Here are your choices:
a A well-armed militia in eastern Libya
b Supporters of Al Qaeda who show the Al Qaeda flag on their Facebook page
c Sympathizers of Ansar al Sharia, believed to be the group that attacked the Benghazi mission
d Believed to be responsible for kidnappings of Americans and threats against American assets
e Hired by the State Department to provide security for the Benghazi mission
f All of the above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_17th_Martyrs_Brigade
The correct answer is F-All of the above.
Hat tip News Max
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-consulate-protected-alqaida/2013/05/02/id/502565?s=al&promo_code=135B1-1
"When the mission’s regional safety officer expressed an interest in July 2012 asking State Department official to permit the military security team to continue to protect the mission, Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary in charge of diplomatic security, sent an e-mail that responded: “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the [military security] team to stay!”
If this is half (or even a fourth??) true, this bunch of morons is making things just a little bit (or a lot) more scary. Best case scenario is that they are just in over their heads and are not minding the store because they are simply incompetent for the positions they are in.
ReplyDeleteWorst case scenario is, well, even worse than worst. While many of them are, in my view, largely incompetent, they cannot possibly ALL be so dumb that no one anywhere in the Administration did not know all this stuff, which means that these Al-Qaeda affiliates/sympathizers, and thereby potential if not actual jihadists themselves, were actually knowingly hired as Al-Qaeda affiliates/sympathizers .
What some call speculation, others call deduction. If in fact we gave taxpayer funds to this group, anyone wanna bet me that none of that money found its way into Al-Qaeda and/or other terrorist organization(s)??
It is not difficult to conclude that this is the latest known prime example of radical left-wing liberalism run amok. It could even possibly be said by a suspicious (Siarlys would say paranoid) person that it is a reflection of an Adminstration position, possibly/probably from the top down (although Obama Himself appears to be so aloof and work-averse that he might have been out of the loop as he often appears to be), of a bunch of radical Islam sympathizers themselves. I surely hope that is not the case, but I am beginning to wonder more and more
But firing Charlene Lamb wouldn't satisfy the hyenas howling about this issue, would it? It couldn't be that an under secretary with poor judgment sat on a request from a subordinate, could it? That just wouldn't be the scandal we are looking for, would it?
ReplyDelete