New York Times tries hard to spin it positively for Hillary. New York Times fails.
If you’re the New York Times, and you’re deep in the tank for Hillary, you can only defend her total incompetence by holding her to a very low standard. For instance, when someone really looks into the job she did and finds that it was inept and terrible in every way, you might pull out this one hopeful nugget: At least they didn’t find any new evidence that she engaged in criminal activity!
That’s how the Timesmen managed to justify the headline that reads: House Benghazi Report Finds New New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton:
Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.
So the Times leads with the best spin it can possibly come up with to cover Hillary’s ass. But as The Hill tells us, the fullness of the report is a devastating indictment of Hillary’s performance as Secretary of State, and of just about everyone else in the Obama Administration concerning the decisions that led up to this attack, and the actions taken in its aftermath:
Clinton and other officials did not adequately heed concerns about the growing extremism in Benghazi and other parts of Libya, the report concluded.
“It is not clear what additional intelligence would have satisfied either [Undersecretary of Management Patrick] Kennedy or the secretary in understanding the Benghazi Mission compound was at risk — short of an attack,” the report claimed.
“The intelligence on which Kennedy and the secretary were briefed daily was clear and pointed—Al Qa’ida, al Qa’ida like groups, and other regional extremists took refuge in the security vacuum created by the Libya government and its inability to take command of the security situation.”
After the violence occurred, the report accuses her of knowing that it was sparked by extremist militia members but nonetheless blamed it on an anti-Muslim video responsible for other protests.
The day after the violence, Clinton told Egypt’s prime minister that U.S. officials “know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.
All that we’ve known for a long time, of course. Hillary and the rest of the administration concocted this YouTube video nonsense so as not to acknowledge seven weeks before an election that Al Qaeda was indeed capable of striking us, far from the delusional Obama claim that they were “on the run.”
This much, however, is new:
Military orders also appeared to have gotten lost or misinterpreted on their way down the chain, the report claims.
And details were lost about which responsibilities fell to the Pentagon, which were in the hands of the State Department and who — if anyone — needed to be evacuated.
“The response to the attacks suffered from confusion and misinformation circulating between the agencies,” the report claims, “underscoring that no one effectively took charge of the U.S. government’s response.”
Troops remained motionless for hours after then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ordered forces deploy to the scene of the violence.
At one point, a platoon of U.S. Marines changed into and out of their uniforms four different times as they waited to be deployed, due to changing orders about “the image that would present” of having uniformed U.S. forces marching through the city.
The media have claimed for some time that reports of a stand-down order have been “debunked.” But have they? At the very least, this new revelation shows that the response was haphazard and indecisive, and there was clearly not anyone clearly in charge who was prepared to give strong and decisive orders about what needed to be done. Is it that hard to understand why someone on the ground felt it amounted to little more than a stand-down order?
So if the report tells us nothing “new” about Hillary’s criminality, and it also tells us nothing new about the incompetence of the government’s response to Benghazi . . . so what? The old facts are just as bad as they were four years ago, and just as relevant. The Obama White House – including Hillary – botched this situation and lied about it without the slightest hesitation or remorse. They never cared at all about the security of the personnel on the ground in Benghazi until their deaths became a political problem for them.
That is the kind of human being Hillary Clinton is. A horrible one. Lately her campaign has been trying to say it’s more important than ever to elect her because she offers “firm and steady leadership.” BS. She offers the same thing she offered on September 11, 2012: Incompetence and dishonesty. That, the Benghazi committee demonstrated beyond any dispute.
Elect this woman, America, and you will deserve what you get. But I won’t. Do don’t.