Kraphammer reveals his hand when he claims that the Times is "protecting Hillary Clinton," and not, interestingly, President Obama, who still has a second term to complete. Why the specific focus on Clinton? Easy: after the 2012 election, with Secretary Clinton in a commanding lead to win the Democratic nomination in 2016, Benghazi! BENGHAZI!! became the "issue" for the Rethugs to try to take their likely opponent down. First the 60 Minutes Benghazi "story" was exposed as a fraud, and now the Times' dismantlement of the right wing's case. What's a hack propagandist like Charles Kraphammer to do but attack the messenger?
BONUS: Here's yesterday's New York Times editorial commenting on the reaction to its investigation's findings (our emphasis):
The report concluded that the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and other support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and that it was fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
(photo: Playtime's over, Chuck)In a rational world, that would settle the dispute over Benghazi, which has further poisoned the poisonous political discourse in Washington and kept Republicans and Democrats from working cooperatively on myriad challenges, including how best to help Libyans stabilize their country and build a democracy. But Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.
