By Bill O'Reilly
Over the Christmas break, "The New York Times" ran an investigative report about how Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Libya on September 11th, 2012.
The story has been a sharp thorn for the Obama administration and for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, because there were security concerns in Benghazi that were not addressed by the State Department, also because the administration's version about what happened was murky and allegedly misleading. "The Times" concluded that there is no evidence, no evidence, that al Qaeda was involved in the murders and an anti-Muslim video promoted by a Florida preacher did ignite the fuse of violence as the Obama administration initially stated. But a FACTOR analysis of "The Times" article casts grave doubt on both of those conclusions.
Let's look at the facts. "The New York Times" rightly claims that an anti-American group called Ansar Al-Sharia was behind the attack, but "The Times" says the group is not affiliated with al Qaeda. The evidence says otherwise.
In August 2012, a few weeks before the attack, the Pentagon, the Pentagon, issued a report that said, quote, "Ansar Al-Sharia has increasingly embodied al Qaeda's presence in Libya" unquote.
But "The Times" does not mention, does not mention, the Pentagon's assessment in its article -- an amazing lapse of reportage and a huge mistake if the paper wants its readers to believe it is covering hard news in a fair way. There is simply no excuse for not including the Pentagon's point of view.
"The Times" also says, quote "The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned." Nonsense. For more than two hours dozens of Islamic thugs used rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons to assault the U.S. mission compound in Benghazi. Militants were seen on video cameras casing the mission before the attack and they hid themselves until opening fire.
They also attacked a CIA compound a half mile away using mortars, and "The New York Times" says the attack was not planned. Are you kidding me?
I guess the word "meticulously" is the paper's fallback, but it is pure bull. And the coordinated violence eliminates the videotape as a spontaneous driver of the murders, eliminates that. It's true, the militants knew about the tape from Egyptian TV, but this Ansar group had used violence before. They didn't need a tape to commit murder.
So "Talking Points" believes "The Times" story is deeply flawed and the editors should have known it. Now, over the years, the paper has become deeply invested in changing America into a secular progressive country and while it does do some noble reporting, a primary goal of "The Times" is to help progressive groups and politicians.
You may remember "The Times" implied that John McCain had an extramarital affair during his presidential campaign against Barack Obama. "The Times" could produce no evidence, none, to justify that story, and to this day, Senator McCain is bitter about it.
Now we have the lingering Benghazi situation that may hurt Hillary Clinton in her presidential run. "Talking Points" believes that was the motivation for the way this investigation was framed by "The New York Times". I could be wrong, but I'm not wrong about the reporting. It is seriously flawed. And that's "The Memo."