@gabrielmalor This makes me so angry I could spit.—
Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) June 06, 2014
Leave it to The New York Times editorial board to take its slobbering love for Obama to shameful new lows.
In a recent op-ed, the board breathlessly rushed to defend the Obama administration from criticism over the Bergdahl fiasco — by blaming his army unit, in part, for Berdgahl’s alleged desertion.
Read it and seethe:
This duck-and-cover response is the result of the outrageous demonization of Sergeant Bergdahl in the absence of actual facts. Republican operatives have arranged for soldiers in his unit to tell reporters that he was a deserter who cost the lives of several soldiers searching for him. In fact, a review of casualty reports by Charlie Savage and Andrew Lehren of The Times showed there is no clear link between any military deaths and the search. [Note: Michelle Malkin's detailed account of the fallout from Bergdahl's departure would beg to differ.]
And a classified military report shows that Sergeant Bergdahl had walked away from assigned areas at least twice before and had returned, according to a report in The Times on Thursday. It describes him as a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.
If anything, the report suggests that the army unit’s lack of security and discipline was as much to blame for the disappearance, given the sergeant’s history. [Emphasis ours.]
Blogger Melissa Clouthier channeled her righteous anger into giving the NYT the shaming it so richly deserves:
They’re vile. And to anyone who believes the NYT has the faintest clue what it’s talking about, consider this: