NY TIMES ACCUSED OF MISLEADING ITS READERS ON BENGHAZI

Sen. McCain says the controversial December 28 story was designed to help Hillary Clinton succeed in her presidential aspirations

There was a time when The New York Times could be counted on to present unbiased reports of the news. That is no longer true. Over the years the Times has become notably biased in favor of liberal causes and politicians. And as Sen. McCain points out, last month’s controversial story of the Benghazi attack on our consulate was distorted to help Hillary Clinton get elected president.

MCCAIN: NY TIMES IS ‘MOUTHPIECE’ FOR HILLARY’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
By Wanda Carruthers

Newsmax
January 17, 2014

The New York Times is the "mouthpiece" for the campaign to elect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton president of the United States, Sen. John McCain charged Friday.

McCain, speaking on Fox News Channel's "America's Newsroom," maintained Clinton “bears responsibility,” for what happened in Benghazi, Libya, because she was secretary of state when a Sept. 11, 2012, attack took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

He questioned why Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, rather than Clinton, appeared on Sunday talk shows following the bombing to explain the incident.

The Times published a controversial story on Dec. 28 claiming there was no evidence of al-Qaida or any other terrorist group being involved in the attack.

But the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report this month that singled out the State Department for its failure to prevent the attack despite intelligence warnings of terrorist activity in Libya.

"No one could look at that article with objectivity, and say it that it's anything but a profound apology, and distortion of facts, on behalf of the administration and secretary of state," McCain said.

The fact that no one at the State Department had been fired or reprimanded over the bombing was also an issue, McCain explained. He said the question remains about who made the decision to release information that claimed the attack was the result of a hateful video.

"There's many things we don't know," McCain said. "We don't know who dictated the final talking points. The conclusion that I've drawn, from everything that I've seen, is that it came from the political arm of the White House."