We'll blame it on them anyway

JohnThomas Didymus, based in Lagos, Nigeria, and an anchor for Allvoices, has an Allvoices article from The New York Times about Benghazi:

An extensive New York Times investigation has concluded that there was no al-Qaeda involvement in the 11 September 2012, attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.
The investigation also found no evidence of involvement of other international terrorist groups in the attack. It concluded that the attack, sparked partly by popular anger at a video titled Innocence of Muslims, made in the United States, and which allegedly insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, was led by militiamen who had benefited from NATO support during the struggle to topple the government of Colonel Moammar Gadhafi.
The report on the investigation, written by David D. Kirkpatrick and published in The New York Times on Saturday, was based on extensive interviews with Libyan residents in Benghazi who had knowledge of the circumstances that led to the attack.
According to the Times, the attack does not appear to have been carefully planned, but evidence that the compound had been under surveillance for up to twelve hours before the attack shows that the attack was not totally spontaneous. However, the report said the violence had some elements of spontaneity and was fueled by popular anger over the video that allegedly insulted Islam and the Prophet.
According to the Times, a crowd of people reacting in anger to the video participated in the attack. Others responded to rumors that guards in the US compound had killed Libyan protesters. American officials who viewed footage of the attack and local witnesses said that the mob of looters and arsonists who converged on the compound after the first wave of attack showed no signs of clearly defined goals, direction, or organization.
The new report contradicts allegations by the Republicans that Obama administration officials had attempted to cover up evidence of al-Qaeda involvement in the attack.
For instance, Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had alleged that, "it was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an al-Qaeda-led event."
The Times claims, however, that Republicans had apparently confused local extremist groups such as Ansar al-Shariah with al-Qaeda. According to the Times, the only intelligence linking al-Qaeda with the assault came from an intercepted phone conversation between one of the attackers and a friend in another country with confirmed ties to al-Qaeda. But the friend of the attacker appeared surprised when he learned about the attack, suggesting that he had no prior knowledge of a plan to storm the US compound.
One of the local personalities that US officials identified as a prime suspect in the attack was Ahmed abu Khattala, a local militia leader. However, abu Khattala does not have any known links to al-Qaeda or links to other known international terrorist groups, which explains why he was not being closely monitored by officials at the CIA station in Benghazi.
The Times report says that abu Khattala denied allegations that he took part in the attack, although it is known that he is a major figure among local groups that participated in the attack. The report concluded that the main takeaway from the unfortunate incident is that, given the environment of strong anti-Western feelings in the Middle East and North Africa, members of groups that the US supported in conflicts could still become hostile to the US.
The report suggested that the lesson applies to the situation in Syria, where the US has contemplated providing assistance to rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad.

Rico says it's a hard place to know who your friends are...