N.Y. Times' Benghazi Whitewash Backfires, Spotlights Obama/Clinton Coverup

The New American ^ | 01 January 2014 | William F. Jasper

[VitacoreVision]

N.Y. Times' Benghazi Whitewash Backfires, Spotlights Obama/Clinton Coverup

The New American
01 January 2014

The New York Times has attempted to shield President Obama and Hillary Clinton from backlash over Benghazi, but has only heaped more fuel on the fire.

Related articles:

Benghazi Backfire: Was Obama Arming Jihadists?

Benghazi “Whitewash” Report Still Damaging to Obama

Benghazi Report Ignores WH Lies, Obama Gunrunning to Jihadists

Benghazigate: The Disaster That Should Have Sunk Obama — and Still Could

[stickywillie]

bathhouse barry is just tryin’ to share the dream he has with kenya’s rael odinga, his supposed cousin.

[The Great RJ]

The Obama/Clinton narrative that the Benghazi attack was the result of some obscure video is not only ludicrous, but was completely disproved by eyewitnesses on the ground in sworn testimony before Congress. The NYT is trying to emulate Hitlers Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

[munin]

Where are those 20,000 shoulder-launched missles that went missing that day???

Would you believe Syria?

[Tucker39]

“...necks in a noose...?”

Make 2014 a banner year and please tell me there are 1 or more individuals in DC who have the standing, the authority and the gonads to PUT that noose around these cretins’ necks and order the trapdoor be sprung.

Please offer me a tiny ray of hope.

[Blood of Tyrants]

the Slimes covers for Obastard and the Hildebeast once again.

[Terry L Smith]

Hillary is up on charges in the Egyptian court system.

I want to see this grow on the world stage, soon.

[blueunicorn6]

Three Republican members of Congress quietly flew on public transportation to Libya and Egypt. What did they come back with?

[ZOOKER]

What is the point of the New York Times article? Does it show a hard working Hillary Clinton doing everything possible to save those Americans in Benghazi? Nope. The article was written to try and show that Al Qaeda wasn’t involved in the attack...

Yes, but...

This is a preemptive attack, to immunize Hillary in advance. Team Hillary knows this will be brought up again during her campaign. When it does, they can say this was investigated over and over again and no charges were ever brought. It's old news, done to death, and it's time to "move on"

Sound familiar? It should, Team Clinton used this strategy with Whitewater, Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, etc.

[blueunicorn6]

The Democrats won’t go down easily. That’s what the New York Times story is about. They’re trying to provide cover for Democrats if they committed treason.
I’m not a lawyer or a policeman, but look at legally proving treason. You have to have a law on the books about it. We do. You have to “prove” that that law was broken. OK. Americans involved? Yes. Enemy involved? Well, wait a minute. A good lawyer might argue that those murderers in Benghazi were just some college frat boys out on a panty raid. I see the New York Times article as being a pre-emptive legal move by the Democrats.
“Yes, the Obama administration provided aid to Al Qaeda, but in this case, was Al Qaeda really our ‘enemy’?”
It’s not a great defense, as a matter of fact, it’s an awful defense, but a Democrat lawyer will try an awful defense over no defense.

[blueunicorn6]

Then, why would the New York Times spend that much effort and ink trying to make the point that it wasn’t Al Qaeda who murdered Americans in Benghazi? Why not a story actually defending Hillary Clinton?

[DainBramage]

The shoulder fired missiles that were the reason no US aircraft were allowed to fly there IMO.

[tophat9000]

Note to N Y Times...Its bring more attention to the body's if you keep throwing fresh dirt on to bury it

[Grampa Dave]

[ZOOKER]

...why would the New York Times spend that much effort and ink trying to make the point that it wasn’t Al Qaeda who murdered Americans in Benghazi? Why not a story actually defending Hillary Clinton?

I don't think the NYT's intention was to "prove" anything or defend anyone (at least not openly). I think their goal is to confuse and fatigue the public until they don't want to hear about it any more. They're saying the Benghazi attack might have been a spontaneous riot of non-aligned common street people (who just happened to be carrying mortars, incendiary explosives and shoulder-launched missiles), not a premeditated attack by a Terrorist organization. They're saying we'll never know. What difference does it make? Let it drop.

[blueunicorn6]

Except that a plane load of Americans did fly in that night from Tripoli.

[blueunicorn6]

“Let it drop.”
Then, why didn’t they?
I never thought that in my lifetime, I would have to think about an American administration committing treason.

[Yaelle]

The Egyptians have implicated her in a terrorists’ plot. Right now, I can’t think of anyone who has ever planned a run on the White House who has carried that kind of “baggage”.

---

If Obama can get elected, so can she.

[Yaelle]

Note to N Y Times...Its bring more attention to the body’s if you keep throwing fresh dirt on to bury it

---

Rofl! Shhhhh!

[ZOOKER]

“Let it drop.”
Then, why didn’t they?

Because they knew it would come out again, in '015. They want to put it to rest now, make it "old news". Dem strategists know that when bad news is coming, you release it yourself, so you can control and spin it to your advantage

[what's up]

But to confuse the public would take the heat off Hillary.

Of course this was their objective.