THE NYT VERSION ON BENGHAZI—WRONG AGAIN

48H 1/28/14
The NYT in many issues surrounding the attacks are now settled. Rational and irrational alike, this revisionist account is neither authoritative nor definitive. The central thesis of the pieces is wrong and the sweeping claim the author has made in defending it is demonstrably false. Interviews with Libyans there, including some who participated in the attacks, say that there is “no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist had any role in the assault”.
When David Gregory and Kirkpatrick were asked how he could be sure that there was in involvement of al-Q or international terrorist, “I think honestly if you asked anybody in the US intel business they would tell you the same thing”.
We have been asking people in the US intel business about al-Q and the Benghazi attacks for 15 months. Virtually all of them have told us the same thing: terrorist associated with al Q and it s affiliates were involved in the attacks. How could a star NYT reporter claim that no on in the US intel community believes al Q or other international terrorist had any role. When we were talking to more than a dozen such sources who said the opposite?
Many people in the US intel business have contradicted his main argument on the record. Senator Feinsten told host Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation on 12/2/12 about a briefing from CIA director Petraeus: “ there is a transcript. He said very clearly that there were al Q elements involved”.
Matthew Olsen director of the National counter-terrorism center testified on 9/13/12 that there were “indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connection to al Q or al Q affiliates, in particular al Q in the Islamic Maghreb”
Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Dem on the House Permanent Select Comm on Intel reported without qualification that al Q had a role in the attacks.” the people involved in the group were affiliates of al Q and other extremists groups”. They knew how to shoot mortars and hit targets.
Mike Rogers and Saxby Chambliss have consistently pointed to al Q ties among the attackers. Adam Schiff responded to the NYT piece by telling Fox Chris Wallace that, while there were local militias and other who participated in the attacks, “the intel indicates that al Q was involved”.
“The latest info I have is based on interviews with the US intel personnel on the ground before, during and after the attacks. These interviews have solidified what US officials knew within hours of the attacks—that al Q was responsible for the deaths.
Officials say operatives from the Muhamad Jarmqal network based in Egypt participated in the attacks along with terrorist tied to al Q in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al Sharia in Libya. Many national security officials in the Obama adm are eager to separate “core al Q” from regional and local affiliates. The groups involved in the attacks have ties to broader al Q—including its leadership. Muhamad Jamal has ties to al Q leader Ayman al Zawahiri and was corresponding with him in the moths before the attacks.
August 2012, just a month before the attacks, reports say that Ansar al Shjaria “has increasingly embodied al Q presence in Libya”. The Pentagon looked at the growing presence of al Q in post Qaddafi Libya. It concluded that “al Q senior leadership (AQSL) and al Q in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have sought to take advantage of the Libyan Revolution capabilities in an attempt to create a safe haven and possibly extend their area of operations to Libya.
Source—weekly standard, steve hayes

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s