[COLUMN] New York Times Launches Clinton Campaign

Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Mullen and Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. James E. Cartwright, testify during their confirmation hearings for appointment to Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If anyone had any doubt about the bias and untrustworthiness of The New York Times, its Dec. 28 report on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and its Dec. 30 editorial on the same subject should have put all doubt to rest.

Indeed, the whole ridiculous report by the Times was nothing but the opening salvo in its effort to put Hillary Rodham Clinton in the White House in 2017. The Times’ editorial demonstrates that Clinton’s possible 2016 presidential run was on their minds.

“Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016,” the editorial board wrote.

At the crux of the Times’ so-called “exhaustive investigation” was the ridiculously ignorant claim that the whole melee that resulted in the deaths of four Americans stemmed from a YouTube video, which was an awfully campy trailer for the homemade anti-Islam movie, “Innocence of Muslims.” The movie itself does not appear to actually exist and even the actual title is in dispute.

Yet, this short (less than 15 minutes) clip is, according to The New York Times, the reason why a mob randomly attacked the consulate. Never mind the fact that this mob had serious firepower. Not many people go to an impromptu protest rally with a rocket launcher.

The whole report by the Times bordered on silly. Even the administration backed off the video claim when the American people, including Obama Kool-Aid drinkers, found the whole idea did not pass the sniff test. The video itself had very few views on YouTube before the administration made it the scapegoat for its failures in Benghazi. There was one mention of it on an Egyptian blog before the attack and it was mentioned in part of an Egyptian news report concerning Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida man who likes to burn Qurans.

In fact, investigations by the U.S. State Department and by the House of Representatives committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, the Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform determined that there was no protest at the consulate that day and that the attack was premeditated and launched by Islamic militants.

It is fascinating, then, that The New York Times could embarrass itself with this “exhaustive investigation” that basically backs up Clinton’s initial claims despite the fact that Clinton’s own State Department later proved Clinton wrong.

The fact of the matter is, Obama and Clinton were simply incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. Emails that came to light after the fact all but debunked the whole claim that the attack was the result of an impromptu demonstration against an obscure video made by a Coptic Christian in California on a shoestring budget.

James S. Robbins, deputy editor of Rare, accurately broke it down a few months ago:

“Benghazi was an al Qaeda-linked attack when al Qaeda was supposed to be largely destroyed. It was planned in advance but either not detected, not stopped, or both. State Department officials on the ground requested extra security before the fact, and were ignored. The Libyan militia hired to guard the consulate had terrorist ties. The attack took place on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks when everyone should have been on alert. U.S. forces on hand that might have been used to help defend the Benghazi consulate or intimidate the attackers were either told to stand down, never stood up, not available or never thought of, depending on which story you believe. And four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.”

Later, Clinton dismissed the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods, saying “What does it matter?”

This is one of the many reasons Clinton does not belong in the White House — and why I hope the Democrats choose her as their candidate. It is also the likely reason why The New York Times chose now to begin the defense of Clinton. After all, the first votes in the 2016 election are a mere 24 months away.

Print Friendly

This entry was posted in 2016 Presidential Election, Column, Elections, Media, Obama, War, War on Terror. Bookmark the permalink.