The Press and Politics Endangering America Again

Once again our politicians are using the media to pervert the truth for political gain; can you guess what the gain is they are trying to get? The article which is raising so much backlash toward The New York Times contradicts what all video, American witnesses, and the facts show about the Benghazi attack but The New York Times states, "Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." What is the purpose of this complete lack of journalistic truth; once again proving you can't believe what The New York Times tells you. Why would "The New York Times" soil their reputation even worse then it already is; what political agenda could make it worth while?

First let's put something to rest, the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack as all the following links will show even the last link from the, you guessed it, "The New York Times".

The New York Times article from 2012 starts, "Militants, firing guns and rocket-propelled grenades, attack the main compound, moving on multiple entrances at once. The main entrance is protected by three armed and four unarmed Libyan guards. No more than seven Americans are in the compound, including three civilians and four who have guns. Mr. Stevens is alone in the main building, according to guards interviewed later. The militants enter the compound, backed by truck-mounted artillery." Is there any civilian people other then terrorist who aren't civilian that would have "rocket-propelled grenades" and "truck-mounted artillery"? No, of course not, so why would they be flat out lying now about what went on in Benghazi?

The truth is the liberal progressive "The New York Times" helps any and liberal progressive politicians and promote this agenda no matter how much it hurts the US and its people. The NYT believes in electing these politicians by any means necessary even if they have to rewrite history as they are trying to do currently to Benghazi. The only reason they would do this is because the collapse of the US economy is close and if it collapses the liberal progressive establishment can user in their socialistic society putting us all under tyranny. 

The only person who would need to be vindicated for their lack of action and leadership before Benghazi and the death of our ambassador would be Hillary Clinton. She is the one who derelict her duty and responsibility for Benghazi costing four Americans their lives, she was the one who let the false stories about a upset mob when she was watching it live and knew it was a perfectly executed terrorist attack, and she was the one who said, "what difference does it make"; ask the four Americans families that question. My deductions are that the NYT and other media outlets are going to have to make Benghazi disappear if Hillary has any chance of becoming the first women president. I hope the American people remember the truth about Benghazi because if Hilary becomes president, the US will be lost and damaged for a very long time, if not destroyed completely; all the liberal progressives want to do is destroy the constitution say they can take any and all your rights, including your freedom and enslave you.

No comments:

Post a Comment