Speaking on Fox News, former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz ripped apart the New York Times’ assertion that there was no Al-Qaeda involvement in the attack on our embassy in Libya. The Times concludes that the murder of the Ambassador and three other Americans was the direct result of unrest over a video posted on YouTube, a theory first infamously floated by Susan Rice.
“I think there were a lot of omissions. I think that were statements about terrorism that simply didn’t add up.”
Fleitz points out that the article fails to take key intel about Al-Qaeda and how its tactics have changed over the years. The interview highlights the credulous way in which the Times swallows lines not only from the administration but from bad or self-interested actors in country without outside verification. Fleitz notes that Congressman Mike Rogers has access to classified information and facts and intel that the New York Times reporter was not privy to, and calls the evidence for terrorist involvement “overwhelming.”
Is this an attempt to lay cover for President Obama or for Hillary Clinton ahead of her possible presidential run? Why, what on earth would possibly make you think the media might exercise such subterfuge and water-carrying?
(via Daily Caller)