About Me

My photo
This site is the inspiration of a former reporter/photographer for one of New England's largest daily newspapers and for various magazines. The intent is to direct readers to interesting political articles, and we urge you to visit the source sites. Any comments may be noted on site or directed to KarisChaf at gmail.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

The rehabilitation of Hillary Clinton -- By Joseph Curl, The Washington Times

While Hillary Rodham Clinton has all but vanished, hitting the speaker's circuit at $200,000 a pop and bouncing between her two palatial mansions in New York and Washington, the press corps is working overtime to rebuild her tarnished reputation.

First came The New York Times with a lengthy "investigative" piece of the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack. The 7,500-word tome ignored the former secretary of state's role in the deaths of four Americans. What's more, the Times never mentioned Mrs. Clinton — not once — and concluded that the attack "was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam," a White House lie disproved just weeks after the attack.

Then came the canard printed across the world that philanderer Bill Clinton had once had a torrid affair with model Elizabeth Hurley. (How does this help Hillary? Well, it wasn't the trailer park floozies Bubba usually frequented, and what middle-aged woman in flyover America wouldn't understand going head-to-head with a gorgeous woman half her age, and losing?)

The latest: Private journals from a longtime friend (now deceased) in which the former first lady declared that she "was not smart enough, not sensitive enough" to know just how hard everything was for her husband, after all, he's just a man of flesh and blood!

Of course, there's no coordinated effort to rehabilitate Hillary Rodham (that last piece came from the right-leaning Washington Free Beacon). But the steady flow of "news" stories rewriting history is no doubt easing her run for the White House in 2016. And it's 30+ months before Election Day.

In The New York Times piece, reporters conducted "months of investigation" and concluded that there was "no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault" in Benghazi. In fact, the paper once again claimed that anger at an anti-Islam video — posted on YouTube months before the attack — "motivated the initial attack."

Oddly, Mrs. Clinton, in charge of the State Department, is never mentioned. Nor is her months-long refusal to testify before Congress (remember her odd "injury," when she fainted and then was found to have a blood clot?) Nor is there any mention of her furious appearance right before she left her post, when she spat: "What difference at this point does it make?"

The mainstream media long ago decided that there's no there there in the Benghazi story. Instead, they're content to take the official White House line without question (just as they did when they reported just what State said, that the secretary was "fine" after her mysterious fall).

(Click link below to read more)
READ MORE Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment