Eleanor Holmes Norton brings the funny: 'Objective' NYT vindicates White House and Susan Rice

Doug P. | 7:03 PM on December 30, 2013

Over the weekend, a lengthy report in the New York Times concluded that the attack in Benghazi was largely caused by anger over a controversial YouTube video, and also that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack. After the NYT report was published, Darrell Issa, along with a Democrat congressman, both said that intelligence does indicate Al Qaeda involvement in the attack. Issa also contended that he’s seen no evidence indicating that anger about the YouTube video provided the spark for the attack.

Not so fast on calling “case closed” just because the “objective” NYT said so.

https://twitter.com/Shaughn_A/status/417768423586664450

https://twitter.com/MarineReconDad/status/417777866537844736

https://twitter.com/hwb120240/status/417782052101292032

If New York Times reports are infallible on the facts then why even bother having congressional committee investigations?