Image 01 Image 03

NY Times: What difference at this point does Benghazi make? (Update – Confirmation Bias?)

NY Times: What difference at this point does Benghazi make? (Update – Confirmation Bias?)

The 2016 presidential campaign has officially started

The NY Times published a lengthy account of the Benghazi attack that is being hyped as exonerating the Obama administration (and of course, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton), but in fact the report does nothing of the sort.

The main thrust of the spin is that it was the video after all, a claim long since abandoned by almost everyone. There never was a doubt that the video inspired a generalize hostility, but that is a far cry from saying that the actual attackers who executed by contemporaneous internal administration accounts were motivated by the video.

The reporting does not support that the video was what motivated the “several dozen” armed attackers, even if it created a general atmosphere of hostility.

The NYT also plays a linguistic slight of hand, distinguishing between international al-Qaeda (NYT says no connection) and local al-Qaeda wannabees to try to prove that this was not an “al-Qaeda” attack. But local, independently operation al-Qaeda groups have been the motus operandi for years.

That there was no phone call from Pakistan to the local group in Benghazi does not mean that this was not a planned Islamic extremist attack and instead some spontaneous reaction to a video:

This is how an otherwise interesting series of interviews gets spun but is not supported by the actual details of the reporting.

For a more detailed analysis, for which I don’t have time, see these posts:

The wagons to defend the NY Times from criticism are officially being circled — by other media:

Update: Is this a case of confirmation bias?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


DINORightMarie | December 29, 2013 at 2:05 pm

And where is the Republican outrage about this tragic, treasonous, horrific affair that Obama et. al. write off as a “fake controversy”?!

Nowhere. It’s nonexistent.

The fear emanating from Republicans is wafting out to the remotest corners of the nation, which spurs on the likes of revisionist hacks at the NYT. You’d think that Republicans WANT her to be the next president!!

Benghazi, if nothing else, should be FRONT AND CENTER 24/7 to prevent Hillary from being nominated, let alone elected. But, as we shall witness soon, she WILL be the nominee……and may be the first woman president (Lord help us!!!!) I hope I’m wrong, but there is too much chatter in the “low information voter” throng about Hillary being “wonderful” and “smart” and wouldn’t she be “SUCH a great first woman president?!” (I’m queasy just typing those words.)

Thank you for posting, exposing both the depths of NYT shilling for Hillary, as well as the spinelessness of the Republicans regarding Hillary’s tragic, cavalier dereliction of duty as Sec. of State.

    AZ_Langer in reply to DINORightMarie. | December 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    They are fearful. If they say something, past misdeeds will be exposed (they are politicians after all, and Hillary seems to have researchers who can dig up dirt on anyone), or they’ll be labeled whatever derogatory name is most effective at the time.

    Honestly, I think you give the Rs undeserved credit; they’re as much a part of the machine as the Ds. With possibly a very few exceptions, politicians are in the game for themselves; they consistently betray their sworn oaths to our Constitution and sell US out to benefit themselves.

    Politicians rely on uninformed voters. Sadly, even many from my generation never question what they’re fed by the machine and complicit media.

    More’s the pity.

    RickCaird in reply to DINORightMarie. | December 29, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Actually, we should want Hillary nominated. As soon as she wraps up the nomination, then the attacks on her lack of character and lack of experience and lack of accomplishments can start. However, I think her Democratic opponents will take care of that for the Republicans.

    What SPECIFICALLY would you have us do that has not been done? We have demanded evidence and witnesses which have not been produced. We have complained about the lack of cooperation verging on cover-up on national television.

    Standing on the street corner with a sign isn’t going to get it done. Probably nothing will force out the truth until a Republican is in the White House, and even then the documents will have been destroyed if they point at Obama or Hillary in any way.

    The blame belongs on Obama and Clinton for their inactions and cover-up, and on the American people for failing to demand more of them.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Estragon. | December 30, 2013 at 1:43 pm

      What SPECIFICALLY would you have us do that has not been done?

      Perhaps it’s time to admit you don’t know what to do about it? Well, I guess you just did.

      The GOP controls the House. That fact dictates what to do. They’ve held the hearings, determined the lying and obfuscations, sighed dramatically, and dropped the effort. The GOP quit on it.

Walter Duranty would be proud…

In a land where the sword is mightier than the pen, when lone wolf movie critics congregate to give a few dozen thumbs down, they don’t just call the video a bomb, they actually blow it up.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | December 29, 2013 at 3:25 pm

What difference does it make?

One Word: Treason.

Two Words: Treason; Killary.

Three Words: Treason; Hillary; Obama.

Four Words: Total Dereliction of Duty.

etc….etc….etc… or does the old grey lady (NYT) want us to believe that words have no meaning? It must be their number 1 corporate mission goal.

Lying Liars who Lie: NY Times aka NY Pravda.

I thrust Catherine Herridge a LOT on this topic.

I also know something about the mechanics of setting up and firing a mortar, which is WAY more involved than Hollywood would like us to understand. (Look up “aiming stakes”).

You simply do not saunter along one evening while thinking critically about a movie, and lob mortar rounds on-target with deadly effect.

    Thanks for that. Pretty slashing repudiation of the Times.

    Curious why reams and piles of evidence and interviews and false statements to support a pre-meditated attack do not constitute a “bombshell” but dutifully misleading NY Times piece, doing its usual water-carrying and exculpating for the administration and Hillary and written by the same writer who declared the video responsible to begin with and as predictable as sunrise, IS a “bombshell”?

Using the word “reporting” in connection with the NYT is always incorrect and misleading.

When Abe Rosenthal ran the paper, it was liberal editorially as always but you could count on any facts reported – they had been verified, including references in op-ed pieces. That’s how they became “America’s paper of record.”

But once Pinch Sulzberger came in and moved Abe aside, the old rules were gone, too. It’s 100% leftist propaganda now, you cannot believe a word of it.

There was a CNN report (supposedly not shown in the US, i.e. CNN International only) that had them interview the brother of Omar Abdel-Rahman (AKA the ‘Blind Sheik’) who was wiping up demonstrations in Cairo in the days leading up to Sept 11 2012 in an attempt to get the release from US jail of the ‘Blind Sheik’.

CNN’s Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik

Notice he says nothing about the video.

    AZ_Langer in reply to Neo. | December 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm

    Of course he said nothing about the video; it wasn’t about the video.

    On the other hand, the “Blind Sheik” aspect is something I’ve wondered about for a long time.

    There had been ongoing efforts to secure Omar Abdel-Rahman’s release, perhaps commencing with Hani Nour Eldin’s meetings with high-ranking officials here in the United States in June. It was only days after those meetings that Morsi announced he would try to have him freed.

    The harder they and their pals work to try to cover it up, the more credence I give to speculation tying the two situations together and consider even more nefarious possibilities.

BannedbytheGuardian | December 29, 2013 at 5:39 pm

Careful -that photo has photoshopped out all the baggy eyes pallid complexion (complexion sounds too nice ) & grey roots of at least 6 weeks growth. she was absolutely haggard at that hearing by looks & deranged in her outbursts. (with a handler at her shoulder).

my guess is that she was under psychological care & no one could get to her to fix her up. it is what they look like when they are aggro & noone dares come near.

No woman with the acces to a stylist & unlimited money would let herself out like that.

Hillary Clinton is mad. the sort they used to lock away in the olde wing.

BannedbytheGuardian | December 29, 2013 at 6:14 pm

i also continue to believe (even more after this great lie ) that whatever they were doing in Benghazi , was very much not what anyone at the top echelons wants known.

i also think rather than there be any heroes they were all involved in something so awful they do not trust people will understand.

This may be Bush Renditions on steroids. WHO got tortured at the consul so that their blood dripped down the walls of the bathroom? Who tried to escape & left their finger marks on the column?

it was not the ambassador who looked ashen (but not smoked out ) maybe dead but bot bloody.

Libyan cities are quite modern . Why did no one else hear this ‘battle”? if there was one they would all be out there with their small arms -after all it is still a civil war.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | December 29, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    It is widely believed or suspected that the Obama Administartion with Eric Holder were illegally smuggling in miltary armaments, a la mode “Fast and Furious” to Mexico, is it not?

      Whilst that is plausible it has to be more than that. They could have twisted that as taking weapons out of a volatile arena. it is no secret they provided weapons nor that ghaddafi left some arms .

      they would have needed significant transport vehicles – i don’t know that they did or did not . they must have been parked somewhere. Benghazians would easily recognise weapons transport.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | December 29, 2013 at 7:31 pm

This New York Times Disease is spreading.

Is Twitter censoring conservatives? – Yahoo News
Is Twitter censoring conservatives? By The Week’s Editorial Staff April … and YouTube are increasingly vital parts of the national political conversation and “possess the power to determine what political speech is and is not …
To Silence Political Dissent, IRS Issues New Rule Censoring Our Free Speech
December 17, 2013

ANH-USA could be targeted—along with your right to political representation. Action Alert!

In May 2013, the IRS was caught illegally discriminating against Tea Party groups applying for 501(c)4 nonprofit status. In the wake of the scandal, the IRS worked to eliminate illegal censorship of political dissent—by attempting to legalize it.

On Black Friday, under cover of a day when no one follows the news, the IRS issued proposed rules to severely restrict the activities of 501(c)4 nonprofit organizations such as ANH-USA. These rules would place strict limitations on speech, eliminate your voice in the political process, and put consumer advocacy nonprofits like ANH-USA under a gag order, leaving powerful private interests and their government allies free to operate in secret. In short, the new IRS rules are an egregious violation of the First Amendment.

Google Sees Spike in Requests to Censor Political Speech,2817,2405945,00.asp

Google Shopping Censors All Gun, Ammo & Accessories Results

Youtube Has Been Censoring Political Videos – Video Dailymotion

I have found out that YouTube has been censoring videos of political nature, specifically ones that don’t agree with Obam…..

Flickr Censors Political Image Critical of President Obama – a photo on Flickriver

Silencing Conservatives – the Administration’s latest attempt to censor political…

The 2016 presidential campaign has officially started Spot on.

Fox hits back hard: ‘Completely false’: Sources on ground in Benghazi challenge NYT report

How does one clear the stench of such pathetic desperation?

Hillary Weiner Clinton is a joke among most people. So is The NY Times.

This pathetic old hack will do nothing than keep the seat warm for whatever democrat who elbows her out of the way in 2016.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to | December 29, 2013 at 10:57 pm

    It used to be great to wrap your catch (of fish).
    But anymore the fish won’t stand for it –
    it’s the stench the fish find offensive.

Should the paper change its name to the Whitewash Time or the New York Whitewash? Or the Hillary for President Times? Or simply the Liberal Fantasy Times?

How about the “We Didn’t Think Quality News Reporting in the US Was Quite Dead Enough so we Decided to Drive a Stake Through Its Heart with Pure Lies” Times?

Hillary and Bill belong in jail period. When Bill Clinton was impeached; he should have been a man and left.

So, if a “splinter group” or “unaffiliated group” inspired by the Tea Party carries out a terrorist attack, does that mean the NYT will do article after article dismissing proof of premeditation, differentiating between the terrorists and the Tea Party, and blaming the victims because of some lefty video that the terrorists claim is their motivation?

Of COURSE not.

That is what drives me nuts about partisan politics – it’s always “different” when it “their guy”. A single standard – is that too much to ask? (of both parties, but especially our press corps)