THE NEW YORK TIMES: COVERING FOR OBAMA. AGAIN.

Yesterday an al-qaeda affiliated group took over Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq.

But according to President Obama al qaeda is virtually decimated, and Iraq is going to do just fine without any US troops there, not even a residual force to help prevent things like this from happening.

So what does the front-page story about Mosul tell us?

From Suadad Al-Salhy and Alan Cowell\’s article:

AfterCapture of Mosul, Militants Extend Control in Iraq

BAGHDAD- In a lightning advance, Sunnimilitants who overran the northern Iraqi city of Mosul havepressed south toward Baghdad, occupying facilities in the key oilrefining town of Baiji and seizing the city of Tikrit, securityofficials and residents said Wednesday

Do you see any mention of al-qaeda?

Nope.  And you won\’t see it in the entire rest of the article either.  They are called “insurgents” and “militants”.  al qaeda may be in control of Mosul, it is nowhere to be seen in the New York Times..

By contrast, read this excerpt from Nic Robertson and Laura Smith-Spark\’s article for cnn.com:

American-trainedIraqi government forces fled in the face of the onslaught by thefighters, believed to be from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, anal Qaeda splinter group also known as ISIS and ISIL. The militantsnow control most, if not all, of the city.

What would you conclude, other than that the facts of what happened make Barack Obama and his administration look ridiculous, so the New York Times has declined to publish the facts?

This is the paper of record?  Are you kidding me?