The New York Times gave President Obama and Hillary Clinton their very own Christmas present last month, and it was more than either of them could have wished for.
On December 28th, the Times published an article based on what it claimed was a massive, months-long investigation of the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
The result of this so-called investigation? The retelling of the infamous lie that a YouTube video so enraged hundreds of Libyans that they stormed the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi and murdered four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Never mind that these Libyans just happened to be so well trained and heavily armed that they could defeat American security forces, some of whom were retired Navy SEALs, or that they launched their tactical assault in several waves until they were ultimately successful.
Never mind either that leaders of this supposedly spontaneous Islamist flash mob would be overheard by U.S. intelligence bragging to their terrorist buddies about the attack.
No, you see, the Times interviewed some of the attackers who claimed – truthfully of course – that it was the video that inspired their murderous rage. Case closed?
Why anyone would believe such lies boggles the mind. Do we give admitted terrorists and murderers the benefit of the doubt just because they are willing to be interviewed – anonymously, of course – by reporters from the Times? We know such terrorists will lie to U.S. intelligence when captured, so why wouldn’t they use American newspapers to forward their goals?
Further, there is a bipartisan consensus that the Times is completely wrong. Both Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee – who have seen the most top-secret intelligence on Benghazi – have stated publicly that the Times is wrong and that Benghazi was an attack by terrorists with ties to al Qaeda.
Also, the Times‘s report is contradicted by the sworn, public testimony of Deputy Ambassador Gregory Hicks, who stated before Congress that the video was a “non-event” in Libya and had not inspired the type of unrest seen in Egypt several days before.
So who are we to believe – the testimony of a dedicated public servant like Greg Hicks and the public statements of senior Republicans and Democrats who’ve seen the intelligence, or the word of some anonymous Libyan terrorists interviewed by The New York Times?
This article seems less like an investigation than a ham-fisted attempt to whitewash the records of President Obama and – maybe more importantly – potential 2016 presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Benghazi is a black mark on Mrs. Clinton’s sub-par record.
So much for all the news that’s fit to print. The Times must clean up its act.
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.