If a media organ of the Leftist/Democrat Party wanted to subtly endorse Hillary Clinton without seeming to do so...how to do so?
Well, if Benghazi is the thorn that much prick her candidacy...how about a 7500-word "mini-book-length, six-“chapter” revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times."
A bogus white-wash of this administration's culpability in the murders of four Americans...with a special 'treatment' of Hillary.
1. "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 .... Still, theTimes 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.
a. ... “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..... the president’s vow to exact “justice” against anyone found responsible for this “terrible act” of killing four Americans,...
2. 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 Basseley Nakoula] and his “film” as the Benghazi culprits — implicitly accepting the Islamic-supremacist premise that verbal insults, no matter how obscure and trifling, justify mass-murder attacks.
3. .... Obama and Clinton (a) conspired to defraud the nation into believing the trailer was the singular, proximate cause — then dispatched their minion, Ambassador Susan Rice, to do their dirty work on the Sunday shows;
(b) jointly appeared in a preening commercial aired on Islamic (but not American) television to stress that the U.S. government had no part in the video (translation: We elevate sharia blasphemy standards over the Bill of Rights guarantees the U.S. government exists to ensure);
(c) told family members of our Benghazi dead that they would get, not the terrorists, but the man responsible for the video; and
(d) then trumped up a prosecution against Nakoula: The Justice Department arrested him in the dead of night, imprisoning him on a bogus “violation of supervised release” that no experienced prosecutor would regard as meriting such severe treatment . . . but that could conveniently be portrayed to Muslim countries as the administration’s enforcement of sharia against Americans.
4. Obama’s reckless Libya policy, part of his broader appeasement of Islamic supremacists, is the heart of the matter.
5. Kirkpatrick’s account is absurd. Its two themes — namely, that the trailer really did have some causal connection to the massacre and that al-Qaeda really did not partake in the Benghazi attack — do not pass the laugh test. They have been ably refuted by Tom Joscelyn, Eli Lake, Steve Hayes, and theeditors of NATIONAL REVIEW, to cite four of the best rebuttals.
6. .... the objective of Kirkpatrick’s novella is not to persuade; it is to shrink the parameters of newsworthy inquiry to a punctilious debate over nonsense."
Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online
I understand former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy's anger, largely directed against the administration, which is responsible for the Benghazi cover-up.....
....but he is far too kind to the NYSlimes and to the so-called journalist, Kirkpatrick.
Kirkpatrick is a paid mouthpiece/stenographer for the forces intending to tear down this country.
Well, if Benghazi is the thorn that much prick her candidacy...how about a 7500-word "mini-book-length, six-“chapter” revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times."
A bogus white-wash of this administration's culpability in the murders of four Americans...with a special 'treatment' of Hillary.
1. "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 .... Still, theTimes 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.
a. ... “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..... the president’s vow to exact “justice” against anyone found responsible for this “terrible act” of killing four Americans,...
2. 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 Basseley Nakoula] and his “film” as the Benghazi culprits — implicitly accepting the Islamic-supremacist premise that verbal insults, no matter how obscure and trifling, justify mass-murder attacks.
3. .... Obama and Clinton (a) conspired to defraud the nation into believing the trailer was the singular, proximate cause — then dispatched their minion, Ambassador Susan Rice, to do their dirty work on the Sunday shows;
(b) jointly appeared in a preening commercial aired on Islamic (but not American) television to stress that the U.S. government had no part in the video (translation: We elevate sharia blasphemy standards over the Bill of Rights guarantees the U.S. government exists to ensure);
(c) told family members of our Benghazi dead that they would get, not the terrorists, but the man responsible for the video; and
(d) then trumped up a prosecution against Nakoula: The Justice Department arrested him in the dead of night, imprisoning him on a bogus “violation of supervised release” that no experienced prosecutor would regard as meriting such severe treatment . . . but that could conveniently be portrayed to Muslim countries as the administration’s enforcement of sharia against Americans.
4. Obama’s reckless Libya policy, part of his broader appeasement of Islamic supremacists, is the heart of the matter.
5. Kirkpatrick’s account is absurd. Its two themes — namely, that the trailer really did have some causal connection to the massacre and that al-Qaeda really did not partake in the Benghazi attack — do not pass the laugh test. They have been ably refuted by Tom Joscelyn, Eli Lake, Steve Hayes, and theeditors of NATIONAL REVIEW, to cite four of the best rebuttals.
6. .... the objective of Kirkpatrick’s novella is not to persuade; it is to shrink the parameters of newsworthy inquiry to a punctilious debate over nonsense."
Down the Times? Benghazi Rabbit Hole | National Review Online
I understand former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy's anger, largely directed against the administration, which is responsible for the Benghazi cover-up.....
....but he is far too kind to the NYSlimes and to the so-called journalist, Kirkpatrick.
Kirkpatrick is a paid mouthpiece/stenographer for the forces intending to tear down this country.
Last edited:
