The White House and The New York Times Think American's Are Stupid #Benghazi

Quietly over the weekend the New York Times dropped a three page bombshell on all of our laps. They issued a report that backs Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s original nonsense about the Benghazi attack being caused by a stupid Youtube video. This premise has been debunked time and time again. Therefore the New York Times and The White House must really think the American people are stupid!

From RT:

There is no evidence suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization took part in the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a new report suggests.

The investigation by The New York Times has revealed that it was actually the US-made movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’ that fueled the attack, adding that the assault on the consulate did not appear to be “meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”

The report is based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack and its context.

Months of investigation “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” The Times said. 

At least one ex-CIA official isn’t buying this farce though.

From TheBlaze:

A former analyst for the CIA skewered the New York Times’ bombshell report on Benghazi Saturday, contending that it was a “politicized article” aimed at harming the GOP.

“I thought it was a politicized article,” Fred Fleitz told Fox News. “It tries to say that Anwar al-Sharia — that the Republican attempts to tie that to terrorism is a stretch, when even CNN says they’re at least sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

Fleitz, who worked as a senior analyst at the CIA for nearly two decades before serving in the State Department, added that he thought the article was simply “an effort to revive this discredited theory that the anti-Islam video was behind” the deadly attacks.

“I read this report and I was really incredulous,” he said. “It seems to be an effort to revive this discredited theory that the anti-Islam video was behind it. But when you read behind the article closely, there’s various statements where the author seems to downplay the links to terrorist groups.”

One interesting tidbit did come out of the New York Time’s report though, and that is that the militia group the New York Times said was behind the attack was backed by the CIA.

From Global Research:

The Times article identifies one militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, as a principal figure in the Benghazi attack, although Khattala has admitted only being present outside the building at the time. He also names another militia leader, Abdul Salam Bargathi, head of the Preventive Security Brigade, as the man who told the Libyan guards at the US facility to flee when attacked.

Both these individuals, and many others named in the Times account, worked in close collaboration with the CIA and Stevens personally during the six months of NATO bombing and seesaw fighting that culminated in the overthrow of the Libyan government and the lynch-mob murder of Gaddafi.

These Islamist militants were in many cases veterans of guerrilla fighting in Afghanistan, either as part of the US-backed war against the Soviet army in the 1980s, or in the ongoing war against the US-NATO occupation regime established in 2001. They had fought both for and against the US government, and they were about to change sides again.

Above all else, The New York Times article appears to be a clear attempt at giving Hillary Clinton some cover for a possible 2016 bid for President. That thought was echoed by Rep. Mike Rogers on Fox News Sunday.

From The Washington Times:

An extensive report Sunday in The New York Times casts doubt on Republican claims that al Qaeda played a key role in last year’s deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The article lends badly needed credence to the White House version of events and might remove some of the blame from the former secretary of state’s shoulders as she gears up for a 2016 presidential run.

A top House Republican went so far Sunday as to suggest that there may be a coordinated effort to help Mrs. Clinton — who is widely thought to be seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and leads her Republican counterparts in most polls — escape the shadow of Benghazi.

“I find the timing odd,” Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said of The New York Times piece and its political ramifications during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

Will the American people believe this white wash? In my opinion, yes they will. Why not? They usually believe anything the government tells them as long as it’s through a ‘reputable’ news source like the New York Times. Just look at 9/11…

I for one don’t buy it for a minute. I firmly believe after looking over the evidence that was presented for months during 2013 that it was a terror attack that was allowed to happen to cover up the fact that the CIA was running guns into Syria.

What do you think about this? Has it changed your mind? Let us know what you think in the comments.