The New York Times published a report with some pretty astonishing claims about Benghazi.  Following is a link to the original article:

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0

This is how the best news organization on the planet investigated Benghazi:

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi 

In other words they asked the people who attacked us what motivated them.  However, there is little mention of interviewing the Americans who were on the ground at the time.  Nice!

In some cases the author had to ignore his own findings to reach his conclusion.   For example the author said that one of the prime suspects was Ahmed Abu Khattala:

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. 

The author claims that Ahmed Abu Khattala had no association with al-Qaeda or any other terrorist groups:

Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

Yet the author provides clear evidence that this conclusion is absurd with the following paragraph in the same article:

Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

So I looked up his “non-terrorist” buddy who was the leader of Ansar al-Shariah.  Perhaps this is the guy we just captured in Libya.  If so, his name is Saifallah Benahssine and he is a top leader in Ansar al-Shariah.  Following is a link describing the capture:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/saifallah-benahssine-captured_n_4518378.html

…the capture of such as high-ranking Tunisian Islamist militant in Libya would indicate close ties among Islamist groups across North Africa. In October, U.S. forces captured a top al Qaeda suspect in a raid in Tripoli.

A former fighter in Afghanistan, Benahssine had declared loyalty to al Qaeda and was accused of inciting an attack on the U.S. embassy in Tunisia in September 2012.

In other words the man who had “no known affiliations with terrorist groups” was an acknowledged ally of Ansar al-Shariah who has a known association with al Qaeda. 

The theory that this was a spontaneous act largely inspired by the video is also debunked by the authors own words.  He admits that Ansar al-Shariah was planning to attack the mission months before the actual assault.  He also admits that they were conducting surveillance of the mission at least 12 hours before the attack.  That was before the video was even shown on Egyptian television.    It is bad enough when you ignore facts published elsewhere.  It is insane to ignore facts you publish yourself.

Here we have the ultimate magic video.  This video was so vile that it inspired people to plan an assault months before they even knew the video existed.  Talk about a miraculous ability to influence people.

The big question for me is why would the New York Times do this?  I mean this is really pathetic and the entire article was slammed almost immediately.  This is not just biased, this is stupid.    Frankly it smells of desperation.

The New York Times knows that Republicans are going to hammer Hillary on Benghazi.  No one even pretends that security at the Benghazi mission was adequate.  As Secretary of State, that falls fully on Hillary.  The only question is whether she was just oblivious or did this rise to the level of dereliction of duty?  No one, and I mean no one, is arguing that Hilary was on top of this.

So the liberal left is desperately seeking an exit for Hillary.  This theory is hopelessly thin, but it’s all they have.  Perhaps if they can convince people this was really just about a video after all, no one will blame Hillary.

Then I realized that this is about more than Hillary.  The liberal left only loves Hillary because they think she is a winner.  Look how quickly they dumped her for Obama.  To really evaluate Hillary as a candidate, you have to look at the strength of the opposition.  She gets 68% of the Democratic vote, but only because all of the other potential candidates are hopeless.  Joe Biden is in second place, followed by Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo and people you probably don’t even know.  Things are so bad that some Democrats are even talking about Jerry Brown.   Now that would be desperate.

There is, of course, another possibility.  It is possible that the New York Times really believes this story.  That, perhaps, is the most frightening option of all.

TDM