[The gals in my wife's office once decided to ask this special male colleauge how he voted.
"I'm gay! Of course I vote Democratic!" was his reply.
It was also as clear an admission as ever heard that some people really do their thinking with their d!ck.
Betcha it was a hot time at 'Pinch's' place in the Hamptons last night in anticipation of this story's imminent release with the all male conga line really hoppin'. They probably even had to send out for another 55 gallon drum of KY jelly due to all the revelers frolic.
"We're saved! Its gonna be Hillary all the way in 2016. Was there ever any doubt?"
Just the NYT rewriting history. Sorta like their polling. The usual make up of an NYT polling sample runs like this: 50 per cent Democrats, 15 per cent Republicans and 35 per cent independents who voted for Barack Obama. The Times will typically commission a poll with a sample this skewed, then write a front page story about the results.
This is likely the Times last gasp as the so called newspaper of record. The National Enquirer will have a better standing after this. Mebbe if 'Pinch' sells the digs in the Hamptons he might be able to get by just selling his rag to the 82% of New Yorkers who voted for Barack Obama]
"But Kirkpatrick says he found no evidence of involvement in the attack by al Qaeda or other international terrorist group. The good faith of that claim depends on his diligence in searching for such evidence. As Tom Joscelyn has shown, Kirkpatrick appears willfully to have ignored key players who likely were involved in the Benghazi attack and who have documented ties with al Qaeda. KirkpatrickÂ’s cherry picking suggests bad faith.
Similarly, Kirkpatrick’s claim that the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger” at the video about Islam seems to rest primarily on what Libyans told him after the fact. These sources can’t entirely be discounted, of course. However, it is surely self-serving for Libyans, almost regardless of their persuasion, to blame the attack on external events, and especially anti-Islamism, rather than on the bloodthirsty extremism of the Libyan attackers themselves.
KirkpatrickÂ’s heavy reliance on self-serving comments by Libyans that also serve the purposes of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, etc, suggests that he had a story he wanted to write and was looking for confirmation of that story.
This suspicion was confirmed to me by one of the people Kirkpatrick interviewed. This person, probably as well informed about the Benghazi attack as any American, tells me that during the interview with Kirkpatrick (which occurred many months ago), it quickly became clear that he “had his conclusions and simply wanted me to confirm them, not refute them.” It also became clear, my source adds, that Kirkpatrick “was off the rails.”
Off the rails is bad enough. But off the rails for an ulterior motive is worse. Unfortunately, this may well be what weÂ’re witnessing in the TimesÂ’ revisionist account of Benghazi."
The New York Times ? off the rails for an ulterior motive | Power Line
"Left out of the TimesÂ’s account are the many leads tying the attackers to al QaedaÂ’s international network.
For instance, there is no mention of Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, an Egyptian. This is odd, for many reasons.
On October 29, 2012 three other New York Times journalists reported that Jamal’s network, in addition to a known al Qaeda branch (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), was directly involved in the assault. The Times reported (emphasis added): “Three Congressional investigations and a State Department inquiry are now examining the attack, which American officials said included participants from Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.”
Jamal was trained by al Qaeda in the late 1980s, and has been loyal to Ayman al Zawahiri since at least the 1990s. He served as a commander in the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), a terrorist group headed by Zawahiri that merged with bin LadenÂ’s enterprise. Jamal left prison in 2011 and quickly got back to work.
The Egyptian press has published some of JamalÂ’s letters to Zawahiri. In the letters, which were written in 2011 and 2012, Jamal is extremely deferential to Zawahiri. Jamal heaps praise on Zawahiri, seeking the al Qaeda masterÂ’s guidance and additional support. Jamal even mentions that he attempted to visit Zawahiri in person, but failed to do so because of restrictions on his travel. So, Jamal writes, he sent an emissary instead"
How the New York Times tried to airbrush al Qaeda out of Benghazi | Power Line
