If Getting the 1st female into the Oval Office Requires a NYTimes Cover-Up on Behalf of Al Qaeda, then No F'ing Thanks
Tuesday, December 31, 2013 at 9:03 pm — admin
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:
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.
Then Boom, comes the Times with the ultimate attempt at the Obama SAVE:
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.