Skip to comments.NYT Defensively Declares: No 'Conspiracy' to Endorse Hillary Clinton
Posted on 12/31/2013 9:26:16 AM PST by Nachum
On Monday, the editor of the New York Times Editorial page was compelled to write that the publication has not decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 yet.
His pronouncement came two days after the paper attempted to whitewash the Benghazi tragedy by printing a story that alleged that there was no al-Qaeda involvement in the attacks that killed four Americans (contradicting the paper's own reporting), murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens had "little understanding" of the region, and that the terrorists were motivated by an anti-Muhammed YouTube video.
On a blog post on the paper's website, Andrew Rosenthal alleged that it is important to Republicans "that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack" because they want to "tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though" President Barack Obama "doesnt take Al Qaeda seriously." They also want to "throw mud at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they fear will run for president in 2016."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
So why are they so defensive?
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
The Lear Jet Leftists expect to rule the world.
Gee I didn't know anyone had accused them of that. Yet. Guilty conscience NY Times?
Of course this was for Hilary sake!
‘Lear Jet Leftists ‘
I like it.
Pure International Socialist Up-Frontery by the NYT, as usual.
Documentation File for Impeached Bill Clintons involvement in the 2012, 2013, and almost 2014, Benghazi Coverup for Mrs. Bill Clinton, the most admired woman in America.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, Impeach Obama in 2014. Period.
This from the same paper that did not report the Soviet genocide of it’s own people before WWII even though it had reporters on the scene.
There is not a person here who did not know what this was all about the moment they saw the article.
Of course Slimes, it was a damn video that nobody ever watched.
The NY Times has lost all of its credibility. All of it.
Not long ago they made the decision to endorse all of Barack Obama's lies and now has gone fully into the Hillary Clinton tank. David Kirkpatrick's article "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" could be summarized thusly:
Kirkpatrick: "Mr. al Qaeda, were you involved in the Benghazi attack?" Al Qaeda: "No we were not." Kirkpatrick: "Who attacked the consulate?" Al Qaeda: "Hooligans" Kirkpatrick: "Why?" Al Qaeda: "It was that video." Kirkpatrick: "Thank you"
That's pretty much it. It's pathetic and a painfully obvious attempt to vindicate Hillary Clinton. It has been widely slammed by both Republicans and at least one Democrat- those who had access to sources to Kirkpatrick did not and chose to ignore.
Kirkpatrick writes: Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
Then he goes on to say One of his allies, the leader of Benghazis most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could flatten the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.and here's the money line:
Mr. Abu Khattala, who denies participating in the attack, Well, that's that. He just happened to be at the scene of the attack. Thing is, Ansar al-Shariah does have connections to Al Qaeda. --SNIP--
It boggles the mind that any intelligent voter would seriously consider hillary clinton as a potential POTUS having done precious little to elevate her nation the entire time she has had the opportunity to do so. Misused power and scandal are her only achievements.
After all..."What difference does it make?"
Damn that picture hurts.
What is truly terrible is that he really cared about the people there.
And that was his repayment.
I was reading an article a few months ago about the Bay of pigs invasion when JFK was POTUS, and they had one part where they talked about how the NYT warned Castro of it, blaring it from the headlines which is one of the reasons it was such a disaster besides Kennedy refusing to give air support, but I was thinking why the hell isn’t this rag brought up on treason charges? They pulled the same BS when we invaded Iraq.
Yeah right. And Obama said he wouldn’t run for president ... that he’s not qualified.
Stop the BS, liberals ... we know what you’re doing.
The NYTimes really screwed this up and missed a major opportunity. They should have realized that Republicans orchestrated the Benghazi attack. They made the video, getting a hapless Islamist to make the crude videotape. Because they are racists looking to denigrate President 0bama and to make Hillary Clinton look bad too. Part of their war on women, you know. .
I live in New York unfortunately, and when she was our carpetbagger Senator all she did was travel out of state trying to boost her profile for POTUS. She did absolutely nothing and attended just one funeral for a 911 firefighter (Guliani by comparison attended ALL of them). And this was after her incredibly arrogant “Listening tour” and getting her husband to pardon FALN terrorists and of course the morons in this state voted for her or maybe not being the grifting POS she is.
No one honestly believes what they are saying.
I do not want on any ping lists
Because of their constant RATaganda, the New York Times is largely responsible for the destruction of the USA and the treason and murder in Benghazi and elsewhere.
According to them, the RATs can do no wrong, and any given Republican is a murderous demon from Hell....especially George W. Bush.
Cue up the canned laughter.
This is why the Republicans need to impeach Obama. The real target is Clinton. Otherwise the media is going to cover her butt to get her elected.
“tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though” President Barack Obama “doesnt take Al Qaeda seriously.”
Benghazi. He slept through it, or played cards with Reggie.
He sends weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria.
He stopped sending money to Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood was tossed out
Certainly Obama takes Al Qaeda seriously, he helps them in every way he can.
Meanwhile he is playing golf in Hawaii.
“Conspiracy,” the word suggests something done in relative secrecy. The NYT is blatantly pushing and covering for Clinton.
Don't tell us ... tell Candy Crowley.
If the New Yawk Times says it, it must be true. LOL!
The New York Times has, uncompromisingly and without any withholdings or reservations, endorsed Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, for the nomination and coronation to office of the successor regime holding sway over the territory once known as “the United States of America”, a storied land renown in song and the pages of history.
Of course, we can change this, with a little creative reconstruction of the politics of this territory, dividing the territory between the “red” district and all the scattered little “blue” enclaves.
Herself is welcome to serve as the Supreme Imperator of the “blue” enclaves, but the “red” district would be free to elect a leader that would represent the interests of the nation once known as “the United States of America”.
It will be generations before the nation finds its ways to prosperity. There are the resources but the establishment of corruption is too ingrained & will not give it back.
Yet? Any wonder why the NYT is collapsing faster than THE FOREIGNER can take a selfie of himself.
He is the son of A.M. Rosenthal, the former New York Times executive editor.
Prior to joining the Times in March 1987, Rosenthal worked at the Associated Press.
November 14, 2012
NYT Sunday Review Contributor Finds ‘Political Racism’ in Long Voting Lines for Minorities
Since taking over the section, editor Andrew Rosenthal has transformed the New York Times Sunday Review from a selection of liberal-leaning political and sociological analysis into a bulletin board for the far left.
Guess what, Mr. Rosenthal?? It is important for AMERICANS to know the truth!! People on the right do not need to dirty Hillary Clinton. We all need to know the actual truth. It’s insulting to justice and reality that you protect Hillary and the administration for political gain.
When republicans lie, we are the first to throw them out. If Hillary were in Benghazi performing desperate CPR to save Ambassador Stevens, we’d give her full credit.
IT IS THE TRUTH WE ARE AFTER!
And the truth will out. No thanks to the NYT.
Holy hell. If that were on billboards..... Holy hell.
Ok, that is an awesome bumpersticker.
Rep. Trey Gowdy: New York Times Doing PR Work For Hillary, White House On Benghazi
August 29, 2012
NYT Editor Andrew Rosenthal Classy As Ever: ‘Can’t Santorum Leave His Daughter, Bella, Alone?’
NYTimes Editor Rosenthal on Santorum: He Thrived on ‘Fear and Xenophobia and Intolerance’
More Liberal Hysteria From NYT’s Rosenthal: ‘The G.O.P. Is Anti-Woman’
NYTimes Editor Rosenthal: ‘Bull...’ and ‘Pernicious Nonsense’ to Suggest Paper Is Lefty Equivalent of Fox News
NYT’s Rosenthal Compares Pre-Abortion Ultrasound to Rape, But It’s the Counterarguments That Are “Deranged”?
‘This Isn’t a Theocracy,’ NYTimes Editor Explains While Defending Obama Contraception Rule
Unrepentant NYTimes Editor Rosenthal Spews More Racism Accusations Against GOP
accusing House Speaker John Boehner of racism for asking Obama to delay for one night an address to Congress last September.
Nobody Likes to Talk About It, but Its There. (The web headline is blunter: Republican Attacks Have Racist Undertones.)
NYTimes Sunday Review: Reagan ‘the Archangel of American Spiritualized Greed’
NYTimes Editor ‘Alarmed’ at ‘Right Wing’ Pushback on Cain Story, Whines About Willie Horton Ad
N.Y. Times Hailed as ‘One of the Most Gay-Friendly Institutions in the World’
Bubble Boy? NYT’s Rosenthal ‘Can’t Tell’ Maureen Dowd’s Politics
Andrew Rosenthal: Obama Is Better Than Bush Because His Abuses of Executive Power Are Necessary
Apr. 26, 2012
But while “I was appalled” by Bush’s abuses of executive power, Rosenthal says, “I am not appalled” by Obama’s.
Isn't that what Obama always says? He didn't know anything 'til he read it in the paper? Yeah, that's charming.
The New York Times could finish the task of laying off their staff if they gave in to reality. The Times could become the PRNewswire of politics - and turn an easy profit... PRINT the damn DNC press releases as they are - and quit worrying about making them sound all pretty.
Really, save a bundle.