Hillary And Christie: A Bridge Too Far

If there ever was a scintilla of doubt about the American media's blatant bias, look no further for proof than The New York Times' coverage accorded New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over recent months.

Both politicians landed on The Times front pages after scandals threatened to weaken their nascent presidential chances.  However, in the case of Clinton the apparatchik media has tried to cover up the Benghazi conspiracy that may yet torpedo her presidential campaign before it lifts off the launch pad.

On the other hand, the rotund governor has been vilified in The Times after charges surfaced that his administration plotted closures of access lanes to one of the nation's busiest bridges.  Swirling allegations claimed the episode was political payback to a mayor who refused to endorse Christie.

After the news became public, an angry Christie fired his deputy chief of staff, who allegedly orchestrated the closures.  The governor publicly apologized and he repeatedly denied knowing anything about the plan concocted by his deputy.

The New York Times erupted in indignation. Christie became a target of its investigative reporters and fodder for its opinion columnists. The Times hinted at a cover-up and labeled the governor a bully. The self-anointed "newspaper of record" fished for allegations, prompting Christie to castigate its "sloppy reporting."

Just for the record, no one died as a result of the lane closures. No one was injured.  Traffic was snarled and thousands of New Jersey residents were late for work, missed appointments or arrived late for dinner.  No matter how minor the consequences, the Christie administration deserved its media black eye.

By comparison, Clinton has skirted any blame for the deaths of four Americans on September 11, 2012, in a murderous attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.  In fact, she has steadfastly refused to clear up conflicting reports about what happened that night even though her department had responsibility for the embassy.

During her appearance before a House committee, Clinton famously stiff-armed Republicans when they pressed her on the administration's claims the deadly attacks were sparked by a spontaneous protest.  A flustered Clinton pouted, "What difference at this point does it make?"

Despite obvious security lapses at the embassy and Clinton's misrepresentations of the facts, The Times has buried its head in the sand.  There have been no Clinton investigations.  Neither has anyone been fired from the state department for dereliction of duty or for ignoring pleas to beef up embassy security.

The same New York Times that has crucified Christie tried to whitewash the Benghazi episode in an editorial posted online on December 30.  The newspaper said its faux investigation turned up "no evidence" that Al Qaeda or another terrorist group had any role in the assault.

The newspaper resurrected the counterfeit claim that the mob's motivation was "fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."  The writer scolded Republicans for their "obsessive effort" to discredit Clinton. The editorial signaled the paper was drawing the curtains on its Benghazi coverage.  

Less than a month after its sermonizing, The Times' investigation was thoroughly discredited when Fox News revealed that General Carter Ham told a House Committee that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was informed immediately on September 11 that the embassy attack was carried out by terrorists.

A transcript of General Ham's testimony, whose command included Libya, shows he told the committee that it was known "very quickly" that the ruckus at the embassy was "not a demonstration."  He labeled the deadly incident a "terrorist attack."

Despite the contradiction, Clinton has remained mum on the subject. However, she obviously is starting to feel the heat.  The former Secretary of State was heckled last week about Benghazi during a speech at the University of Buffalo.  At another appearance, she called the attacks "my biggest regret," but ducked any responsibility.

Meanwhile, the lapdog Times continues to hound Christie, now accusing him of lying about his knowledge of the bridge closing.Taking a page from the Clinton playbook, a sullen Christie should whine, "What difference at this point does it make?"  Surely, The Times will stand down as it did with Clinton.

Fairness and objectivity were once pillars of American journalism, including at the formerly venerable New York Times.  Now they are bridges too far for The Times and its partisan apostles in the media.