Sunday, December 29, 2013

NYT Plays 1984 Ministry of Truth With Bengahzi

The New York Times has long been a medium of the Left for the slow indoctrination of the US into the dark world of Socialism. It was that newspaper in which reports of the the horrors of the Khmer Rouge (Red Khmer/Cambodians) most inconspicuously absent. During the entire period of the slaughter that followed  "Year Zero", only three short references to the goings-on in the agriculturalist paradise  were to be included - and these were neatly tucked away in the back pages.

Recently, however, the Times has  taken to dropping any pretense of making any attempt to appear neutral. They, considering the state of the US electorate, understandably feel that the time is ripe for stepping up the pace to provide that extra nudge to Americans in order to encourage them to support their own enslavement:

In George Orwell's 1984, The main character Winston Smith is employed in a low-level position in the Ministry of Truth (Newspeak - Minitruth). One of his duties is to retrieve an edit from the newspaper archives reports that need to be changed to have them reflect, despite what was originally said or predicted, that which actually occurred later. If my memory serves me correctly, in one instance in the book, Smith has to edit a prediction of a successful agricultural harvest to have the government official  making a less-rosy prediction as the harvest did not turn out the way he thought it would.

With the record now showing that the minister made an accurate prediction, everything is now fine.

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
- 1984

The immediate aftermath of the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi is known to all. Obama, Clinton and their stooges ran about teelingus that the attack developed pell-mell out of a protest about a movie critical of Mohammed. Hillary went to far to assure us that they would get the people who were responsible for this, which meant they who had made the movie, not committed the attack. 

They stuck with this story for several days, only changing their tune when they could no longer prop it up. They then switched gears, stating that Obama claimed from the beginning that the attack was a coordinated act of terrorists. The protective cloak around Obama was so thorough that even the moderator of the (second?) Obama/Romney debate went so far as to falsely claim that Obama did state from the beginning that it was a terror attack, giving Obama a helping hand and taking the momentum from Romney during that portion of the debate.   

Yesterday, the Times, apparently having conducted Warren Commission-style investigation of their own, has brought us back full circle. The Minitruth consensus is now the the original lie - that the reason for the attack was anger over a less than flattering depiction of Mohammed and that neither Al-Qaeda nor any other organized terror group had anything to do with the attack.

".....The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras......"

Others are not happy with this Orwellian revision of history:

".......But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.

The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.

Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.

"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.

"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."

The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.

Recent reports also suggest that Libyan militia leader Ahmad Abu Khattallah is the mastermind of the attack and had no real connections to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations.

Multiple sources, though, challenged that claim. They insist that while Khattallah was found responsible for the actions at the actual consulate and was essentially the ground force commander that night, he is also clearly tied to Ansar al-Sharia and to the broader terrorist network.

“There is direct evidence linking him before the attack and after the attack to terrorist groups. An opportunity came, and Khattallah conducted an assault on the consulate. To say that it wasn’t tied to Al Qaeda is completely false. There is literal evidence in many forms and shapes, directly linking him,” one source said

"Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, challenged some of the claims stemming from a controversial New York Times investigative piece on the Benghazi attacks, primarily those that insisted an anti-Islamic video provoked hostilities there in September 2012.

Acknowledging that the Times did some good work on the article, Issa nevertheless insisted that “interviewing people in Benghazi after the fact, after the world has been told about this video, is really not real time,” Issa said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

“So we have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi, a very isolated area, or that is was a leading cause.”...........

............ “The fact is people from this administration, career professionals, have said under oath there was no evidence of any kind of a reaction to a video and, in fact, this was a planned attack that came quickly,” Issa added.

“That’s the evidence we have by people who work for the U.S. government and were under oath.”

"The head of the House Intelligence Committee who has contended the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi was led by Al Qaeda said Sunday that an extensive report published by the New York Times contradicting that claim is “just not accurate.”

What did they get wrong?” host Chris Wallace asked Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) on “Fox News Sunday.”

“That al-Qaeda was not involved in this,” Rogers replied. “There was some level of pre-planning, we know that. There was aspiration to conduct an attack by Al Qaeda and their affiliates in Libya, we know that.”

“…would directly contradict what the New York Times definitively says was an exhaustive investigation

“The individuals on the ground talked about a planned tactical movement on the compound — even this is the compound before they went to the annex,” he continued. “All of that would directly contradict what the New York Times definitively says was an exhaustive investigation.”

Rogers, who as chair of the House Intelligence Committee receives regular classified briefings and has access to raw intelligence, said his committee has done an “exhaustive investigation” into the events surrounding the Benghazi attack which conflicts with the Times’ findings.

“It tells me they didn’t talk to the people on the ground who were doing the fighting and shooting and the intelligence gathering,” he told Wallace. “When you put that volume of information, I think it proves that story is just not accurate.”

“It tells me they didn’t talk to the people on the ground who were doing the fighting and shooting…”...........

At the time
[Shortly after the attack], Rogers was also adamant that an anti-Islam video did not trigger the attack.

“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” he said, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”......"

"A former analyst for the CIA skewered the New York Times’ bombshell report on Benghazi Saturday, contending that it was a “politicized article” aimed at harming the GOP.

“I thought it was a politicized article,” Fred Fleitz told Fox News. “It tries to say that Anwar al-Sharia — that the Republican attempts to tie that to terrorism is a stretch, when even CNN says they’re at least sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

Fleitz, who worked as a senior analyst at the CIA for nearly two decades before serving in the State Department, added that he thought the article was simply “an effort to revive this discredited theory that the anti-Islam video was behind” the deadly attacks.

“I read this report and I was really incredulous,” he said. “It seems to be an effort to revive this discredited theory that the anti-Islam video was behind it. But when you read behind the article closely, there’s various statements where the author seems to downplay the links to terrorist groups.”

“It seems to be an effort to revive this discredited theory that the anti-Islam video was behind it.”............"

The Left is waging a campaign against us, and the sooner that we admit this to ourselves, the better. 

No comments:

Post a Comment