Controversial Times story sheds considerable new light on Benghazi attack

I haven’t read the entire article yet, but a 7,000-word piece published over the weekend that paints a far more nuanced picture of the 2012 Benghazi attack than what had emerged on Capitol Hill has already created quite a buzz.

Republican congressmen, including Mike Rogers of Michigan, who have access to intelligence reports have criticized The New York Times story. But it’s difficult to brush aside a piece that is based on numerous interviews with Libyan militia leaders in the Benghazi territory. That is the good-journalism approach taken by the Times’ David Kilpatrick.

Kilpatrick found that the attack on the U.S. consulate which killed four Americans was not a well-planned military engagement led by al-Qaida; but it was also not a spontaneous attack by angry militants.

“The reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests,” Kilpatrick wrote. “Benghazi was not infiltrated by al-Qaida, 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."

Essentially, the Times found that there is plenty of blame to go around when assigning culpability for the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. The reality is about much more than Susan Rice or talking points or an anti-Islam video or various military responses that were never employed.

CNN notes that, after reading the story, President Obama's former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor unleashed a series of angry tweets condemning Republicans who've spent more than a year lambasting the White House over the Benghazi incident. Here are a few:

* "If Rs spent 1/50th as much time as @ddknyt learning what really happened in #Benghazi, we could have avoided months of disgusting demagoguery."

* "Republicans inflated the role of al Qaeda in #Benghazi to attack Obama's CT record. They were wrong, and handed our enemy a propaganda win."

* "Credit to @ddknyt but also disconcerting that his #Benghazi article offered more insight into what happened than all Congressional hearings."

The Times' article’s most lasting contribution may be the revelation that the diverse and fractured opposition militias that brought down Muhammar Ghadafi, many of whom were assumed to be friendly with the U.S., most likely sparked the attack on the American compound in Benghazi.