Why We’ll Never Stop Arguing About Benghazi

By BLAKE HOUNSHELL
Politico.com

December 29, 2013

On a sleepy holiday weekend, the New York Times revived a debate that most of us thought was over: Did the Obama administration mislead Americans about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012? Was it really a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video, as officials first claimed, or was it a planned al Qaeda attack?

Launched with the kind of tender loving care and year-end timing that says “Pulitzer bait,” the Times published a 7,000-word report spread over three full newspaper pages by Middle East correspondent David Kirkpatrick that aimed to settle once and for all the big lingering questions about the assault, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

The key paragraph:

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.

“Months of investigation.” “No evidence.” A swipe at Congress. These are the kinds of authoritative statements you make when you’re pretty darn sure of your reporting.

(More here.)