If you want to read some real reporting and you have any interest in what really happened in the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. mission and C.I.A. compound in Benghazi, Libya, then you MUST read today's New York Times article published, it says, after months of on-the-ground investigation. The article does not exactly absolve the State Department but it pretty much demolishes the GOP/Fox News narrative.
The Times writes:
Fifteen months after (American Ambassador J. Christopher) Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that 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.
Oh, and The Times also found that, despite Fox's efforts to deny it, an anti-Islamic video did play a significant role in the attacks:
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. 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. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
Although Fox News can't stop obsessing over Benghazi, there's nothing on FoxNews.com's homepage about this new report at the moment, even though it was released several hours ago. I found nothing on either Fox Nation or Fox's video page, either.
They'll probably wait until there's a Republican response before echoing them discussing this latest development.
Meanwhile, I urge you to read the entire article and let me know what you think in our comments section.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/21/know_your_ansar_al_sharia#sthash.cL4tnsgC.dpbs
Of course, all the FOX reports that I’ve watched so far have misquoted the NYT article is some fashion. Shafer also said that Abu Khattala did not have the type of social access to spawn that type of an attack. The article, of course, proves otherwise.
CNN shared this tweet by Tommy Vietor:
“Credit to @ddknyt but also disconcerting that his #Benghazi article offered more insight into what happened than all Congressional hearings."
Faux is so predictable.
