Question:
Why does the New York Times think Al Qaeda didn't have an involvement in Benghazi Scandal?
Trump The Commie
2013-12-29 07:33:45 UTC
It says that it is focused on the American video on islam.

LOL

Liberal Mainstream Media?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/us/libya-benghazi-nyt-report/

"A New York Times report on the September 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans -- including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens -- in Benghazi, Libya, calls into question much of what Republicans accusing the Obama administration of a cover-up have said about the incident.
The three main points of contention have been whether the attack was planned, whether it was sparked by an anti-Muslim video, and whether al Qaeda was involved.
However, the Times says, the administration's version, focusing on outrage over the inflammatory video, and first delivered by then-ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Sunday morning talk shows five days later, isn't exactly right, either.
"The reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs," according to David D. Kirkpatrick's article in the Times.
It's a conclusion that CNN has drawn in its previous reporting.
The attack at the Benghazi diplomatic compound has become a political flashpoint in a long-running battle between the White House and Republicans, who accuse the Obama administration of not bolstering security before the attack, of botching the response to it and of misleading the public for political gain less than two months before the November election.
The GOP suggests the administration removed specific terror references and stuck to the explanation advanced by Rice -- later proved untrue -- that the attack was the result of spontaneous demonstrations over the U.S.-produced film "Innocence of Muslims," which contained scenes some Muslims considered blasphemous."
Ten answers:
Sweet Sarah
2013-12-29 07:34:40 UTC
they say they investigated. what do you want them to do?
Martian
2013-12-29 16:17:51 UTC
One Liberal answer, Iowa Firefighter, advances all the cliche and standardized

"Liberal" responses to Benghazi, yet FAILS like all Liberals, to provide a rational

reason to ONE critical question. WHY won't Obama release the only eyewitnesses

to Benghazi, to testify before the Committee ? Obama ordered the DOD to have

these witnesses sign "Non-Disclosure" Statements and he can EASILY remove

the threats they contain for speaking about the incident. Obama did the SAME

mini-tyrant move with Fast & Furious, by writing an Executive Order, to keep

his "pet" Holder from further testifying as Holder was about to be charged with

"Perjury". Obama HIMSELF made the following statement: " The ONLY people

who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide". Doesn't

it ever cross a Liberal mind that Obama MIGHT be hiding something incriminating ?

Or is it ALL "blind obedience" as usual ?
justa
2013-12-29 15:41:15 UTC
Even at the time there was confusion as to what group was responsible, or group of groups, or individuals from separate groups.



In this country we like to see things in an orderly way, as if each group has an organized system with leaders and followers and they stay in that particular group. In those Muslim countries you can be in one or more groups, or just pick up a group on their way to a riot. Its a far more fluid situation than we are used to.

You also have to remember that you don't need much to make them kill, the movie might have been seen by only a few, and still used as an excuse by them. And still it wasn't the main reason, if one really has a reason needed there. In any event Issa still insists it was an Al Qaeda (now) linked, organization. It would n't matter if it was the Boy Scouts, they'd still find a weasly way to make it seem worse than it was.
Liberals Love Censorship
2013-12-29 15:35:00 UTC
They admit terrorism was involved, but only a few of them were actually connected to al Qaeda.



As far as they know.



http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20131228-in-benghazi-attack-video-had-role-al-qaeda-didnt-probe-finds.ece

In Benghazi attack, video had role, al-Qaeda didn’t, probe finds

28 December 2013

'The Benghazi-based CIA team had briefed McFarland and Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the U.S. intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the main militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to al-Qaeda, officials said. The briefing that day made no mention of Abu Khattala, Ansar al-Shariah or the video ridiculing Islam, even though television networks popular in Benghazi were spewing outrage against it.



'Members of the local militia groups the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile. The fixation on al-Qaeda may have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.'







So of course, that means Republicans LIED!!! And lying can not be tolerated. We all know how Democrats have a zero tolerance policy on lying.



oh, wait.



EYEROLL.....
andy c
2013-12-29 15:43:49 UTC
The NY Times went full Pravda long ago. They are doing some preemptive history editing to pave the way for Hillary. I imagine their next big story will be how she's gonna save us from obama care- with a single payer system.
GEORGE B
2013-12-29 16:07:52 UTC
The NY Times routinely publishes stories that use the exact same phrasing as used in White House press briefings and news releases.



Gee, wonder how THAT happens?
Di
2013-12-29 15:39:06 UTC
It could be that they have decided to get on board with the possibility of a Hils Clinton run for the presidency.



That they would have access to information to support the real truth is questionable but, then again, perhaps "sources" fed them data to allow them to create the "report." Who knows, perhaps someone in the know helped them write the piece.



Apparently the 2016 election cycle has started a tad earlier than usual.
anonymous
2013-12-29 15:35:46 UTC
The New York Times is a liberals paper that makes up its own truth.



This time they might be right.



It was probably the Muslim Brotherhood.
anonymous
2013-12-29 15:37:24 UTC
They are perpetrating a lie to help 0bama.
?
2013-12-29 15:35:07 UTC
they are trying to cover for Hillary , they want her in the Oral office


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...