More than a year after four Americans died in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the New York Times has published a story reporting 1) that it found “no evidence that
The idea that Al Qaeda wasn't behind the assault on the U.S. "annex" isn't new. My colleagues Ken Dilanian and Shashank Bengali reported in October 2012 that "intelligence agencies have found no evidence that [the attack] was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya."
But even if the latest New York Times story was too categorical in saying that there was “no evidence” that anyone with Al Qaeda connections was involved, we are still very far from the original Republican narrative that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda operation that gave the lie to President
Flash back to the 2012 campaign. During a debate
Actually, the president said on that occasion that "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." But hair-splitting Republicans said that fell short of labeling the attack an act of terrorism. And they had an eccentric definition of an act of terrorism: "an elaborately planned act of terror attributable to Al Qaeda and unrelated to outrage over the anti-Muslim video."
Even if some of those involved in the Benghazi attack had associations with Al Qaeda or one of the regional terrorist groups that use the Al Qaeda name, the weight of the evidence is that the attack was primarily a local operation.
The independent panel that faulted the
Instead of concentrating on (fairly) criticizing the Obama administration for inadequate protection against such a decentralized threat, Republicans were intoxicated by the notion that Benghazi disproved Obama’s claim that, with the
The 2012 election is history, but some Republicans would like to recycle the original conspiracy theory to bloody