Aaron Klein: NY Times Reporter David D. Kirkpatrick Contradicts Own Benghazi Reporting
Home  »  Benghazi  »  Aaron Klein: NY Times Reporter David D. Kirkpatrick Contradicts Own Benghazi Reporting

Dec 31, 2013 Comments Off Chuck Biscuits

jp-benghazi1-articleLarge

TEL AVIV – The New York Times reporter who authored the paper’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack contradicted his own reporting about the security situation leading up to the assault at the U.S. special mission, WND has learned.

The extensive Times piece published Saturday, titled “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” was authored from Benghazi by Times writer David D. Kirkpatrick.

In his article, Kirkpatrick claims there was “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.”

The contention echoes disputed claims by key Obama administration officials in the days following the attack.

In his Saturday article, Kirkpatrick further asserts “Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests.”

However, that claim is directly contradicted by Kirkpatrick’s own previous reporting from Benghazi.

An Oct. 29, 2012, New York Times article titled “Libya Warnings Were Plentiful, but Unspecific”
documents “Al-Qaeda-leaning” Islamic extremist training camps in the mountains near Benghazi.

The article was by compiled by reporters Michael R. Gordon, Eric Schmidt and Michael S. Schmidt, with contributing reporting by Kirkpatrick from Benghazi.

The 2012 article states: “In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were ‘Al Qaeda-leaning,’ according to American and European officials.”

Continued the Times article:

Small-scale camps grew out of training areas created last year by militias fighting Libyan government security forces. After the government fell, these compounds continued to churn out fighters trained in marksmanship and explosives, American officials said.

Ansar al-Shariah, a local militant group some of whose members had ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, a local Qaeda affiliate, operated a militant training camp whose location was well known to Benghazi residents. On the Friday after the attack, demonstrators overran it.

American intelligence agencies had provided the administration with reports for much of the past year warning that the Libyan government was weakening and had little control over the militias, including Ansar al-Shariah.

It isn’t the only aspect of Kirkpatrick’s most recent Benghazi investigation that is in dispute.

WND reported yesterday Kirkpatrick’s Benghazi investigation is filled with misleading information, including details contradicted by the U.S. government, Benghazi victims and numerous other previous news reports.

Bringing back the Muhammad film

One of the main contentions of the Times piece is that “contrary to claims by some members of Congress,” the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

“There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers,” continued the Times.

The Times article seeks to link the Benghazi attack to protests planned outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

Reads the Times piece: “[O]n Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.”

However, the Cairo protest on Sept. 11 was announced days in advance as part of a movement to free the so-called “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, held in the U.S. over the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

The State Department’s 39-page Accountability Review Board report, or ARB, said a group acting to free Rahman was involved in previous attacks against diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.

The Times fails to report the anti-U.S. protest movement outside the Cairo embassy was a long-term project aimed at freeing Rahman.

As far back as July 2012, Rahman’s son, Abdallah Abdel Rahman, threatened to organize a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and detain the employees inside.

On the day of the Sept. 11, 2012, protests in Cairo, CNN’s Nic Robertson interviewed the son of Rahman, who described the protest as being about freeing his father. No Muhammad film was mentioned. A big banner calling for Rahman’s release can be seen as Robertson walked to the embassy protests. Keep Reading