The Benghazi scandal: More lies
As soon as it hit the street, The New York Times' 7,500-word opus dismissing any al-Qaida link to the Benghazi massacre in Libya drew blistering criticism. Now along comes The Washington Post with a report that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, linked directly to al-Qaida, participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. outpost attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
In its bungled Benghazi spin, the old Gray Lady has stumbled badly.
Ex-Guantanamo inmate Abu Sufian bin Qumu and his Ansar al-Sharia “militiamen” — more accurately, terrorists — were directly involved in the Benghazi attack, The Post reports. A career terrorist, he trained with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, fought the U.S. there and eventually was captured and sent to Guantanamo, reports Patrick Brennan for National Review Online. He was turned over to the Libyan government and subsequently was released.
Never mind Times writer Daniel D. Kirkpatrick's assertion, echoing the Obama administration, that an obscure trailer for an anti-Muslim film was “the fuse” that somehow ignited the Benghazi attack.
More insightful than The Times' pleonastic Dec. 28 Benghazi “wrap” is the dead-on observation a few days later by Andrew C. McCarthy, senior fellow at the National Review Institute: “The Times report is a labor of love in the service of President Obama and, in particular, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ramp-up.” That covers it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Fiat Chrysler mess: Government’s virus
- So, where’s the I-70 ‘Welcome to Pennsylvania’ sign on the Pa.-W.Va. border?
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Yes, the IRS targeted conservatives
- Grabbing guns: Obama overreach?
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- At the VA: The waiting dead
- Sunday pops
- Walker’s (& liberty’s) Wisconsin victory