N.Y. Times' Benghazi Whitewash Backfires, Spotlights Obama/Clinton Coverup

[FrankRep]

N.Y. Times' Benghazi Whitewash Backfires, Spotlights Obama/Clinton Coverup


The New American
01 January 2014

The New York Times has attempted to shield President Obama and Hillary Clinton from backlash over Benghazi, but has only heaped more fuel on the fire.​

Related articles:

Benghazi Backfire: Was Obama Arming Jihadists?

Benghazi “Whitewash” Report Still Damaging to Obama

Benghazi Report Ignores WH Lies, Obama Gunrunning to Jihadists

Benghazigate: The Disaster That Should Have Sunk Obama — and Still Could

 

[Dary]

Fox is pushing hard the fact that the NYT article claims that there was no Al Ciada involvement in the attacks on the Benghazi "consulate". In fact, they just had the chairman of OpsSec, Scott Taylor, on air claiming that the NYT article is a "Horribly flawed diversion".

But if the U.S. was running guns out of the Benghazi "consulate" to Al Ciada forces in Syria, then why would Al Ciada have any interest at all in attacking it?

Scott Taylor's argument was basically, it must have been Al Ciada. No one else could have possibly done it. Similar to the way that the argument against Basar Al Assad went when they claimed that it must have been Assad who used chemical weapons in Syria. Who else could have done it?

There is another pretty good article (in addition to the related articles posted by the OP) about the gun running from last August at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...am-media-on-benghazi-it-was-about-gun-running