The New York Times published an article penned by David D Kirkpatrick about the circumstances surrounding the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. And, of course, they put Hilary Clinton in the best possible light, even going so far as to bring up the old "it was because of a video" claim which has long since been retired as nonsense and a lie. The New York Times, defending charges that they were clearing the way for a Hillary Clinton presidential run for 2016, denied it had anything to do with that.
Don't believe the denial for a minute. The main stream press, along with the New York Times, has already elected Hillary "What Difference Does it Make" Clinton as the Democratic nominee and are already preparing her inaugural. Also, the New York Times rebuttal (written Andrew Rosenthal) implied that it was just the GOP who complained which lays the ground work for the idea the dispute is just politics. The issue, however, is not a Republican versus Democrat thing it's a "FOUR people died thing" and we are holding Obama to task with his Sept 12, 2011 televised promise when he said "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act." Within about a year Obama began referring to it as a "false" conspiracy. Perhaps what he meant to say was "If you want your Benghazi justice; you can keep it." We all know what that kind of promise means.
Comments