• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New york times had reporter 'talking to the attackers' during benghazi massacre

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
New York Times Had Reporter 'Talking to the Attackers' During Benghazi Massacre

The New York Times had a reporter talking to attackers on the ground during the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans in September of 2012, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and may know the identity of some the murderers and perpetrators.

David Kirkpatrick, the Times reporter who wrote the story that forced the paper's Editorial page editor to defensively declare on Monday that it has not chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, said that the paper had a reporter on the ground who was witnessing the attacks.

That admission is even in Kirpatrick's story, which, as Breitbart News reported, has received considerable blowback for attempting to "whitewash the Benghazi tragedy" by alleging that there was no al-Qaeda involvement in the attacks that killed four Americans (contradicting the paper's own reporting), murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had "little understanding" of the region, and the terrorists were motivated by an anti-Muhammed YouTube video:


"What difference does it make!"
 
Look this real simple. The recent 60-minute piece where Rice defends her interviews and now the NYT piece providing Hillary cover (and literally not even mentioning Hillary in the entire piece) is obvious cover for the 2016 election cycle. It allows Hillary's election team to point to the NYT piece and claim what Obama has called "phony scandals" are now put to rest. Nothing to see here, move along. However, our intelligence services know who the perpetrators were and as recently as October 2013, Obama has pledged the U.S. will catch them and hold them responsible. Why haven't they been sought or caught by now?

Politically I think we all know this is a white wash attempt. The real outstanding issue however are the double non-disclosures American's involved that night had to sign and these attackers still walking around free.
 
The New York Times could be witholding important information about the attack?
 
New York Times Had Reporter 'Talking to the Attackers' During Benghazi Massacre

The New York Times had a reporter talking to attackers on the ground during the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans in September of 2012, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and may know the identity of some the murderers and perpetrators.

David Kirkpatrick, the Times reporter who wrote the story that forced the paper's Editorial page editor to defensively declare on Monday that it has not chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, said that the paper had a reporter on the ground who was witnessing the attacks.

That admission is even in Kirpatrick's story, which, as Breitbart News reported, has received considerable blowback for attempting to "whitewash the Benghazi tragedy" by alleging that there was no al-Qaeda involvement in the attacks that killed four Americans (contradicting the paper's own reporting), murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had "little understanding" of the region, and the terrorists were motivated by an anti-Muhammed YouTube video:


"What difference does it make!"

So they were motivated by the YouTube video, and AQ wasn't involved? That definitely goes against the RW narrative.
 
So they were motivated by the YouTube video, and AQ wasn't involved? That definitely goes against the RW narrative.

There's so much misinformation out there who really knows. It could be that it was planned for 9-11 as a terrorist attack and the video was used for popular support, it could be that it was all about the video, it could be that the video really wasn't a motivating factor for an organized attack.

The only thing I know is we seem to always be learning things piecemeal and it's ridiculous. Issa hasn't been doing a very good job investigating this and disseminating real information. The WH hasn't been doing a good job being totally open. And why is the NYT just now saying that it had a contracted reporter on the ground that evening a year and 4 months after the fact.
 
There's so much misinformation out there who really knows. It could be that it was planned for 9-11 as a terrorist attack and the video was used for popular support, it could be that it was all about the video, it could be that the video really wasn't a motivating factor for an organized attack.

The only thing I know is we seem to always be learning things piecemeal and it's ridiculous. Issa hasn't been doing a very good job investigating this and disseminating real information. The WH hasn't been doing a good job being totally open. And why is the NYT just now saying that it had a contracted reporter on the ground that evening a year and 4 months after the fact.

Well, I think that between the House and the White House, nobody wants the real truth to come out. The House hearings are political theater, and if it doesn't make Obama and Democrats look bad, Issa doesn't want to hear it. Obviously, the WH wants to avoid embarassment.
 
So they were motivated by the YouTube video, and AQ wasn't involved? That definitely goes against the RW narrative.

There are hundreds of Youtube videos showing the downside of Islam, so there is no reason to pull one in particular which might be the last straw. And an arm of AQ was involved. The Pentagon knows this.
 
There's so much misinformation out there who really knows.

Shouldn't the President and his Secretary of State be honest with the American people so there wouldn't be 'so much misinformation'? Who do you think was the first source of this misinformation?
 
Until I see video's of the mob attacking im going to guess it was the drone in the area and someone in the U.S. didnt want a certain diplomat to reveal anything.
 
There are hundreds of Youtube videos showing the downside of Islam, so there is no reason to pull one in particular which might be the last straw. And an arm of AQ was involved. The Pentagon knows this.



That's correct Grant.....which we had intel on AQSL out of Pakistan and their involvement in Libya.


Months ago and repeatedly.....I have talked about going after the Media people and their so called Reporting.

Until the American people put an end to the Media and all their games with thinking that they are part of the Elite. The problem will only continue and to get worse.

If none say nothing and do nothing.....then all this does is give the media the power to keep on doing what they do. Which that ain't Right.

Truthfully.....we should be doing everything we can to make life difficult for this NY Times Editor. So that the Putz can't even walk out his front door without people letting him know he is a POS.....and that now its his turn. Everything he ever did in his life.....to become Front page News. Including his family, relatives.....then to really make the douchebag lose his cool. Then start printing **** about his kids.

I think then he will run and hide back under his rock.
 
Until I see video's of the mob attacking im going to guess it was the drone in the area and someone in the U.S. didnt want a certain diplomat to reveal anything.

You mean that the CIA was running arms out of the annex to terrorist groups in Syria working to overthrow president Assad's government?
 
Shouldn't the President and his Secretary of State be honest with the American people so there wouldn't be 'so much misinformation'? Who do you think was the first source of this misinformation?

Sure, but this information has to be ferreted out by investigative journalists with integrity and balls. No president and his secretary are going to be honest with the American people. They just don't do that sort of thing.
 
New York Times Had Reporter 'Talking to the Attackers' During Benghazi Massacre

The New York Times had a reporter talking to attackers on the ground during the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans in September of 2012, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and may know the identity of some the murderers and perpetrators.

David Kirkpatrick, the Times reporter who wrote the story that forced the paper's Editorial page editor to defensively declare on Monday that it has not chosen to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, said that the paper had a reporter on the ground who was witnessing the attacks.

That admission is even in Kirpatrick's story, which, as Breitbart News reported, has received considerable blowback for attempting to "whitewash the Benghazi tragedy" by alleging that there was no al-Qaeda involvement in the attacks that killed four Americans (contradicting the paper's own reporting), murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had "little understanding" of the region, and the terrorists were motivated by an anti-Muhammed YouTube video:


"What difference does it make!"

1) Brietbart, no one with an ounce of self respect or dignity sources that website.

2) You didn't build that! I don't know what the phrase "What difference does it make" has to do with anything posted here but since its now acceptable to just throw out phrases regardless of context I figure I'd add another gem of conservative head-in-sand thought.

Also "Read my lips, no new taxes!"
 
1) Brietbart, no one with an ounce of self respect or dignity sources that website.

2) You didn't build that! I don't know what the phrase "What difference does it make" has to do with anything posted here but since its now acceptable to just throw out phrases regardless of context I figure I'd add another gem of conservative head-in-sand thought.

Also "Read my lips, no new taxes!"


Well.....now maybe we should put the MY Times of NY, back into the comic book section. Especially if we are talking about Respect and or any dignity.
 
1) Brietbart, no one with an ounce of self respect or dignity sources that website.

2) You didn't build that! I don't know what the phrase "What difference does it make" has to do with anything posted here but since its now acceptable to just throw out phrases regardless of context I figure I'd add another gem of conservative head-in-sand thought.

Also "Read my lips, no new taxes!"

Howz about....

"I never had sex with that woman" or "You can keep your insurance if you like it"??
 
Howz about....

"I never had sex with that woman" or "You can keep your insurance if you like it"??

Why not it makes about as much sense as anything else here.
 
Why not it makes about as much sense as anything else here.

As an Indy, you must realize they're all FOS not just the Right.

I'm hoping for a huge turnover in the midterms. Most of Congress needs to be retired.
 
As an Indy, you must realize they're all FOS not just the Right.

I'm hoping for a huge turnover in the midterms. Most of Congress needs to be retired.

O ya its all bull**** without a doubt, if it seems I focus more on the right than the left its because the right has the worst and most vocal crazies in my opinion.
 
Shouldn't the President and his Secretary of State be honest with the American people so there wouldn't be 'so much misinformation'? Who do you think was the first source of this misinformation?

I do believe they should. I also allow them a little latitude to not volunteer the truth all the time...but that does not mean license to lie to the people. Honestly I'm not sure who threw out the first misinformation. The question is whether this NYT article is misinformation or fact. If misinformation, then I continue my distrust of the administration, if fact then I need to readjust that distrust to account for a little leniency in my mind. Right now its a limbo state until I hear more arguments about the article from primary sources.
 
Sure, but this information has to be ferreted out by investigative journalists with integrity and balls. No president and his secretary are going to be honest with the American people. They just don't do that sort of thing.

This NYT reporter doesn't appear to have any integrity but he certainly has balls.
 
As an Indy, you must realize they're all FOS not just the Right.

I'm hoping for a huge turnover in the midterms. Most of Congress needs to be retired.

All of Congress needs to be retired, starting with Boehner and Pelosi. Then on down the line...

Possible exceptions being some of the more sensible members of the Senate, but there ain't one person in the House worth keeping.
 
That's correct Grant.....which we had intel on AQSL out of Pakistan and their involvement in Libya.


Months ago and repeatedly.....I have talked about going after the Media people and their so called Reporting.

Until the American people put an end to the Media and all their games with thinking that they are part of the Elite. The problem will only continue and to get worse.

If none say nothing and do nothing.....then all this does is give the media the power to keep on doing what they do. Which that ain't Right.

Truthfully.....we should be doing everything we can to make life difficult for this NY Times Editor. So that the Putz can't even walk out his front door without people letting him know he is a POS.....and that now its his turn. Everything he ever did in his life.....to become Front page News. Including his family, relatives.....then to really make the douchebag lose his cool. Then start printing **** about his kids.

I think then he will run and hide back under his rock.

Sorry man, there's a little thing called the First Amendment. It would be very dangerous to have the government start hounding every reporter who said something that didn't follow their narrative.
 
Sorry man, there's a little thing called the First Amendment. It would be very dangerous to have the government start hounding every reporter who said something that didn't follow their narrative.

Major difference.....not the government. The people, being the ones to bring it to those kind. Make it really hurt.
 
This NYT reporter doesn't appear to have any integrity but he certainly has balls.

Ok, my statement was not meant to insist that "THIS" journalist had either. But more of an indictment on the presidency and his cabinet. THEY, cannot be merely trusted to be forthright with us, we always must verify, thus the general need for investigative journalists with both. And redundancies of congressional oversight, investigations and probes, advocacy and watch dog groups, etc., etc..
 
Sorry man, there's a little thing called the First Amendment. It would be very dangerous to have the government start hounding every reporter who said something that didn't follow their narrative.

A slippery slope that should never even be suggested. Better that WE consumers hold the press accountable. And to think that there are people here who believe biased news and propaganda emanates only from the studios of RT, PRESS, CCTV and Al Jazeera.
 
Back
Top Bottom