O'Reilly: NY Times' Benghazi Report Is 'Pure Bull,' Meant to Help Clinton
In his Talking Points Memo Thursday night, Bill O'Reilly went after the "seriously flawed" New York Times report that concluded al Qaeda was not involved in the Benghazi attack.
He called it "pure bull" for the paper to claim that the attack was not "meticulously planned" and was actually a response to an anti-Islam video.
O'Reilly specifically called out the Times reporters for not mentioning a Pentagon report from prior to the attack that highlighted links between Ansar al-Shariah - the group blamed for the attack - and al Qaeda.
The Times report was motivated by a desire to help Hillary Clinton's possible run for the White House, he argued, adding that the paper's "primary goal" is to help progressive causes and politicians.
"I could be wrong [about the Times' agenda], but I'm not wrong about the reporting. It is seriously flawed."
He then went on to discuss the report with Howard Kurtz, host of Media Buzz, and Bernie Goldberg.
O'Reilly specifically called out the Times reporters for not mentioning a Pentagon report from prior to the attack that highlighted links between Ansar al-Shariah - the group blamed for the attack - and al Qaeda.
The Times report was motivated by a desire to help Hillary Clinton's possible run for the White House, he argued, adding that the paper's "primary goal" is to help progressive causes and politicians.
"I could be wrong [about the Times' agenda], but I'm not wrong about the reporting. It is seriously flawed."
He then went on to discuss the report with Howard Kurtz, host of Media Buzz, and Bernie Goldberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment