Last week, the New York Times garnered publicity by trying to claim that the 9-11-2012 attacks in Benghazi really WERE because of an obtuse, low budget, You Tube video that, essentially, nobody saw.
The fallout was decisive from their inopportune editorial.
Members of congress from both parties quickly derided the opinion piece as bunk, citing evidence gathered via sources under oath from house and senate hearings that pointed directly toward al Qaeda and their affiliate, Ansar al Sharia…al Qaeda by another name.
Many called the NYT piece what it was.
Cover for Hillary’s 2016 ambitions but…
I contend there is more to it than that.
Much more to it than that.
Before I delve into what that much more is, we need to take a quick look at the claims made in the Times.
First…
Here is the direct quote from David D. Kirkpatrick of the Times in that piece:
It seems that desperation is setting in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in a big, BIG way.
The very idea that, now 6 months after the attacks in Benghazi, we still don’t have anywhere near adequate answers to the most basic of questions regarding the attacks should be appalling to each and every American.
Who?
Tomorrow night, ON LINCOLN’S BIRTHDAY,the Dictator will deliver his State of Tyranny speech to his American subjects and to a joint session of the congress he fully intends to subvert.
During WWII, WE called it “Chaff”…The Brits called it “Window” and the German Luftwaffe referred to it as “Duppel.”