NY Times Assumes al-Qaeda Has No Covert Ops?


No self respecting reporter would dare make a claim that there are no al-Qaeda operatives operating within the ranks of "unafilliated" terrorist groups or Jihadi militias.

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





Enhanced by Zemanta

Views: 17

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Frankmusic on December 31, 2013 at 6:04pm

So now the left wing rag, New York Times is to be considered the legal/credible investigatory body of the United States? Their findings are that it must have been the You-Tube video, because some concerned investigators have used the term al Qaeda (incorrectly) to describe the perpetrators. REALLY?? I mean, come on! Who is kidding who?

We're ridiculously arguing about semantics as to what the terrorist group calls themselves? WHY? Did someone at the NY Times check their [the terrorists] library cards and discovered that there wasn't any al Qaeda affiliation stamped on their IDs? Were these murderers less deadly, than al Qaeda, but they function with no club name? This is absolutely criminal!

The regime concocted a fairy tale, Barry lied, Rice lied, Clinton won't testify under oath, 4 Americans were murdered because the insensitive morons did NOT send help. They simply had to hide Barry's international gun running scheme. This is without a doubt, an Impeachable offense.

After all of these mega stupid, costly, bi-partisan hearings, where the hell is the Special Prosecutor on this matter??? When will this be officially addressed as a criminal matter? Why was D. Issa squirming around in his chair during the hack left-wing MSNBC questioning? Apparently they're all just hung up on the word 'al Qaeda'. It's like watching a bad movie with bad actors. This is totally insane!

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage, pnj.com/opinion

ALERT ALERT

YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service