by David Kirkpatrick are that

1. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack

2. The attack was motivated by anger over a YouTube video

The actual reporting about the attack is surface and neither claim is really backed up. David Kirkpatrick claims that there is no proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack. That’s because there is no definitive proof of who was responsible for the attack.

David Kirkpatrick and the New York Times choose to focus attention on Ahmed Abu Khattala, but their own story shows that virtually everyone in the Benghazi militias was collaborating to either allow the attack or cover for the perpetrators.

And their sole basis for the YouTube video claim is that some of the attackers supposedly mentioned the video to outsiders during the attack. That fails to support the New York Times’ claim that the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

But the timeline of the attack discredits the idea that a series of attacks across the region could have been done in two days.

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.

The overall context for the September 11 attacks isn’t the YouTube video, it’s the wave of simultaneous attacks. If you believe Rice and the New York Times, these attacks were just spontaneous. But the Benghazi attack, which was the most organized, is the least plausible of these video attacks.

If you believe Obama and the New York Times’ Benghazi YouTube hoax, the most severe wave of attacks against American targets in the Middle East in decades was thrown together on a whim by purely local organizations with no earlier planning or international coordination.

This is about as unlikely as WW2 beginning because Hitler had some bad kielbasa and suddenly decided to invade Poland.

Furthermore there were multiple prior attacks against foreign missions and personnel in Benghazi long before the YouTube video.

Back to Ahmed Abu Khattala and Ansar Al-Sharia and Al Qaeda, Kirkpatrick and the New York Times disprove nothing, as Media Matters claims they have.

Al Qaeda has multiple franchises that choose to hide or deny their affiliations. These include Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, a group that even the New York Times admits is Al Qaeda.

Even the New York Times article admits that Ansar Al-Sharia is pro Al-Qaeda. Ansar Al-Sharia has repeatedly made a point of aligning itself with Al Qaeda.

Kirkpatrick and the New York Times blast the US for focusing on Al Qaeda instead of local militias, worrying about ex-Gitmoite Abu Sufian bin Qumu, instead of Ahmed Abu Khattala. But older reports stated that Qumu was leading Ansar Al-Sharia. Confusing matters is the roster of shifting names and affiliations, which make the situation occasionally impossible to decipher. Especially when there is more than one Ansar Al-Sharia and when groups appear to share names while remaining vague about their national and international affiliations.

Militia leaders go by non-de plumes. Militias fragment and then reconnect. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the original definitive militia, switched its allegiance from Al Qaeda to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The report stated

The name Ansar al-Sharia is also being used by al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in so-called liberated areas of Yemen and by Salafist groups in Tunisia. The Facebook sites of Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and the group in Tunisia appear similar in design and content and also share contacts, suggesting coordination between the groups.

What the New York Times has done is simply chosen not to investigate any such links, declaring instead that there is no proof. That’s an easy cop-out that disproves nothing.

There are bits of relevant information buried in the rubble of the New York Times’ disinformation essay.

“We thought we were sufficiently close to them,” said one Western diplomat who was in Benghazi not long before the attack. “We all thought that if anything threatening was happening, that they would tip us off.”

That’s probably the only significant paragraph in the whole essay.

  • ClownSchool

    Mr. Greenfield clearly must have spent more time in Libya than the Times did and have better, more extensive sources among those who attacked the Benghazi compound. He should share them with us. Otherwise, he risks coming off as someone suffering cognitive dissonance, who would double down on his own factlessness rather than face reality.

    • DogmaelJones1

      Dear Clown School: If you can write a better column that clarifies the issue, do it, instead of making snarky remarks. The Times is attempting to make a Rubik’s Cube of the issue, and I think Mr. Greenfield has shed light on the Times’s motive and method.

      • ClownSchool

        “The Times is attempting to make a Rubik’s Cube of the issue”

        And you base this statement of fact on what?

        Maybe partisan bitterness is clouding your judgment?

        • DogmaelJones1

          Write a better column, if you can. Untangle the misinformation and obfuscation that’s embedded in the Times report, which I’ve read in its entirety. And drop the “partisan bitterness” mantra. You don’t know who I am.

          • ClownSchool

            Why would I write a column when you are the one challenging the story’s veracity? If your reading skills are as poor as your sense of logic …

            You stated as fact that the Times is attempting to make a Rubik’s Cube of the issue. And when asked to prove your assertion, you have nothing.

            I’m embarrassed for you.

          • Habbgun

            Nah, you’re embarrassed because you are just a typical webtroll. Doesn’t really matter why the attacks happened when the administration refused to help. Doesn’t matter why the attacks happened when Egypt calls the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization and the admin supports it and welcomes it into the US government. Doesn’t matter why the attacks happened when Obama ignores Iranians being shot in the street by their own govt but we make treaties with that govt. Doesn’t matter why the attacks happened when we ship automatic weapons into Mexico. This administration is covered in blood.

          • Ned

            Your the one that shoulf be embarrassed

            Ex CIA analyst speaks on the recent NYT attempt to vindicate Hillary Clinton for her bid for president.

            http://vladtepesblog.com/2013/12/29/news-links-for-dec-29-2013-1/

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/29/i-read-this-report-i-was-really-incredulous-ex-cia-analyst-rips-nyt-benghazi-report/

            You think you can shut us up? There are too many channels

            You think you can demoralize us. Have at it Patsy.

          • DogmaelJones1

            I’m not writing a 50 page essay for your benefit, Clown School. The onus of thinking and sorting things out is on you. It’s three strikes against you, and you’re out. Back to the dugout for you.

        • DogmaelJones1

          Here’s a link to the Times article. I’m betting the Washington Post will come out with a companion piece.
          http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?emc=edit_na_20131228#/?chapt=0
          Go to it. Compose that better column.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Do you believe that a series of timed attacks on American diplomatic facilities across the region were put together in a few days with no coordination or preparation?

    • m4253y

      hey, clown, living with your head deeply ensconced within your posterior, does any light reach you there?

      obviously not as the mantra of your knowledge on this matter is not related to the many facts as told by witnesses to this act of war but those of your ilk on the left.

    • Terrence

      Most news organizations have cut back on foreign correspondents.

      So what we are rely on is local people or regional people and base our judgments on their track record by watching what later develops or comes out.

      If a analyst tell me the stock market is gonging to go down next year tells me why, explains the fundamentals and shows the leading indicators, I am going to put more stock in the analyst when it happens.

      The same is true with analysts of world events.

      So you can blather on all day long CLOWNSCHOOL with your silly (I despise you simpletons) post name. But whatever

    • charles

      Clownschool is a troll that inhabits conservative site like Breitbart, Politico and FPM.

      He is a sample of his insight (note the projection)

      “Robertson sounds like a man wrestling with some inner demons. Camouflage, indeed.”

      Clown, when did you come out of the closet?

      Maha Rushy said the Left will always tell you who they fear by who they attack.

      Grats Clown.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Whether you like it or not, the idea that the Benghazi attack was the result of a spontaneous mob uprising in response to a video is absurd. Granted, Islamists are not going to like a video critical of Islam, but the attack was too well-coordinated to have been anything but a pre-planned terrorist assault, in all likelihood with the collusion of local militias (else how would the attackers have had the intelligence they obviously did, such as the location of our ambassador?).

      The NYT along with the rest of the mainstream media is the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and should be treated accordingly by Daniel and FPM. Since we know they will do everything in their power to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, we can and should suspect their reporting to be biased in her favor. It’s clear that they’re more worried about the Benghazi story costing her the election than they are with providing the unvarnished truth to their readers.

      Back to clown school with you!

  • David Farrar

    The allegation, from the very beginning, from Admiral Lyons, is that these group’s main aim, on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood, with Obama’s beforehand knowledge, was to kidnap Ambassador Stevens so that Obama could exchange him for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind sheik). If you remember, this was the first sworn political objective of Mohamed Morsi’s.

    (AP) CAIRO – In his first public speech addressing tens of thousands of mostly Islamist supporters, Egypt’s president-elect Mohammed Morsi has vowed to free the blind sheik jailed in the U.S. for a plot to blow up New York City landmarks.

    This is just another attempt to whitewash what really happened by the liberal media.

    The next thing the New York Times will be reporting is that the riot at the Cairo embassy over the video was real.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • .

      Someone dislike David’s assertions, but they do not back it up.

      Which assertion is wrong?

      “n his first public speech addressing tens of thousands of mostly Islamist supporters, Egypt’s president-elect Mohammed Morsi has vowed to free the blind sheik”

      That Admiral Lyon’s alleged “that these group’s main aim, on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood, with Obama’s beforehand knowledge”

  • Call Me Mom

    Shame on the NYT. But then, that’s what their dear leader, Mr. Obama, does, just say whatever you want to be true and act like it is and then ridicule anyone who actually does the research to call you on it. Just shameful.

    • AJK

      Shame on the Boston Globe also.

      “That was how the Boston Globe deployed its attempt at rebranding the Tsarnaev brothers from Islamic terrorists to a poor traumatized mentally ill duo.”

      The Boston Globe was recently sold by the NYT for a huge loss. Let’s hope other sections of the newspaper do not carry the front page which is obviously leftists and un-American. May it go out of business as other local papers carry local stories of interest without the stench.

  • Veracious_one

    According to a Libyan intelligence document, the Muslim Brotherhood, including Egyptian President Morsi, were involved in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where several Americans, including U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, were killed.

    Image of the Libyan intelligence document

    On Wednesday, June 26, several Arabic websites, including Veto Gate, quoted the intelligence report, which apparently was first leaked to the Kuwaiti paper, Al Ra’i. Prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, Director of National Security for Libya, the report is addressed to the nation’s Minister of Interior.

    It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.

    According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma’il…”

    It should be noted that these findings are unsurprising: the supremacism of prominent Brotherhood figure Safwat Hegazi is such that he publicly declares the Brotherhood “will rule the world“; Saudi Mansour’s hate-mongering, pro-Brotherhood TV station repeatedly aired footage of the YouTube Muhammad movie inciting violence around the Muslim world; popular Sheikh Muhammad Hassan holds that smiling to non-Muslims is forbidden, except when trying to win them over to Islam; and Sheikh Hazim Abu Ismail is simply an openly anti-freedom, anti-infidel religious leader.

    As for President Morsi, a video made during the consulate attack records people speaking in the Egyptian dialect: as they approach the beleaguered U.S. compound, one of them yells to the besiegers, “Don’t shoot—Dr. Morsi sent us!”

    Update: On July 11, Tahrir News further validated the veracity of this document.

  • darnellecheri

    The rehabilitation of Hitlary Clinton, whoops, I meant Hillary Clinton has begun. This is beyond shameful. Didn’t Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), Chair of the House Intelligence Committee claim last month that it was clear that the Obama administration downplayed Al Qaeda’s role in this attack?

    “It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda led event…” Rep. Rogers stated.
    Clinton and her minions have been lying for so long, it is beyond pathological, if there is such a thing.

  • .

    ” Confusing matters is the roster of shifting names and affiliations, ‘

    that has been the modus operandi since the 1980s. Between a lack of humint and the difficulty of language, it has made it hard to come to grips with it.

    It also makes it easy for the Complicity legacy media to ignore it or lie about it.

  • rappini pasta

    I didn’t know folks still read the NYT.

  • edlancey

    Cliches often have a kernel of truth to them and “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup” is certainly the case here.

    I couldn’t care less whether the attack was inspired by the video or not.

    What concerns me is the response of the US government to the attack and it is my sincere belief that they refused to send military aid because they didn’t want to jeopardize the ludicrous “GM is alive, Bin Laden is dead” electioneering slogan.

    In other words, they left Americans to twist in the wind (and ultimately be murdered) in order to win an election.

    In my book, that’s treason.

  • stevethird

    It’s about Hillary 2016. Period.

  • MJUdall

    Hopefully the idiots at the NY Slimes just re-opened this can of worms on Obama. I never seen such shameful blatant lies like those in this report. Also, whether its Al Qaeda or Al Shabob or Al howdy doody jabooli, when are these morons going to realize that it is all ISLAM!

  • USARetired

    This you can take to the bank! This distorted story has been resurrected by O’Bozo or Broom Stick One, or both! The NYT has been a worthless rag for some time!

  • quousque

    My earlier comment on Daily Caller ( I am a lousy typist hence copy and paste):

    “I am glad that Hill and Bill came up so soon in the discussion. This is nothing else but a diversionary plant to steer the discussion and argumentation when Hillary Clinton will initiate her campaign. All talking heads will be able to invoke, what else the statute of the Gray Lady. My take, anyone who still thinks that propaganda machine aka. mass media, is in the business of delivering the news, should have his/her head examined. Do you remember George Stephanopulos’ question to Gov. Romney re; contraception? It come out of the blue, had nothing to do with debate and set the tone for the rest of presidential campaign. The New York Times and the rest of the ‘Joseph Goebbels Propaganda Ministry’ know darn well how damaging Benghazi is to Hillary’s quest. They will stop at nothing to divert, obfuscate and create straw men and straw events. It worked before, why it should not work now?”

    I need a clear distinction from someone who knows. I the essay by Kirkpatric part of the news reporting, or is it part of opinion pages? I am not going to soil my hands and mind by entering that dung repository.

    Mr. Greenfield, you have an excellent string of posts recently; keep’em coming.

  • Leland64

    The NYT is setting the stage for Hillary and her media friends to absolve her of all blame for Benghazi. Facts don’t matter – only the fiction Hillary is the smartest woman in the world destined to lead America forward to its richly deserved fate.

    • darnellecheri

      Please forgive me for my distasteful reply, but I absolutely love America too much to not vomit a little in my mouth when I think about Hitlary Clinton leading our beloved country into a deeper level of abyss than the level we are already at. Please, Lord, help us!

      • Leland64

        Agreed. Hillary will finish what Obama started if given a chance.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    It’s most likely that al Qaeda and the MB arranged for the faux outrage (although in the event most of the dupes were certainly true believers) as a cover for the planned attack.

  • disqus_aO4KJtxZtF

    In his NYT article calculated to resurrect the discredited “abusive video” explanation for the Incident at Benghazi, “Kirkpatrick argues the attack was carried out by local militias not affiliated with Al Qaeda and that the film Innocence of Muslims played a significant role in fostering the attack. The former claim has already been questioned on the basis of other reports–including one by the NY Times to which Kirkpatrick contributed–indicating that groups with connections to Al Qaeda were on site during the attack that night. Until the Times retracts or corrects its earlier reporting it seems to be at odds with itself on who was involved.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/world/middleeast/no-specific-warnings-in-benghazi-attack.html?_r=2&

    http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/12/30/What-the-NY-Times-Got-Right-and-Wrong-on-Benghazi

    The militants at Benghazi could have learned about the video in question because it was broadcast in Cairo on September 11th. The NYT reports: “Updated | 8:13 p.m. Angered by reports in the Egyptian media that members of the Coptic Christian diaspora in Washington had produced a crude film mocking the Muslim prophet, protesters climbed the walls of the United States Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and tore down the American flag. Later, a Libyan security official told Reuters that armed militiamen had attacked the United States consulate in Benghazi, killing a staff member.”

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/

    What is significant here is this statement: “A a 14-minute trailer for the English-language film, which was posted on YouTube in July, attracted little attention until last week, when a version dubbed into Arabic was posted on the same YouTube channel and then copied and viewed tens of thousands of times more. (The Arabic version was removed from the filmmaker’s YouTube channel after this post was originally published.)”

    Why, all of a sudden did this video emerge? One answer could be is that it was going to be used as an alibi for a planned attack at Benghazi. It could have been a smoke screen to cover up what was going on there (gun running and a plot to kidnap the ambassador)
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57011

    So who’s lying? Members of the Congressional investigation or Kilpatrick? “I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.

    With two conflicting stores about the Incident at Benghazi, we will only know the truth when there is an open investigation with sworn testimony before Congress.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/29/house-intelligence-chair-benghazi-attack-al-qaeda-led-event/

    http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?ref=daviddkirkpatrick#/?chapt=0