The New York Times investigation that found Al Qaeda or a terrorist group was not behind the Benghazi attack is — as predicted here — being rejected by Republicans.
As I noted in that post:
This most likely won’t change the partisan attacks on Fox News, in Congress and most assuredly on conservative weblogs. Our politics now operates on rejecting polls, investigations, etc that don’t fit into a partisan narrative. This will be dismissed as the mainstream media deciding in some little room to whitewash what really happened. Our politics increasing resembles a bunch of people at a retreat doing re-affirmation mantras: you say it over and over and over and it MUST be true.
And that’ll be enough for the partisans who already see it that way, but the Times report will carry much more weight with swing voters and Democrats who may have defended the Obama administration but had their doubts.
And — most assuredly — investigations will still continue to take place on this issue which will become like the Vince Foster supposed murder that dogged the Clintons until they left the White House.
Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) on Sunday disagreed with some of the conclusions in the New York Times investigation on Benghazi, specifically that the attack was fueled in part by an anti-Islamic American video.
“It was never about a video,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The New York Times did not find any evidence throughout its investigation that al Qaeda was involved in the attack, even if other regional terrorist groups carried out the attack.
Issa has claimed that al Qaeda was involved in the attack, and still claims that a group affiliated with the terrorist organization founded by Osama Bin Laden attacked the U.S. consulate.
“There was a group that was involved that was affiliated with al Qaeda,” Issa said. “It is not about al Qaeda as the only terrorist organization.”
David Kirkpatrick, the journalist who authored the Times report, said on Sunday that even if the attack was carried out by an anti-Western terrorist group inspired by al Qaeda, it was not organized by al Qaeda itself.
Fox News has responded. Note how in this report the investigation is an “investigation” with the quote marks — saying that, hey, really, now, they didn’t investigate, they just did it quickly or maybe they made it up, or maybe it was a big p.r. move to save Obama. Yes, our politics is THAT predictable now. Here’s part of the post, which you should read in full:
The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an “Al Qaeda-led event” according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.
“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.
“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”
The comments challenged the findings of a New York Times “investigation” which pointed instead to local militias and claimed an anti-Islam video played a role in inciting the attackers.
.
Another blog calls the New York Times report “revisionist.” But, wait: there has been no official declaration that it was Al Qaeda. No official government report stating it was Al Qaeda, no official report from Congress declaring the case is closed and it was Al Qaeda. The “revisionism” is that the Times is challenging a Republican narrative which may one day in the future be proven to be true or not — but it is a)not proven now b)is not part of an official version of events. The Times is revising a GOP and talk show host narrative so, yes, perhaps it is “revisionism.” Clearly if Hillary Clinton runs for President this narrative will continue (as that blog notes and as many pundits have noted and that includes some who argue it’s being kept alive specifically to undercut Ms. Clinton).
Most political stories now can be pre-written. Just fill in the actual quotes, but write in a politician’s name or a website and write the lead in. You know what they’ll say or write before they say it or write it.
One notable quote (which is also predictable but true):
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) lashed out at House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) on Sunday for spending over a year on what he said was a crusade on a “fairy tale” after a New York Times report showed that Al-Qaeda had no role in the 2012 Benghazi attacks.
In an interview with NBC on Sunday, Issa was pressed about a New York Times investigation published over the weekend that revealed that Al-Qaeda did not plan or carry out the attacks at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, undercutting the foundation of Republican arguments, hearings and accusations against President Barack Obama for the last year.
“Why use the term Al-Qaeda?” MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Issa. “When you say Al-Qaeda, people think central Al-Qaeda. They don’t think militias that may be inspired by [Osama bin Laden] and his other followers. So, it is a hot button for political reasons.”
“But, Andrea, it was accurate,” Issa insisted. “There’s a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with Al-Qaeda. Now, Al-Qaeda is not a central command and control. It was, in fact, a loose group that could take general statements and act on them.”
But Castro said that it was time for the chairman and other Republicans to “learn a lesson” and move on from their obsession with the Benghazi attacks.
“Chairman Issa and members of that committee crusaded for over a year on what was really a fairy tale, claiming that the administration knew that Al-Qaeda was involved and wouldn’t admit it,” he explained.
But why abandon a narrative? 21st century partisan politics consists of getting a political mantra and repeating it over and over and over as a re-affirmation and validation of a like or dislike. And so it is with Benghazi.
As I noted in comments here under another TMV post:
It’s sort of like when a poll comes out that a Democrat doesn’t like and the Democrat then talks about the methodology being wrong but praises other polls that they like; and when a Republican doesn’t like a poll that comes on and the Republican talks about the methodology being wrong but praises other polls they like. The choir must always reaffirm the melodies, even if the paper shows the notes have changed. But those NOT in the choir can note the difference if the notes on the paper have changed and the larger orchestra is playing a different tune.
GO HERE for more blog reaction
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.