Then, why would the New York Times spend that much effort and ink trying to make the point that it wasn’t Al Qaeda who murdered Americans in Benghazi? Why not a story actually defending Hillary Clinton?
I don't think the NYT's intention was to "prove" anything or defend anyone (at least not openly). I think their goal is to confuse and fatigue the public until they don't want to hear about it any more. They're saying the Benghazi attack might have been a spontaneous riot of non-aligned common street people (who just happened to be carrying mortars, incendiary explosives and shoulder-launched missiles), not a premeditated attack by a Terrorist organization. They're saying we'll never know. What difference does it make? Let it drop.