Posted by Tina
Hillary Clinton wants to be president. Groups and persons of great wealth and influence will do whatever is needed to see that she is America’s next president. The New York Times is apparently one of those who will do or publish anything to help Hillary win her prize. Were they spinning a story for Hillary Clinton?
Over the weekend the NYT published a report based on research conducted by David D. Kirkpatrick who concluded that the deadly raid in Benghazi was not influenced by Al Qaeda and was the result of anger and the video. As is the case when a story is being spun, Kirkpatrick chose his title carefully. “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi” suggests a thoughtful assessment about terrible conditions that couldn’t be avoided and resulted, unfortunately, in human loss:
The cable was a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions about Libya and especially Benghazi, many fostered by shadows of the earlier Sept. 11 attack. The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
The writer refers to “American misunderstandings and misperceptions” and speaks of the “United States” wading “deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya” to describe what went wrong. No mention of then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton or the President of the United States or the policies and decisions they made before, during, and after the raid. He also did not mention the information that caused others to conclude there was al Qaeda involvement.
The New York Times piece has been roundly criticized by others including “two members of the House intelligence committee, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Adam Schiff” and Elise Foley of the Huffington Post. The article stands in contrast to articles written in competing publications like the Wall Street Journal but also by previous articles in…The New York Times!
This is the kind of thing that voters should watch for in the coming election year. Big players backed by big money who are more dedicated to winning for their preferred candidate than to full disclosure of the facts. The NYT story no doubt contains some interesting information; some of it might even be helpful in discerning what went wrong. But Kirkpatrick completely ignored significant information in drawing his conclusions that anger about the video was the major driving force behind the deadly attack.
Are the NYT and Kirkpatrick spinning for Hillary? As a voter I have to ask myself if the writer, and his publisher, had its conclusion in mind before the investigation even began. I think they did and I think they asked questions of the locals in libya until they got the responses they wanted to hear. So yes, I do think they are spinning for Hillary.
Once more the New York times credibility is in question. As far back as 1932 the times published articles less than factual. And the New York Times was at that time the “Newspaper of Record,” some have even stated back then it was possibly the most important newspaper in the United States and perhaps the world.
However, time and again it has been a source of less than factual if not down right lies in journalism.
The one thing that honest above all else is the fact that they admitted they’re a liberal network, meaning we may not get even a slight conservative slant of a story. This is crucial when it comes to news dealing with the U.S., politics and the world.
So Yes Jack, I do believe this article is not about the facts of Benghazi, but more a attempt to help clean the slate of Hillery, and if you read that fiction as printed, it screams of Political bias,simply by not once mentioning Hillary Clinton’s name or her failing in Benghazi that lead to the deaths of the four Americans, no not once. The article does mention Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens several times, Obama a couple of times, even Susan Rice and David McFarland (Aid to Stevens), It even mentions McDonald’s and KFC, but no where (other the careful use of the word “Bosses” please note plural) will you even read a hint of Hillary Clinton.
Your points are well taken Harold. The Hillary campaign, like the Obama campaign before it, will last a couple of years before the start of the campaign season. This article is one of many that will grace our newspapers and airwaves. Lets hope she and her supporters end up boring the public to death.
Is there any doubt?
Tried wrapping fish with the NYT & the fish spoiled. Tried lining the birdcage with it, and the bird died. Tells you all you need to know.
“What’s wrong with this picture?”… According to Kirkpatrick there was a NY Times reporter there during the attack. But, now he doesn’t want to talk about it. (See update.)
“A detail that has gone largely unnoticed in the controversial New York Times report regarding the 2012 Benghazi attack: A Times reporter was supposedly there at the time of the incident and even talked to some of the attackers.
From the report:
There is no doubt that anger over the [YouTube] video [mocking Islam and created in the U.S.] motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him.
David Kirkpatrick, author of the new report, reiterated this in a tweet last night: “We had a reporter on the scene talking to the attackers during the attack- still invaluable,” he wrote.
In effect, this would seem to mean someone at the Times knows who the attackers are.”
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/12/31/ny-times-reporter-knows-who-benghazi-attackers-are/
Oh yeah, I do believe the Hillary bandwagon is filling up already.
Love Trey Gowdy!!
Must watch: “Trey Gowdy’s 5-minute takedown of The NY Times”
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12/31/trey-gowdys-5-minute-takedown-of-the-ny-times-91346
I REALLY hope Warren gets the nomination, so I don’t have to listen to this drivel anymore.
So … are you going to have a candidate? Or just pick at ours?
2014-2015 Resolution: Keep fresh batteries in your TV remote so you can either mute or change channels whenever a Shrillary ad or excuse appears . . . .
J. Soden, the DNC has already written their TV adds. After 6-8 years it’s still Bush’s fault.
They have nothing to campaign on except ObamaCare and they’re running with their tails between their legs from that “success”.
Supply of remote batteries on hand. Costco sells them by the lot.
Libby: “are you going to have a candidate? Or just pick at ours?”
Both. Isn’t that how you guys play the game? Besides Hillary has earned this. You should be thrilled since you like Warren…and is she really the best you have to offer?
I don’t know what you’re complaining about. The point was that the NYT is attempting to whitewash and rewrite history for her. That should bother you too.
J, we also just bought a big batch at Costco…I’m ready!
The NYT is poison to truth and responsible journalism. Hence it is a despicable progressive propagandist rag and as such remains my favorite journal next to Pacifica and Mother Jones.
“The point was that the NYT is attempting to whitewash and rewrite history for her.”
How do you get that? There was still a raid, and people still died, because we weren’t paying attention. The only thing you’ve lost is the AQ connection … it was local militias, acting on their own and, to a degree, motivated by some bad PR.
This is an important thing to know, since it was our intervention in Libya that put them in power (and they’ve turned out to be utterly barbarous sh#ts) … so we gotta be real, real, real careful in Syria. The potential for the same mistake is looming.
There’s a thing to be grateful for in the New Year. You weren’t born in Libya … or Syria. And you should be more tolerant of those in your State Department trying to mitigate the carnage, though it just may not be possible.
Libby you know as well as I do that the NYT wants to whitewash Hillary’s god-awful State record. They want people to say her work at State was monumental and Chris Stevens and the others died because of some crazy right wing politically incorrect Christian.
The Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have the same horrible record. They have lost Iraq and Afghanistan to terrorists and extremists and turned the ME into a very dangerous place. They have allowed (Some would say facilitated) the growth of AQ around the world. They spit in the faces of our allies and support our enemies.
Libby your efforts to whitewash the incompetence or intentional extremist policies of this administration just won’t fly. And don’t tell me I should “be tolerant” of a lousy state department that has placed the entire world in more danger when you were such an intolerant jerk to the previous administration whose efforts at least created a somewhat positive (manageable) result for the price that was paid. Stevens and company, and a whole lot more of our citizens, have paid a price for oe horrendous dangerous mess. Its time you admitted your error in judgement in both cases!