Transparency, the current vogue word for truth-telling, is usually a good thing, unless you’re trying to fool all the people some of the time, like spending 7,000 words to resurrect a fairy tale in Benghazi, all to give a helping hand to a lady in distress.
The New York Times understands that Hillary Clinton is likely to be the only credible hope the Democrats have for 2016 and that she already needs lots of remedial help. The Times huffed and puffed to deliver an excuse for betrayal in Benghazi, meant to second Mrs. Clinton’s famous alibi for her tortured misfeasance as secretary of state — “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
The right response might have made a lot of difference to an American ambassador who lay dead, slain at the hands of Islamic terrorists, and three other Americans who had to give up their lives because nobody at the White House could be bothered to ride to the rescue. President Obama and his frightened and timid acolytes, including Mrs. Clinton, insisted that this was not Islamic terror or the perfidy of al Qaeda, but merely the reaction of innocent Muslims offended by a video posted on YouTube mocking the religion of the Prophet Muhammad.
Even after the White House dispatched Susan Rice, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to push the confection about the video as revealed truth, almost nobody believed it. The White House couldn’t even find anybody else who would say he believed it.
Read more about the Benghazi betrayal HERE.
NYT editor defiant on Benghazi report amid lawmaker criticism
By Fox News.
A New York Times editor on Monday staunchly defended a controversial report on the Benghazi attack which largely backed the State Department’s narrative, amid withering criticism from congressional Republicans and others.
The State Department, as might be expected, also spoke in defense of the New York Times article.
“Much of what’s in this in-depth investigation … tracks with what the [internal review board] found and with our understanding of the facts,” spokeswoman Marie Harf said Monday.
The lengthy Times report and the subsequent fallout represent the latest battle over the public narrative of what happened the night of Sept. 11, 2012. Even the State Department’s internal review did not offer a definitive explanation of what caused the attack and who was behind it.
The Times investigation, though, aggravated some of the department’s toughest critics by concluding there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.
Read more from this story HERE.
_____________________________________________________________________________________Senate Intel panel to release Benghazi report in early 2014
By Susan Crabtree.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded its Benghazi investigation and is set to release its report in early 2014, a move that will only intensify the debate over the administration’s handling of the deadly terror attack.
On Sunday, the New York Times published a six-part article on the attack that concluded that al Qaeda played virtually no role in the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
The piece also bolstered the argument that at least part of the attack was prompted by anger over an anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration originally claimed.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has yet to weigh in on the New York Times’ Benghazi report. A spokesman said she was traveling on Monday and didn’t plan to comment but also noted that the committee plans to release its Benghazi review “very early in 2014.”
What that report says about al Qaeda’s role, the security lapses surrounding the attack and the motivation behind it will reshape the debate yet again, likely keeping Benghazi in the headlines for weeks to come.
Read more from this story HERE.