State Dept Kills New York Times Lie About Al Qaeda and Benghazi

Hillary Rodham Clinton

The New York Times produced a hoax report claiming that Al Qaeda was not involved in the Benghazi attack and that the whole thing had been set off by a YouTube video. It was a little like reading the paper claim that the earth was flat.

Ironically, the Times ran its Benghazi hoax report to protect former State Department boss Hillary Clinton. But now even the State Department is preparing to shoot down the scam report according to the Washington Post.

U.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Militiamen under the command of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah, participated in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, U.S. officials said.

The State Department is expected to tie Qumu’s group to the Benghazi attack when it designates three branches of Ansar al-Sharia, in Darnah, Benghazi and Tunisia, as foreign terrorist organizations in the coming days.

Qumu and two other men, militia leaders Ahmed Abu Khattala and Seif Allah bin Hassine, will be identified as “specially designated global terrorists,” a determination that allows U.S. officials to freeze their financial assets and bar American citizens and companies from doing business with them.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the developments.

No mention of the dreaded YouTube video of doom either because this is a professional report, not a PR exercise for Hillary 2016.


  • truebearing

    Now Obama’s State Department has removed Hillary’s last fig leaf, not to mention its own, by admitting that the Bin Laden named Ansar al-Sharia is a terrorist group, and responsible for Benghazi. Why would they suddenly become honest now?

    Ta-Da! It’s the new and improved blame Bush campaign! Brilliant. This can’t fail.

    Or maybe this is the beginning of Obama campaigning against Hillary, and eventually the Republican candidate, in an attempt to convince the nation that no one but himself is qualified to help us through the disaster he created.

    • ZZ

      Of course they’ll blame Bush. He’s their go to target for blame. The public nows al qseda eas involved so they cant try to conceal that particular truth any longer. It’s on to new lies from them, and when those are exposed, they’ll come up with yet more to cover the last ones. Serial lying is a never ending cycle.

  • JT Shroyer

    1. Over 50 people died from embassy/consulate attacks under George Bush’s Presidency. Where was the Republican outrage over that?

    2. The nonpartisan Accountability Review Board did not find Hillary Rodham Clinton responsible for the Benghazi attacks.
    3. Republicans cut millions and millions of dollars in “embassy security.” Cuts that Hillary Clinton called “detrimental” to our security overseas.
    4. The Obama Administration did not “cover-up” the Benghazi attacks. Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen told Senator Joe Lieberman that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack”. This was only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk-shows. Therefore, this would have to be the shortest “cover-up” in history.

    Senator Joe Lieberman: “Let me begin by asking you whether you would say that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans died as a result of a terrorist attack.”

    Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen: “Certainly on that particular question I would say, yes. They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”

    5. Hillary’s quote, “What difference, at this point, does it make” has been taken out of context. Hillary was referring to the Republican’s obsession with what Susan Rice said, not Benghazi itself. We now know the intelligence communities talking points that Susan Rice presented were incorrect. But to accuse the Administration of intentionally lying (when Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen called it a “terrorist attack” only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows) is dishonest.
    6. The reason the YouTube video was cited as a possible reason for Benghazi is because violent protests had been erupting throughout the Middle East when Benghazi took place. Some of the protests had to do with the YouTube video, which is why it was originally thought Benghazi was also related to the YouTube video.

    • truebearing

      Buy a dictionary and study the definition of “fact.” Your attempt to create them is pathetic.

  • Curtis Ruuska

    also like the little plug about youtube, so let me guess now, they gonna go after changing laws to be able to sensor it, you watch.