New York Times leaves her under the bus: On Wednesday, a Senate report about Benghazi largely comported with the account Susan Rice gave in real time.
We were able to figure that out from reading the New York Times front-page analysis of the report. Halfway through, on page A3, we found ourselves reading this:
MAZZETTI/SCHMITT/KIRKPATRICK (1/16/14): On the contentious issue of the role of Al Qaeda or other international terrorist organizations in the attack on the diplomatic mission, the Senate committee’s report found that individuals “affiliated with” many such groups had participated in the attack but that none of them appeared to have planned or led the assault.The highlighted points all comport with what Rice said in real time. On Meet the Press, she specifically used the term “opportunistic” to describe the nature of the attack, as best we knew at the time.
The report found that among the many terrorist groups with which individual attackers had some affiliation were Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda’s North African affiliate; Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate; and an Egyptian network led by Muhammad Jamal. But the report said, “Intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic.”
“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”
The American-made video, which denigrated Islam and was posted on YouTube, set off a number of protests across the Middle East. An investigation published by The New York Times last month found that anger over the video had played a significant role in precipitating the Benghazi attack.
On Face the nation, she had said we had no evidence that the attack had been preplanned for months to coincide with September 11. She had said the attackers might have been al Qaeda affiliates or “al Qaeda itself,” but we didn’t yet know.
Rice was turned into the world’s biggest liar for the things she said. Her statements were instantly misparaphrased and misquoted. The mainstream press corps tore her to shreds, taking their frameworks and formulations from the likes of straight-talking John McCain, whose misstatements concerning what Rice said were wanton, brutal and endless.
Except for one segment on Hardball, Rice’s name wasn’t mentioned on MSNBC for the next two months. Rachel and them ran off and hid as this punishment was inflicted.
As we’ve long told you, script never dies. Even yesterday, the New York Times was too afraid to discuss the way this report undermines the endless attacks against Rice.
Rice's name was mentioned once, right out on the front page. Incredibly, this is what the Times said:
MAZZETTI/SCHMITT/KIRKPATRICK (1/16/14): The report does not break significant new ground on the issue of administration statements about the episode, or on the infamous “talking points” drawn up after the attack for a television appearance by Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser. But it is unsparing in its criticism of the State Department for failing to provide adequate security to the mission even as violence spiked in Benghazi in June 2012. In contrast, the report said, the C.I.A. quickly bolstered security at its annex about a mile away.Really? The infamous talking points? Have we ever mentioned the fact that script never dies?
Let’s accept the fact that the Times is too frightened to challenge the attacks on Rice—to go back and review what she actually said, to debunk the bogus attacks. Even so, why would they stoop so low as to call the talking-points “infamous?”
You could call them “controversial.” You could say they were “hotly debated.” But in order to prove its allegiance to script, the New York Times put “infamous” right in the same sentence with Rice.
When the Times did its front-page report on Benghazi last month, it continued to misparaphrase what Rice said. Incredibly, it even flatly misquoted her at one point.
Yesterday morning, on its front page, “infamous” was the word the newspaper chose to associate with Rice. This is what happens when cowards like Maddow won’t stand on their hind legs and fight.
As we’ve told you, script never dies. Neither does the worthlessness of people with giant salaries.