NYT Investigation of BENGHAZI

[jsteele]

A very thorough report on the Benghazi attack by the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

"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."

I guess the air is just about completely out of the BENGHAZI balloon at this point. I don't think I've ever seen a scandal collapse quite at completely as this one.

[Anonymous]

Well you can expect the usual answer: liberal meeeedia, blah blah. ad hominem attack.

[Anonymous]

This is to try and get Presidential numbers up, nothing more.

[Anonymous]

And is this supported anywhere but NYT?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Nobody likes the truth

[Anonymous]

I'll take the Times over most media, but even they have had their screw-ups, so it's not gospel. Several congressmen, including at least one Dem, with committee assignments that force one to pay attention, have called it into question: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benghazi-new-york-times-report-schiff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll take the Times over most media, but even they have had their screw-ups, so it's not gospel. Several congressmen, including at least one Dem, with committee assignments that force one to pay attention, have called it into question: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benghazi-new-york-times-report-schiff.

I'd rather trust the guys providing evidence than the ones saying "trust me we have intelligence" with nothing to back it up. At this point they can either show the ties the guy has to al Qaeda or prove that it wasn't his people launching the attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll take the Times over most media, but even they have had their screw-ups, so it's not gospel. Several congressmen, including at least one Dem, with committee assignments that force one to pay attention, have called it into question: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/benghazi-new-york-times-report-schiff.

Well they haven't said anything other than "intelligence indicates al qaeda is involved". A lot of people have made a lot of mistaken claims over the last ten years with those words. We would have done better if we paid attention to the journalists who identified the problems with the intelligence against Iraq. In the case of the documents "proving" acquisition of uranium, it turned out not only were they forgeries but forgeries that bore the signature of a government official who had retired over a decade earlier. We ignored the stories and instead decided to trust the people who said "take our word for it".

[Anonymous]

This "scandal" is turning into a big bust. It is clear that the memories of these four people are being abused in order to gain political advantage.

The GOP is in such a sad state now. Congressional witch hunts, government shutdowns, symbolic protest votes, open talk about impeachment. If you had saved your credibility for the real issues that did come up, you would have made a point and possibly helped the country. Instead you come off looking like weasels scheming for the next election.

[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.

Again, this is an opinion piece. Where is the news?

[Anonymous]

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/12/30/nyts-selfcontradictory-benghazi-report/

Koffler notes some of the contradictions in the NYT piece.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, this is an opinion piece. Where is the news?

What makes you think this is an opinion piece? Did you even read it?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/12/30/nyts-selfcontradictory-benghazi-report/

Koffler notes some of the contradictions in the NYT piece.

Those are not contradictions. Rather, they are simply examples of the author's inability to comprehend complex explanations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, this is an opinion piece. Where is the news?

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.