The release of a bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report on Benghazi last week was preceded by a discredited New York Times piece by the paper’s Cairo Bureau Chief David Kirkpatrick. In fact, the SSCI report itself delivered a haymaker to Kirkpatrick’s credibility but alas, as liberal New York Times writers are wont to do, Kirkpatrick attempted to revise his own recent history, with an article that clearly attempted to mesh his falsehoods with the SSCI’s findings.

Kirkpatrick: New York Times writer and Cairo Bureau Chief.

Before we get to Kirkpatrick’s response to the SSCI report, take a look at a key finding that Kirkpatrick staked his reputation on in that December 28th piece (let your attention be drawn to what’s in bold):

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Now, have a look at what the SSCI report says on pages 10 and 40 (separated by ellipses):

This year, Muhammad Jamal’s Egypt-based network, al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and ai-Qa’ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have conducted training, built communication networks, and facilitated extremist travel across North Africa from their safe haven in parts of eastern Libya… Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar alSharia, [134] AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks.

Got that? On December 28th, the Cairo (that would be Egypt) Bureau chief of the New York Times (Kirkpatrick) stated that there was no evidence that any “international terrorist group had any role in the assault” on Benghazi. Yet, little more than two weeks later, the SSCI report is at complete odds with that conclusion. By definition, if the Jamal Network is “Egypt-based” and was involved in an attack in Libya, it is an “international terrorist group”.

Does Kirkpatrick issue a retraction? Correction? Is he suspended and publicly humiliated like Lara Logan? Is he fired?

Don’t be silly. He’s allowed to collaborate with two other writers for the New York Times (Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt) to chime in on the SSCI report and completely ignore the inconsistencies with his own propaganda. There is one mention of the Jamal Network in that article (notice that the word “But” is the first word after that mention):

On the contentious issue of the role of Al Qaeda or other international terrorist organizations in the attack on the diplomatic mission, the Senate committee’s report found that individuals “affiliated with” many such groups had participated in the attack but that none of them appeared to have planned or led the assault.

The report found that among the many terrorist groups with which individual attackers had some affiliation were Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda’s North African affiliate; Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate; and an Egyptian network led by Muhammad Jamal. But the report said, “Intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic.”

Again, we are talking about the Cairo Bureau Chief for the New York Times, who insisted there was “no evidence” of international terrorist groups being involved. Yet, the Jamal Network, which Kirkpatrick has to concede was involved, was headquartered in… wait for it… Cairo.