Stunning: NY Times Posts a Completely False Report on Benghazi


On Saturday, the NY Times posted a six-page summary of an “investigation” which alleged that there was no al-Qaeda link to the Benghazi attack and that the video did prompt the attack. Their “investigation” is what we can expect more of as Hillary prepares for her run at the White House.  They aren’t going to bat for Obama in all likelihood, they are protecting Hillary.

The report said that the attackers were fighters ‘who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.’

The report is the result of investigations that included conversations with Libyans and is presented as a direct response to Republican arguments to the contrary. They are shamelessly advocating, not reporting.

The NY Times is using their pulpit to bolster the false narrative spun by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Check out the al-Qaeda flag that flew before, during and after the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi:

The NY Times piece even whitewashed Abu Khattala’s role. Khattala, a suspect named by the FBI, was present in the consulate the night of the Benghazi attack and has been giving interviews to reporters worldwide without any response from the US. The administration has made no attempt to capture suspects or even question them. Perhaps they don’t want the public to hear what the suspects have to say.

The NY Times claimed that the video was in part to blame for the attack despite the fact that all the evidence we have seen to date, and it is substantial, proves that the video had nothing to do with the attack and that the instigators, Ansaria al-Shariah, are al-Qaeda. They are one and the same. Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members were also present in the consulate the night of the attack.

Ambassador Bolton in an appearance on Fox News (video below) comments on Khattala, the video, and he sees the Times article as ‘an editorial opinion piece masquerading as journalism.’

The president of Libya said it was an al-Qaida attack and had nothing to do with a movie:

Gregory Hicks was in Tripoli on 9/11/12 and he said the video was a non-event:

Chairman Issa dealt with the report on Meet the Press Sunday:

video via HotNews

‘”The Pentagon’s own terrorism research agency concluded in August 2012 that “al Qaeda senior leadership” based in Pakistan was “likely seeking to build a clandestine network in Libya as it pursues its strategy of reinforcing its presence in North Africa,”’ according to the Washington Times.

Peter King responded to the report by saying that a claim that anti-American militias led the attack is at best academic. “It’s misleading,” King said, “It’s a distinction without a difference. They are saying that al-Shariah is involved, but al-Shariah is a part of the al-Qaida umbrella, the la-Qaida network,” King said.

“Al Shariah is a pro-al-Qaida terrorist organization,” King added, stressing that the video had nothing to do with the attack. “This was a well-coordinated attack. This was not a ragtag group,” he said.

Rep. Mike Rogers told Fox News Sunday that the attack was clearly an “al-Qaida-led event.”

Rogers said, “There was some level of pre-planning. We know that. There was aspiration to conduct an attack by al-Qaida and their affiliates in Libya. We know that. The individuals on the ground talked about a planned tactical movement on the compound even…That tells me they didn’t talk to people on the ground who were doing the fighting, shooting and the intelligence-gathering.”

Rogers affirmed that Ansaria al-Shariah is affiliated with al-Qaida, without question.

The NY Times will apparently do and say anything to protect Obama and Clinton.

It isn’t only the NY Times. Most of the media has formed a protective circle around Obama and Hillary.

There isn’t much of a free press if the NY Times can put out a blatantly apocryphal account on Benghazi that is being parroted as truth by other mainstream media.


There are few warriors for truth left.

What difference…at this point…does it make?