Monday morning I attended a
breakfast with a small group of men who meet every two weeks to discuss
national affairs. I’m proud to say that
virtually all of them recognized that the NY Times piece on Benghazi
was pure propaganda intended to help elect Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Times has moved from significant bias to
outright lies. Fortunately lots of
people now recognize this.
Betrayal That Whitewash Won’t Cover
“Transparency, the current vogue word for truth-telling, is
usually a good thing, unless you're trying to fool all the people some of the
time, like spending 7,000 words to resurrect a fairy tale in Benghazi, all to
give a helping hand to a lady in distress.
New York Times understands that Hillary Clinton is likely to be the only
credible hope the Democrats have for 2016 and that she already needs lots of
remedial help. The Times huffed and puffed to deliver an excuse for betrayal in
Benghazi, meant to second Mrs.
Clinton's famous alibi for her tortured misfeasance as secretary of state —
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
right response might have made a lot of difference to an American ambassador
who lay dead, slain at the hands of Islamic terrorists, and three other
Americans who had to give up their lives because nobody at the White House
could be bothered to ride to the rescue. President Obama and his frightened and
timid acolytes, including Mrs. Clinton, insisted that this was not Islamic
terror or the perfidy of al Qaeda, but merely the reaction of innocent Muslims
offended by a video posted on YouTube mocking the religion of the Prophet
after the White House dispatched Susan Rice, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, to push the confection about the video as revealed truth, almost
nobody believed it. The White House couldn't even find anybody else who would
say he believed it.
Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief of The New York Times, grunted, burped and
produced a tiny mouse of special pleading, an account with nothing new of much
importance, except a few colorful facts of the sort that were once the popcorn
of newsmagazine journalism. He describes, for example, the vase in the living
room of the mother of one of the suspects in the Benghazi attack. Vases are no doubt
important, but mostly to interior decorators. This account, so transparent to
anyone who reads it even with casual attention, seems hardly worth the effort
of a good reporter who was willing to take certain risks to himself.
It's important to Hillary and her presidential campaign, now in
its early planning, to repeat the con that al Qaeda was not in any way
involved, because Mr. Obama was supposed to have killed al Qaeda graveyard dead
when he dispatched Navy SEALs to terminate Osama bin Laden with extreme
prejudice.” Washington Times
Labels: Liberals and Conservatives, Mainstream Media, Politics