The New York Times‘ photo illustrating its new Benghazi report.
Judging by the reaction of many journalists, the main lesson of a major investigative piece by David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times (12/29/13) into the attack on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was that Al-Qaeda was not responsible.
This contradicts the right-wing narrative that has held considerable sway in the press for the past year, which transformed the death of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens into a political scandal. As Meet the Press host David Gregory (12/29/13) declared at the top of his show, “A bombshell report in the New York Times could change the debate over the deadly attack.”
But careful readers should have known this for over a year. The very same Times journalist reported a very similar story in real time. If more people had paid it sufficient attention at the time, the Republican scandal machine would have had a more difficult time getting traction.
In the new account, Kirkpatrick writes that there was
no evidence that Al-Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault…. Contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
Kirkpatrick’s story makes clear that the narrative popular among Republican politicians like Darrell Issa—that Stevens died in a well-coordinated Al-Qaeda attack, and that the Obama White House attempted to hide this fact from the public, with Susan Rice telling a bogus story about a video in order to conceal a deadly act of terrorism—was almost entirely bogus.
Seeming to not want to take sides with the Obama White House, Kirkpatrick writes that Rice’s version of events was also flawed, mainly because the violence was not “spontaneous,” though had “had spontaneous elements.”
But it was the Issa narrative, pushed by so many right-wing pundits and politicians, that was amplified by the corporate media—who treated it as established fact that the attack had nothing to do with the anti-Islam narrative (FAIR Media Advisory, 10/18/12; FAIR Blog, 10/19/12).
Before the attack, Kirkpatrick notes, there had been attacks against Western targets in Benghazi—so it would not be impossible to imagine other attacks like the one that happened on September 11, 2012. And neither would it be far-fetched to think that people would express outrage over a video, apparently made in the United States, that would be considered deeply offensive to some Muslims. The idea that the attack must have had some Al-Qaeda link was never clear, and the new reporting suggests that leaders of the group played no role in executing the attack on the facility.
Some of this is noteworthy, to be sure—and it seriously undermines the right-wing storyline. But it isn’t particularly new. As I wrote on the FAIR Blog over a year ago (“Noise and Nonsense on Benghazi Attack,” 10/17/12), a piece in the Times written by Kirkpatrick and Steven Lee Myers published on September 13, 2012, had people at the scene saying they were attacking the US building in response to the video. As they reported then:
They were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video.
The Times (10/16/12) would make much the same point about a month later, also explaining that people who were conflating Al-Qaeda with the group Ansar Al-Shariah—which is what many Republican critics seemed to be doing—were wrong to link the two groups.
So the Times‘ new reporting helps shed some light on a chaotic incident, and gives readers (among other things) considerable background into what US officials were thinking right before the attacks. That is indeed important.
But journalists who treat this story as if it substantially changes what is known about the Benghazi attack—like NBC‘s David Gregory, who declared that “this is a significant story because it changes the narrative”—are really just demonstrating that they weren’t paying very close attention to reporters they’re apparently reading very closely today. Had they paid more attention when it mattered, Benghazi would have been treated more like the non-scandal that it is.
So Mr Peter Hart would lead us to believe that a Mob of video watchers magically obtained Mortars, heavy weapons and vehicles to attack the Benghazi compound. The attack was launched on the anniversary of the Al Qaeda 9/11 WTC attack. The terrorists had intelligence on the total layout of the compound to include the safe rooms. They managed to torture and then murder Ambassador Steven’s, the highest ranking member of our Government to have been subject to such depraved acts. Yet, the NYT, Hillary and Obama want us to believe these guys just sat around watching a video, then attacked. But the attacks had gone on for months before this final success. Due to the removal of Security by Hillary and the other Incompetents at State Department. The NYT and other libs should be ashamed for this political propaganda at the expense of the dead at Benghazi.
I’m not sure why complicity is conflated with incompetence here.
Editors – who serve the interests of their employers – choose what to give prominence. They could have given this narrative the visibility it merited, but chose to let reactionary talking points frame the story, as is the case ad nausem.
So it has nothing to do with not “paying very close attention” to the former
And everything to do with consciously “amplif[ying]” the latter.
To argue otherwise is to imply that the countless repetitions of this pernicious pattern over the years is somehow the result of a sort of institutional Alzheimer’s.
We can have varying views of just why this occurs
But we can’t deny that it does, can we?
As usual, NYT, tells the truth after the intended damage is done!
Last year, Canadian Jewish academic, Henry Makow PhD, who as a young Zionist spent a few years at illegal Jewish settlement in occupied Palestine – said that the murder of US ambassador was an Israeli false flag operation to push America into war with Iran.
“The US ambassador to Libya murdered earlier today was a martyr to Zionist attempts to draw the US into war with Iran.
The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was prompted by an insulting film made by Zionist Jews that depict the prophet Mohammed, and Muslims in general, as killers and perverts.
This is taking place as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ratcheting up pressure on the US to attack Iran, or to support an Israeli attack.
Christopher Steven’s fate is an object lesson for all Americans. Zionists are happy to see Americans die fulfilling Zionist goals. On Monday, we commemorated the 11th anniversary of the false flag attack on the World Trade Center, which has Zionist fingerprints all over it.
Christopher Stevens was not the first, and won’t be the last American to die because of US servitude to Zionist ambition, which ultimately is to enslave them.
http://rehmat1.com/2012/09/12/libya-you-reap-what-you-sow/
What about the CIA’s links to the militias? (see, “CIA-backed militias linked to Benghazi, Libya attack”, http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/12/30/beng-d30.html)
Why did Kirkpatrick only passingly mention Stevens’ meeting with the Turking consul Ali Akin? What did they discuss? Did their meeting have anything to do with weapons that were reported to be either missing or possibly being channeled by the CIA to anti-Syrian “rebels”?
Why so little attention to the war crime that was US-NATO aggression which led to the “post-Gaddafi Libya”?
Why the focus on Islam as a factor rather than historical, political, economic conditions? How does Kirkpatrick’s interpretation reinforce racist stereotypes which are so useful to imperialists? (see “Cutting through the anti-Muslim propaganda”, http://socialistworker.org/print/2012/09/17/cutting-through-the-propaganda and “It’s not the Amateur film, stupid!” http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1911 )
The “scandal” that should have been covered was whether or not the Ultra Zionist freak who made the incendiary video , did so in the hope (or expectation) that it would trigger a violent incident. After watching the false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria and subsequent events, its not an unreasonable suspicion
@quillern
Of COURSE not silly!! Those mortars didn’t appear magically, they were supplied by NATO members France Britain and the US. to “freedom fighters” in Libya…What a short memory your kind has.
(mostly) ditto to Rehmat’s comment. The blatant, obvious, well documented truth of 9/11, including the ‘mysterious’ demolition of the 3rd building (which was willfully ignored by the ‘press’) fits perfectly with this operation Benghazi.
I really am at a loss to understand why FAiIR is going with the phony video story. It was NOT just the “right wing” who said the video story was a lie..just look at CounterPunch, BlackAgendaReport, BlackCommentator.
This article is really disappointing.
Okay; here’s what I think happened. I’m going to try as I might to be strictly factual here, so here goes:
Chris was an amabassador, but Hillary and Obama had him taking sides in the civil war. They told him to which groups to supply a variety of weapons . They thereby perverted his diplomatic role and made him part of the rebel cause in a civil war; as a diplomat, of course, his sole job should have been representing the US’ interests before the internationally recognized government of Libya, the one run by Gaddafi.
Now, to be sure, the US was arming everyone in sight. Of that, there is no doubt. If you were against Gaddafi, you had weapons to fight against him. But in the end, Chris could not give all the fighters the fruits of victory. He had to deny some of them what they thought their blood had earned. Some were just too extreme, in the US view, to be part of the new Libyan government. In Benghazi on 9/11/012, Chris was vulnerable to the anger of these excluded and disillusioned groups. It was common knowledge in the community that Chris was at an intelligence outpost rented by the US government from an unpopular local, a multi-millionaire in bad standing with the excluded militants. State should never have sent Chris there, especially after State had ordered him to abandon his diplomatic role and take up the cause of civil war. That outpost was scantilly protected, unlike the US diplomatic enclave in Tripoli.
I think that’s what the immediate cause of Chris’ death was, and the scandal is that Clinton would make an ambassador a gunrunner and then not protect or evacuate him after that part of Libya had had a total post-war breakdown in its order, domestic government, and society. The remote cause was the illegal war that led to that breakdown, fought against a secular regime that did not represent a threat to the US , but in fact had made the reparations the US required, its oil respources available to western exploitation, and shipped its WMD stocks to Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Clinton and Obama sowed the seeds of overthrow and intrigue, but left their unprotected ambassador -turned -interloper to reap the deadly whirlwind.
Christopher Stevens was heavily involved in encouraging the insurrection against Qaddafi, which had been planned by the US for years (search ‘4* General (ret) Wesley Clark + & governments in 5 years’). The planned insurrection had nothing to do with Human Rights violations or ‘Democracy’, everything to do with oil and international Banksters (Qaddafi was moving to a gold currency; one of the first things the NATO-backed ‘Rebels’ did was to invite in International Banks).
Stevens was not unique in interfering in countries politics, and fomenting civil strife, coups and destabilization – US Ambassadors and ‘Embassy Staff’ do it all the time (think South & Central America).
It is little wonder he was hated by many Libyans.
Whoops! I pressed the & key instead of the 7; above comment should read: (search ‘4* General (ret) Wesley Clark + 7 governments in 5 years’).
Rahemut….I cant take anything you see seriously because ,well…your whole life seems consumed by the quest to find a Jew in every woodpile.We must acknowledge that anyone would be out to lunch- if that is their single template by which to look at any world geo political situation.
I notice everyone here has a pet theory.NYT has a pet theory.My guess is your ALL a little bit right.What is so surprising to me is that no-one seems to be saying what needs to be said.We need a Congressional investigation attached to a special prosecutor with full subpoena powers that include everyone- right on up to the president.With the ability to charge those who are lying with perjury.And we must look long and hard at the oft used executive priv by Obama.Often being extended to others.At this point in time we basically have our government saying that it is all top secret and your clearance wont allow the people to know what happened.Even if that were true…..we have our reps in the house that DO have that clearance.And they are also being stonewalled.Hilary’s famous “what difference does it matter”over arching answer.Well she may run for prez.It does matter.She should be forced under supboena to answer fully.Or face incarceration.Obama likewise or face impeachment.This is not about political gamesmanship.Or even about answers we dont like(Bush and WMDs)This is about something very different.An administration that WILL NOT even make a pretense at answering questions.Even when it deals with the invasion of US territory and the slaughtering of her highest representatives.Their answer to all you inquires(Rehamut included) is go pound sand.
Isn’t it time Americans took to the streets to raise hell about perpetual war? We are spending 1.3 trillion a year on permanent war with the rest of the world. Why? We have no enemies (The Soviet Union is gone; Communist China is our great trading partner manufacturing just about everything for us and no threat to us) except for Israel’s enemies: Israel is excellent at picking them for us, for example Iran. Netanyahu orders Obama to sanction Iran, and Obama does as ordered. Israel can bomb Syria several times during 2013 without one word of criticism from the United States. Israel can attack a defenseless Gaza with free bombs to murder 1,400 Palestinians including 300+ children without one negative comment from the United States’ government in 2008-09 and receive an instant restocking of bombs, rockets, and missiles from the bush, our idiot president at the time. The Military-Industrial Complex and Israel dictate our foreign policy. Obama sends drones to assassinate American terrorist suspects (no court, no indictment, no charges: AMERICAN CITIZENS “protected” by our Constitution). Obama should have a professor of American constitutional law advise him (unfortunately Obama has forgotten the subject he taught).
What kind of people have we become when we silently accept the bush-cheney foreign policy of torturing, rendering, and murdering prisoners of war? And we thought the Nazis were bad! At least at Nuremberg we tried them in an international court of law and hanged many, but with the bush we give him a library, and we give cheney a heart since he obviously didn’t have one.
We are exceptional: not subject to international law as other inferior nations are—all of them on the planet!
This is nothing more than additional evidence, that mass media, in spite of their feeble efforts to conceal it, are conservative, seeking always to give an unfair advantage to right-wing candidates for political office. Democracy will never get a foothold, until this cynical conservative media outlook, is exposed. Follow the money. Denying Hillary her last shot at the presidency is the principal underlying goal of this Benghazi hysteria.