October 16: The NYT Still Claims Video Caused Benghazi Attack
After U.S. intelligence, U.S. security officers in Libya, Reps Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Dan Burton (R-IN), and even the State Dept say the Benghazi attack was terrorism, The New York Times is claiming "there is little doubt what occurred" -- it was the video.
Although Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy referred to the attack as terrorism less than 24 hours after it took place, and even the White House was forced into admitting this truth publicly a few weeks later, the Times says nope -- it was simply a group of Islamic militants reacting "emotionally" in "retaliation for the video."
And how does The New York Times know this? They know it because they spoke to a 20-year old man named Mohamed Bishari who watched the attack, and Bishari said, "There was no protest or anything of the sort."
In other words, there was no organized attack: it was a spontaneous outburst over a 15-minute YouTube video, carried out by people who don't exactly look like subscribing to internet service is priority one.
The New York Times' article goes on to list previous attacks on other U.S. and Western interests that were allegedly in reaction to videos, depictions, or other insults against "the Prophet." They even try to show how these occurrences disprove security officer Eric Nordstrom's claims regarding Benghazi.