Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise me or Republicanprofessor.
Posted on 12/30/2013 5:18:51 AM PST by SeekAndFind
They never give up at the New York Times.If at first they don’t succeed in twisting the truth to fit the Newspeak fit to print, it’s try, try again. Their latest exercise in mendacity is “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi [1],” an elaborate essay that substitutes a plethora of irrelevant details and animated graphics for historical truth. The long essay takes up an event which, in a rational world, would have led the to resignation of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the impeachment of President Barack Obama. I mean the terrorist attack on our consular facility at Benghazi, Libya.
You remember Benghazi: a U.S. ambassador and his security detail were ambushed by Islamic radicals and, after an hours’ long firefight, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were brutally murdered. By Islamic radicals.
The cataract of misinformation that gushed out of the Obama administration about that event, a mephitic current of lies and half truths streaming from the cloaca maxima in Washington, D.C., was stunning even by the low standards of “the most transparent administration in history.” I wrote about the events here several times [2], as did several of my PJM colleagues.
The administration’s line was that the savage ambush that left four Americans dead was part of a “spontaneous uprising” by adherents of the Religion of Peace, goaded to murderous fury because of a hitherto obscure internet video [3] that portrays Mohammed as a corrupt sexual predator. It’s a silly film. But, however silly, however offensive to Muslim sensibilities it may be, is it grounds for mayhem and murder? And, more to the point, did it in fact have anything at all to do with the events in Benghazi of September 11, 2012?
The short answer is: No. The internet video had nothing to do with that terrorist attack. The date, however, — September 11 — probably had a lot to do with the timing of the attack.
According to the New York Times, the perpetrators of the attack were not elements of al-Qaeda and kindred radical groups but disaffected members of the Arab street who were distraught by Innocence of Muslims, the sophomoric internet video on which President Obama and Hilary Clinton blamed the attack. My own view is that if a group of people is so criminally puerile that they can can be roused to murder by a video, then they deserve to be treated as mental incompetents. But in this case, the question doesn’t really arise because the Times offers no evidence that the video had anything to do with the murderous attack.
As a House Intelligence Committee report concluded [4], pace the Times, the Benghazi attack was “an al Qaeda led event.” The culprit was “not a video,” Rep. Mike Rogers observed — “that whole part was debunked time and time again.” It was not a “spontaneous uprising,” as was put about by the administration at the time and is now reprised by the New York Times, but rather a “pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” orchestrated by al-Qaeda.
How are we to understand the Times’s latest entry into the contest to rewrite history for ideological fun and profit? My own sense is that it has less to do with salvaging President Obama’s tattered reputation — he is well on his way to winning the prize for the least competent and most destructive president in the history of the republic. No, Barack Obama is yesterday’s news, and unless and until he is impeached and removed from office he will be pretty much forgotten by purveyors of all the Newspeak fit to print. They have their eyes on another player in the Benghazi scandal, namely Hilary Clinton. If anyone emerged from that shameful episode more discredited than Barack Obama, it was Ms. Clinton. But time is passing fast, and there is a lot of remedial work to do if Hilary Clinton is to be suitably repackaged as the Democratic candidate for president. That ambition, I believe, stands behind this elaborate, breathtaking exercise in journalistic mendacity.
The Obama Administration knew this attack was coming...and they spent more time researching an excuse so when the attack did occur they had something other than their willful need to secure the consulate correctly...this Admin is pathetic and full of “know it alls from academia” that have no business in the real world...
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise me or Republicanprofessor.
They had to bring it back up. This is all about Hillary and 2016. Her fingerprints are all over the Benghazi fiasco, and they need to muddy the water for her.
Ain’t gonna happen. This is going to backfire huge.
So one must ask the question, Why now?
Why is the NYT willing to go out on a broken limb to again propagate a widely known bogus story?
Why? So they could start the media machine out in front of whatever revelations are about to come out that are not good for the entire establishment.
Tough shiite, hillary. ‘Looks like it didn’t work.
morsi’s trial begins in Egypt on January 8.
Videos Of Foreign Press Reporters Biased To Terrorism In Egypt (remember NYT Benghazi Lie?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3106536/posts
Source: http://heyegypt.com/videos-of-foreign-press-reporters-biased-to-terrorism-in-egypt/
Whoop! There it is!
Morsi’s wife has already been vocal.
The spirit of Walter Duranty is alive and well at the NY Times. Duranty was Moscow bureau chief for the NY Times in the 1930s. He covered up Stalin’s crimes and the mass starvation of Russians. For that, he won the Pulitzer prize. Then, as now, the NY Times supported the propaganda efforts of a murderous, left wing tyrant, rather than report the truth. History repeats itself.
Slimes wants to help Shrillery get elected
Re-Writing History and the facts to influence the feeble minded.
Bingo.
I also think the left saw an opportunity to muddy the waters on Benghazi when the Lara Logan story blew up.
The US Ambassador in a foreign land is the assumed President of the United States - and he was assassinated! Their building and grounds are US property and were invaded. The terrorists murdered three other US citizens.
I, for one, am shocked at how cavalier Hillary, Obama and Rice are, concerning their lack of reaction at the time of the attack, the “what does it matter” attitude displayed now, their stonewalling on vital information, their calculated failure to prosecute the terrorists and the extended canard that our forces were too far away to help. Our Ambassador was assassinated. (The US is still talking about the Kennedy assassination and that was one guy, not four.) We have been fighting wars for thirty years not far from there, including putting weapons into Libya itself, yet not one soldier, gun, plane, bullet, boat or drone was available - I really doubt it. This is a political murder being investigated by the gang who couldn’t shoot straight, this is the Vince Foster wrongful death being investigated by the DC Parks Police!
This abuse of power was garishly political, for election time benefit, worse than Watergate, so that Obama could be re-elected and it is a downright disgrace.
The NY Times, now the Pravda to the Politburo is doing its best to whitewash the crime.
I read an article when this attack occurred that Ambassador Stevens was gay. During the attack he was continually raped by the attackers. The article implied that the fact the ambassador was gay was a factor in the attack. Shortly after that article appeared all references to Ambassador Stevens being gay disappeared from the press.
Anybody else notice this?
“According to the New York Times, the perpetrators of the attack were not Al Qaeda”
There is the key phrase. If Al Qaeda didn’t murder those four Americans, than the Obama administration aiding and abetting Al Qaeda wouldn’t look so much like treason. The New York Times is desperately trying to save the lives of traitorous Democrats. Treason is punishable by death.
“The long essay takes up an event which, in a rational world ...” In the propaganda world of the NYT and its vermin stooges, telling lies for little barry bastard boy’s regime is considered rational. Guillotines from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure and stop the lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.