The NY Times has lost all of its credibility. All of it.
Not long ago they made the decision to endorse all of Barack Obama's lies and now has gone fully into the Hillary Clinton tank. David Kirkpatrick's article "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" could be summarized thusly:
Kirkpatrick: "Mr. al Qaeda, were you involved in the Benghazi attack?" Al Qaeda: "No we were not." Kirkpatrick: "Who attacked the consulate?" Al Qaeda: "Hooligans" Kirkpatrick: "Why?" Al Qaeda: "It was that video." Kirkpatrick: "Thank you"
That's pretty much it. It's pathetic and a painfully obvious attempt to vindicate Hillary Clinton. It has been widely slammed by both Republicans and at least one Democrat- those who had access to sources to Kirkpatrick did not and chose to ignore.
Kirkpatrick writes: Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
Then he goes on to say One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.and here's the money line:
Mr. Abu Khattala, who denies participating in the attack, Well, that's that. He just happened to be at the scene of the attack. Thing is, Ansar al-Shariah does have connections to Al Qaeda. --SNIP--