The NYT did their fraudulent best this weekend to pull Hillary “Frankly what does it matter now?” Clinton’s reputation out of the morgue. The true believers will – and are – pointing to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and screeching that he wasted time and money on a phony investigation.
The bottom line here is that a Times “investigative reporter” talked to some Libyans and came to the conclusion that “it was the video thingy” and al Qaeda wasn’t involved.
Today, Rep. Issa and several members of Congress who have seen classified documents that the Times “reporter” didn’t have access to have cried “bunk” on the story. People who were in Benghazi have confidentially confirmed that the Times story is a lie. Here’s a former CIA analyst on the story.
It wasn’t a riot caused by a video that had had about 35 hits on YouTube prior to the attack in Benghazi. FoxNews spoke people on the ground…
“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.
The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.
Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.
“Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.
“One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating — that is a direct action planned attack.”
That statement comes from people who do direct action, planned attacks for a living. They know the difference between a planned attack by trained military and civilian riot.
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline spoke to one of the people David Kirkpatrick, the Times “reporter”, interviewed.
Kirkpatrick’s heavy reliance on self-serving comments by Libyans that also serve the purposes of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, etc, suggests that he had a story he wanted to write and was looking for confirmation of that story.
This suspicion was confirmed to me by one of the people Kirkpatrick interviewed. This person, probably as well informed about the Benghazi attack as any American, tells me that during the interview with Kirkpatrick (which occurred many months ago), it quickly became clear that he “had his conclusions and simply wanted me to confirm them, not refute them.” It also became clear, my source adds, that Kirkpatrick “was off the rails.”
John Hinderaker, also of Powerline, notes that for all the “investigation” supposedly done by Kirkpatrick, he didn’t answer or even address three of the main questions around the attack.
Why didn’t Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, respond to any of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ several requests for increased security? The Times offers no answer to this fundamental question. […]
Where were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the night of September 11, 2012, and what orders, if any, did they give? The news media’s lack of curiosity as to what Obama and Clinton were doing during the seven or eight hours that went by while four Americans, including an ambassador, were under attack and ultimately were murdered, is remarkable. […]
Why haven’t the perpetrators of the murders been found and punished? President Obama vowed to find and punish those responsible for the murders of the Americans. […] even though many of those who participated in that night’s carnage have been happy to give interviews to New York Times reporters and others, nothing has been done to bring justice to the perpetrators of the greatest outrage against American honor in recent years.
The Weekly Standard also has an excellent takedown of this piece of Hillary propaganda that dissects the NYT whitewash.
The Times doesn’t address the classified cable that Catherine Herridge reported on last year.
It comes down to who ya gonna believe?
People with access to classified information – including at least one Democrat – who insist the article is bunk?
Or the house organ for the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign who are trying to put Benghazi in the past?
We know who we trust. HINT: It’s not the modern day Walter Duranty.