Trey Gowdy blasted the Benghazi report by the NY Times, saying that it took them 15 months to learn how to spell Benghazi. And when asked about the video being the cause of the attack, as suggested by the article, Gowdy responds with a question that simply destroys any notion that the video was the cause of the attack:

Zitat

---

The video was translated into Arabic in early September of 2012… What in the world explains the violence in Benghazi prior to the video being translated and released? Our consulate was attacked way before the video was released. The British Ambassador was almost assassinated way before the video was released. The International Red Cross was attacked twice in Benghazi, well before this video was ever released.

So if the video is really the impetus for the violence, what in the world explains the violence prior to the release of the video?

---

BOOM! That’s what you call an argument based on facts and logic, not on political motivations.

But there’s more, including Gowdy asking if you’d know who the Secretary of State was after reading the NY Times article.

Watch:http://therightscoop.com/trey-gowdy-blas...ideo-narrative/

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #3

---

Completely False is the truth about the NYT.

This NYT story has a stench about it. It tells of the absence of truth in the press. That largely unseen video as the cause has been completely debunked. We're now into the Dan Rather TANG phase of journalism where the storyline is held onto as true regardless of the absence of supporting facts.

---