Surprise: NYTimes tries to cover for Obama, Rice on #Benghazi using #Petraeus

Posted by: ST on November 17, 2012 at 11:43 am

Their headline, and the first two paragraphs, say it all (hat tip):

Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack

WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

But guess what? Read on down into the article and you’ll note that the “lawmakers” who characterized Petraeus testimony as such were Democrats, and to back that up, the NYT enlists anonymous “officials” who wouldn’t go on record as saying the line about AQ was removed to keep the terrorist perps from knowing we were on to them.

Right.

Even though we don’t have a transcript of his testimony, let’s assume for discussion purposes this is an accurate accounting of Petraeus’ remarks on Friday. So they didn’t want to tip off AQ. Fine, but that doesn’t explain why they KNOWINGLY falsely blamed a so-called “filmmaker” and his “anti-Islam” video FOR WEEKS for the “spontaneous” protests that in reality were not so spontaneous. For whatever this man’s sins were, did he deserve the harsh global scrutiny and condemnation he received as a result of the (what I believe to be a) coordinated efforts from high-ranking people in this administration – including President Obama himself – to blame what happened on 9/11/12 on him? Did he deserve the LIFETIME of fear he’ll feel from Islamofascistic threats as a result of them WILLINGLY using him as a scapegoat? This man will be in hiding and on the run for the rest of his life as a DIRECT result of this administration’s words and actions in the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attacks.

Politicos, national commentators, and pundits alike talked and wrote about this filmmaker and blamed his supposed bigoted “intolerance” for the video he made, rather than blame the actual PERPS who committed the riots and murders in Benghazi. This in spite of the fact that even IF the video had been the catalyst (and we know that it was NOT), that it still was NO excuse for the alleged “spontaneous rioters” to end up brutally murdering four, including a US Ambassador and 2 former Navy SEALs.

Furthermore, Petraeus testimony as described by others did NOT explain why security was so lax at the consulate despite prior attacks on it earlier in the year, despite murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens’ expressed concerns about their ability to sustain more attacks.

Petraeus’ testimony does NOT let this administration, not Rice, not Clinton, not Obama, no one off the hook for the fact that these murders did NOT have to happen, and the fact that in the aftermath an innocent third-rate “anti-Islam filmmaker” did NOT have to be scapegoated in order for them to still be vague about exactly who they KNEW the attackers were. The American people were deliberately misinformed as to the who, what, when, and where of this attack from the start, and as a result the families of those murdered still do not have the answers they are owed, and a filmmaker who no one really knew or gave much of a rip about will be forever in hiding because of the calculated yet careless reaction of this administration on the issue of Benghazi.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

7 Responses to “Surprise: NYTimes tries to cover for Obama, Rice on #Benghazi using #Petraeus”

Comments

  1. Yorkshire says:

    From the Fiction Dept. of the NYT. Instead of their defunct banner of we print all the news that’s fit to print, it should be we print all the news that gives you fits.

  2. Drew the Infidel says:

    This same article made it out here to the hinterland (Midland, TX) as an AP (American Pravda) story almost verbatim. So now some anonymous jackwad copy writer is an intel expert? Does anyone honestly believe the terrorists feared the US prior to the attack, let alone afterward? Do not forget Obhammud blamed the video six times in his Sept. 25 UN speech thereby blowing a masterpiece of an opportunity to call out some of the very Islamist thugs responsible who were in the audience.

  3. BBHunter says:

    - Read what I posted in ST’s open thread yesterday.

  4. Perry says:

    The American people were deliberately misinformed as to the who, what, when, and where of this attack from the start, and as a result the families of those murdered still do not have the answers they are owed, and a filmmaker who no one really knew or gave much of a rip about will be forever in hiding because of the calculated yet careless reaction of this administration on the issue of Benghazi.

    You have presented no evidence whatsoever to support this statement, in your continued effort to politicize this event. Because the authorities did not make an accurate statement instantly, due to a lack of information, is not evidence for a cover-up, except to those who wish to make it so without sufficient evidence.

    Moreover, the first paragraph of the NYT quote sounds like a reasonable tactic to me.

    Before making a judgment, let us wait patiently until the full story has been made public, and stop the continuing politicization of this unfortunate event.

  5. Perry says:

    Here is the reporting of the Christian Science Monitor, which ought to be taken into account by those who really wish to know the truth of this matter:

    Based on lawmakers’ comments after Petraeus’ private testimony, as well as public statements by intelligence officials in the weeks following the attack, the CIA did determine early on that the violence involving heavy weapons was – by definition – carried out by terrorists.

    But the first official public statements used the word “extremists” – both to conceal intelligence-gathering sources and methods (so as not to reveal the terrorist groups it was tracking) and also because that was seen as the more inclusive word.

    That was the basis on which United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice described the situation on Sunday TV talk shows five days after the attack – the talking points provided her by intelligence officials – which has gotten her in hot water with some Republican lawmakers, in turn leading to President Obama’s sharp-worded defense of the woman said to be at the top of his list to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    A senior US official familiar with the drafting of the talking points used by Amb. Rice told reporters in Washington that they “reflected what was known at the time” and “were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations or play down that this was an attack.”

  6. Koolo says:

    You have presented no evidence whatsoever to support this statement, in your continued effort to politicize this event. Because the authorities did not make an accurate statement instantly, due to a lack of information, is not evidence for a cover-up, except to those who wish to make it so without sufficient evidence.

    This, of course, is utter nonsense. Please do try to keep up on current events from reputable news sources and not the radical blogs.