All The News That's Fit To Print

During the past week, I've been reading some articles and columns out of The New York Times. I used to read all the Times columnists back when they still had Bill Safire on staff as a token conservative. But then they switched to Times Select, which was a failed attempt at a pemium on line subscription. And then they replaced Safire with faux conservative David Brooks, who I consider a cancer on the conservative movement. So reading Dowd and Rich et al, was interesting. Actually it was the comments that I found so interesting. that's because the columns and articles that I am reading there are about either Benghazi or thew targeted IRS audits of Tea Party type organizations. See, the Dems are dead wrong on both issues, and have been caught red handed.So what's interesting is both the take of the columnist, making sure he or she doesn't appear to be glossing over wrong doing by Democrats, while also insuring that no lasting damage ( defined as a shelf life that extends into 2016 ) befalls one Hillary Clinton.

So far the pattern seems the one where the columnist takes on the wrong doing in a way that either minimizes the bad aspect, or declares that it is nothing more than Republicans conducing a witch hunt. So for instance Maureen Dowd chooses to write about Benghazi, but she write strictly about the aspect of not sending a rescue team and being unprepared for a terrorist attack that should have been anticipated. This is a little like writing about the burglary aspect of Watergate. The fact is, Richard Nixon didn't plan or even know about the attempt to place a listening device in Democrat headquarters. Had he not jumped in knee deep to try and save the burglars he would probably not have ended up resigning from office. Everybody knows it was the cover up that did him in. And the story on Benghazi is all about the cover-up. Or rather, the disinformation campaign Obama and Clinton ran. It's somewhat ironic that Frank Rich declared that Benghazi was no Watergate. He was taking the tack that this is much ado about nothing. But nobody died at Watergate.

But the real treat has been in the comments section, coming from the true believers amongst readers of the NYT. There are two and only two, types of comments on these columns. The first type is from your little brother, it's called "He started it!" This guy will post facts that "counter" the wrong doing with a Republican deed of equal or worse skulduggery. They will not, under any circumstances, even address the mealy mouthed criticism the writer directs at a Democrat. The other path is to faintly criticize the logistics but not even mention the cover up. So they will criticize Obama for not beefing up security, but then unload on Republicans blaming them and the sequester cuts for the lack of security. There is a complete lack of ability to see Democrats in any kind of negative way.

Then Obama put the cherry on it when, after sonewalling on the matter for eight months, refusing to answer any questions about it because they were busy "gathering facts" so that they would know "exactly" what went on, he complained that Republicans were dredging up Benghaazi "again," as if it was a settled issue.