Accuracy in Media

The Washington Post recently penned a major story on Hillary Clinton’s leadership on the fate of Libya, integrating positive comments from an anonymous source in order to bolster her scandal-ridden reputation. Now The New York Times has followed suit, publishing an autopsy of what went wrong in Libya that extends over 12,000 words between its two parts.

The Times writes that they talked with more than 50 people for the story, including Americans, Libyans and Europeans, virtually all who agreed to speak on the record.  “They expressed regret, frustration and in some cases bewilderment about what went wrong and what might have been done differently.”

The Times then asks, “Was the mistake the decision to intervene in the first place, or the mission creep from protecting civilians to ousting a dictator, or the failure to send a peacekeeping force in the aftermath?”

The question remains, however, as to what prompted these columns. After all, both the Post and New York Times articles discuss very little about current events and largely report on Libya’s transformation into a failed state with ISIS strongholds. Clearly, these articles are meant as an attempt to explain how Libya devolved into chaos with neither President Obama, nor Mrs. Clinton, being at fault.

The Times article offers a much more complete story of the lead-up to the intervention when compared to the Post, and it should receive credit for including Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic’s account of the decision not to pursue truce talks with Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. However, the Times treats Kubic’s story superficially and tries to cast doubt upon the idea that these truce talks should have been treated seriously.

“The Americans did not believe that the Libyans purporting to speak for the leader could actually deliver a peaceful transfer of power,” write Jo Becker and Scott Shane for the Times. “Colonel Qaddafi, the Americans thought, would simply use a cease-fire as an opportunity to regroup.” These reporters also quote a source alleging that there was “envoy proliferation.”

However, the strength of Kubic’s account, which was brought to light by the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB), comes from the fact that he helped Qaddafi’s representatives reach the head of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham. This was no theoretical truce attempt—it was a real discussion between the two parties.

“When I then went back to Africa Command, and I told them that the call was going to be set up, again they were doing their own due diligence,” said Kubic at our April, 2014 CCB conference. “They said, ‘We need some proof that this is real. Will he pull back his troops now from the outskirts of Benghazi?’”

“And then Qaddafi began to pull back from Benghazi and Misrata, and we were set to, we had the phone call,” continued Kubic. “However, despite the willingness of Africa Command and how things were set for the 72-hour truce to discuss the ceasefire, the idea was shot down above AFRICOM.”

Another major part of the Benghazi story is that the United States switched sides in the War on Terror when the Obama administration knowingly facilitated the flow of arms to al-Qaeda linked militias in Libya. But the Times casts the arms transfers as Qatar run amok, an ally who could not be curtailed by the United States. “Throughout the spring, the administration had effectively turned a blind eye as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates supplied the rebels with lethal assistance, according to [then Defense Secretary Robert] Gates and others,” they report. “But Mrs. Clinton had grown increasingly concerned that Qatar, in particular, was sending arms only to certain rebel factions: militias from the city of Misrata and select Islamist brigades.”

One need only understand the case of arms dealer Marc Turi to see that the Times is peddling a false narrative.

“Marc Turi was set up and framed for something he didn’t do, while others, who actually did collaborate with Qatar and the UAE to deliver the weapons under U.S. and NATO protection and supervision, are not only not prosecuted like Marc Turi, they’re not even mentioned,” CCB member and former CIA officer Clare Lopez told WorldNetDaily last July.

“During the 2011 Libyan revolution, Mrs. Clinton had successfully pushed the administration to take a direct role in arming opposition groups, hoping that would persuade the Qataris to stop sending weapons to extremist rebel factions,” reports the Times. This account falsely casts the United States as arming moderate rebels, when in fact the “rebels” were linked to al Qaeda.

“Muammar Qaddafi had given up his WMD some years before,” noted Lopez at the CCB’s 2014 conference. “He had also begun to cooperate with the United States, and with the West, to keep al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM, down. He had al Qaeda jihadis in his jails.”

In contrast, some of the Libyan rebels were flying the black flags of jihad.

“Officials from Libya’s moderate governing coalition were demanding that the United States stop the wealthy nation of Qatar from sending money and arms to militias aligned with Libya’s Islamist political bloc,” report Becker and Shane. “The Islamists, in turn, were accusing a rival gulf power, the United Arab Emirates, of providing similar patronage to fighters aligned with their political enemies.”

A story about just one shipment of arms explains how these arms deals involved the highest level of Libyan governance. As discussed in our interim report, “During their visit to Tripoli, the [United Arab Emirates] officials discovered that half of the $1 billion worth of weapons it had financed for the rebels had, in fact, been diverted by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the Muslim Brotherhood head of the Libyan TNC, and sold to Qaddafi.”

A reliable source told the commission that Jalil put out a hit job on Major General Abdel Fatah Younis, Qaddafi’s former Minister of the Interior, because Younis had found out that half of the arms ended up in Qaddafi’s hands. The assassination was tasked to none other than Abu Khattala, who is now in U.S. custody because of his part in the Benghazi attacks of September 11 and September 12, 2012.

Clearly, these events contribute to the broader story surrounding the Benghazi scandal. But instead of covering the Benghazi scandal accurately, the Times argues that Hillary Clinton is not responsible. “If the attempt to pin blame for the Benghazi attack on Mrs. Clinton would largely fail,” wrote Becker and Shane, continuing, “the notion that the Libyan intervention was among her successes had become steadily more threadbare.”

If the Times had been interested in telling the truth about the Benghazi scandal, it would have tied the truce talks and the arming of al-Qaeda-linked rebel groups into the story of this scandal. Instead, its over 12,000-word piece steps around the scandal itself as much as possible.

“From the earliest days of the Libya debate, Mrs. Clinton was a diligent student and unrelenting inquisitor, absorbing fat briefing books, inviting dissenting views from subordinates, studying foreign counterparts to learn how to win them over,” write Becker and Shane. “She was a pragmatist, willing to improvise—to try the bank-shot solution.”

Pragmatist or not, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made distinctly poor—if not disastrous—decisions when intervening in Libya. But the mainstream media are more interested in publishing foreign policy accounts that bolster these leaders’ foreign policy bona fides. With Libya, it just isn’t possible.

Again, the Times asked if the “mistake” was having gone into Libya in the first place, mission creep to remove Qaddafi, or failing to plan for the aftermath of Qaddafi’s removal. The answer is yes to all of the above, but the reason for the “mistakes” is what should be understood. It was Obama administration policy during the so-called Arab Spring to replace strongman allies of the U.S.—such as Qaddafi in Libya and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, who assisted in the war against al Qaeda and other jihadist groups—with Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda-linked groups that wanted to control Northern Africa. The results of the Obama/Clinton policies in the region have mostly been disastrous for the people living there, and for America’s influence in the Middle East.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • armydadtexas

    WILL NOT WORK! HILLARY R. CLINTON received her 3 a.m. phone call opportunity and got Americans slaughtered. Hillary R. Clinton, then intentionally and knowingly LIED to the Victims Families, America and the World as to what transpired. Hillary R. Clinton directed her subordinates to lie (Rice, etc.) They got up in front of America and the World and continued to lie. Hillary R. Clinton has been proven to be a pathological liar and fraud. She is thus unfit and unqualified to ever hold the office of President of the United States of America. Hopefully sooner v later, she will be indicted for her intentional misuse of government documents. Enough is enough. it is time for Hillary Clinton to be held to account.

  • alex

    the time’s agenda is to keep a democrat in the WH. you cant read it for journalistic truth. its a slanted editorial in favor of the left.

  • 012017 endofanerror

    I am not optimistic regarding honesty in elections in the USA. When the butcher of Benghazi gets sworn in, because she will no matter what. We are done for and the only way to take our moral and once God loving country back will be by force. How has lieberals won everything they want and we concede everything to them. They are the minority in this country and some day they will find out the hard way. We have no justice or rule of law anymore. Unless you are an immoral radical lieberal.

  • Ron

    Neither the NY Times nor the Washington Post, both Democrat Party organs, are worthy of lining the bottoms of my two cats’ litter boxes. I have far too much affection and respect for my cats to do that to them!

  • Realist

    Why not just write and episode of “Madam Secretary” and stuff it with all of the desired lies and obfuscations desired, whether those lies and deceptions be about Lybia, Syria or her server? The whole point of that show is to get the Hildabeast elected by trying to sew the culture with desired libcult premises vis a vis the Infotainment Machine, so why not just go the extra mile and make it as nakedly partisan and hackneyed as the libcultists wish they could? They aren’t going to lose any audience since that audience by in large is already well steeped in libcult dogma and myths.

    Go on, libcult writers of that propaganda effort. Go for broke and make this vehicle of disinformation and deception all you really want it to be.

  • reggie

    Google Western Journalism: Spanish company will count American votes overseas in November. This is from 2012, it will make you ill. The deceit and destruction…

  • 012017 endofanerror

    Thank you I will check it out.

  • reggie

    Probably will not happen, evil protects evil. Soros counts the votes, that is a big problem. Western Journalism – Spanish company will count American votes overseas in November. That was 2012, just after soros company got the contract, we know who “won”. He who counts the votes wins.

  • RMThoughts

    The whole neocon foreign policy establishment was behind the destruction of Libya and Syria and they are all war criminals along with the pundits who supported them at the time. When the bombs were falling, Roger was cheering.

  • dirtflyer

    The NY Times and Wash’ton Post , Huff’ton have never been known to print the Truth. Almost as bad as Super Market tabloids. They have no Credibility. I get the News over the Internet. These Liberal Left Wing papers cater to Democrats and support and cover they’re Loony, Pathological Demo. Lieing Politicions. These papers are part of the Democrat Indoctrination machine to “Con”, poeple to go along with the Loony Socialist/Marxist/Commie/Muslim/Homo agenda of Democrat eletists. And to accept the open Border and illegal immigration agenda. Which is self destruction from the inside. There’s no shortage of Dum-Dums who will Vote to support Millions of ilegalls being dumped onto they’re neighborhoods.

  • Anthony Duhe

    There is more to the story. The man who created the program and was part owner of SCTYL, the Spanish electronic vote counting company, died in a car accident. His business partner lived in Chicago and interestingly is an OBAMA supporter and was a bundler. I cannot imagine it was legal for a foreign entity to count the U.S. vote…..however the company has now been sold to two U. S. citizens…unfortunately the two U.S. Citizens are globalists –Bill Gates and George Soros.

    SCTYL counts the vote and destroys it at the same time so recounts are not possible.

    Also, the programs can be backdoored to flip the vote count and steal elections without being tracked or giving any alert. The electronic vote must be destroyed–it is the mechanism being used to steal our country.

    Every place SCTYL vote counting machines have been used a communist leader has been installed to the detriment of the country. Spain was given a communist leader who immediately directed their economy to a global warming-climate change economy, a SOLYNDRA based type of economy which has severely impacted their economy and they now have 25% unemployment.
    … The US elections gave us OBAMA and France was saddled with communist Hollande.

    We must destroy the electronic vote. One can google it and Watch a youtube video of a Congressional hearing from 2001 where the theft mechanism is discussed and explained.

    I weep for my country. I fear for my children and their children. Pray.

  • reggie

    Me too. I literally get sick to my stomach. On my father’s side, we fought in every war from the Civil War (north) to the early Iraq war. My mother was an immigrant who jumped the hoops for years. For this? I knew soros counted the votes, did not know the rest of the story, too many people dying in strange circumstances. I think what’s important now is to find out who uses that company, let people know, so they can demand a different company. Please watch the documentary “Thrive”. I just saw it last night on the recommendation of a friend. It will blow you away. Bon courage.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    “The question remains, however, as to what prompted these columns.”

    Actually, we know exactly why.

    Before the bodies were even cold, the right wing noise machine started lying about the events of Benghazi. Literally. I was checking the right wing sites (like this one) and was astounded that they had already figured the whole thing out LONG before anyone actually knew anything.

    The lies started immediately and continue to this day. The reason the media is spending so much time on this is to debunk the utter nonsense coming from the right.

    Congress has spent more time and money investigating Benghazi than they did investigating 9/11. Think about that.

    The reason? You people don’t care about facts. You live in a fantasy land of your own design.

    On the plus side, right wing nonsense has now made it impossible for the GOP to win back the White House. Well played, losers. Well played.

  • biilyjoe

    “you people” =— your words— don’t u know ur porch monkey friends declared in their obongoized/mlk-ized bible that those words are “rrrraaaaaaaaccccccccciiissssss”- where u been, boy, these past 50 years ??? out in the watermelon patch ????

  • missieb2000

    The average bowel movement from any human being is more useful and reliable than either of these liberal hack media outlets.