New York Times silent on Benghazi
The New York Times should finally change its slogan from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “All the news that supports the Democratic agenda.” While it would be easy for anyone to accept the Obama administration’s account of the events of Sept. 11, 2012, in the days immediately following the murderous attacks on our consultate in Benghazi, a cadre of evidence not supporting the administration’s narrative was available by mid-September.
By then, all of the relevant intelligence agencies and the Libyan government had agreed that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated, that there was no spontaneous demonstration outside the consulate and that, among other things, the attackers were a local affiliate of al Qaeda. Despite the evidence, our president appeared with David Letterman on Sept. 18 and blamed an Internet video for the attacks and murders. He used essentially the same narrative on Univision with Maria Salinas on Sept. 20. Five days after that, he gave a 4,000-word address before the United Nations, not once saying the word “terrorist” in relation to Benghazi, and only once using the word in a vague reference to Iran. Yet he referred to the supposedly incendiary Internet video six times, saying it “sparked outrage in the Muslim world.”
The U.N. speech alone provides plenty of fodder for a full investigative New York Times report. Instead, the newspaper, like the president, has remained silent, insisting Benghazi is not an issue.
In the future, I will relegate my reading of The New York Times to the crossword puzzles and the Sunday Magazine, as elsewhere the publication is spewing the same partisan blabber as some on Fox News and MSNBC. Shame on them.