About time, but are they now attempting to throw Obama under the bus as a means of propping Hillary up for 2016-something smells-You Decide:
Posted on Accuracy In Media-By Caroline Glick-On January 6, 2014:
The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy.
Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional.
Indeed, is far from clear that the paper realizes what it has done.
Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000-word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing the terrorist strike against the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.
Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009, speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counterterror strategy and US Middle East policy.
Obama’s first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to appease the radical Muslims).
Obama’s second strategic guidepost is his claim that the only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al-Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force.
The administration has dubbed the Zawahiri faction of al-Qaida “core al-Qaida.” And anyone who operates in the name of al-Qaida, or any other group that does not have courtroom-certified operational links to Zawahiri, is not really al-Qaida, and therefore, not really a terrorist group or a US enemy.
These foundations have led the US to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are the rationale for the US’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide. They are the basis for Obama’s allegiance to Turkey’s Islamist government, and his early support for the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian opposition.
They are the basis for the administration’s kneejerk support for the PLO against Israel.
Obama’s insistent bid to appease Iran, and so enable the mullocracy to complete its nuclear weapons program. is similarly a product of his strategic assumptions. So, too, the US’s current diplomatic engagement of Hezbollah in Lebanon owes to the administration’s conviction that any terror group not directly connected to Zawahiri is a potential US ally.
From the outset of the 2011 revolt against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, it was clear that a significant part of the opposition was composed of jihadists aligned if not affiliated with al-Qaida. Benghazi was specifically identified by documents seized by US forces in Iraq as a hotbed of al-Qaida recruitment.
Obama and his advisers dismissed and ignored the evidence. The core of al-Qaida, they claimed, was not involved in the anti-Gaddafi revolt. And to the extent jihadists were fighting Gaddafi, they were doing so as allies of the US.
In other words, the two core foundations of Obama’s understanding of terrorism and of the Muslim world were central to US support for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.
With Kirkpatrick’s report, the Times exposed the utter falsity of both.
Kirkpatrick showed the mindset of the US-supported rebels and through it, the ridiculousness of the administration’s belief that you can’t be a terrorist if you aren’t directly subordinate to Zawahiri.
One US-supported Islamist militia commander recalled to him that at the outset of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, “Teenagers came running around… [asking] ‘Sheikh, sheikh, did you know al-Qaida? Did you know Osama bin Laden? How do we fight?” In the days and weeks following the September 11, 2012, attack on the US installations in Benghazi in which US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and four other Americans were killed, the administration claimed that the attacks were not carried out by terrorists. Rather they were the unfortunate consequence of a spontaneous protest by otherwise innocent Libyans.
According to the administration’s version of events, these guileless, otherwise friendly demonstrators, who killed the US ambassador and four other Americans, were simply angered by a You- Tube video of a movie trailer which jihadist clerics in Egypt had proclaimed was blasphemous.
In an attempt to appease the mob after the fact, Obama and then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton were filmed in commercials run on Pakistani television apologizing for the video and siding with the mob against the movie-maker, who is the only person the US has imprisoned following the attack. Then-ambassador to the UN and current National Security Adviser Susan Rice gave multiple television interviews placing the blame for the attacks on the video.
According to Kirkpatrick’s account of the assault against the US installations in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the administration’s description of the assaults was a fabrication. Far from spontaneous political protests spurred by rage at a YouTube video, the attack was premeditated. US officials spotted Libyans conducting surveillance of the consulate nearly 15 hours before the attack began.
Libyan militia warned US officials “of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi,” two days before the attack.
From his account, the initial attack – in which the consulate was first stormed – was carried out not by a mob, but by a few dozen fighters. They were armed with assault rifles. They acted in a coordinated, professional manner with apparent awareness of US security procedures.
During the initial assault, the attackers shot down the lights around the compound, stormed the gates, and swarmed around the security personnel who ran to get their weapons, making it impossible for them to defend the ambassador and other personnel trapped inside.
According to Kirkpatrick, after the initial attack, the organizers spurred popular rage and incited a mob assault on the consulate by spreading the rumor that the Americans had killed a local. Others members of the secondary mob, Kirkpatrick claimed, were motivated by reports of the video.
This mob assault, which followed the initial attack and apparent takeover of the consulate, was part of the predetermined plan. The organizers wanted to produce chaos. As Kirkpatrick explained, “The attackers had posted sentries at Venezia Road, adjacent to the [consulate] compound, to guard their rear flank, but they let pass anyone trying to join the mayhem.”
According to Kirkpatrick, the attack was perpetrated by local terrorist groups that were part of the US-backed anti-Gaddafi coalition. The people who were conducting the surveillance of the consulate 15 hours before the attack were uniformed security forces who escaped in an official car.
Members of the militia tasked with defending the compound participated in the attack.
Ambassador Stevens, who had served as the administration’s emissary to the rebels during the insurrection against Gaddafi, knew personally many of the terrorists who orchestrated the attack.
And until the very end, he was taken in by the administration’s core belief that it was possible to appease al-Qaida-sympathizing Islamic jihadists who were not directly affiliated with Zawahiri.
As Kirkpatrick noted, Stevens “helped shape the Obama administration’s conviction that it could work with the rebels, even those previously hostile to the West, to build a friendly, democratic government.”
The entire US view that local militias, regardless of their anti-American, jihadist ideologies, could become US allies was predicated not merely on the belief that they could be appeased, but that they weren’t terrorists because they weren’t al-Qaida proper.
As Kirkpatrick notes, “American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to al-Qaida. The fixation on al-Qaida might have distracted experts from more imminent threats.”
But again, the only reason that the intelligence failed to notice the threats emanating from local US-supported terrorists is because the US counterterrorist strategy, like its overall Middle East strategy, is to seek to appease all US enemies other than the parts of al-Qaida directly commanded by Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Distressingly, most of the discussion spurred by Kirkpatrick’s article has ignored the devastating blow he visited on the intellectual foundations of Obama’s foreign policy. Instead, the discussion has focused on his claim that there is “no evidence that al-Qaida or other international terrorist group had any role in the assault,” and on his assertion that the YouTube video did spur to action some of the participants in the assault.
Kirkpatrick’s claim that al-Qaida played no role in the attack was refuted by the Times’ own reporting six weeks after the attack. It has also been refuted by congressional and State Department investigations, by the UN and by a raft of other reporting.
His claim that the YouTube video did spur some of the attackers to action was categorically rejected last spring in sworn congressional testimony by then-deputy chief of the US mission to Libya Gregory Hicks.
Last May Hicks stated, “The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya. The video was not instigative of anything that was going on in Libya. We saw no demonstrators related to the video anywhere in Libya.”
Kirkpatrick’s larger message – that the reasoning behind Obama’s entire counterterrorist strategy and his overall Middle East policy is totally wrong, and deeply destructive – has been missed because his article was written and published to whitewash the administration’s deliberate mischaracterization of the events in Benghazi, not to discredit the rationale behind its Middle East policy and counterterrorism strategy. This is why he claimed that al-Qaida wasn’t involved in the attack. And this is why he claimed that the YouTube video was a cause for the attack.
This much was made clear in a blog post by editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, who alleged that the entire discourse on Benghazi is promoted by the Republicans to harm the Democrats, and Kirkpatrick’s story served to weaken the Republican arguments. In Rosenthal’s words, “The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though Mr. Obama doesn’t take al-Qaida seriously.”
So pathetically, in a bid to defend Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats, the Times published a report that showed that Obama’s laser-like focus on the Zawahiri-controlled faction of al-Qaida has endangered the US.
By failing to view as enemies any other terror groups – even if they have participated in attacks against the US – and indeed, in perceiving them as potential allies, Obama has failed to defend against them. Indeed, by wooing them as future allies, Obama has empowered forces as committed as al-Qaida to defeating the US.
Again, it is not at all apparent that the Times realized what it was doing. But from Israel to Egypt, to Iran to Libya to Lebanon, it is absolutely clear that Obama and his colleagues continue to implement the same dangerous, destructive agenda that defeated the US in Benghazi and will continue to cause US defeat after US defeat.
EXCLUSIVE—BENGHAZI VICTIMS’ FAMILIES, CONSERVATIVE LEADERS TO BOEHNER: INSTALL SELECT COMMITTEE NOW!-Posted on Big Government-By MATTHEW BOYLE-On January 6, 2014:
Three family members of the victims of the Benghazi terrorist attack and scores of conservative and military leaders are kicking off 2014 by demanding that House Speaker John Boehner install a select committee, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.
In the letter to Boehner, which was delivered on early Monday afternoon and provided exclusively to Breitbart News, Sean Smith’s mother, Pat Smith, and uncle, Michael Ingmire, along with Tyrone Woods’ father, Charles Woods, joined the call for a select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. Other notable signers include former Rep. Allen West (R-FL), conservative leader Ginni Thomas of Liberty Consulting, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, retired Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, Freedom Center president David Horowitz, and scores of other military and conservative movement leaders.
“We write to express our grave concern over the failure of your House of Representatives to extract the truth from the Obama administration concerning the attack on our diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi, Libya; and, the brutal deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Ty Woods and Glen Doherty,” the coalition wrote to Boehner.
Specifically, a House select committee on Benghazi would be similar to the Watergate select committee formed in the U.S. Senate during the scandal that took down President Richard Nixon. It would be a focused committee with members from both the Democrat and Republican parties and staffed with the proper resources to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter. Thus far, Boehner has had five separate House committees investigating the matter that have not succeeded. He has also publicly opposed the creation of a select committee, saying he does not think it is necessary.
There is currently a bill in the House of Representatives, H. Res 36 from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), that would create such a committee. It has, including Wolf, 179 cosponsors according to the Library of Congress, well more than the majority of the House GOP majority—which is 232 Republican members strong. Yet, despite the overwhelming support from the House GOP conference, Boehner continues to refuse to allow a vote on the installation of a select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal and continues to block efforts to bring the bill forward.
Now that this new coalition is stepping forward, Boehner may end up facing enough pressure to force him to create the committee.
Video Series: Chaffetz responds to Benghazi story in the New York Times!-Posted on YouTube.com-By JasonChaffetz-On January 3, 2014:
Video: Judge Goes Nuclear On Obama: Why Do You Apologize To Muslims And Lie To Americans!-Posted on YouTube.com-By BirtherReportDotCom-On May 19, 2013:
Video: Treason Exposed! Obama Used Benghazi Attack to Cover Up Arms Shipments to Muslim Brotherhood!-Posted on YouTube.com-By Disillusioned-On November 25, 2013:
Further Proof Obama Knew The Truth About Benghazi!-Posted on Western Journalism-By ROGER ARANOFF AND BETHANY STOTTS-On January 15, 2014:
CONGRESSMAN: HILLARY BUSTED IN MONSTER ‘LIE’: ‘I heard her with my own ears’!-Posted on WND.com-By GARTH KANT-On January 14, 2014:
Video: Rep. Trey Gowdy Wants A Subpoena for Hillary Clinton!-Posted on RightWing News-By Janeen Capizola-On January 14, 2014:
Joint Chiefs Chair: We Aren’t Authorized to Kill Benghazi Terrorists!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By erence P. Jeffrey-On January 15, 2014:
US Hero Waited 20 Hours on Rooftop With Shredded Leg While Obama Went Campaigning!-Posted on The Gateway Pundit—By Jim Hoft-On January 16, 2014:
EYEWITNESS CONFIRMS BENGHAZI ATTACK WAS TERRORISM: ‘No one in their right mind can say it was spontaneous’!-Posted on WND.com-By JEROME R. CORSI-On January 15, 2014:
Benghazi Transcripts: White House Misled The American People On Obama’s Preparations For 9/11!-Posted on Breitbart.com-By DEBRA HEINE-On January 15, 2014:
Video: Exclusive Interview: Bachmann Says Obama Was AWOL During Benghazi!-Posted The Foundry-By Rob Bluey-On January 15, 2014:
Scathing Senate Report confirms Hillary Clinton’s State Dept failed to heed warnings, Benghazi terrorists attacks were preventable!-Posted on Right Wing News-By Samuel Gonzalez-On January 15, 2014:
Democrat Senators Blame Obama Administration For Benghazi!-Posted on Western Journalism-By B. CHRISTOPHER AGEE-On January 15, 2014:
BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama Administration Killing Benghazi Investigators?-Posted on Mr. Conservative-By Robert Rich-On January 16, 2014:
Video: Judge Jeanine Slams Obama for Ignoring Benghazi While Going Nuts Over Christie Bridge-Gate!-Posted on Mr Conservative-By Mr. Conservative-On January 12, 2014:
GENERAL CEMENTS PLAN TO END OBAMA’S REIGN: ‘Working in Washington now to implement radical solution’!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On January 6, 2014:
Obama’s Weakened America Equals…World in Chaos!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On January 4, 2014:
Dishonest Media Avoids Truth about Obama Through Diversions!
Nearly 80 percent don’t trust the government!
Where Is America Today?
Is it time to call for Obama’s resignation!
Washington Times Calls for Obama’s Impeachment!
A Republic, If You Can Keep It!
The Fightin Side of Me!
When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty!
Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts, please copy website and paste it on your browser. Sure seems like any subject matter that may be considered controversial by this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide:
“Food For Thought”
God Bless America!