The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States.
An in-depth investigative report by the New York Times has rekindled the debate about the 2012 attack on the US compound in Benghazi, Libya which left four Americans dead.
Along with the criticism of how the Obama administration handled the attack, the three main points of contention in the blame-game between Republicans and the White House were whether the attack was preplanned, if al-Qaeda was involved, or whether it was a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video.
The Timesâ„¢ findings published over the weekend revealed that there was no involvement from al-Qaeda and that the violent raid that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens was rather led by local militias who had enjoyed Å“NATOâ„¢s air power and logistics support” during the uprising against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.
Contrary to claims of al-Qaedaâ„¢s involvement by some members of Congress, the report said the attack was fueled by anger at an American-made video insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad.
Å“Thereâ„¢s just no chance that this was an al-Qaeda attack if, by al-Qaeda, you mean the organization founded by Osama bin Laden,” Times reporter David Kirkpatrick, who authored the story, said in response to Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan who dismissed the Timesâ„¢ investigation on Fox News Sunday.
According to the GOP version, al-Qaeda planned the attack to mark the anniversary of the September 11, 2011 attacks in the United States.
Republicans accuse President Barack Obama of trying to cover up evidence of al-Qaedaâ„¢s involvement to protect his campaign for a second term in office and his claim that the terrorist group had been largely decimated after a raid in Pakistan that killed its leader Osama bin Laden.
“The reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by al-Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs,” according to Kirkpatrick’s article in the Times.
The Times, however, said that the Obama administration was also to blame, both prior and after the attack.
According to thereport, US officials made poor security decisions, trusted the wrong people, and were broadly ill-informed about the nature of the threats around them.
Republicans insist that the Obama administration did not provide enough security for the compound before the attack, responded poorly to it, and misled the public for political gains less than two months before the November election.
AN/HJ
Source: Press TV