New York Times silent on Beng­hazi

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor - MIKE FERREER Ponte Ve­dra Beach, Fla.

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.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.