NY Times on Benghazi: Ignore the al Qaeda terrorists behind the curtain

If you haven’t read David Kirkpatrick’s New York Times piece on the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, you should do so. It’s good work. Very good work. Unfortunately, it’s solid investigative journalism that goes out of its way to downplay the nature of Ansar al-Sharia and its ties to al Qaeda. Mr. Kirkpatrick also seems to inflate the significance that the obscure anti-Islam film, “Innocence of Muslims,” had in the whole affair. If what he says about “Innocence of Muslims” is true, it further demonstrates the incredibly dysfunctional and backwards nature of much of the Middle East.

Mr. Kirkpatrick’s ‘A Deadly Mix in Benghzi’ centers around a Mr. Abu Khattala, the leader of an extremist militia in Libya. The journalist’s own investigative work clearly demonstrates the overlap between local militias and Ansar al-Sharia, but then he intellectually twists and turns to dismiss the possibility that al Qaeda was involved.

  • Mohammed Ali al-Zahawi, the leader of Ansar al-Shariah, told The Washington Post that he disapproved of attacking Western diplomats, but he added, “If it had been our attack on the U.S. Consulate, we would have flattened it.”
  • At one point, a fighter asked Mr. Abu Khattala what to do with the remains of the compound. “Flatten it,” he said.
  • [Mr. Abu Khattala] volunteered that the leaders of Ansar al-Shariah had joined him in the operations room shortly after the attack began — underscoring the permeability of the line between threat and protector among Benghazi militias.

According to the New York Times, Ansar al-Shariah wasn’t involved in the planning for the Benghazi terror attack, but happened to show up to the local militia’s “operations room” once the bullets started flying. Readers are supposed to ignore Ansar al-Shariah’s ties to al Qaeda (long-established by the CIA and the State Department), and yet the leader of the organization and Mr. Abu Khattala both used “flatten” as the word-of-choice to describe what they would do when put in a position to decide the fate of the Benghazi compound. What a coincidence.

How do you write an extensive piece on the Benghazi terrorist attack and not mention Muhammad Jamal al Kashef? Answer: You can’t — unless the existence of al Kashef throws off a specific narrative you’re trying to create.

After “months of investigation,” the Times found “no evidence” of a connection between the Benghazi attack and al Qaeda.

In several hours of interviews, including ones conducted in the days before he became a prime suspect in the assault, Mr. Abu Khattala said he had no connections to Al Qaeda. But he never hid his admiration for its vision.

Translation: “Yes, it is well-known that my allies have connections with al Qaeda, we both share the exact same vision for the world, we both wanted to ‘flatten’ the Benghzi compound … but I swear that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on a strategic or operational level.”

Over a decade after 9/11, it strains credulity to believe that al Qaeda did not have a hand in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack. I’m not going to completely discount the Times’ theory because, over a decade after the September 11, 2001 attacks, you would also think that U.S. diplomats would be familiar with “Taqiyya” — a form of deception that is permissible in Islam if the end result is beneficial to the religion. Apparently not.

The more moderate leaders of the big militias developed close ties to the Westerners.

At least one Islamist militia leader liked to play basketball at the British compound. Mr. Bukatef of the February 17 Brigade was a fluent English speaker who visited the American compound in Benghazi so often that “it was like he was my best friend,” one diplomat joked.

“We thought we were sufficiently close to them,” said one Western diplomat who was in Benghazi not long before the attack. “We all thought that if anything threatening was happening, that they would tip us off.”

Why are U.S. diplomats “joking” about the Bengahzi terrorist attack and the culpability their own ignorance played in allowing it to happen? The “moderates” are not moderates at all. They do not like us. They are willing to tolerate the United States only as long as our money and our weapons are useful to them, and that’s about it.

Again, Mr. Kirkpatrick’s piece sums up the situation quite well:

  • Unlike other Libyans, Mr. Abu Khattala expressed no gratitude for the American role in the NATO air campaign that toppled Colonel Qaddafi. If NATO had not intervened, “God would have helped us,” he said, insisting, “We know the United States was working with both sides” and considering “splitting up the country.”
  • Mr. McFarland struggled to make sense of their contradictory signals. “The message was, ‘Don’t come here because there is no security, but come right away because we need you,’” Mr. McFarland later told colleagues.

Ah yes, “God” would have intervened if President Obama did not. The president put his chips in with militia leaders like Mr. Abu Khattala, thinking they would help bring “hope and change” to Northern Africa, but instead he received “no gratitude,” a blown up U.S. compound, and dead Americans. The Libyans don’t want us to be there…but they do. Translation: “Give us money and things that go ‘boom’ and then leave us to our own Islamic-extremist devices.”

One last time: Do you believe this guy has no ties to al Qaeda?

On a June afternoon, Mr. Abu Khattala joined a column of as many as 200 pickup trucks mounted with artillery as they drove through downtown Benghazi under the black flags of militant Islam. …

Western diplomats who watched said they were stunned by the scale and weaponry of the display.

Even David Kirkpatrick acknowledges that al Qaeda has made significant inroads into Libya since the 2012 Benghazi terror attack. If you were to believe everything he says at face value (i.e., the Obama administration wasn’t trying to cover up anything and al Qaeda wasn’t involved in the attack on the U.S. compound), what you’re left with — at the present moment in Libya — is a nation teeming with al Qaeda terrorists and a whole host of other Islamic extremist organizations. Bravo, Mr. President.

If you have time, read ‘A Deadly Mix in Benghazi.’ It really is the end-product of top-notch investigative journalism. Unfortunately, it appears to have been pieced together to give cover and concealment to the political leaders most-closely connected with the tragedy.

Slain SEAL’s father should have punched Biden for ‘cue balls’ crack

Joe Biden introduced himself to the father of a slain Navy SEAL by asking: “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” Charles Woods should have responded to the insensitive, clownish question by crushing Joe Biden’s aviator glasses with his fists.

Imagine your son has just died because he did the right thing and tried to protect an ambushed American ambassador — despite the orders from his own government to “stand down.” Imagine your son was part of a team that requested multiple times for help, only to be denied. Imagine you’re Charles Woods and your son, a former Navy SEAL, charged into the smoke, gunfire, terror and the chaos in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, and only days after his death Vice President Joe Biden walks up to you and says:

“Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

What would you do? Based on the actions of your deceased son — a hero — it’s obvious that honor runs through your veins, but the world would not have held it against you if you punched the vice president in the face.

Joe Biden is a boor. He is a boob. He is an embarrassment of the highest order. The world laughs at his “gaffes” … but Americans are the ones who pay the price for the Obama administration’s incompetence.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied.

How did the Obama administration respond to these attacks? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods the administration would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Clinton was of course talking about the now-infamous anti-Islam Youtube video which, up until that time, perhaps a few dozen people in the world had seen. Worse, the timeline of events suggest Clinton was going to “prosecute” a citizen for no other crime than making a video! And yet, not a peep from the left as the maker of “Innocence of Muslims” sits behind bars, his next hearing not scheduled until after the 2012 elections.

But I digress. The point of this post was to shed light on what an insensitive jerk Joe Biden is. “Blue Collar Joe” (who is anything but) has a sick idea of what “blue collar” guys like Charles Woods are like, and it’s a pumped-up version of his own blowhard nature. Biden smirks, dons aviator glasses, and puffs out his chest because he wants people to believe he’s a bad ass. He’s not. He’s a career politician who has led a cushy life in Washington for decades. He is the epitome of “soft,” just as Tyrone Woods was the epitome of “hard.”

Hopefully, in a matter of weeks Joe Biden and Barack Obama will be the epitome of unemployed, while Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan begin the tough task of getting America’s economy back on track.

Libya hearing exposes White House shell game

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., revealed Tuesday that U.S. diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi but were turned down by officials in Washington (Photo Credit AP).

At Wednesday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Chairman Darrell Issa’s questioning made one thing certain: The Obama administration’s initial explanation — that the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were directly related to Islamic rage over a YouTube video — becomes more troubling with each passing day.

Before questioning began, Army Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a Special Forces site security team who was closely involved with operational planning for security in the region, testified to the increasing attacks on Western interests in the months preceding the Benghazi attack. He traveled to Benghazi after a successful attack on the British ambassador’s convoy, and was aware of online threats made against Mr. Stevens. And yet, months later, Stevens would die attempting to exit an escape hatch in a smoke-filled room. His would-be rescuers would then perish in a mortar barrage.

Referencing a July 9 cable from Mr. Stevens provided by State Department whistleblowers, Rep. Issa showed that Mr. Stevens requested additional security support but was denied by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, ostensibly because it wasn’t a formal request. Ms. Lamb maintained Wednesday that the U.S. Consulate had the “correct” amount of security on the day of the attack, even though, as Mr. Issa pointed out, the compound was overrun within minutes.

Read the rest over at Times247.com

Los Angeles Times: Saboteur of free speech

The Los Angeles Times offered to give Sarah Chayes some ink. She’s a woman who has spent so much time living in a culture of corruption and tyranny that she’s now doing the dirty work for tyrants in major American newspapers. In order to make her life easier overseas, she promotes curbs on the First Amendment here at home. Here, she watches the Taliban blow off a woman’s head with an AK-47, the always-reliable Kalashnikov, and wonders: “Which American can we hold responsible for this travesty?”

Thomas Jefferson once said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. He was right. However, what he probably never expected was that free speech would be under attack from dhimmitude clowns like Sarah Chayes, individuals who would willingly shackle and gag themselves before bowing to Islamic slave masters, if it provided them with a little temporary security. They would rather appease tyrants than fight for God-given natural rights. But then again, these things are to be expected, since even the Obama administration has repeatedly stood behind the assertion that the current round of Mideast violence is about “a film.”

Read on, as The Los Angeles Times allows itself to become an intellectual saboteur of free speech:

In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. “The most stringent protection,” he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, “would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Holmes’ test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a “clear and present danger” of harm — has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, “Innocence of Muslims,” the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.

Who defines what “falsely shouting fire in a theater” is? To Ms. Chayes, it is the imams and clerics, dictators and despots — who stone women, execute gay people, advocate on behalf of “honor killings,” and seek to spread the “behead those who insult Islam” mentality like a virus.

The film “Innocence of Muslims” did not lead to the death of Christopher Stevens in any way. Period. If I want to make a “stick figure Mohammad” flip book tonight and post it online, whereas the “prophet” pole vaults into the arms of his many wives, I have every right to do so. If a Pakistani cleric issues a fatwa on me because I dared to depict Mohammad (again, as a stick figure), and people die because of it, then fault lies with the murderous sub-humans who committed the crime, and the insecure, troubled culture that produced them. Fatwas and death threats aimed at innocent people practicing their right to free speech are symptoms of a disease — a culture that is incompatible with freedom and liberty and the pillars of Western Civilization.

The Los Angeles Times refuses to acknowledge reality, and so they find themselves betraying the keystone to our Constitution.

Much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don’t have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits … “If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard,” [says Anthony Lewis].

While it’s not surprising that The Los Angeles Times thinks it should be the judge, jury and executioner for mind crimes, it’s even more frightening that they would abdicate the setting of the limits of free speech to religious fanatics, whose litmus test for committing violence is whatever they deem it to be at any given moment.

Ms. Chayes ultimately speaks for herself, but her misdiagnosis of what ails the Middle East is shared by many on the left. The current violence in the region, for example, has exposed the Obama administration’s fecklessness in the face of true evil. Its inability to accurately describe the challenges we face overseas is downright scary. However, what is even worse is that the one industry that should be fighting to safeguard our First Amendment rights now lends credence to saboteurs seeking to curtail them.

Obama admin preemptively apologizes to Muslim world for Zero Dark Thirty

Despite working with Hollywood on Zero Dark Thirty, the Obama administration is now preemptively apologizing to the Muslim world for any protests, violence or murders that are blamed upon its release.

Zero Dark Thirty, which will come out in December, has been billed as “the story of history’s greatest manhunt for the world’s most dangerous man.” Now, if the Obama administration has its way, it will be billed as “the story of history’s greatest manhunt for the world’s most dangerous man ... that wasn’t told in theaters.” Sources confirm that Jay Carney will hold a press conference within days to preemptively apologize to the Muslim world for the film, which chronicles the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. The White House gave Hollywood unprecedented access to sensitive information in order to recreate the event, but the sudden realization that insulting Islam is tantamount to crying fire in a crowded theater has it worried — using the Obama administration’s own logic, they could be held accountable for Zero Dark Thirty murders.

It all started when violence broke out in the Mideast on September 11, first with the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and the U.S. Consulate in Libya, and then with other uprisings in Tunisia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan later in the week. Four Americans were killed, including two former U.S. Navy SEALs and Ambassador Christopher Stephens. The Obama administration has insisted on multiple occasions that the current violence is rooted in anger of an obscure YouTube video, “The Innocence of Muslims,” and that it should not be seen as a condemnation of American foreign policy under Obama or an indicator of Islam’s incompatibility with universal human rights.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, who also has asserted that the anti-Islam film was responsible for “spontaneous” attacks, released the following statement Monday night:

Director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal have needlessly put American lives at risk with Zero Dark Thirty. Likewise, it is disgusting that Chris Pratt, Jessica Chastain and Joel Edgerton would take part in a film that will undoubtedly inflame passions around the globe, particularly among large segments of the Muslim community President Obama has sought to win over long before bin Laden’s body was left on the bottom of the ocean. The capture and killing of the terrorist mastermind, the continued drone strikes and the operational status of Guantanamo Bay aside, this administration has worked miracles within the Muslim community. Zero Dark Thirty will undo nearly four years worth of work if Sony has its way. And so, the Obama administration calls on all studios and distributors associated with the film to pull back before it’s too late.

Upon hearing the news, Mitt Romney’s campaign put out a press release condemning the Obama administration’s hypocrisy, as well as its abandonment of the First Amendment. Flash polls conducted by Rasmussen indicate that 90 percent of the American population sees nothing wrong with the Obama administration’s preemptive apology, and that roughly 3/4 of likely voters found the former Mass. governor to be out of line when he defended the Constitution on Constitution Day.

With Zero Dark Thirty set to hit theaters December 19, Americans have at least three months to wait before they see if the apology works. Ivy League academics have assured citizens that any violence perpetrated in the name of Islam will be blamed on Christians, Sony Pictures and writer Mark Boal, since the thought that President Obama be held accountable for his mistakes is, of course, ludicrous.

Leading from behind: Obama in back seat as drunken jihad-clowns drive Middle East

Has anyone heard President Obama answer the question: “Why didn’t Ambassador Chris Stevens have security in an unstable, Islamic country on, umm, you know, 9/11 of all days?” No? Neither have I. That’s because no one asked. Note: The Commander in Chief is sending in Marines now.

September 11th, 2012 was another rough one for the United States. The U.S. Embassy in Egypt was stormed, culminating in a shredded American flag that was replaced with an al Qaeda substitute. Four Americans are dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens after Islamists attacked an American consulate in Libya. Oddly enough, no one is asking the Obama administration how all this might connect to the “lead from behind” strategy it has employed since 2008, or how U.S. diplomats in Libya could go unprotected until after one of them dies. Regardless, I’d like to focus on a bizarre statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“How can this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city [Benghazi] we helped save from destruction?”

On September 11th — of all the days — a bunch of Islamic whack jobs attack American interests abroad and Clinton’s response is to talk about how how “confounding the world can be.” It’s not confounding at all. The problem is, liberals have refused to accurately define who we’re up against. They’ve been in a state of denial for over a decade, and no amount a decapitated heads, blown up bodies, IEDs, kidnappings, hijackings or fatwas seem to alter their analysis of the situation.

Take today’s news coverage, for instance. How many times have you heard a pundit describe “a Muslim film” as the catalyst for the violence in Egypt and Libya? Since I’m kindly paid by my employer to watch the news, I’ll give you the short answer: A lot. And the fact of the matter is, this had nothing to do with a stupid Youtube video some guy made that “insulted” Islam.

Any culture that churns out “holy warriors” to fight over cartoons, movies, speeches or random remarks in a country of 400 million people, is an unhealthy one. And yet, idiots at MSNBC like Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch want to prosecute Americans for engaging in free speech. Got that? Liberals on MSNBC want to you to bow down to the demands of Sharia Law fanatics. If you make a YouTube video that sets off jihadi head choppers, MSNBC panelists want you to be tried “before or after the fact.” It’s scary to think that there are Americans with MSNBC-sized megaphones who go around shilling for Sharia Law tyrants in the Middle East.

President Obama wanted to “lead from behind.” The only problem with that is, he climbed into the back seat of the car and left the guys who were drunk on jihad or genocide behind the wheel. If we had reporters who did their job, they’d be asking him tough questions about a Middle East that is spinning out of control (faster than usual). Instead, they’re focused on grilling Mitt Romney over his defense of free speech.

When radical Islamists went nuts, members of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo thought it would be a good idea to take to Twitter and apologize for hurting their feelings. Mitt Romney thought that was dumb and dangerous. So do sane Americans.

Obama’s Libya Strategy: The Drunken Orgy

Obama Buzzfeed

The American people and political pundits of all stripes have been confused by President Obama’s Libya strategy for some time know. His “kinetic military action” formally know as war is mighty confusing.  Qaddafi  must go—but only if bombing his air defenses work. Actually, we’ll use drones—but only two of them. We’ll be out of there in days—except when it becomes months. We want the rebels to win, although we don’t know if they’re closer to the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars…or jihadi head choppers.

“What kind of a strategy is this?” the American people have asked. The answer is simple: The Drunken Orgy Doctrine.

Obama’s strategy is to “win”, in the purely Charlie Sheenian definition of winning with one’s  goddesses. Likewise, I assume (not having had personal experience) the goal of a drunken orgy is to get it on with a bunch of people (some friends, some not so much), deal with the messy and the confusing, and when it’s all said and done be able to say it was worth it. Obama is like Derek Zoolander—just replace “Finnish dwarfs” with “United Nations, and “Maori tribesman” with “Arab League”.:

“There was a moment last night, when she was sandwiched between the two Finnish dwarfs and the Maori tribesman where I thought, ‘Wow! I could really spend the rest of my life with this woman.'”

Victor Davis Hanson has the epiphany on the tip of his tongue in his latest for National Review Online, but couldn’t quite come to admit it:

“Obama is a multilateral artist, and Libya is his greatest masterpiece. Nobel-minded Europeans take the high profile while suspect Americans do the heavy lifting in the shadows. American officers publicly talk more of toning down a war than winning it. Female advisers—Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice–clamor for a use of force of the sort that a wobbly metrosexual American president seeks to resist.”

Like the movie Eyes Wide Shut, those sexy Europeans strut their stuff in the hallways, sipping their wine and eating their cheese in the buff (creating the allusion they’re taking part), while the real action is taking place in the “shadows.” Unfortunately, President Obama is the guy who loved the idea of an orgy…until it happened. And then he got “wobbly” where it counts while Hillary Clinton stood firm. I assume Bill’s dealings with Milosevic, among other things, prepared her for the experience.

Many conservatives have been muted in their criticism. That’s because conservatives aren’t any stranger to wild times (i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan). However, unlike the current President, they’re usually willing to go the distance. If you come to a party—or start a party—where crazy stuff is going down, you better be willing to carry through. Liberals, for all their talk, tend to freeze when reality meets rhetoric. If you’re the guy who gets to the Eyes Wide Shut party who ends up trying to slink out the door when the atmosphere gets much, much, weirder than you expected—bad things will happen.

I’m assuming there is one good thing about orgies: no one probably asks about your birth certificate.

Charlie Brown Nation – Brought to You By Liberalism.

At some point Charlie Brown should have realized the point is not to kick the football. The point is to kick Lucy. Likewise, the United States needs to stop falling for the football trick the Middle East keeps playing on it.

If you haven’t seen the video Libya vs. Iraq I highly suggest watching it. It’s humorous if you work with hard core liberals or remember them from your college days – but there’s more serious point to be made:

The Middle East is populated with “bad options” and “worse options” for any President. The entire region is filled with basket case dictators, mullah thugs, and stone-age cultures incompatible with civilized society. It requires serious, principled politicians who are willing to be honest and frank with the American people (a rarity in both political parties).

Mark Steyn, the Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robot of Conservative Awesome brings up an interesting point:

I am by temperament and upbringing an old-school imperialist: There are arguments to be made for being on the other side of the world for decades on end if you’re claiming it as sovereign territory and rebuilding it in your image, as the British did in India, Belize, Mauritius, the Solomon Islands, you name it. Likewise, there are arguments to be made for saying sorry, we’re a constitutional republic, we don’t do empire. But there’s not a lot to be said for forswearing imperialism and even modest cultural assertiveness, and still spending ten years getting shot up in Afghanistan helping to create, bankroll, and protect a so-called justice system that puts a man on death row for converting to Christianity.

A country that is confident and sure of itself doesn’t shy away from the world’s soapbox. It’s happy to talk about the ideas that make it an exceptional nation and eager to export them to those that put “a man on death row for converting to Christianity.” If we didn’t have a country where the minds of millions have been tainted by liberal moral relativism and multi-culturalism, agreeing on a coherent foreign policy would be a lot easier.  As it stands, we’ve become Charlie Brown Nation, a population stuck on wishy-washy.

Likewise, the Middle East is Lucy van Pelt. Every President sees her hold out some sort of “football,” and feels the need to try and kick it. However, Lucy is a bully. And bullies only understand one thing. After falling for the football trick so many times Charlie Brown must realize the point is not to kick the football–the point is to kick Lucy.

Either the Middle East will reform itself, or it will need someone to do it for them. Europe is not in position to do that because culturally it looks like something you mind find in The Walking Dead graphic novel series. The United States, Australia, Poland, and a few other countries might as well be the last humans alive fighting for their own lives, so they too are in no position to do what needs to be done (notice I did not add Britain into the list of survivors, as it appears they’ve been bitten).

So what’s the answer? That’s a tough one. For this post, the point is to demonstrate that there’s an extremely complicated task before us. Because of that, people who play politics with our national security need to be called out. The video, Libya vs. Iraq does a superb job highlighting the type of person who does so.