The New York Times is running a rehab piece for Hillary Clinton claiming that the administration version of Benghazi was correct. In other words, it wasn’t al Qaeda operatives who stormed our consulate, it was rioters enraged over a You Tube video. Amazingly over nearly a year and a half there hasn’t been any evidence whatsoever supporting the administration’s position. Now all of a sudden the Times is defending the administration, largely in an attempt to rehab Hillary Clinton in preparation for her run for President in 2016. Benghazi is no doubt her biggest problem of her own making. Now when challenged on Benghazi, Hillary can simply say “the New York Times said…” and cut off all criticism.
The Times piece is curious at best. Perhaps the most interesting part is they claim they had a reporter on site during the attack. What a stroke of luck for the Times to have a reporter hanging around our Libyan ambassador. Except of course there’s no evidence a reporter was with Ambassador Christopher Stevens or anyone else at the consulate. In which case, what a stroke of luck that the New York Times just happened to have a reporter embedded with rebels and rioters attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi. In fact, the Times claims their unnamed reporter was able to ask the attackers questions about their motives. What a stroke of luck!
Their luck is unbelievable. Literally. It’s been nearly a year and half since the Benghazi attack and just now the New York Times has gotten around to telling us about the reporter they had embedded with the attackers. It simply makes no sense for a newspaper to sit on that sort of a story for 16 months. Especially a liberal newspaper such as the Times. Keep in mind all of this happened in the weeks leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. President Obama was taking heat for the You Tube video claim. If the Times had a reporter on site who could verify that the video was what caused the attack why wouldn’t the paper run that story before the election? It simply makes no sense for them to sit on this story for as long as they did.
The New York Times didn’t sit on the story of course because there wasn’t a story. There isn’t now. The Times is running this piece in an attempt to protect Hillary Clinton from the attacks of Republicans and presumably from primary Democrats. If the attack happened because of the video then her ignoring of security requests and various threats leveled against the Benghazi consulate become irrelevant. After all, the attack would have been spontaneous. The fact is the Times is making up the story about an embedded journalist just like the administration made up the You Tube video story. The far left has already shown us they are willing to lie to further their interests. Hillary Clinton certainly furthers the interests of the leftists at the NY Times. They need to protect her or risk losing the White House to a Republican.
A You Tube video did not cause the Benghazi attack. The New York Times did not have a reporter on site during the attack. They did not withhold their witness for 16 months because there is no witness. Isn’t it curious that we still have no idea who their reporter was? There is no reporter, we aren’t going to get a name. The left is scared to death that Hillary Clinton might lose in 2016 because of Obama. They’re trying to put out the fires around her to better insulate her from Republican attacks. Expect more stories like this. Expect stories about 1993’s Hillarycare that very clearly differentiate it from Obamacare and present her previous plan in a very positive light. Expect the media to pretend like Hillary didn’t run on what we no call Obamacare in 2008 and again expect them to highlight or make up differences between her plan and what ultimately passed a Democrat Congress. The media is all in for Hillary. Putting out the Benghazi fire is just the beginning.
Leo McNeil 