This is a good example that headlines and the text can be used to distort the truth by stating some facts to imply that which is not true.
From the article:"...no evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary Clinton,” ..."
That does not counter the claim that the White House spun the story independent of the CIA.The initial assessments that the C.I.A. gave to the White House said demonstrations had preceded the attack….
That does not mean the attacks resulted from the demonstrations, which is what the White House alleged.
…But he concludes that the assault in which the ambassador was killed took place “with little or no advance planning” and “was not well organized.” He says the attackers “did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm.
The degree that the attackers were organized is not the point. They were organized enough to carry appropriate weapons. The degree of organization of the attack does not suggest the attack was carried out as a result of the demonstration, which might be inferred by some non-critical thinking readers.
The real crux of the issue of the White House spin can be seen when looking at Morell's testimony to Congress:Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell, who also served a stint as acting director of Langley, is testifying before House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today [4/2/14]:
“The analysts said from the get-go that al Qaeda was involved in this attack,” Morell said - which the NY Times article conveniently did not mention.The bottom line is that the U.S. intelligence community knew from the “get-go” that al Qaeda was involved in the attack. And the Obama administration’s narrative, at first, excluded al Qaeda entirely [and emphasized the video as a smoke screen].
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cia-knew-al-qaeda-involved-benghazi-get-go_786435.htmlThis is in contrast to the claims by Obama, Rice, and Clinton that the attack resulted from the video which makes a cause and effect claim. The charges against the administration including Clinton are not rebuked by the article, even though the NY Times makes an attempt to claim otherwise.