New York Times to the rescue
In the opening hours of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, we read about the black banners of al Qaeda which made their appearance at the site of the deadly attack there, but somehow, the New York Times “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.
Yes, we’re supposed to believe that Susan Rice and the Obama Administration were correct in their assessment that it was over some poorly directed and acted amateur video that caused the whole thing. You know, as if we’re stupid. Despite the fact that Libyan government told the Obama Administration that it was a coordinated attack, despite the fact that the late Ambassador Stevens warned the State Department that they were concerned about the threat from al Qaeda, despite the fact that al Qaeda has made a resurgence in Libya in the months following the attack.
Apparently, the New York Times is trying to pull out an end of the year publicity stunt for the Obama Administration.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
WTF is that? Fighting al Qaeda for any reason is in American interests, whether it’s over Benghazi or over Mali, FFS. Morons.
Category: Media, Terror War
It’s official. There is no length to which the MSM will not go to cover for a liberal administration, no matter how incompetent or damaging to the nation.
The Weekly Standard, Thomas Joscelyn, is here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-whitewashes-benghazi_772382.html
And Stephen Hayes, is here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/times-ignores-evidence-al-qaeda-link-benghazi_772386.html
Both worth a few minutes.
As my better half just pointed out, this may not just be an attempt to put out a fire for Obama but also be the laying of an early smoke screen for Hillary whose supporters have to know this Benghazi scandal could be the one issue that derails her grab for the presidency. If you believe the Times is a shameless shill for Obama just wait to see what they’ll stoop to to put that corrupt commie cow in the Oval Office.
I think this is more like step one for a Hillary whitewash
Shameless traitors is what they are.
‘No evidence’ was turned up because they looked out the windows of their ivory tower and didn’t see anything.
The pseudo-intellectual twaddle that comes out of the editorial offices of the New York Times is swathed in navel-gazing and ignoring facts. You could tell them it’s midnight outside, which is why it’s so dark, and they’d respond that the clock says 5PM. And I would willingly wager that this article was generated by a phone call from some office on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, with ‘hey, make me look good’ as the motivating factor.
The Soviet Union had “Izvestia” as its “newspaper of record”.
The Obummer Admin has the NYT as its lapdog propaganda machine.
Look, it took the paper decades to admit that it buried the Holocaust in the 30s and 40s. You don’t think it’s about to admit the error of its ways so relatively soon after the al Qaeda-led attack on Benghazi, do you?
ABC ran with this tonight. And hinted at the Hillary connection.
Purely whitewash for the Second Clinton Administration.
Nothing more, nothing lesss….
The NYT couldn’t find a bleeding elephant in a snow covered K-Mart parking lot on a sunny day at high noon under a cloudless sky. And most especially if Hillary denied shooting it.
Hillary’s campaign staff can now quote a NYTs investigation as clearing her of any complicity in the “phony” scandal.
I’d like to know the names of the “investigators” and “reporters” who floated this drek – they are clearly our enemies; we should know who they are.
Nothing to do with Obama. As others have pointed out it is a preemptive attack for Hillary 2016
“The New York Times, all the Obama propaganda we see fit to feed you everyday peasants!”
And may the NYT and the rest of the LSDM (Lame Stream Dinosaur Media – you know who you are, WaPo, LA Times and the rest) die a quick death from loss of paying subscribers and advertisers. ptu! ptu!
@12, the author of the piece of dreck that the NYT decided to use to white-wash Hillary is a David D. Kirkpatrick. Other than that, I have no clue who he is or what he’s done.
Then, there is this gem from the article, “The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs,” according to David D. Kirkpatrick’s article in the Times.” Kirkpatrick seems confused as to whether the attack was spontaneous or planned. Maybe he’s waiting for Hillary to get back to him with that talking point.
@16: he is not confused. He wrote exactly what he meant to right. The attack did not appear to be “meticulously planned”. It was planned, however. Parse the words carefully.
#4 as it right on, its all about Hillary and 2016