Excerpt: "This NYTimes report should lay to rest these long-debunked yet oft-repeated talking points on the part of both right-wing media and their conservative allies."
New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick's series "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" debunks a number of right-wing talking points about the attack on the U.S. consulate. (photo: ABC)
NYTimes Investigation Shuts Down Benghazi Hoaxers
29 December 13
six-part series by New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick destroyed several myths about the September 11, 2012, attack on U.S. diplomaticfacilities in Benghazi, Libya,myths often propagated by conservative media and their allies in Congress to politicize the attack against the Obama administration.
Since the September 2012 attacks, right-wing media have seized upon various inaccurate, misleading, or just plain wrong talking points about Benghazi. Some of those talking points made their way into the mainstream, most notably onto CBS' 60 Minutes,earning the network theMedia Matters' 2013"Misinformer of the Year"title for its botched report.
Kirkpatrick's series, titled "A Deadly Mix In Benghazi," debunks a number of these right-wing talking points based on "months of investigation" and "extensive interviews" with those who had "direct knowledge of the attack." Among other points, Kirkpatrickdeflates the claims that an anti-Islamic YouTube video played no role in motivating the attacks and that Al Qaeda was involved in the attack:
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.
Fox News, scores of Republican pundits, and Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), among others, dragged then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice through the mud for citing talking points that mentioned an anti-Islamic YouTube videoon Sundaymorning news programs following the attacks.Despite right-wing media claims to the contrary, however, Kirkpatrick stated that the attack on the Benghazi compound was in "large part" "fueled" by the anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube. He wrote (emphasis added):
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.
[...]
There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers.A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him.Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.
Another talking point that right-wing media used to accuse the Obama administration of a political cover-up was the removal of Al Qaeda from Rice's morning show talking points.Kirkpatrick, however, affirmed in his NYTimes report thatAl Qaeda was not involved in the attack in Benghazi (emphasis added):
But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda's international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attacker's boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.
Kirkpatrick also dispelled the notion that the attack on the compound was carefully planned, writing that "the attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs."
This NYTimes report should lay to rest these long-debunked yet oft-repeated talking points on the part of both right-wing media and their conservative allies.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
A note of caution regarding our comment sections:
For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.
It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.
We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.
It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.
Adapt and overcome.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
Yes, but only liberals will admit they were wrong. People like Penn will insist the grass is orange no matter how many proof you show them that it is green.
Argument ad hominem (essentially, argument by insult) is a well-known desperation tactic by debaters who can't win on the merits, Penn. As for impeachment, keep dreaming. That worked SO well last time . . . !
Oh, and it's "weasel."
''…the communist agenda…''……..???????
.
On 20 March 2011, Jones held a 'Trial of the Quran' in his church; he found the Quran guilty of 'crimes against humanity' - mind you, this was with NO LEGAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER - and burned it in his church sanctuary!
That time, it sparked attacks against the UN Assistance Mission in Mazar-l-Sharif, Afghanistan. 30 people killed, over 150 injured.
And that was BEFORE the video!
The truth is that ONE CHRISTIAN WACKJOB was responsible for at LEAST 50 deaths and HUNDREDS injured as a result of his BS!
The truth is that the WORLD knew about 'Pastor' Terry Jones and his religious treason LONG before the video came out!
Now, if a Muslim threatened to burn a *Bible*, EVERY religious wackjob would be calling for a Holy War in response, so the Muslim reaction to having THEIR holy book burned was understandable...
So why is it so hard for YOU to believe that the video sparked a LOT of protests, INCLUDING the Benghazi tragedy?
All of his comments disappeared except for one blurb on NPR. There were other angry comments, just as after 9/11 concerning the events. Those are gone, as well.
It's amazing anybody had the stamina to carry through with a thorough investigation. A LOT of bull had to be waded through.
''"This NYTimes report should lay to rest these long-debunked yet oft-repeated talking points on the part of both right-wing media and their conservative allies." ''
Good Luck with that...
RSS feed for comments to this post