Follow by Email

Monday, October 15, 2012

New York Times Editorial, "No Shame": The Times Shamefully Ignores Obama's Benghazi Cover-Up

In an editorial entitled "No Shame" (,  The New York Times brazenly reprimands Republicans for seeking to cut spending on the protection of US overseas diplomatic facilties. The reality, however, is that no American embassy or consulate is designed to withstand a sustained assault involving mortar fire, gun trucks and RPGs.

A sustained assault involving mortar fire, gun trucks and RPGs? No mention in the Times editorial that this was the nature of the attacks, lasting five hours, against two US facilities in Benghazi. Of course, the Obama administration also sought to hide this fact for the better part of a month by alleging that the attacks involved "spontaneous demonstrations" in response to an inane Internet video.

As stated by the editorial:

"Clearly, there is much we don’t know about what happened in Benghazi or what changes could have saved the four Americans.

. . . .

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has appointed a panel of outside experts to investigate."

"There is much we don't know about what happened in Benghazi"? Indeed, the Obama administration, which received real time reports concerning the true nature of the September 11 attacks (, has sought to obfuscate the details of the deadly incident. During his debate with Paul Ryan, Vice President Biden did his part to perpetuate the cover-up by declaring:

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why -- why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on (inaudible)?

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.

Yes, Biden is lying.

Hillary "has appointed a panel of outside experts to investigate"? Oh, really. Guess who is heading up this investigation? None other than Thomas Pickering, who co-authored a March 20, 2008 article in The New York Review of Books (, which stated:

"The recent National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program."

Pickering's naivete, as evidenced by his belief in 2008 that Iran had halted its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, should preclude him from managing this sensitive inquiry (see:

Hillary's ongoing contribution to the cover-up? Note her interchange on October 12 with CNN's Jill Doherty (

DOHERTY: Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, in the debate – the Vice Presidential Debate last night, there was one thing that the Vice President said, which was, “That is what intelligence told us.” And there’s just one issue that seems so very basic that I’m finding it difficult to understand why it’s not clear, and that is whether or not there actually was a demonstration that night. Is there any clarity that you have at this moment about that?

And then also, could you tell us a little bit about what you were doing when that attack actually happened? I know Charlene Lamb, who as the State Department official, was mentioning that she back here in Washington was monitoring electronically from that post what was happening in real time. Could you tell us what you were doing? Were you watching? Were you talking with the President? Any details about that, please.

HILLARY: Well, Jill, before I answer your question, I want to underscore what an invaluable partner Italy has been in our efforts to support a democratic Libya. [Blah, blah, blah.]

. . . .

With respect to your questions, Jill, I think that it is very important to recognize that we have an investigation going on. We have an Accountability Review Board that is just beginning its work. There is much we still don’t know. And I am the first to say that. But as someone who has been at the center of this tragedy from the beginning, I do know this: There is nobody in the Administration motivated by anything other than trying to understand what happened. And we are doing all we can to prevent it from ever happening again – anywhere. And of course, we are, as a government, doing what it takes to track down those who were responsible.

To this day – to this day, we do not have a complete picture. We do not have all the answers. No one in this Administration has ever claimed otherwise. Every one of us has made clear that we are providing the best information we have at that time. And that information continues to be updated. It also continues to be put into context and more deeply understood through the process we are engaged in. Ambassador Rice had the same information from the intelligence community as every other senior official did.

And that’s the very way that I’m answering your question today, because we can only tell you what we know based on our most current understanding of the attack and what led up to it. Obviously, we know more as time goes by and we will know even more than we did hours and days after the attack.

So that’s what an investigative process is designed to do: to try to sort through all of the information, some of it contradictory and conflicting. And I want us to keep in mind that four Americans were killed, four men who served our country. Dozens of Americans fought for their lives that night, and to honor them we all have to get to the bottom of every question and answer it to the best of our ability. And then we’ve got to be sure that we apply the lessons we learned to make sure that we protect everybody in harm’s way.

So I’m going to be, as I have been from the very beginning, cooperating fully with the investigations that are ongoing, because nobody wants to know more about what happened and why than I do. And I think I’ll leave it at that.

DOHERTY: Mrs. Secretary, if you could, the question was --

HILLARY: I know, but I’m going to leave it at that.

This is classic stonewalling (i.e. malarkey, moonshine, piffle, hokum, hogwash, claptrap, bunkum, tripe, twaddle, wind, flimflam - take your pick), which will surely be studied in international relations courses at leading universities for years to come.

Shame on Hillary.

Shame on The New York Times, whose blind partisanship knows no bounds.

1 comment: