BALTIMORE, Maryland December 30, 2013 - Reaction to the nausea-provoking effort by the New York Times to provide Hilary Clinton with a lifeline in her bid to be America's next president has been swift and sure. Calling the front page report entirely false, those close to the Congressional investigation of the massacre of four Americans in Benghazzi in September, 2012 have swiftly condemned the article, written by Times' reporter David Kirkpatrick.
Kirkpatrick's article claims that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack, and, even more incredibly, also ressurects the ridiculous notion that the attack was in direct response to a video uploaded to You Tube by an obscure California man many months before the Benghazzi episode. At the time of the attacks the video had far fewer than 100 hits and was completely unknown in Benghazzi. Kirkpatrick's bizarre assertions are a desperate and conniving effort by the New York Times to shield Hilary Clinton from all blame for the Benghazzi attack and a subsequent cover-up of her and obama's role. Even more bizarre - but not totally unexpected - were weekend revelations that the reporter on the NYT article, David Kirkpatrick, was actually in Benghazzi as the attacks took place but did nothing to save the four Americans' lives or even to summons help. What's more, since he was on the ground he would know, firsthand, that the video had nothing to do with the planned attack. Whether the attackers were charter members of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda wannabes is of little importance. Clearly the top dogs in the attacks were connected in some way to Al Qaeda.
No comments:
Post a Comment