With the 2012 elections long past, one would think The New York Times would take a breather from its pro-Obama campaign rhetoric. One would be wrong. Faithful to toe the line for Barack Obama’s narrative, the Times last week came out with an article all but absolving al-Qaida of the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including the ambassador. Instead, the Times blamed – you guessed it – the now-infamous YouTube video. According to the article, “Months of investigation … turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” As we reported extensively last year, however, this directly contradicts the CIA’s conclusion – or, at least, the CIA’s conclusion before the Obama administration rewrote its talking points – that “Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack.”

Nevertheless, defending its tale against accusations of political motivation, the Times claimed that “there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind.” (If this is true, it may be a first in recent history for the Times). Meanwhile, the State Department continues to regurgitate the spin that it has “no indication that core al-Qaida … directed or planned what happened in Benghazi.” Apparently, the date of the attacks, September 11, doesn’t qualify as an indication. We have a feeling there are four dead Americans who might disagree.