The stupidity of the argument here is beyond painful. But here it is.
NY Times: Hey, that YouTube video did have something to do with Benghazi attack after all
posted at 10:31 am on December 29, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
The New York Times produced a lengthy update on a story that conservatives complain the media ignores, but most won’t like what it says. David Kirkpatrick traveled to Benghazi to dig into the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, a terrorist attack that left four Americans dead — on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. Kirkpatrick argues that one motive for the attack was indeed the YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims,” clips of which aired days before on Egyptian television and watched by the terror networks in and around Benghazi:
“INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS” PURPORTED TO BE AN ONLINE TRAILER for a film about the mistreatment of Christians in contemporary Egypt. But it included bawdy historical flashbacks that derided the Prophet Muhammad. Someone dubbed it into Arabic around the beginning of September 2012, and a Cairo newspaper embellished the news by reporting that a Florida pastor infamous for burning the Quran was planning to debut the film on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.
Hussein Abu Hamida, the acting chief of Benghazi’s informal police force, saw the growing furor and feared new violence against Western interests. He conferred with Abdul Salam Bargathi of the Preventive Security Brigade, an Islamist militia with a grandiose name, each recalled separately, and they increased security outside a United Nations office. But they said nothing to the Americans.
Reports of the video were just beginning to spread on Sept. 9 when Mr. McFarland, then the officer normally in charge of politics and economics at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, had his meeting with the Benghazi militia leaders. Among them were some of the same men who had greeted Mr. Stevens when he arrived in Benghazi at the start of the revolt, including Mr. Gharabi, 39, a heavyset former Abu Salim inmate who ran a local sandwich truck before becoming the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati. Another was Wissam bin Hamid, also 39, a slim and slightly hunched mechanic known for his skill with American cars who by then had become the leader of Libya Shield, considered one of the strongest militias in Libya.
Before dismissing this out of hand, the Times isn’t the only voice reporting on this sequence of events. Lee Stranahan has independently reported on the same thing, and has spent considerable time on Twitter and his website arguing that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack triggered by the video — essentially a syncretism of the story from both sides. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a cover-up:
The video was shown on Sept 9th. 4 days before the deadly attack on the Benghazi Consulate. 4 days to identify a specific target, plan an attack and then carry it out with military precision. Keep in mind the the US Intelligence agencies had been receiving chatter about a planned attack for months prior to the Benghazi attack.
The New York Slimes, one of America’s most notorious and disgusting Marxist/Socialist propaganda outlets (Has the New York times given back the Pulitzer awarded to Walter Duranty in 1932 for deceiving the world about Joesph Stalin’s Gulags yet?” is unquestionable attempting to exonerate Hillary Clinton of her criminal negligence regarding her actions during the Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Two facts that cannot be over stressed.
1. The attack on the Benghazi Consulate took place on 9/11. On the Anniversary of the September 11th 2001 attack on New York City. No matter how you want to slice or dice this, the failure of Hillary Clinton to ensure that extra security was provided to every US Embassy and Consular Station in the Middle East is nothing short of criminal negligence. To fail to do so in a country that the United States had just intervened (Illegally I might add) militarily to topple the government is beyond mere criminal negligence.
2. As the Secretary of State, the buck stops with Hillary Clinton, no amount of claiming that multiple layers of bureaucratic red tape, or underling incompetency can eliminate the fact that what happens to US Embassies or Consulates around the world are ultimately the responsibility of the Secretary of State. To quote no less than Hillary Clinton herself, “it requires a willing suspension of disbelief'” to believe that Hillary Clinton was unaware of the threat assessment and intelligence chatter regarding a potential terrorist attack against a US State Department target in Libya especially in light of the fact that the US had just toppled the government there.
The other factors involved in the Benghazi attack are even more incriminating, the failure of Hillary Clinton to respond instantly and take step to provide Ambassador Stevens and his personal with support, and then the lies and disinformation put out about the attack afterward to help ensure that Barack Obama was insulated from any potential fallout are unforgivable.
For the New york Times to engage in behavior of this nature is not even remotely surprising, after all they still love and worship Joesph Stalin, a murderous dictator who killed 60 to 70 million of his own people. Ed Morrissey on the other hand, is just an imbecile willing to sell his soul to the devil to become the next Dan Rather.