Sunday, December 29, 2013

New York Times investigation of Benghazi Attack concludes that the "video" brought on attack!

Are there still  any sane people buying this lying rag?

I never buy this Obama mouth-piece, but today the headline caught my eye, so I took out my hard earned five dollars and bought today's edition .

I couldn't believe what I read ...... line after line of total misleading hogwash!

The Times had David Kirkpatrick write up an insane article of their "investigation" of what "really" happened in  Benghazi.

After a year of "investigating" they concluded that Al Qaeda wasn't behind the deadly 2012 attack on The US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya!
(The military-style assault on the Us compound and the nearby CIA outpost that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens  and three other Americans.)

Their conclusion?
Sit down before you barf on your morning breakfast....
The U-tube video that mocked Islam ???????

Yup! That crazy report first put out by the White House that the White House itself already retracted!

So which group actually did it according to this dummy ?
Taking his gullible audience as a bunch of idiots ,
 he writes that al-Shariah is " not known to have affiliations with terrorist groups!

Well, guess what? Mr. Kirkpatrick, al- Shariah is part of al Qaeda .... According to the House Intelligence Committee !

As I write these lines, I'm listening to the  national news and I am comforted that BOTH parties are slamming this absurd report!

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said that the New York Times was simply wrong "that al Qaeda was not ionvolved in this."
" It tells me that they (Kirkpatrick) didn't talk to the people on the ground who wrere doing the fighting, the shooting and the intelligence gathering."

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) a member of the committee, agreed saying "I agree with Mike .... that the intelligence indicates that al Qaeda was involved."

Schiff added that the report was heavily reliant ... on people who were interviewed who had a reason to provide the story that they did."

So why did The Times print this report?

My conclusion!
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and it was on her watch that these Americans were murdered; she is running for President.

This report was put in print so that she can refer back to The New York Times, to support her claim that this was not a planned attack, that it was a "spontaneous" riot,which of course everyone and especially Hillary know is a lie!

Hillary actually screamed "what difference does it make?" when she was questioned as to what happened!

If this was a planned attack, why was she caught off guard? Wouldn't that make her incompetent?

In fact the security failures at the US compound and the administration's response to the attack have become a potential political liability to Hillary Clinton.

So The New York Times, the liberal lap dog, had to publish this report   to perpetuate the big absurd lie that the attack was not planned but a spontaneous reaction to the video!

Nobody, even The New York Times readers are swallowing this horse manure.

No comments: