Might have been brought over before but worth repeating because "we need to never forget" and keep asking for all the answers on these "scandals"!!!!

[Watch] The New York Times Contradicts Benghazi Witnesses, Congress

A recent New York Times article details the results of their investigation into the events surrounding the attacks on the American compound in Benghazi. It is presented as the findings of their own investigative work on the ground in Benghazi in the time since the attack.

Since the testimony of witnesses before congress has been largely of a secret nature, the information gathered through the hearings is of no value to Americans seeking a firsthand understanding of what happened. Therefore, challenging the validity of the New York Times’ claims is difficult and must be based upon statements from those who have knowledge of what was said by those witnesses.
The NYT article says that the Americans were warned to get out, that it was not safe for them to be in Benghazi, as they were eating Twinkies with their terrorist allies. During that time, Mohamed al-Gharabi acknowledged that they were grateful for American help in ridding the country of Qaddafi, but what they really wanted now was a McDonald’s and a KFC. The terror leaders now wanted to be businessmen and were interested in American investment.
This request was made to David McFarland, a new diplomat on the scene, in his first meeting with a Libyan militia leader. In a cable two days later, he wrote, “the fighters wanted the United States to become more engaged “by ‘pressuring’ American businesses to invest in Benghazi.”
Later that same day, that prospect became extremely unlikely as four Americans were killed.
The NYT article says, “As the attacks begin, there are seven Americans at the mission, including five armed diplomatic security officers.” This account is quite different from the witness testimony as recounted by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., chairman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee. He told Fox News that State Department employees inside the mission “were not armed, not kitted up and there hadn’t been any shots fired from our side as far as the testimony reveals.”

The NYT describes the cable from McFarland as a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions. They talk of how America had hoped to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda.
The position of the NYT is that the greatest intelligence gathering network in the history of the planet got it wrong for months. That our attempts to fight terrorism through allying ourselves with terrorists had somehow gone awry.
The New York Times makes the argument that the attack on the compound was led by “fighters,” a generic, inoffensive term for terrorists, who had been supported by the US and NATO in the overthrow of Qaddafi. They then bring up the infamous video once again.
They make the argument that the amateur video did play a role in the uprising. This claim is contradictory to the White House admission that it did not, as is verified in this testimony by the number two-man in Libya under Christopher Stevens, Gregory Hicks.
The No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the Benghazi attack testified Wednesday that he and many others knew the Sept. 11 assault was terrorism from the moment it happened, and he was shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise.
“I was stunned,” said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. “My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed.”
Hicks was referring to statements by his own State Department and the White House, which insisted for days afterward that the attack emerged from a spontaneous mob angry over an anti-Islam video.
Hicks was the first person who was in Libya during the attack to testify publicly before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the Obama’s administration’s handling of security in Libya and response to the attack.
Hicks said he felt he was subject to retaliation for criticizing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice’s appearances on talk shows five days later in which she insisted the attack emerged from a protest against an anti-Islam video gone awry. Several days later, the State Department acknowledged there was no protest and it was a terrorist attack.
The article also states what should be obvious, that:

  • America can’t count on the allegiance purchased through American aid to be anything other than a temporary enrichment or empowerment of convenience.
  • It is difficult to determine the motivations of the purchased allies.
  • In the ever-increasing index of anti-American terror organizations, a focus on Al Qaeda could be a distraction from other hazards.

The use of the term Al Qaeda as a catchall for terror groups is simplistic and does not accurately depict the intricacies which have developed in the American use of “off brand” terror to achieve goals of the American government, both publicly and in private.
The “Times” introduces a new villain, tapping him as the brains behind the attack. This shadowy figure is Ahmed Abu Khattala. Though, according to the report, “Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies,” he had eluded government monitoring.
According to this theory, our government can tell you anything you might want to know about the conversations any of us have had in the past ten years, but a self-identified America hater, whom we are arming and working with in a guerilla engagement, was somehow below the radar.
The NYT says that “Mr. Abu Khattala, who denies participating in the attack, was firmly embedded in the network of Benghazi militias before and afterward. Many other Islamist leaders consider him an erratic extremist. But he was never more than a step removed from the most influential commanders who dominated Benghazi and who befriended the Americans.”
He was never more than a step removed from America’s “friends” and yet we never knew about him. That is just not believable.
The New York Times summarizes the dichotomy of positions as a dispute between the Republican version and the Democrat version. While it is clear that the Hussein Obama regime is being obstructive in Republican attempts to investigate, the issue should not be one of party. The refusal of the administration to cooperate in an investigation necessarily creates an adversarial situation which has the appearance of being partisan. As in all of the Hussein Obama scandals, stonewalling has proven to be an effective tool to avoid scrutiny and accountability.
While the New York Times states that “the attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs,” evidence of the mortar strikes on the annex indicates a substantial amount of planning and expertise on the part of those who conducted that portion of a coordinated attack.
The New York Times is no stranger to criticism that they are in league with the Hussein Obama administration in the promotion of the regime’s agenda. The release of a report at a time when his favorability ranking is at a record low and in the kickoff to the 2014 campaign season could be interpreted as an effort to revive his tarnished image, while simultaneously providing a basis for future deflection of criticism for the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
The discussion can now be framed in a “who do you believe context” rather than a more restrictive analysis based purely upon facts brought out in an investigation. It is questionable whether the American people will ever know what happened in Benghazi. It just wouldn’t be politically expedient.
Please scroll to the bottom of this page for more posts from Rick Wells, or to “Like” him on Facebook or “Follow” him on Twitter.

Rick Wells

I’m a conservative author who doesn’t like the direction in which our country is being taken. The bad guys have taken control and that has to change. Please take a look at some other articles posted by Rick