New York Times concludes, an American-made anti-Islamic video, was at the root of Benghazi attack

You can't fix stupid.

The stupid is who they are targeting with that "study."

Needless to say, this was the #1 story on Huffington Post. Given the "Man-Walks-On-Moon" treatment.

(12-29-2013 12:27 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Needless to say, this was the #1 story on Huffington Post. Given the "Man-Walks-On-Moon" treatment.

We are living in a Media Matters/NYT propaganda world. They must have the Zero walking on water with the world on his shoulders picture on the cover.

'Completely false': Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report

What no lefters to defend the NYT is not a lying, propaganda rag.

Quote:Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.

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.

Quote:Rogers declined to say whether he thought the recent Benghazi-related stories on TV and in print were politically motivated -- particularly to try to exonerate then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is eyeing a 2016 presidential bid.

Did Jayson Blair write the article?