And yet that is precisely what David D. Kirkpatrick's article in the New York Times, which claims there was no al-Qaeda connection to the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9-11-2012, would have us believe.
To believe that the hand of al-Qaeda does not guide, or does not manipulate covertly the action of impassioned radicals, is to believe that the CIA does not ever covertly influence the outcome of any events.
Kirkpatrick and the Times claim that "...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. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam..."
It isn't necessary to even mention the already published claims and assertions by Legislators on both sides of the proverbial "aisle" that discredit the Times' article.
And while there exists plenty of evidence that contradicts the Kirkpatrick claims, there is that one little tid-bit that blows his claims conclusively out of the water, and that is the glaring, underlying detail that al-Qaeda is able to either buy or infiltrate (or both) radical groups in order to accomplish its goals.
What evidence is there to support this?
How about the endless claims by the FBI and its concerns about "home-grown" terrorism.
How about the claims by our own intel operatives of internet recruitment attempts of Americans by, guess who?
Certainly al-Qaeda operates out in the open, but by the very nature of the type of organization that it is, it most definitely operates covertly, and most probably operates covertly to inflame and to manipulate groups not officially affiliated with it.
Only a report by a "journalist" and a "newspaper," with a purpose other than the truth would leave out even the most minute possibility that that could be the case.
Only an account intent on advancing propaganda, and a specific ideological agenda, would leave out the possibility of such pertinent a detail.
The audacity and arrogance of such propagandists, who expect readers to actually believe its blatant falsehoods, reveals political desperation beyond the pale.
Vanguard of Freedom