Fox News is in crisis mode after the NY Times published and investigative report saying that Al-Qaeda was not involved in Benghazi attack.
December 30, 2013

Since David D. Kirkpatrick published his six part investigative report on the Benghazi report entitled, A Deadly Mix in Benghazi, Fox News has been on DEFCON-1 and lining up as many conservative Benghazi hoaxers as possible to try and deflect the new report's information.

David Kirkpatrick said this on MTP debunking the al-Qaeda myth:

There is just no chance that this was an al Qaeda attack if, by al Qaeda, you mean the organization founded by Osama bin Laden. Now I've tried to understand some of the statements coming out of United States Congress blaming al Qaeda for this, and the only way that they make sense to me is if you're using the term al Qaeda a little differently.

If you're using the term al-Qaeda to describe even a local group of Islamist militants who may dislike democracy or have a grudge against the United States, if you're going to call anybody like that al Qaeda, then okay. Certainly there were some anti-western Islamist militants involved in this attack. But to me that's a-- that's a semantic difference and not a useful way of answering the original question

That al-Qaeda did mastermind the Benghazi attack has been one of the major contentions Republicans have been using to prop up this phony scandal even though it's not a scandal at all. On the Sunday Talk Shows, Rep. Darrell Issa, the ringleader of the Benghazi Liars Cub was on Meet The Press to try and deflect the new information as much as possible. He looked like a babbling baboon doing it.

REP. ISSA: What we do know is September 11 was not an accident. These are terrorist groups, some of them linked to or self-effacing or self-claimed as al Qaeda linked, but I think David made a-- and before I go on, I wanted to make a very good point that David put out. Look, it is not about al Qaeda as the only terrorist organization any more than Palestinian, Islamic, jihad or Hamas or Hezbollah.

GREGORY: But you-- no, no, but you said repeatedly that it was al Qaeda, and the reason that matters is that…


GREGORY: …you and other critics said the president specifically won't acknowledge it's al Qaeda because it's an election year and he wants to say that after bin Laden, it's been decimated and would make him look bad if it were al Qaeda.

MS. MITCHELL: We still call it the annex. But to the point of why use the-- the term al-Qaeda. Because you and other members of Congress are sophisticated in this and know that when you say al Qaeda, people think central al Qaeda. They don't think militias that may be inspired by bin Laden and his-- and his other followers. So it-- it is a hot button for political reasons from the administration's view.

REP. ISSA: But Andrea, it was accurate. There was a group that was involved that claims an affiliation with al Qaeda. Now, al Qaeda is not a central command in control. It was, in fact, a loose group that could take general statements and act on them.

The NY Times report was so thorough that Rep. Issa was forced to admit that Kirkpatrick did an excellent job in his report.

Next up was Rep. Mike Rogers, who has the dubious distinction of being the most booked man in 2013 on the Sunday Talk shows. He was already scheduled to appear on Fox News Sunday to attack Edward Snowden already so why not include Benghazi.

WALLACE: What did they get wrong?

ROGERS: That al Qaeda was not involved. There was some level of preplanning, we know that. There was aspiration to conduct an attack by Al Qaeda and their affiliates in Libya. We know that.The individuals on the ground talked about a planned tactical movement on the compound even -- this is the compound before they went to the annex. All of that would directly contradict what the "New York Times" definitively says was an exhaustive investigation, tells me they didn't talk to the people on the ground who were doing the fighting, the shooting and the intelligence gathering.When you put that volume of information, I think it proves that story is just not accurate.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you one specific thing. There was one group that everybody says was involved, Ansar al-Sharia. They say it's really an independent radical Islamic group, but it doesn't have links to Al Qaeda.

ROGERS: I dispute that, and I think the intelligence to a large volume disputes that al-Sharia.Now, did they have differences of opinion with Al Qaeda core? Yes. Do they have affiliations with al Qaeda core? Definitely.

Fox News has been having kinipshits over this piece and is now reporting that Kirkpatrick's piece is 'Completely false'.

Fox News host Bill Hemmer led off his segment by saying there was more outrage about the report and had on another Benghazi liar, Rep. Chaffetz to smear it.

NSA hack and former General Hayden was on Fox News too attacking the report vociferously.

Subbing for Bill O'Reilly on Monday evening, Laura Ingraham had on Rep. Mike Rogers to again try and debunk Kirkpatrick's report.

Ingraham: Congressman there's not a lot that takes my breath away in this town after having been here for almost twenty years now, but this certainly took the cake.

...and since it seems so out of sync with what the NY Times has reported why do it? What's motivating it? Is it a bald faced attempt to help Hillary Clinton?

The Fox News talking point is that the NY Times put out a propaganda piece to try and help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election. Are you surprised?

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.