Better late than never, I always say. Over a year after the Benghazi attack, the State Department has designated Ansar al Sharia as a terrorist organization. That includes its Benghazi branch, which as any sensible person has known for well over a year, was involved in the Benghazi attack on our consulate and murder of four Americans. That does not include the New York Times, of course.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/10/state-department-names-groups-behind-benghazi-strike/
So what does the Times say now after they came out with that "exhaustive" investigation that shifted blame back to the infamous video?
9 comments:
The Times said quite a bit about Ansar el Sharia. Did you read the article, or just parrot what your favorite blog said in summary?
The Times has stated (days ago) that it was not a terrorist organization, but people mad about the video. In other words, they went back to what Susan Rice said on teh Sunday shows 5 days after the event.
Gary, I read the Times article, and it said no such thing. Just for starters:
Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
Now, read the entire article. The details clearly report acts of terrorism, emanating from armed militias, but not by affiliates of al Qaeda.
Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.
Just wanted to be sure you knew that the Times article clearly documented that Ansar al-Shariah was part of what happened.
Its clear that the reporters found that neither the official U.S. government announcements nor the caterwauling from self-interested Republicans in congress adequately or accurately described what had really been going on.
You didn't read the article, did you?
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
So true.
I read the article. The Times was wrong.
Well if you say so, you must be right.
Fiat! Fiat!
Also, if you have read the article, you are either illiterate or lying. Why do I say that? Because your descriptions above of what the article actually said are demonstrably wrong from any reading of the article, including the sections I quoted.
You could consider the article wrong without mis-stating what the article said. When you have to offer untruthful summaries in order to offer an argument that the article is wrong, you undermine your own credibility.
Please offer a DIRECT QUOTE from the article and then explain how and in what way that DIRECT QUOTE is in fact wrong.
Perhaps you passed on a trip to the beer gardens of Germany this year, and instead took your vacation time to do a personal undercover investigation in Libya, but if so, you haven't mentioned it.
Siarlys,
This is a quote-an entire paragraph from the Times story:
"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."
And that quote supports the thesis of your original post, how?
You posed that the DOS naming Ansar al Sharia a terrorist organization directly contradicted the Times article. It does not. It is entirely consistent.
You stated in your first reply comment that the Times had stated that Ansar al Shariah was not a terrorist organization. It never said any such thing.
You also stated that the Times articles went back to what Susan Rice said five days after the event, when in fact the Times article says many times in many ways that Susan Rice & Company didn't know what they were talking about.
It seems that in your mind, any coverage stating that the silly movie made by the fool in California had ANYTHING to do with the attacks in Libya
a) is the same as saying it was the ONLY or MAIN cause, and,
b) is ipso facto a denial that armed organizations carried out an act of terrorism which was not without some advance planning and preparation.
Anyone who read the Times article without an ax to grind could make a case based on the article alone that Ansar al Shariah is a terrorist organization.
Nothing you or anyone else has presented makes a case that any organization involved is directly affiliated with al Qaeda, or that al Qaeda directly initiated and planned the attacks on our diplomatic personnel.
You are tying yourself in knots, Siarlys. If the Times wrote previous articles or op-eds that contradicted Susan Rice's statements, then they contradicted themselves with this report.
It is not for me to show the link between Ansar al Sharia and Al Qaeda. Our own government agencies have done it themselves. I am quoting them.
Gary, you haven't quote ANY government agency at all. THIS ARTICLE contradicts Susan Rice, and overtly SAYS that "the reality in Benghazi was different" than what "was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice."
When you are so ideologically blinded that you can't read a report of a detailed investigation without jumping to "see, they're wrong, they didn't say what I wanted to believe," you certainly undermine your own credibility.
Post a Comment