05-14-2019 10:57:15 AM -0700
05-09-2019 02:01:30 PM -0700
05-09-2019 10:41:48 AM -0700
04-18-2019 07:46:35 AM -0700
04-18-2019 07:18:40 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


The New York Times Doesn't Have Answers on Benghazi or the IRS Scandal, and Doesn't Want You to Have Answers Too

This may be the most outrageous text to appear in the New York Times since Walter Duranty covered up the Soviet famine.

Two Obama administration scandals have body counts -- Fast and Furious and Benghazi. The second of those featured an administration that lied about the nature of a terrorist attack in order to preserve its ridiculous campaign talking point that "al Qaeda is on the run." For the sake of keeping that talking point alive, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton et al lied about how four Americans died. In order to preserve that talking point, the president et al literally launched an offensive against the First Amendment, culminating in President Obama's declaration before the United Nations that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

No American president who believes in the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech at all should ever utter such a malignant idea.

The administration then took the extra step of arresting a film maker and tossing him in jail for a year on a pretext. In blaming the film maker for Benghazi, Obama et al also cast some blame on Coptic Christians for stirring up unrest across the Middle East. Coptic Christians are among the most vulnerable groups across the region. The Muslim Brotherhood is actively hunting them down and killing them.

There remain a number of unanswered questions from Benghazi. But in an editorial today, the New York Times takes sides against getting any answers at all. Instead, it mocks and militates, comparing the select committee to a "Republican circus" and aligns openly with all of Obama's current talking points --

They won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration.

The NYT  finishes with a flourish, again taking an extreme pro-Democrat position.

Democrats who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a farce.

Similarly, the Justice Department should not press Ms. Lerner’s contempt citation before a grand jury.

It's not all that hard to figure out why the Democrats fear both investigations so deeply. Benghazi offers up the Democrats' callow approach to foreign policy and its disregard for defending Americans around the world who find themselves in war zones. It exposes, among other things, just how large a priority winning elections owns among Democrats over actually doing the hard work of governing. Americans can see that same attitude in Obama himself, who constantly spends his time delivering speeches when he ought to be working with Congress. Additionally, there's always the possibility that there was more going on in Benghazi than anyone in the administration has acknowledged so far. The IRS scandal may expose just how thoroughly the Democrats have weaponized government against citizens, and how high up the orders to crush the Tea Party went. The 2012 election may well deserve an asterisk, as all the president's men and women set about to use the most feared domestic government agency to stomp all over the right of dissent. Lois Lerner surely knows a lot. Why would a newspaper not want her to answer questions? Since when does the media want someone at the center of a scandal not to talk?

Like I said, it's not hard to see why the Democrats fear both scandals so deeply. But why has the New York Times joined in expressing that deep, hysterical fear? Does the old grey lady of the evening have something to hide, too?