re: #173 Charles Johnson

Dude … the link in the article is to the New York Times, with a credit to a stringer in Benghazi. If that’s not original reporting, what is?

Right… I thought you had something else beyond that.

So a NYT piece quoting a nameless Ansar al-Sharia spokesman, without specifying which Ansar al-Sharia group he’s actually speaking for, and which contains - to the best of my knowledge - misleading information in the same paragraph about the Benghazi Ansar al-Sharia group (“Those leaders, including… Mohammed Ali Zahawi, fought alongside other commanders against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.” al-Zahawi himself, in his BBC interview, said his group was formed after Qaddafi was overthrown. That interview also contains a flat denial of his group’s involvement in the attack, for what that’s worth) is an unimpeachable source, but another NYT piece which says that our intelligence services now believe “a group of extremists… took advantage of a situation”, and which is supported by accounts of Petraeus’ testimony to Congress, isn’t cause to revise or at least re-consider your opinion of what might have happened?