If Getting the 1st female into the Oval Office Requires a NYTimes Cover-Up on Behalf of Al Qaeda, then No F'ing Thanks


Back in March of this year, the NYTimes did a story titled: “Woodward is New Hero for the Right (Yes, Really)’ that mocked the lion of journalism for going public about a threat from the White House over his reporting. After Bob Woodward did a piece in WAPO critical of Obama over his handling of the budget impasse and sequester, the White House told Woodward he would come to “regret” that reporting.

The Times, ever the happy water carrier for the wacknasty of Obama and his Administration, did the classic Obama Protection Dance: they reported the flap while undercutting Woodward as “a tad sensitive.”

(Leave it to the strident Democrat“ reporters” at the NYTimes to come up with that theme?) Move along, nothing to see here, was the theme of the NYTimes item. Aside from portraying Bod Woodward as a whiny complainer—yeah that Woodward, the one who felled Nixon—the Times also painted this as Republicans against Obama vs. the reality that actually is: Obama vs. the press.

From the Times item:

To some Republican politicians and conservative activists, Mr. Woodward’s assertions were new evidence of their belief that the Obama administration exerts tremendous pressure on a mostly cowed news media.

The Times went on with some Republican quotes to back up their claim that Obama was clean as snow and the Republicans and Woodward were dirty bastards.

The Fox News host Steve Doocy defended Mr. Woodward and said, “This White House is one of the most thin-skinned White Houses ever.”

Then Boom, comes the Times with the ultimate attempt at the Obama SAVE:

But in the world of politics and journalism, a consensus was forming around the suggestion—supported by people close to the White House—that Mr. Woodward had overreacted.

The Times closes their pathetic piece with a bit about whether or not Obama and the White House were on track to stop open journalism and investigative journalism. Not of course, as any good Obama-card-carrying NYTimes writer/editor would claim:

…a truer measure of the relationship between the White House and the press corps was whether journalists wee prevented from doing their jobs. “People are not prevented from reporting,…there’s no enemies list….”

Blah blah blah. Leave it to the Times to need to be hit over the head with Obama and his Holder henchman’s secret Stasi –style snooping of journalists phone records to do what….yep, prevent reporters from doing their jobs.
link on Holder/Obama going after reporters

In fact, it has been widely reported that a chilling effect is fully in play now, because if the government can tap a reporter's calls then it will know exactly whom the reporter spoke to and fuck there would be NO Deep Throat or Nixon outing under Obama Stasi-style of government. Gall dang it….if I want to break into, err tap into the RNC to snoop, not leaker fucker is gonna out me, so goes it in the world of Obama and…so sadly goes it in the world Obama-luvn’ media that they probably wouldn’t even do the story if it hit em over the head..

Now if you haven’t yet heard about the NYTimes item this month that –in a desperate attempt to help Obama and provide cover for Hillary in 2016—said Al Qaeda was not involved in the Benghazi attack, you should pay attention. This amounts to the final implosion of the NYTimes as a credible source of journalism on any level.

As the Weekly Standard points out, the Times had in the past reported that Al Qaeda was linked to the attack.

The [Times] piece makes two main claims that challenge much of the previous reporting about Benghazi: 1) The Times asserts that there is “no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault;” and, 2) that the attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”
There is, in fact, evidence that terrorists linked to al Qaeda had a role in the Benghazi attacks.

And most problematic for this revisionist account, some of that evidence comes from the Times itself in a story the paper published on October 29, 2012.
That story, like this latest one, was a major front-page investigative piece. It reported that “American officials” said the Benghazi attacks “included participants from Ansar al Shariah, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt.” So according to previous reporting in the Times, the Benghazi attacks included participants from the main al Qaeda affiliate in Libya and a terrorist network in Egypt, and, contrary to Kirkpatrick’s assertion, evidence that both al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups played some role in the assault. Kirkpatrick was presumably aware of that earlier report, since he was credited with contributing reporting from Benghazi.

Please read the whole item but it makes clear the Time is full of shit this go-round. And today in the Daily Beast this:
YES, There IS Evidence Linking al Qaeda to Benghazi:

On Sunday, The New York Times published an investigation that concluded al Qaeda played no role in the September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. For Democrats, this was welcome news considering the bruising investigations into the attack from Republicans in Congress. The piece was trumpeted by the progressive non-profit, Media Matters in a blast email as “bad news for Benghazi Hoaxers.”

But two members of the House intelligence committee, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Adam Schiff, told Fox News on Sunday that U.S. intelligence assessments concluded al Qaeda did play a role in the attack. While no Republicans have asserted the Benghazi attacks were planned in a manner similar to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, evidence has emerged in the last year that does show the participation of militias and fighters with known ties to al Qaeda.

What about the Pentagon report that refutes the Times report:

And in an item in the Washington Times, it states the obvious: the NYTimes is engaged in a desperate attempt to rewrite history in order to get Hillary elected.

LET US BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS: if getting the first woman into the oval office requires a NYTimes Cover-Up on behalf of Al Qaeda, then no fucking thanks. This writer has not made up her mind about Hillary in 2016, but is more inclined to see a Republican in the White House in 2016, hopefully a female Republican. But all that aside, is anything worth losing what makes a Democracy run? No Hillary, not even for you.

Tomorrow we will write about another total flip in their reporting by those desperate “journalists” wishing to make Obama look good and cover up his lies.




The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that key conclusions of a recent New York Times investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack are wrong.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/195327-...
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Forget gangnam style. Barack

Forget gangnam style. Barack likes it Stasi Style.

lol some smart person ought


some smart person ought to make a Stasi-Style dance video featuring Obama spying up girls shorts and looking back at a young dude typing into his computer!

another good



The crazy Democrat editor Rosenthal is standing by the paper 's political action story meant to bale out Odummer and Mrs. Clinton.

lol the nyt is so gone over

lol the nyt is so gone over the edge

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.