re: Wheels on the bus go round and round: Benghazi

quote:

---

to claim that NYT reporting is deliberately liberal and liberal in such a way as to produce a bias towards liberal issues is where your claim will come under scrutiny.

---

quote:

---

Kirkpatrick has been on record for 21 months as reporting that Khattala gave an interview that Kirkpatrick implies, but never directly confirms, was conducted by Kirkpatrick himself. If Kirkpatrick did not conduct the interview, his journalistic reputation is at stake because he never in any way implies that some other individual, even an anonymous one, met with Khattala in person for the interview. In that interview, 21 months ago, Kirkpatrick quotes Khattala as saying the attack grew out of a peaceful protest against the video. So Kirkpatrick is on the same boat he been riding around in from the very beginning.

---

quote:

---

I believe he means,,,

and I believe you do believe...

---

quote:

---

The second attack was at 4 a.m.

---

quote:

---

I sincerely do not understand your (and the other righties)

---

quote:

---

NC_Tigah

---

quote:

---

3. Two individuals are acknowledged at the end of the story to have "contributed to" the story - one FROM Tripoli and one FROM Washington. Considering that the interview was conducted in Benghazi, it's obvious neither of those two men were the interviewer. The only conclusion is that Kirkpatrick himself conducted the interview, because if he did not, and someone else did (someone else who is neither named or "described" in the story), then the "interview" is worthless hearsay.

---

quote:

---

Suliman Ali Zway
?@ILPADRINO0
I met Abukhattala twice,and I'm very familiar with the #Benghazi militia dynamics/environment;good luck getting any1 to arrest him.. #Libya

---

quote:

---

4, The Huffington Post has directly stated that Kirkpatrick was in fact the interviewer.

---

quote:

---

He has no credibility on this topic anymore - at all.

---

quote:

---

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

One of the consulate’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.”

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.

---