NY Times Benghazi report fails to jive with history

aqlibyaimages
The flag of al-Qaeda flies in Benghazi.

As reported b y Fox News on Dec. 30, 2013, the recent assertion from The New York Times that there was “no involvement from Al Qaeda” has drawn a sharp rebuke from anonymous sources as well as history.

Seen by supporters of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as vindication, The Times speaking very plainly claims “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.”

Parroting the Obama oft-claiming that al-Qaeda is “on the run,” the same report lays the blame for the assault on the US Consulate attack was instead “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

Referred to as “Republican arguments,”¬†The Times¬†paid short shrift to the Congressional Hearings, where sworn testimony arguably contradicts much of their so-called “investigation” of the attack and the events leading to.

Fox News also cited State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf declaring to the press:

No indications, at this point, that core Al Qaeda directed or planned what happened in Benghazi.

On The Wrong Side Of History…

The Washington Free Beacon last August cited sources who would speak only on grounds of anonymity, that the terrorists responsible for the attack on the Benghazi Consulate (Ansar al-Sharia) is factually, an “al Qaeda-affiliated militia.”

With the United States and our allies fighting an asymmetrical war on terrorism, to deny the global confederation of self-proclaimed and al-Qaeda-allied Islamic Jihad terrorists aren’t connected is to argue against the history of warfare.

William Anderson
William Anderson

In the 5,000 years of recorded human history, as recent as the American War Between the States, non-uniformed irregulars have factually been an integral part of a historically more recognizable organizations.

Case In Point…

As a member of one of the pro-Confederacy Missouri Bushwhacker militias, William “Bloody Bill” Anderson was a member of the Confederate States Army only by the loosest definition, but nonetheless, Anderson served the Southern Cause well.

James Lane
James Lane

The other side of the coin was pro-Federalist Kansas Jayhawker, James “The Grim Chieftain” Lane. Known for his somewhat sanguine tactics, Lane found himself drummed out of the Union Army early in the war.

Though not officially recognized by the Northern authorities, Lane and his men continued to battle against Southern forces throughout hostilities.

Historically defined, both Anderson and Lane organizationally differ little from the connection between Ansar al-Sharia and the greater al-Qaeda global network.

One thought on “NY Times Benghazi report fails to jive with history

  1. Interesting that the Turkish diplomat(gun runner) who last met with Amb. Stevens barely even warrants a mention in the article. When, and if, the real story come out I’m pretty sure that the Jarrett Administration’s knowledge that “Dead men don’t testify to Congress about arming terrorists” will be a major point in the Ambassador’s death as well as the death of his Information Management Specialist, Sean Smith. I do believe the two former Navy SEALs were collateral damage, but I’m pretty sure that Mr. Smith wasn’t.

Comments are closed.