Posted on 01/04/2014 3:37:47 PM PST by kristinn
What was the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces doing through the night of September 11, 2012, while he knew Americans were under jihadist siege in Libya? You won’t learn the answer to that question by reading the mini-book-length, six-“chapter” revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times.
The Times report is a labor of love in the service of President Obama and, in particular, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ramp-up. Former secretary of state Clinton, of course, was a key architect of Obama’s Libya policy. She was also chiefly responsible for the protection of American personnel in that country, including our murdered ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and the three other Americans killed by Muslim terrorists — State Department technician Sean Smith and a pair of former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Still, the Times is banking on your not noticing that in its laborious 7,500 words, Kirkpatrick’s account utters the word “Clinton” exactly . . . wait for it . . . zero times.
The word “Obama” comes in for a mere six mentions, four of which are impersonal references to the current administration. The other two are telling, though fleeting.
One is a rehearsal of the president’s vow to exact “justice” against anyone found responsible for this “terrible act” of killing four Americans, including the formal representative of our nation. As it happens, the only person on the planet to have felt the lash of Obama’s justice is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the California-based “producer” who filmed the infamous “anti-Mohammed” movie trailer, Innocence of Muslims. In a despicable violation of constitutional free-speech principles, and a bow to sharia blasphemy rules that forbid criticism of Islam, Obama and Clinton publicly portrayed Nakoula and his “film” as the Benghazi...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
It amazes me that the republicans don’t know.the answer to that question.
If they only demanded the answer Obama and the drive bys would be exposed.
Sheesh. Is the Times still claiming that it was the video?
I would say that it’s nothing more than BSing.
FWIW the author looks like he could be related to pajama boy.
bttt
Pulitzer prize Carville hurl bttt
Yes, the NYT is indeed still making the assertion that the video was the primary and basic cause for the assault on the Benghazi compound and the cruel brazen murder of four Americans.
Obama knew, and did not wish to take responsibility. The Times is in the business of handing off this hot potato, even today, well into the second year since this atrocity began. And for what?
To protect the name of Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, that’s why.
What difference, at this time, does it make? For one thing, whether Herself can still make a plausible bid for the nomination for the office of Supreme Imperator of the territory once known as “the United States of America”.
yes he does look like a relative of the pj dude...
and I read he posed naked for ‘playgirl’ during his college days at Princeton. one needs to be desperate to check that out!!...he is as goofy as the other jerk working for Obama, maybe I should say working for Hillary...
They will get away with it. A Senate investigation will get no where-too ‘political.’ An overwhelming 2014 election result would do it. What are we waiting for?
Benghazi Ping.
I think that they are still smarting from the “you can keep your plan, period” promise. Darn good chance that they were cheering when Obama lied to the American people.
Who started the 'Youtube video' story?
Why did 0bama et al lie about the 'video?'
Why didn't 0bama send a rescue mission?
What was 0bama doing for eight hours while the consulate was under attack?
Did 0bama go to the WH situation room?
Why did Hillary and Obama use American taxpayer funded facilities, personnel, equipment and funds to overthrow the government of Libya?
Isn’t the NYT, the “paper of record”, mostly read by the upper west side set, as the New Yorker is? Who believes this tripe?
That is the WH official story and the NYT is sticking to it.
Obama knew, and did not wish to take responsibility. The Times is in the business of handing off this hot potato, even today, well into the second year since this atrocity began. And for what?
To protect the name of Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, that’s why.
What difference, at this time, does it make? For one thing, whether Herself can still make a plausible bid for the nomination for the office of Supreme Imperator of the territory once known as “the United States of America”.
Excellent reply, and dead on. I would mention, however, that the "territory" actually IS called "the United States of America”. As opposed to the country of similar name that has been put into storage, that is.
Because Libya did not have a Central Bank authorized by the global banking system under Gaddafi. So Hillary took him out for the banksters - and bragged about it.
Lol. Well said!
Used to be called “whitewashing”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.