Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

December 31, 2013 - 7:26 am

A Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that he read the New York Times piece “six times, and tell me if you can tell who the secretary of State was when Benghazi happened.”

“Because her name wasn’t mentioned a single solitary time in this exhaustive New York Times piece. Not once,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said on Fox.

Asked whether it was clearing the decks for a presidential run by Hillary Clinton, Gowdy quipped, “Oh, heavens no. That couldn’t possibly have been their motivation, would it be, to support a Democrat who was running for the White House? Oh, heavens, no.”

“And the fact that the editor of the New York Times had to explain today that they haven’t yet endorsed anyone for 2016, all you have to do is read the paper, and can you tell who they have endorsed, and what political ideology they have endorsed. But, again, I congratulate them on figuring out that Benghazi happened and that it’s a really big deal.”

NYT editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal wrote a blog post calling this theory by GOPs “hilarious”:

For anyone wondering why it’s so important to Republicans that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack — or how the Obama administration described the attack in its immediate aftermath — the answer is simple. The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though Mr. Obama doesn’t take Al Qaeda seriously. They also want to throw mud at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they fear will run for president in 2016.

Which brings us to one particularly hilarious theme in the response to the Times investigation. According to Mr. Rogers, the article was intended to “clear the deck” for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said today that The Times was “already laying the groundwork” for a Clinton campaign. Other Republicans referred to Mrs. Clinton as our “candidate of choice.”

Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton. We have not chosen anyone. I can also state definitively that there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing about the Benghazi article until I read it in the paper on Sunday.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said he didn’t want to “speculate” on the NYT’s political motives.

“I just am shocked that a major newspaper in the United States would have the same talking points that the administration had the day after the event,” he said.

“I can’t attest to the purity of the New York Times’ piece,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said on CNN. “I just want the truth. You cannot take the New York Times’ piece, lay it before the families and say this is conclusively what has happened.”

“…And for Hillary Clinton, five months after the attack, to suggest what difference does it make? That is highly offensive and not something we are going to forget about. We want the truth so it never, ever happens again.”

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Did anyone expect them to admit their bias?
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe because Chris Stevens asked for additional security at least three times to the State Dept., and all were denied? Or, the fact that Stevens was in Libya coordinating a covert ops with the CIA, and he was an expendable asset? The corrupt Obama administration didn't want anything linked to the White House, so close to election time.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Daily Duranty:

"To suggest that we are unfair to Republicans is just so ridiculous, those lying Republicans just want to tarnish the poor, innocent leftist Democrats and they are racists trying to hurt Obama. Anyone who believes a Republican has proper motives for anything they do can't tell how innocent we are in not having yet supported any candidate or party."

Oh, ok.

You have a despicable traitorous history, Daily Duranty.

You are a pro-Marxist, apologist, conspiratorial rag. But, that doesn't mean we have decided about your intentions on the article...because we didn't react to it until it was published.

We have passed conspiratorial ridiculousness, we have passed treasonous sublime. How these liars can keep a straight face must be getting harder all the time.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (21)
All Comments   (21)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
until I saw the bank draft 4 $4702, I did not believe ...that...my neighbours mother woz like actualy bringing home money part time on their apple laptop.. there uncles cousin haz done this for only and just paid the depts on there villa and purchased a great Citroën 2CV. published here,,,,,,
W­W­­­W­.R­­U­S­­H­6­­4.C­­­O­M
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
MY BELIEF IS THAT AMBASSADOR STEVENS et all DIED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF HILLARY'S POLITICAL AMBITION TO BE PRESIDENT.
According to Gregory Hicks, Stevens was in Benghazi because Hillary wanted to turn the mission in Benghazi into a consulate. In order to do this, Stevens had to write a report about what was needed before the State Dept deadline in September for funding. Again, my belief, Hillary wanted to turn the mission into a consulate so that she could then claim victory in Libya when she runs in 2016. Even with that, her accomplishments as Secretary of State is extremely thin. Apparently, the Times thought so little of the second in command in Benghazi that it didn't even cover Hick's testimony before Congress.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Correction: Hicks was second in command, directly under Stevens, in Libya.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Hilarious" is a lefty code word meaning "true".
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
This may be the most revealing leftist comment of all time:

"I knew nothing about the Benghazi article until I read it in the paper on Sunday"
NYT editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
PIN BENGHAZI ON THE DONKEY.
Hillary Rodham Clinton should, at all times, be referred to as Hillary Benghazi Clinton.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
If Chelsea Clinton announced tomorrow she wanted to be a print journalist, the Times would make her a senior editor on the spot.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
For anyone wondering why it’s so important to Democrats that Al Qaeda didn't orchestrate the attack — the answer is simple. The Democrats hope to tarnish Republican candidates by making it seem as though they fantasized the involvement of Al Qaeda. They also want to shield former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they hope will run for president in 2016.

Questions?
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
The NYT article was 'interesting' - to say the least. The most egregious error on their part was in trying to sell the idea once again that it was a video made in the USA. An idea that even the current admin has admitted wasn't the source of the islamic attack.

All you need to know is that come the presidential election cycle everyone who buys a commercial slot to campaign against HRC will be running a video of her saying "What difference does it make?"

Personally I have serious doubts that she'll make anything close to a decent president. With Bill at her side I am at least somewhat confident that he'll make a few good decisions - decisions that she would not make on her own. Bill Clinton at least made some wise choices - he wasn't a rabid progressive like the loon currently occupying the WH. He may well be a modifying influence on her.

Lets hope we don't have to find out if I'm right.



42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
NYT's failure to mention Hillary's name in its article about Benghazi is obviously a literal cover up.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Did anyone expect them to admit their bias?
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

One Trackback to “NYT Editorial Page Editor Calls Theory That Benghazi Article Was Intended to Help Hillary ‘Hilarious’”