The New York Times' Benghazi Tall Tale

The New York Times' recently asserted that Al Qaeda had no provable involvement in the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate. Its author, David Kirkpatrick, went on to write that that the attack was fueled by anger at an American-made anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration first claimed

Not only does this conclusion by The New York Times contradict the overwhelming evidence for a direct involvement by Al Qaeda but it also conflicts with testimony from Greg Hicks, the deputy of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Hicks described the video as "a non-event in Libya" at that time, and consequently not a significant trigger for the attack.

So why was this article written? In light of the overwhelming facts that have surfaced to the contrary, it almost seems as if this article was not meant for information but for misinformation.

Is The New York Times trying to pave an easier path for a Clinton 2016 victory? Honestly, after reading the true facts about the Benghazi attack, it is the only discernible conclusion that can be drawn. Possibly Kirkpatrick hopes to persuade enough Americans to believe his tall tale or cast enough doubt in others whereby the Benghazi attack will be a nonissue for Clinton’s 2016 run.

What is more disturbing is to believe The New York Times thinks of most Americans as mindless sheep who will trust anything that they write. Do they really see of as a mindless commodity who will blindly follow them regardless of the facts? Honestly, I’m insulted not only for their arrogance towards us Americans but also towards their total neglect in accurate reporting. This article proves only one point: The New York Times has become not a reliable source of news but a progressive propaganda machine.