New York Times Report Claims 'No Evidence' of al-Qaeda Role in Benghazi Consulate Attack

Look, at this point, who can believe anything on this story? It's a scandal of epic proportions. No one would be better positioned to disprove an al-Qaeda role in Benghazi than the White House, yet it's been a cover-up ever since.

And certainly the New York Times has a vested interest in rehabilitating the Democrats in time for the 2016 election. Who benefits? Hillary Clinton of course.

At Twitchy, "New York Times finds no Al Qaeda link to Benghazi terror attack; ‘fueled in large part’ by video."

.@nytimes investigation of Benghazi would seem to neutralize Hillary Clinton problem, vindicate Rice talking points. http://t.co/kAMBtxIa82
— Jill Lawrence (@JillDLawrence) December 28, 2013

I read the report. It's supposed to be so "complicated" you see. It's impossible for the rubes to understand. But read it for yourself. Pure convenience. A story-line cooked perfectly for a political party on the ropes and about to go down hard. Meanwhile, so much remains unanswered. See the Weekly Standard, for just a start, "Questions They Won’t Answer."