#BENGHAZI – NY Times Spin, GITMO and Boehner

At the end December, I ran down updates that included multiple stand down orders revealed in the closed-door hearings that went on. This month, among other updates, we have the NY Times trying to revive the blame on the YouTube video, GITMO detainee involvement and Boehner being accused of blocking the investigation.


The New York Times is out with a revisionist account of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. The Times says that in months of investigating, it “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” The Times also claims that the attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

I suspect that the Times story tells us more about Hillary Clinton’s assessment of the threat Benghazi poses to her likely 2016 run for president than it does about what happened in Benghazi. But to the extent that the Times story is viewed as shedding a new, different light on the Benghazi, perhaps the House should hold new hearings on the attack.

The Times bases its claim that neither al Qaeda nor any other international terrorist group had a role in the attack on its view that Ansar al-Shariah is a “purely local extremist organization.”


In a nutshell the Times is really saying, “Hillary 2016 –  What difference does it make?” It makes this difference. None of the questions have been answered by this administration. Reminder: Obama Linked Benghazi to Video 3 Days After CIA Eyewitnesses Confirmed No Protest There

Related Reads:

Within a week, the NY Times narrative was dismantled as it was announced the U.S. was seeking an Al Qaeda operative for their role in Benghazi.

The identification of Jamal as an al Qaeda member linked to the Benghazi attack contradicts a recent New York Times investigative report that concluded there was no evidence al Qaeda or foreign terrorists were behind the Benghazi attack that is currently the subject of several congressional inquiries.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment when asked if al Qaeda is linked to the Benghazi attack.

A FBI spokesman declined to comment. An Egyptian Embassy spokesman declined to comment on whether Jamal remained in Egyptian government custody and referred to a State Department press release of Oct. 7 that said that Jamal had been arrested by Egyptian authorities in November 2012.

Washington Free Beacon


Two days ago, it came to light that the U.S. was also now looking for a former GITMO detainee in connection to Benghazi.

A former Guantanamo Bay detainee is suspected by U.S. officials of being involved in the deadly Benghazi attack and his group may soon be designated as a foreign terrorist organization, officials familiar with the situation told the Washington Post.

According to U.S. officials, who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity, militiamen following orders from Abu Sufian bin Qumu — leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah — participated in the attack which claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The Blaze

More at the Washington Post.


Benghazi attackers said to carry Ansar al-Sharia banner http://t.co/nLTW4gD8aL

— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) January 9, 2014


Two items that never seemed to hit the news cycle were the detaining of Americans in Benghazi and Tripoli. Funnily enough, the NY Times reported on the second one.


On Monday, family members of those murdered in Benghazi, along with 75 other military and conservative leaders, delivered a letter to Speaker Boehner that was highly critical of the ongoing investigation.


To date, five (5) different committees of the House have conducted separate hearings, uncovering information in a piecemeal fashion lacking professional investigators.  The five committees’ efforts are disjointed and uncoordinated.  The Obama administration has benefited from that dysfunctional process to hide the truth.  Hardly any Obama administration witnesses have testified – publicly or privately.  You have resisted repeated calls for the creation of a select investigative committee with subpoena authority. It appears that you are satisfied to allow that state of investigative incoherence and ambiguity to continue.  The last public hearing by any of the five committees was held in September – four (4) months ago.  The families of the dead who fought valiantly to protect the mission and their families, the survivors, and the American people deserve better from you and your Members of Congress. They deserve the absolute truth from their government. Your failure to get the truth and hold public officials accountable increases the possibility of other repeat attacks and additional failures to defend Americans abroad.

On Sunday, December 29, 2013, the New York Times published a story concerning the Benghazi attacks that directly contradicts the sworn testimony of witnesses who appeared before various committees.

Read the full letter at FrontPage Mag.

The World's Ten Worst Places to Be a Christian
Stop Global Warming! Sign this petition!
  • Walter_Cronanty

    “In a nutshell the Times is really saying, ‘Hillary 2016 – What difference does it make?’” Absolutely correct.

    Remember when Obama said: “…Al Qaeda is nearly defeated…” and “…on the run…”? It now controls more territory than ever and its flag flies over Fallujah.

    I wonder if the NYT will give Obama’s statements the same coverage it gave W landing on the carrier with the “Mission Accomplished” banner….nah, I really don’t wonder that…I know the answer.

    • meg

      Yep. They trumpeted the nyt article but not the new proof that destroys that articlw

  • jim_m

    Oops! Too bad the State Dept just announced that this was an al qaeda op.

    The State Department on Friday for the first time blamed specific groups and militants for the 2012 Benghazi attack, designating them as terrorists — a move that further undermines initial claims the attack was spontaneous.

    The department announced that it was labeling Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi and Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah as terror organizations, in part over their role in the Benghazi attack. It applied the same label to Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, over a separate attack on Americans in Tunis.

    The State Department also labeled as terrorists Sufian bin Qumu, head of the Darnah branch and a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, and Ahmed Abu Khattalah, head of the Benghazi branch.

    “Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya,” the department said. “Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya.”

    Crying shame that leftists can’t help themselves but to continue to lie about this.

    • Brucehenry

      Where in this block quote is the phrase “al qaeda op”?

      • jim_m

        Here you go Mr Troll.

        On 4 October 2012, the United States State Department amended its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations to designate Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen as an alias for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, rather than listing it as a separate organisation. On the same day, the group was also listed by the United Nations 1267/1989 Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee.

        Is there any lie that you will not promote to protect your lord and savior, obama? Even his state department says that this was al qaeda, but you are too dishonest to admit this fact.

        • jim_m

          Of course the fact that they flew the al qaeda flag over the consulate was a clue as well.

        • Brucehenry

          No, that’s fine, I accept your characterization in light of this information.

          I was just checking. As I recently re-learned, one MUST carefully fact check every assertion Jim makes to be sure he has read his source material and understands it correctly. In this instance he seems to have done so. Bravo.

          • jim_m

            No. You are just promoting a dishonesty.

          • Brucehenry

            No, as I said I accept as fact that which is demonstrated to be fact. Just making sure you have your facts straight and can demonstrate that your cites mean what you say they mean. You’re doing fine so far today.

          • Brucehenry

            But WAIT!

            Looking at this second block quote I see it refers to Ansar al-Shariah in YEMEN. It also refers to information from October of 2012.

            Yemen is a long way from Libya. Are we talking about the same organization? And October of 2012 seems to me to be something that the State Dept didn’t “just announce.”

          • jim_m

            The ansar groups are all affiliated with each other and are all ideologically aligned.

            also, the House has linked the two organizations. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/house-report-al-qaeda-maghreb-and-al-qaeda-linked-ansar-al-sharia-did-benghazi

            and linked both to Benghazi.

            Once again we see Bruce desperately trying to spin this so obama has no responsibility.

          • jim_m

            Ansar al-Sharia is apparently part of a global rebranding of al qaeda

            The naming trend actually started in Yemen, when al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the powerful and ambitious local al Qaeda branch, established the front group Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen in April 2011. It is possible this was born out of Osama bin Laden’s musings over whether to rebrand al Qaeda. None of the names in the documents captured from the late al Qaeda leader’s compound mentioned Ansar al-Sharia as a potential example, however. More recently, one of the preeminent global jihadi ideologues, Shaykh Abu al-Mundhir al-Shinqiti, put his stamp of approval on the new wave of Ansar al-Sharia groups.

            And more admission from al qaeda itself

            While the other Ansar al-Sharia groups have no known operational links to al Qaeda, the Ansar al-Sharia group in Yemen (ASY) is part of a rebranding effort by AQAP. Shaykh Abu Zubayr Adil bin Abdullah al-Abab, AQAP’s chief religious figure, in April 2011 first voiced this change by explaining that “the name Ansar al-Sharia is what we use to introduce ourselves in areas where we work to tell people about our work and goals.”


          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I see that. Doesn’t prove your assertion.

          • jim_m

            It proves that Ansar is al qaeda. State dept has said that Ansar was involved. State dept denies that al qaeda is involved. Whatever. You can believe and spread their lies as much as you please. It’s what you do.

          • Brucehenry

            Dude, look at the first sentence in your blockquote that follows “And more admission from al qaeda itself:

            “While the other Ansar al-Shariah groups have NO KNOWN OPERATIONAL LINKS TO AL QAEDA…”

            You DO know that Libya is not in the Arabian Peninsula, right?

          • jim_m

            I read that. What it means is that they are independently operated. If you read the whole article it is clear that Ansar was started by al qaeda and is completely ideologically aligned so that there is no meaningful difference.

            Look at substance and stop being a troll

          • Brucehenry

            So, Jim, DID the State Dept, or DID IT NOT, “just announce that this was an al qaeda op”?

          • jim_m

            I already said that it did not mr a-hole. I said that they did say that Ansar did it and I have shown that Ansar is al qaeda and that al qaeda claims so.

            What I have proven is that you are a dishonest liar and willing to believe absolutely anything that the admn tells you even when they say that a group is connected to al qaeda and that group did something but when it did there was no connection to al qaeda.

          • Brucehenry

            Get a globe genius. Yemen ain’t Libya.

            My high school football team was called the Buccaneers. So is Tampa Bay’s NFL team.

            They both played football. Both were even in Florida. They’re not the same organization.

          • jim_m

            It has nothing to do with geography. My link shows that al qaeda claims the Ansar al-Sharia movement. Even if the corrupt admin refuses to admit that al qaeda was involved that doesn’t mean that they weren’t. Also, I see that you have refused to address why the al qaeda flag was flown over the consulate. I suppose that there was no connection with al qaeda.

          • Brucehenry

            Ansar in Yemen and Ansar in Libya may be ideologically aligned, as, I suppose, are pretty much ALL Islamist jihadi groups, but that doesn’t mean they are one and the same organization.

            I don’t know why you have such a problem with that concept. It has been known that this name co-opting thing has been happening at least since Zarqawi started calling his group “Al Qaeda in Iraq” back in 2004. His group had next to nothing to do with Bin Laden’s.

            And it is my understanding that pretty much ALL Islamist jihadi groups use that same black flag.

          • jim_m

            And it is my understanding that pretty much ALL Islamist jihadi groups use that same black flag.

            Ignoramus and liar.



          • Brucehenry

            I can’t be both, Jim. I’m either wrong or lying but not both LOL. If I’m wrong so be it.

          • jim_m

            Was that finally an admission that you were wrong?

            And yes you can be both ignorant and deliberately lying, they are not mutually exclusive. You are ignorant for thinking that such an obvious lie would not be called out.

            Now how about explaining how al qaeda flew their flag over a consulate that they did not have any involvement in taking.

          • Brucehenry

            My buddy has a Mexican flag in his truck that he displays in an ironic fashion. Doesn’t make him a Mexican.

            I have a 48-star American flag I was given that was my father’s. Doesn’t make me a WW2 vet.

            Did it ever occur to you that these terrorists may have flown the al qaeda flag to, oh I don’t know TERRORIZE chickenshits like yourself?

            You geniuses are always telling me all about Taqqiya. Any chance of that applying here? Let me guess — no fucking way.

          • jim_m

            I see, doesn’t your bullshit argument on geography apply that your buddy in Mexico has nothing to do with al qaeda ops in Libya?

            Taqqyia is lying about your intentions in order to deceive your opponent and gain an advantage. Lying about this would mean that we focus more energy on countering islamic fascism which would be counter the the concept.

            The flag was flown by al qaeda supporters and/or members. We already know that al qaeda is a loose association so your demands that there be some concrete hierarchy within their organization is another attempt at creating a lie.

            I see that you are the brave man calling people chicken from the safety of your keyboard. Weren’t you just making that criticism of others last week you hypocritical troll? If you are going to call people chickenshits then don’t complain when I called you a coward for far better reason last week.

          • Brucehenry

            My buddy lives here in NC. He sometimes displays the Mexican flag in his truck in an ironic fashion. I’m not real sure what his point is.

            I retract the word “chickenshit” and apologize for questioning your physical courage. For all I know you’re just as much a he-man as you claim to be here on Wizbang, that is true.

            My point is that anyone can fly a flag. I’m pretty sure that al qaeda would want as many people flying its flag as possible.

            And I agree with you that al qaeda is a loose organization. Nowadays it is SUCH a loose organization that, in my opinion, making claims about “links” and “ties” and “affiliations” to al qaeda is practically meaningless.

            Which makes your hair-on-fire pronouncements about al qaeda yada yada here all the more ludicrous.

          • jim_m

            They are only hair on fire pronouncements to appeasers like you who think that if we only get to know them better they will be our friends or that they have no interest in killing people or worst yet that they don’t exist.

            That’s where you come from.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh is that what I think? I did not know that I thought that.

            Please quote me saying anything like that, here or anywhere else.

            Just kidding, you are making shit up again hahaha. But I’M the troll, lol.

          • jim_m

            I report what I see.

          • Brucehenry

            And the fact that you so often see things, like “words” or “comments,” that aren’t visible to anyone else is of no concern, I get it.

            I’ve wasted enough time here for now. It’s rainy here but I can still go to the gym. I’ll check here in a couple of hours to see if you’ve said anything worth responding to.

          • jim_m

            Everything I write is worth responding to. OR so you have demonstrated.

          • jim_m

            What a fatuous argument.

            This is why you are now a troll. I show you an article explaining how Ansar al-Sharia was created by al qaeda and you then deny that all their affiliates are related. What crap.

          • It’s not like they hand out legit franchise documentation.
            Ansar Al Sharia is Al Qaeda tied.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I see in your link that THE REPUBLICAN STAFFS of several committees (not “the House”) produced a report that it says establishes “links” and “affiliations” between Ansar al-Shariah and al qaeda back in April of 2013.

            That’s all fine and good, but doesn’t make true the assertion that “The State Dept just announced that this was an al qaeda op.”

            This is what I mean, Jim. You make one statement and when confronted with the fact you have made a false assertion, present proof of something else.

            I don’t doubt that, depending on what one means by “linked” or “affiliated” it can be said that Ansar al-Shariah and al qaeda share “links” and”affiliations.”

            My quibble is with your assertion that the “State Dept just announced that this was an al qaeda op.”

            IT DIDN’T.

          • jim_m

            Read the next one where al qaeda says that they started these organizations for the purpose of rebranding their organization.

          • jim_m

            Fair enough. The state dept declares that Ansar is al qaeda and that it did Benghazi but al qaeda had nothing to do with Benghazi.

            I am sure that you see no problem with that lie. But then you are all about lying to support your leftist ideology.

          • Brucehenry

            The State Dept didn’t declare Ansar is al qaeda, the Republican staffs of some House committees did.

          • jim_m

            State dept said that Ansar in Yemen is al qaeda, but the others are all affiliates to that group, which was formed by al qaeda.

            You figure it out. They are al qaeda until it becomes politically expedient for the admin to deny that they are.

          • Brucehenry

            So I ask you again: Where in this block quote does the State Dept announce this was an “al qaeda op”?

            Because look at what noted leftwing rag The Blaze says in the seventh paragraph of this article:


          • jim_m

            Nope the state dept s spinning madly to avoid any culpability. It says that Ansar al-Sharia is al Qaeda but it say s that al qaeda had nothing to do with Benghazi.

            I suppose that makes sense in your feeble mind while you are trying to square how obama’s ineptness had nothing to do with it.

          • Brucehenry

            All that paragraph proves to me is that your statement in this thread that “The State Dept just announced that this was an al qaeda op” is FALSE.

            And that you refuse to admit it was false.

          • jim_m

            I have already done so but you cannot read.

          • Brucehenry

            No you haven’t you snarked about it in an attempt to weasel out of it (The State Dept declares Ansar is al qaida yada yada), yet you call ME a troll. LOL.

          • Brucehenry

            I’d rather suffer from an inability to read than from an ability to read things that aren’t written.

          • jim_m


          • Brucehenry

            So your definition of “troll” is NOT “one who makes false assertions and then questions the patriotism and integrity of those who point out the falsity” but instead it is “one who points out the falsity.”

            I see.

          • jim_m

            I made an assertion that was not explicitly true, which I have admitted. Admission of error is something you never do.

            You have in the last few months become a profligate liar in support of this corrupt admin. That is what has made you a troll. You refuse to admit that Ansar is connected to al qaeda even thoug I post a link that shows exactly that and that al qaeda claims to have started the Ansar al-Sharia movement as an attempt to rebrand their movement.

            But you refuse to admit this. You refuse to admit that because you have not received permission to do so from your admin masters.

          • Brucehenry

            Does “I made an assertion that was not explicitly true” mean the same thing as “I lied,” or does it mean “I blurted something without knowing what I was talking about?”

            It’s one or the other I suppose.

            No, Jim, pointing out that you have repeatedly done one or the other of those two things doesn’t make me a troll. And attempting to bully and name-call your way out of it isn’t the answer.

            The answer is either “Don’t lie” or “Don’t blurt shit out without knowing what you’re talking about.”

          • jim_m

            The number of posts that I have made errors in is tiny compared to the total. You know this to be true.

            I admit my errors, which is also something you never ever do. You haven’t denied that either.

          • Brucehenry

            You never admit error without qualification and without a “you’re worse” popped in there somewhere.

          • meg

            The times no alqueda link or Link to any GLOBAL TERRORIST. The state department statement says that is FALSE!!!!! the state also proves the guy trained under bin Ladin. So your word play does not matter. HE IS A GLOBAL TERRORIST so that contradicts the nyt article