« | »

The NYT Answers All Questions About Benghazi

The New York Times wears Pravda:

House Holds Hearing on Benghazi Attack

By SCOTT SHANE | May 8, 2013

Eight months after four Americans died in a terrorist attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a House committee held another hearing on Wednesday to examine whether the Obama administration mishandled the tragic events. What follows is an update on what is known about the Benghazi episode [sic] and why it has become such a political flash point:

Q. Why is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform holding a new hearing on Benghazi?

A. Committee investigators found two State Department officials who previously had not spoken publicly — though their testimony has been previewed in the news media in recent days — and who are scathingly critical of the administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack… Some of their colleagues disagree with their views on what more could have been done.

Really? Why haven’t we heard from these colleagues?

Q. But haven’t the inadequacy of security measures at Benghazi and other shortcomings already been addressed in a major report?

A. Yes. In December, an independent review led by a retired veteran diplomat, Thomas R. Pickering, and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, was severely critical of the State Department…

BS. The Hillary picked Accountability Review Board did not hold anyone accountable. They did not recommend that anyone be punished. And, of course, no one ever was. — Except, as we have now learned, the whistleblowers.

Q. So how great a role is partisan politics playing in the Benghazi debate?

A. A big role, it is fair to say. Mrs. Clinton, who is at the center of the controversy, is, of course, the leading Democratic prospect for president in 2016…

Remember how The Times kept harping on the role of partisan politics in Watergate? We don’t either. But what is partisan about trying to find out what happened, who was to blame? (Hint: nothing.)

Still, we agree with The Times to this extent. Benghazi was all about playing politics. But it was Obama and Hillary who were playing politics. They made a stupid political gamble, to try to prove we had nothing to fear from terrorists in Libya, that ended up killing four Americans. And then they lied about it in order not to hurt Obama’s re-election and Hillary’s chances in 2016.

Especially since the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon on April 15, which killed three people and wounded more than 200, the alliterative pairing of Benghazi and Boston have been featured in attacks on the Obama administration for counterterrorism failures.

This is journalism? Besides, aren’t they both examples of Obama’s failures, even if they are "alliterative"?

Q. What about the dispute over whether President Obama and his aides refused to apply the “terrorism” label to the attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans?

A. Mr. Obama applied the “terror” label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, though the reference was indirect…

This is an outrageous lie, even by the low standards of the New York Times. This has been fact-checked to death. Obama was making a general comment about acts of terror. But he did not cite the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack.

Q. So why was there such controversy over what Republicans call the administration’s deep reluctance to label the attack terrorism?

A. The “act of terror” references attracted relatively little notice at the time, and later they appeared to have been forgotten even by some administration officials…

More utter mendacity. Nobody forgot anything. Even they didn’t think they could get away with twisting the facts so preposterously. But they didn’t realize how far the media would go to help them out. (Cf. Candy Crowley.)

What attracted more attention was a series of statements by administration officials, notably Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, that appeared to link the Benghazi attack to a protest against a crude anti-Islam video made in the United States that was circulating on the Web.

You see? Rice only "appeared to link the Benghazi attack to a protest against a crude anti-Islam video made in the United States."

Q. What exactly did the administration officials say that prompted the Republican criticism?

A. Several officials emphasized that the attack appeared to be spontaneous, not planned, and linked it to the protests over the video that had taken place in Cairo and other cities…

You see? It was just a matter of misplaced ‘emphasis’ by "several officials." It’s not like Obama and Hillary and Jay Carney and all of their other minions constantly claimed that the attack was due to a video. You imagined all of that.

Q. Who wrote the “talking points” and how were they edited?

A. The talking points were prepared by American intelligence agencies, but exactly who may have edited them and why remains a point of dispute…

Thanks to the work of Stephan Hayes, we now know the CIA altered them at the request of the State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland and other top Obama administration officials, including Ben Rhodes. (Brother of the President of CBS News.)

By the way, notice the New York Times does not ask why the talking points were they edited. Because the answer is obvious.

Q. Mr. Obama vowed last September that the perpetrators of the attack would be brought to justice. Has that happened?

A. Not yet. Libya remains a volatile and dangerous place, and the F.B.I.’s progress in investigating the attack appears to be slow…

Right. And note that The Times neglects to mention that, thanks to the lies of Susan Rice, the President of Libya keep the FBI out of the country for weeks. Which allowed the evidence to be removed and the trail to grow cold.

By the way, lest we forget, Scott Shane is one of the more despicable NYT reporters, which is saying something. Among Shane’s past triumphs, is his publishing of the names of the CIA interrogators of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

In fact, Mr. Shane seems to be the ‘go to guy,’ for anybody leaking national security secrets, and undermining our intel organizations in general.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, May 9th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “The NYT Answers All Questions About Benghazi”

  1. Liberals Demise

    Rarely do I ever do this but I will use U.S.Navy terminology:
    “GRAY LADY DOWN”

  2. Rusty Shackleford

    But it was Obama and Hillary who were playing politics. They made a stupid political gamble, to try to prove we had nothing to fear from terrorists in Libya, that ended up killing four Americans. And then they lied about it in order not to hurt Obama’s re-election and Hillary’s chances in 2016.

    To me, Steve, this is the crux of the whole matter. Power. The insatiable appetite for it, the love of it and the desire to have it all. Inasmuch as it’s human nature (That is: “Anything worth doing is worth OVERdoing”) and is understandable, polite societies have perpetually run into this problem through out human history.

    It’s when people who are unqualified to have it, do. Hitlery, D’oh-bama, Kerry, etc. I don’t see leaders in these people. I see inept, self-serving idiots who, through some means other than hard work and dedication to what’s right have ended up holding the reigns of power.

    Historically, this never ends well. Usually the people suffer at the hands of such messed up minds and then the leaders are flushed but it can take a long time for that to happen. In part because the people keep buying the new shiny story and that eternal optimism that avoids critical thinking. As in: “What can possibly go wrong?”.

    I’ve noticed that many people despise and revile cynicism. I find it the breath of fresh air in a room full of marijuana smoke. Like Rush, I live in Realville and hate it when even my own corporate management starts espousing how great we are. I just don’t buy it. Not because we aren’t great but because the MISTAKES need to by highlighted as well as the successes.

    In the military it bugged me how people would gather ’round the general and lap up their every word as if they spoke some sort of gospel. I’ve never worshipped any other human being, save my own mother and NO ONE deserves unfettered fawning, ridiculous praise. And certainly not the empty praise that president you-didn’t-build-that gets. He’s an ass and always has been an ass and always will be an ass.

    The people in his camp are also asses.

    The people who put him in office are lesser asses but asses nonetheless.

    Have we become a nation of fools? Well, maybe but I refuse to be one of them. I will, like any citizen in any socialist nation, do what I must to survive and thrive but I will NOT support anything the government shoves down my throat. I cannot move to a more free country because their aren’t any. This one is putting the clamps on us as we speak and we may be in for a couple of decades to centuries of spending other people’s money. But unlike Europe, we have to provide for our OWN defense and that costs money.

    If they abandon the Constitution completely which will be very likely if the national socialists win the house, then bye-bye U S of A. At that time I will move to Australia. They may have the same problems we do but at least they tell the muslims to adapt or go home.

    • SinCity

      I believe it was Aristotle who said that, when a person has an inordinate amount of praise heaped upon them; that those giving the praise is a reflection upon themselves. Crooks, and criminals, the lot.

      -Who is John Galt?

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Interesting that you should bring up one of the most classical of Greeks.

      I have been saying for some time now that human behavior is constant. What’s perhaps the oddity is the founding of the United States and the throes of its childhood to full-fledged nation and world leader.

      Never before had anything ever been accomplished where the average citizen had the power to decide a nation’s leaders.

      But back to the Greeks. Er, Romans, actually in that I have been reading translated ancient Roman texts and find they could have been written just yesterday, not 2,000 years ago. People’s attitudes, emotions and motivations were the same then as now. There were citizens of Rome at the time who abhorred slavery, who thought the empire was crooked and that the leaders, corrupt.

      Arguably, Rome was all of that and more. Actually, not so much arguably as given the test of time and how people learned to better tolerate each other. Or have we? Seldom is any place on Earth free of conflict, death, war. Rome surrounded itself with power and kept itself protected from the outsiders or, conquered the outsiders to plunder their people and wealth.

      *sidenote: That people today think of the US as a barbarous “empire” that destroys other nations is patently absurd. The people who think that know nothing about empires or destruction.

      But the parallels of the leadership, the thinkers and the high-ranking citizens are not without their similarities to our current society. Elites came then, as they do now, via sponsorship or wealth or both. The human genome also had the entire spectrum inside its ranks of the elite. From the arrogance of Caesar, to the introspection of Marcus Aurelius, (The Roman leader that the movie “Gladiator” had) to the humility of Pliny, etc., it’s interesting to read.

      If you took all the modern technology away, I think it would be easier to see the elites and elitists for what they truly are. The latter being the poseurs, the fakes, the wanna-be’s. Nothing becomes so obvious to the casual observer than when an elitist with no skill or background takes control of something complex and demanding (See: Obama, presidency or: Hillary, SecState).

      That we have to go through this so that some years hence the historians can figure it all out and put it to the written word frustrates me. I (we) see it NOW and want it gone in the same time-frame. What also frustrates me is that the so-called experts in their fields, the historians and even the psychologists have so little to say about our current state of affairs that it’s sickening.

      We are Rome. Complete with all the trappings, the evil, the lust for power and the command of great wealth. To what end? I used to think it was so every citizen could explore the birthright of freedom unhindered by the government and I’m trying to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong.

  3. I watched some, and listened to a lot.

    I want to scream at Daryl Issa “is that all you could produce??”

    Because what I heard was nothing. Nothing. Nothing that the MSM and the Beast That Is Washington can’t sweep away and ignore. It’s hellish to you and me … but for them … this is piffle territory.

    You wait. This will end up a tempest in a teapot.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »