NYT Investigation of BENGHAZI

[Anonymous]

It is completely unsurprising that conservatives are unable to distinguish investigative journalism from opinion. You have seen too much of the latter, and precious little of the former.

Alinsky #5: Ridicule

[Anonymous]

At least we know now that the benghazi attack was indeed our (the U.S.) fault for allowing that a-hole to make and upload that stupid Innocence of Muslims "movie".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is completely unsurprising that conservatives are unable to distinguish investigative journalism from opinion. You have seen too much of the latter, and precious little of the former.

Alinsky #5: Ridicule

It's not ridicule. Do you have an alternative explanation for why the poster cannot distinguish the two?

[Anonymous]

Do you have an alternative explanation for why the poster cannot distinguish the two?
[Report Post]

Do you have an alternative explanation of why the reporter only interviewed the LIbyans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And is this supported anywhere but NYT?

Gee, conservative media will take some quite from a blogger and repeat it a thousand times like it is truth. But give them a well researched, lengthy piece with plenty of supporting evidence and they are more skeptical than pastor bill at the natural history museum.

This site desperately needs "like" buttons. Jeff, stop reading the newspaper and get on this!!!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have an alternative explanation for why the poster cannot distinguish the two?
[Report Post]

Do you have an alternative explanation of why the reporter only interviewed the LIbyans?

What makes you think that the reporter did only interview Libyans? It looks pretty clear to me that Americans were interviewed as well.

[Anonymous]

from the article in NYT:
"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."

I didn't find quotes from any interviewees except LIbyans. Also, he quoted already released information from State and Congress, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:from the article in NYT:
"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."

I didn't find quotes from any interviewees except LIbyans. Also, he quoted already released information from State and Congress, etc.

You are clearly reading challenged. Quoting is not the only way an interview can be used.

[Anonymous]

You are clearly reading challenged. Quoting is not the only way an interview can be used.
[Report Post]

Boy. Alinsky is busy today. He made a point of telling the reader that the article centered on interviews with Libyans on the ground. No where does he indicate or give any new information from other sources.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

You are clearly reading challenged. Quoting is not the only way an interview can be used.
[Report Post]

Boy. Alinsky is busy today. He made a point of telling the reader that the article centered on interviews with Libyans on the ground. No where does he indicate or give any new information from other sources.

Your constant citation of Alinsky is very lazy. It is a crutch to avoid substantive discussion would actually require thought on your part. It reflects much more poorly on you than the person to whom you make the accusation.

Regarding the article, I'm pretty sure that you haven't read it. If you have read it, I have to agree with the poster above that your reading skills leave much to be desired. But, just a few of examples of information that was clearly obtained from interviews with US officials:

"Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras."

"several officials who received the briefings said."

"I knew the backup guys at the Annex, who were quite heavily trained and equipped," said an Obama administration official who visited in the months before the attack."

“We heard a lot about Sufian bin Qumu,” said one American diplomat in Libya at the time. “I don’t know if we ever heard anything about Ansar al-Shariah.”

"Mr. Bukatef of the February 17 Brigade was a fluent English speaker who visited the American compound in Benghazi so often that “it was like he was my best friend,” one diplomat joked."

Seriously, I don't know how you could have read the article and come away thinking that only Libyans were interviewed.

What is the Alinsky number for not being able to read very well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is completely unsurprising that conservatives are unable to distinguish investigative journalism from opinion. You have seen too much of the latter, and precious little of the former.

Alinsky #5: Ridicule

So all you have is a Chinese menu technique of calling out numbers in response? Very shallow (fact, not ridicule).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are clearly reading challenged. Quoting is not the only way an interview can be used.
[Report Post]

Boy. Alinsky is busy today. He made a point of telling the reader that the article centered on interviews with Libyans on the ground. No where does he indicate or give any new information from other sources.

Uh, three paragraphs after the comment about the libyan interviews, they cite US intelligence sources.

[Anonymous]

The best thing about the story was the Ambassadors arrival in Libya via a Greek freighter. The guy had a Lawrence of Arabia complex and had no intelligence on the Libyans who actually were involved in the attack

Second best thing is that the perp lived with his mother. Sounds like the US criminals who live in their mothers' basements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best thing about the story was the Ambassadors arrival in Libya via a Greek freighter. The guy had a Lawrence of Arabia complex and had no intelligence on the Libyans who actually were involved in the attack

Second best thing is that the perp lived with his mother. Sounds like the US criminals who live in their mothers' basements

I don't think you need to tear down the Ambassador. He didn't have a complex. He cared a lot about the future of Libya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is completely unsurprising that conservatives are unable to distinguish investigative journalism from opinion. You have seen too much of the latter, and precious little of the former.

Alinsky #5: Ridicule

+1