Posted on 09/12/2012 6:05:45 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
The New York Times' coverage of the radical Islamist attacks on 9/11 on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the U.S. consulate in Benghazi begins--like the Obama administration--with acknowledging "anger" over an anti-Islamic film, not with the attacks themselves--and criticizes Republican Mitt Romney's statement on Obama's apology.
The Times' headline, "Anger Over a Film Fuels Anti-American Attacks in Libya and Egypt"--Update: buried on page A4!--does not even inform readers that U.S. diplomatic missions were attacked, or the fact that one official in Libya was actually killed.
The article goes on to criticize Mitt Romney for his allegation that "the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Because the U.S. embassy's (unauthorized) apology was offered before the attacks, which the embassy later condemned the Times concludes that Romney was "[a]pparently unaware of the timing of the first embassy statement." But that is nonsense, for three reasons--first, because the U.S. State Department had, as of last night, apologized for the film without condemning the Egypt attack; second, because the apologies by the U.S. Embassy continued throughout the day, though they were later sheepishly deleted; and there was no need for the U.S. to apologize at all for a film made by a private individual, least of all on the sacred 9/11 anniversary.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Words fail me.
I guess not even the Slimes could figure out a way to blame Bush.
I guess not even the Slimes could figure out a way to blame Bush.
“...or the fact that one official in Libya was actually killed.”
Hillary has finally admitted that FOUR U.S. officials at the consulate were killed. Why are the real facts never given until 24 hours later in this internet age.
What is their front page run?
Suspicions mount the embassy attacks were the consequence of a social-media instigated flash mobs.
This is the same mechanism that inspired the american commies when the Muslim Brother uprisings overthrew Mubarak and Gaddafi.
Still inspired, commies?
“Well, we can’t blame Bush, so lets just bury the story!”
The NYTimes is a treasonous rag. All they care about is protecting their homosexual pleasures.
“Dissecting Romney’s Vietnam Stance at Stanford” is a bigger story than Americans being attacked on 9/11??
Lol!
The NY times think this is 1975!
Oh look! Here is this thing called the Internets!
If you click through to the Breitbart link, they have a capture of the print front page.
I found it.
Nothing about this or about 9/11 memorials.
Wow. They are a propaganda tool.
The attack in Libya took place late afternoon our time. The MSM sat on the story waiting for the WH to respond so that they could then support the WH spin. I knew about this early evening watching Al Jazeera who had a reporter on the scene. The MSM has become part of the WH propaganda machine. Journalism is finished in this country.
I have long suspected that the NYT et al, have offices in the Obama white house..
The media is ignoring so King Barack can eventually get it right. Then, the media will praise his unwavering leadership. Same old, same old.
Their headline on mobile is that ‘US Envoy to Libya is Killed in Attack’… Most other outlets are using the term ‘US Ambassador’ which is probably too harsh a word for the times. But there is a difference, is their not?
Their headline on mobile is that ‘US Envoy to Libya is Killed in Attack’… Most other outlets are using the term ‘US Ambassador’ which is probably too harsh a word for the times. But there is a difference, is their not?
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.