Monday, December 30, 2013
After an in-depth 15 month investigation, the NY Times has issued a groundbreaking exclusive report that says the brutal terror attacks in Benghazi had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, nothing to do with the anniversary of 9/11, and were in fact caused by a spontaneous outpouring of anger over an anti-Islamic video which had been on Youtube for months without anyone paying attention to it.
In other words, the NY Times is printing complete and utter bullshit (more so than usual, even) for the sole purpose of jumpstarting the rehabilitation of Hillary "What does it matter?" Clinton just in time for the kickoff of her presidential run.
The article, based on unnamed sources seemingly from Mars, blatantly ignores all of the evidence we already do know about the (ahem) WELL PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK which took four American lives, left others gravely injured, and pretty much signaled the end of the United States as a meaningful player in the Middle East owing to the Obama administration's feckless (and fecked-up) non-response to the bloodletting.
Despite their alleged 15 month investigation, the NY Times still hasn't been able to answer one of the most pressing questions about the horrific night: where was Obama and what (or who) was he doing instead of giving a rat's ass about a US Ambassador being sodomized and murdered?!
The Whitehouse has already issued its blessing on the NY Times account of the debacle, which is hardly surprising since it was probably ghostwritten by a well-paid Bill Ayres.
But happily, there is still some integrity and honesty in journalism. Specifically, Hope n' Change is being entirely honest when we say that we're cutting this commentary short because this story has given us a pounding headache and a growing need to upchuck what might well be blood.
Our own, that is - as opposed to the blood of Americans which is now on the hands of the NY Times.