The recent New York Times report alleging that the Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans is nonsense.  In my opinion is an attempt by the White House to use the media to provide an excuse for the failure of the administration to provide protection for the ambassador by downplaying the cause of the attack.

It is sheer nonsense because protestors don’t carry mortars and machine guns. The accuracy of the mortar attack hitting key defensive positions demonstrated a pre-planned attack.  It was obvious from testimonies given before Congress that it was a military style attack and not some demonstration.

Why would demonstrators use a military style attack to protest an anti-Muslim video?  It defies reason.  If it was an anti-Muslim film protest why wasn’t there any Muslim group claiming that was the reason?  The anti-Muslim film excuse was the claim of the Obama Administration after it failed to send in any rescue force to save the Ambassador Stevens.

This certainly seems to also be a pre-2016 election ploy to remove the stigma of Hillary Clinton’s lack of action to save the Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi.  The New York Times has already begun the campaign to prepare the way for Hillary’s bid for the presidency through this outrageous story.



About camden41

Retired public school administrator Retired history professor: Taught Western Civilization, American Civil War, United States History, Economic History, Ancient & Medieval Foundations, American History Since 1945
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s