Others can comment on the entirely of the Sunday New York Times story by Serge F. Kovaleski and Brooks Barnes (used in Monday’s print edition) about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the maker of the infamous “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube trailer the authors characterize as a “film” a dozen times in their write-up. Nakoula has now been in jail for two months.
The write up begins:
There is a dispute about how important the video was in provoking the terrorist assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the United States ambassador and three other Americans. Militants interviewed at the scene said they were unaware of the video until a protest in Cairo called it to their attention.The two sentences together don’t even makes sense unless one believes that “militants” (i.e., terrorists) decided within hours to prepare and orchestrate from scratch an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya because they became aware of a video and protests supposedly related to it. Give me break.
Though it only reported the news directly one time, the Associated Press ran a story on October 10 (noted at the time by yours truly at NewsBusters and Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard) relaying the following:
The State Department now says it never believed the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a film protest gone awry …
… The State Department’s extraordinary break with other administration offices came in a department briefing Tuesday, where officials said “others” in the executive branch concluded initially that the protest was based, like others in the Middle East, on a film that ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad.
That was never the department’s conclusion, a senior official told reporters.
Everyone else has subsequently backed off the idea that a “film protest” or any kind of “protest” had anything to with Benghazi. In the real world, there is no doubt that it was a long-planned, straight-out terrorist attack. Yet two guys at the New York Times want to pretend that there still is some kind of “dispute,” which only exists in their dissembling, confusion-sowing imaginations.
So Susan Rice Said it was a Film’s fault Repeatedly. But now if you bring that up you’re…you guessed it…a RACIST!
Obama said it was film, and apologized for it at the UN.
Hilary said it was film. Then weeks later through herself on the sword for Obama when it was clear it wasn’t.
Then It was the Intelligence communities fault. They blamed the CIA and the FBI.
But Petreaus’s scandal ruined that too.
So Al-Jazeera West, Better known as the New York Times, is back to pushing the Film months after everyone with a brain cell knows its so much bovine fecal matter.
Given the election results, that just might work. 🙂
Evidence for the Prosecution:
On Libya, 54% of the country is dissatisfied with the administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, with only four in ten saying they’re satisfied with the way the White House handled the matter.
“But that dissatisfaction is not because Americans see a cover-up,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Only 40% believe that the inaccurate statements that administration officials initially made about the Benghazi attack were an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. Fifty-four percent think those inaccurate statements reflected what the White House believed to be true at the time.”
Amerika, what a Country!