The New York Times Sinks Beneath Contempt InTrying To Rewrite Benghazi

(H/t Biff Spackle via Doug Ross)

You can always rely on Pravda-on-the-Hudson..to lie, to hide things away for its Leftist agenda, and in general to soil any notion of what we normally think of as journalism.

A case in point is a recent New York Times 'blockbuster' on Benghazi, which pretty much denies that al-
Qaeda was involved, (which would certainly be news to al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia, who carried out the attack) and that it was primarily a spontaneous riot caused mostly by that obscure video no one had seen and hardly anyone in the Muslim world or the West had heard about until it was seized on by the Obama Administration to protect the president and former Secretary Hillary Clinton.

It doesn't matter to them that virtually every bit of this fable of theirs was absolutely destroyed in the congressional investigation, or that people on the scene have denounced this as fantasy. Or that one of the attackers called and reported the success of the assault to Moktar Belmoktar, a senior commander of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM).

Or that  an independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings from Benghazi found no reference to the video until the day after the attack.

What this is about, of course is Hillary Clinton's assessment of what effect Benghazi is going to have on her planned 2016 run. So some talking points are necessary to cover her pants suit clad behind, as her acolytes repeat the mantra 'according to the New York Times...'

I wouldn't even mention this ridiculous attempt to rewrite history except for the latest claim in response to criticism of this nonsense by Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick, 'Oh we had a reporter embedded with the attackers who talked to them.'

  David D. Kirkpatrick @ddknyt

@RichardGrenell we had a reporter on the scene talking to the attackers during the attack- still invaluable

5:45 PM - 30 Dec 2013

140 Retweets 26 favorite

Sure you did. And he kept his mouth shut for 15 months.

The funny part is that this issue was just starting to die down a bit.  The NYT just threw some gasoline on the flames.

These people are not only unworthy of a public megaphone, they're unworthy of living in a free society.