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.
