Yesterday, Andrew Rosenthal, editor of the editorial page at the
New York Times felt the need to
declare the page has not formally endorsed Hillary Clinton for President after the paper's misleading coverage of the Benghazi massacre.
Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton. We have not chosen anyone.
According to Rosenthal, Benghazi is not an issue because it is the fist time an American ambassador was killed in duty in twenty-five years, but because Republicans are playing politics.
For anyone wondering why it’s so important to Republicans that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack — or how the Obama administration described the attack in its immediate aftermath — the answer is simple. The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though Mr. Obama doesn’t take Al Qaeda seriously. They also want to throw mud at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they fear will run for president in 2016.
However, as has been documented, the Times seems to have gone out of its way to ignore evidence of terrorist involvement in the raid, which begs the reverse question: “Why is it so important to Democrats to avoid discussing Benghazi?" From Candy Crowley's unprecedented and egregious defense of President Obama against accusations of misleading the American people
in the middle of a presidential debate to the Times article and Rosenthal's defense of it,
Democrats seem hell bent on changing the narrative on Benghazi, which they fear could harm former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they pray will run for president in 2016.
Someone is certainly playing politics here...