Obama Regime Tries to Revive the Benghazi “YouTube Anger” Hoax

The Muslim POTUS, Hildebeast, Susan Rice and the spinmeisters from the enemedia should hang for this.   The lies told after the attack by administration figures were appalling. So, too, is the unwillingness of Hillary Clinton to take responsibility for what happened. But the administration’s seeming lack of interest in bringing those responsible to justice is a scandal of an altogether higher order.


Now, they’re doubling down. Daniel Greenfield calls them out on it:

Major media outlets have a new disinformation tactic.

Instead of a fact-check, which used to be their old tactic, they drop a voluminous multi-part essay that claims to be the product of intensive reporting, but doesn’t really offer much of anything new, except an attempt at reviving a discredited liberal narrative, which its own reporting doesn’t support. (read the whole thing below the fold…)

Obama celebrates Kwanzaa

Last year Ann Coulter wrote that Kwanzaa was only observed by “presidential–statement writers and white female public school teachers.”  She was almost right. Kwanzaa is celebrated by a few groups but none of which are more well represented than white female liberal public school teachers (WFLPST).  This is true because most public schools are closed during Kwanzaa season and of course the teachers don’t work during the week of December 26 to January 1st. Consequently, all but the hardest of hard core leftists will blow off Kwanzaa.


Obamastan: who needs Christmas cards when you got a Muselputz for president?

VA Refuses Christmas Cards from 51 School Kids Intended for Disabled Veterans

A group of 51 school children in Texas spent the week before Christmas making Christmas cards for veterans. According to the VA, the kids made a mistake by saying “Merry Christmas”.Fox News reports VA hospital refuses to accept ‘Merry Christmas’ cards.

British National Archives show a son was born to Obama Sr. in 1961 in Kenya

On April 18, 2012, the BNA released the first batch of thousands of “lost” colonial-era files believed to have been destroyed, including files on Britain’s former colony of Kenya. Reporters at the UK’s The Guardian were among the first who looked at some of the newly released colonial files. They found that the name of Barack Obama (henceforth, Obama Sr.), the father of the POS in the White House, is on the top of a list of names revealed in a hitherto secret British colonial file of Kenyans studying in the United States. (Read the whole thing. Its only a matter of time till this blows up.)


Muslim Brotherhood signs pact with al-Qaeda

Its like sorting the ‘moderates’ from the ‘radicals’- I say let allah sort ’em out!


This will do nothing to stop those who insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is “moderate.” But open Brotherhood supporters in the U.S. such as DHS adviser Mohamed Elibiary should be asked about it. They won’t be, however. “Report: Muslim Brotherhood signs pact with al-Qaeda,” by Roi Kais for Ynet News, December 26 (thanks to JW):

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood movement has signed a pact with the al-Qaeda-affiliated radical Salafi organization Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which claimed responsibility last week for a terror attack in the city of Mansoura, security sources told the London-based Arabic-language al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper.According to the sources, the Muslim Brotherhood has an alliance with another al-Qaeda-affiliated organization. Meanwhile, senior Muslim Brotherhood member Ibrahim Al-Sayed said the Egyptian government’s decision to declare the movement a terror organization was meaningless and would not harm the movement. (Roi Kais)

New York Times Tries to Revive the Benghazi “YouTube Anger” Hoax

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On December 28, 2013  In The Point 

Major media outlets have a new disinformation tactic. Instead of a fact-check, which used to be their old tactic, they drop a voluminous multi-part essay that claims to be the product of intensive reporting, but doesn’t really offer much of anything new, except an attempt at reviving a discredited liberal narrative, which its own reporting doesn’t support.

That was how the Boston Globe deployed its attempt at rebranding the Tsarnaev brothers from Islamic terrorists to a poor traumatized mentally ill duo. Now the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick is getting his “Ready for Hillary” tag on with another multi-part essay already being trumpeted by Media Matters for discrediting what its leader calls the “Benghazi Hoax”.

The two tangible claims made by David Kirkpatrick are that

1. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack

2. The attack was motivated by anger over a YouTube video

The actual reporting about the attack is surface and neither claim is really backed up. David Kirkpatrick claims that there is no proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack. That’s because there is no definitive proof of who was responsible for the attack.

David Kirkpatrick and the New York Times choose to focus attention on Ahmed Abu Khattala, but their own story shows that virtually everyone in the Benghazi militias was collaborating to either allow the attack or cover for the perpetrators.

And their sole basis for the YouTube video claim is that some of the attackers supposedly mentioned the video to outsiders during the attack. That fails to support the New York Times’ claim that the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

But the timeline of the attack discredits the idea that a series of attacks across the region could have been done in two days.

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.

The overall context for the September 11 attacks isn’t the YouTube video, it’s the wave of simultaneous attacks. If you believe Rice and the New York Times, these attacks were just spontaneous. But the Benghazi attack, which was the most organized, is the least plausible of these video attacks.

If you believe Obama and the New York Times’ Benghazi YouTube hoax, the most severe wave of attacks against American targets in the Middle East in decades was thrown together on a whim by purely local organizations with no earlier planning or international coordination.

This is about as unlikely as WW2 beginning because Hitler had some bad kielbasa and suddenly decided to invade Poland.

Furthermore there were multiple prior attacks against foreign missions and personnel in Benghazi long before the YouTube video.

Back to Ahmed Abu Khattala and Ansar Al-Sharia and Al Qaeda, Kirkpatrick and the New York Times disprove nothing, as Media Matters claims they have.

Al Qaeda has multiple franchises that choose to hide or deny their affiliations. These include Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, a group that even the New York Times admits is Al Qaeda.

Even the New York Times article admits that Ansar Al-Sharia is pro Al-Qaeda. Ansar Al-Sharia has repeatedly made a point of aligning itself with Al Qaeda.

Kirkpatrick and the New York Times blast the US for focusing on Al Qaeda instead of local militias, worrying about ex-Gitmoite Abu Sufian bin Qumu, instead of Ahmed Abu Khattala. But older reports stated that Qumu was leading Ansar Al-Sharia. Confusing matters is the roster of shifting names and affiliations, which make the situation occasionally impossible to decipher. Especially when there is more than one Ansar Al-Sharia and when groups appear to share names while remaining vague about their national and international affiliations.

Militia leaders go by non-de plumes. Militias fragment and then reconnect. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the original definitive militia, switched its allegiance from Al Qaeda to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The report stated

The name Ansar al-Sharia is also being used by al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in so-called liberated areas of Yemen and by Salafist groups in Tunisia. The Facebook sites of Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and the group in Tunisia appear similar in design and content and also share contacts, suggesting coordination between the groups.

What the New York Times has done is simply chosen not to investigate any such links, declaring instead that there is no proof. That’s an easy cop-out that disproves nothing.

There are bits of relevant information buried in the rubble of the New York Times’ disinformation essay.

“We thought we were sufficiently close to them,” said one Western diplomat who was in Benghazi not long before the attack. “We all thought that if anything threatening was happening, that they would tip us off.”

That’s probably the only significant paragraph in the whole essay.

4 thoughts on “Obama Regime Tries to Revive the Benghazi “YouTube Anger” Hoax”

  1. In Obamastan, the truth is manufactured according to the needs of the regime:

    New York Times: Benghazi jihad attack caused by Muhammad video after all

    Amazing that they would say this several months after it was revealed that “just minutes after 35 jihadists crashed through the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, nearly one year ago, the facility got word to the State Department, FBI and Pentagon that terrorists were attacking, according to a forthcoming book that provides the fullest review of the assault to date….Their findings in ‘Under Fire,’ based on exclusive interviews of those in the battle, refute days of claims by the administration that the attack was sparked by Muslim anger at a U.S.-made anti-Muslim film, and raise new questions as President Obama eyes military action in Syria that U.S. diplomatic posts in the region are properly protected.”

    “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” by David D. Kirkpatrick for the New York Times, December 28:

    A boyish-looking American diplomat was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libya’s most formidable militias.
    It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.

    “Since Benghazi isn’t safe, it is better for you to leave now,” Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. “I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible.”

    Yet as the militiamen snacked on Twinkie-style cakes with their American guests, they also gushed about their gratitude for President Obama’s support in their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonald’s and KFC.

    The diplomat, David McFarland, a former congressional aide who had never before met with a Libyan militia leader, left feeling agitated, according to colleagues. But the meeting did not shake his faith in the prospects for deeper involvement in Libya. Two days later, he summarized the meeting in a cable to Washington, describing a mixed message from the militia leaders.

    Despite “growing problems with security,” he wrote, the fighters wanted the United States to become more engaged “by ‘pressuring’ American businesses to invest in Benghazi.”

    The cable, dated Sept. 11, 2012, was sent over the name of Mr. McFarland’s boss, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

    Later that day, Mr. Stevens was dead, killed with three other Americans in Benghazi in the most significant attack on United States property in 11 years, since Sept. 11, 2001.

    Four Americans died in attacks on a diplomatic mission and a C.I.A. compound in Benghazi.

    As the attacks begin, there are seven Americans at the mission, including five armed diplomatic security officers; the information officer, Sean Smith; and Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Both Mr. Smith and Ambassador Stevens die in the attack.

    The cable was a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions about Libya and especially Benghazi, many fostered by shadows of the earlier Sept. 11 attack. The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.

    Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam….


  2. Rep. Peter King: Benghazi attack “well-coordinated,” had little to do with Muhammad video

    The most disquieting aspect of the resurrection of this discredited myth that the Benghazi attack was caused by the Muhammad video is that it is a tool that can and will be used for the restriction of the freedom of speech. “Pol blasts report that al Qaeda not behind Benghazi,” by Laura Italiano for the New York Post, December 29:

    A top congressional Republican is blasting a new report concluding that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups had nothing to do with the 2012 attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
    The report, published Sunday in The New York Times, blames the fatal attack on anti-Western militia Ansar al-Shariah — a conclusion that is “misleading,” according to New York Rep. Peter King (R-LI).

    “They are saying that ­al-Shariah is involved, but al-Shariah is a part of the al Qaeda umbrella, the al Qaeda network,” King said, challenging the Times’ conclusion that al-Shariah “had no known ­affiliations with terrorist groups.”

    “Al-Shariah is a pro- al Qaeda terrorist organization,” countered the congressman, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

    The Times piece blames the fatal attack — which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — on a grass-roots outcry over an American-made, anti-Muslim video that appeared on YouTube.

    King said the video had little to do with the attack, which he insisted was carefully planned by terror professionals.

    “This was a well-coordinated attack,” he said. “This was not a ragtag group.”


  3. # New York Times: Benghazi jihad attack caused by Muhammad video after all

    Even if it was true, the “islam is a religion of peace, hijacked …” or “islam was betrayed” narratives normally deployed after an islamic outrage have evaporated. It simply demonstrates the inherent intolerance and violence of islam (which should have been obvious to even Blind Freddy by now).

Comments are closed.