In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda's 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.
Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by "the aware" to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a "report" that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:
"The investigation by The Times shows that ...Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
"The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses..."
This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:
"'I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,' Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday. He also repeatedly said the story was 'not accurate.'
"Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, 'intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.'"
That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.
It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent response during the attack and the incredibly inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This "triple whammy," if left "un-spun," would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.
Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton's political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.
If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.
The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the "emergency 3am phone call" and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton's failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama's completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.
But then, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Copyright © 2014 Frank Salvato