The NY Times had an unnamed reporter on the scene of the Benghazi consulate while the 9/11/12 attack was ongoing. What it amounts to is a Libyan journalist was supplying information to the NY Times. This same journalist showed up at the consulate while it was under attack but was turned away by the terrorists after a conversation of some kind, which included gossip about the video.
The left-wing is using this flimsy on-the-scene evidence to bolster their apocryphal account of Benghazi.
It was in the recently released report but it didn’t get much notice until David D. Kirkpatrick posted this tweet.
The Times did mention it right after the attack as Kirkpatrick tweeted Tuesday.
There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him.
This must mean that the NY Times knows who the attackers are or at least some of the attackers. We should be able to go arrest them now, right?
We need a congressional hearing on this though no one would tell the truth and it would be another exercise in futility.
The NY Times is re-releasing this information now to bolster their report claiming that al-Qaida wasn’t in Benghazi and the video was the reason for the attack.
Media Matters is claiming this is proof that Benghazi is a hoax.
Was Ambassador Stevens a hoax, Glen Doherty – a hoax, Ty Woods – a hoax, Sean Smith – a hoax?
The AP reported the following on 10/27/12:
The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.
There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.
One of the consulate’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.”
The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.
These are the facts: Ansaria al-Shariah is al-Qaida. Al-Qaida terrorist training camps were spreading throughout the area prior to the attack, their flags were being flown on public buildings. The attack was pre-planned. The consulate was unprotected despite pleas by the Ambassador to send more help. There was an extensive cover-up by the Obama Administration, the most transparent administration ever. The victims were kept hidden from Congress. There was no help sent to rescue the people in Benghazi. We don’t know where the president was when all this went down but we do know there was a NY Times reporter on the scene.
Having a Libyan who was anointed as a Times reporter on the scene changes nothing.
Do you feel like you live in Russia and the NY Times is our very own Pravda?