Originally Posted by spence
(Post 1026780)
Snobbery? I think the NYT still has some pretty credible journalistic standards. Your GOP site is just regurgitating remarks from House members, the basis of which have gone nowhere in their "investigation."
Yes, it is snobbery to dismiss an article because you have a low opinion of the source. You don't address anything in the article--just poo-poo it because it's GOPUSA which has had many very interesting, accurate, and informative articles. Of course, if you don't read it, it ain't no good.
And how do you know where the House investigation has gone? It hasn't been finished and classified intel has not been released. One of those on the committee, Adam Schiff DEMOCRAT disputes the accuracy of the article saying there was an Al Qaeda connection with the militia groups involved in the attack. And he said "The intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda was involved."
I think the NYT piece captures the most likely scenario pretty well.
It is too selective and leaves out too much. It doesn't have access to the House intel info. It doesn't recognize the affiliation between Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia
On the other hand the article disputes the Administration's initial claim that the attack was spontaneous--"The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs." No, it wasn't planned to the T like a master military operation, but it was deliberately unleashed at a certain time and place to instigate an inflamed rabble, and who were probably "informed" about the video by "extremists" who were looking for another "spontaneous spark" to riot like those they had already inspired in Egypt and other parts of Libya. And the "spontaneous" rioters, as the Times article reveals, were directed by various militia lieutenants both in allowing the rioters inside the havoc and keeping out anyone who might stop them.
Abu Khattala, the leader of one of the militias, claims not to be affiliated with Al Qaeda but admires it and what it does. He is still, to this day, freely roaming the streets of Benghazi in spite of his being a major instigator. The article quotes four who were interviewed under anonymity because they were afraid of repercussions. How much actual truth can you get from those who fear for their lives?
Ansar Al Sharia is an affiliate of Al Qaeda and was implicated even by the article in the attack. And it had been forming in Libya for some time before the attack.
According to the Washington Times (Omigosh, Really???) "The FBI, which was tasked by the Obama Administration concluded the attack was carried out by a combination of militants with varying degrees of connection to three Islamist groups: Ansar Al Sharia The Muhammad Jamal network, and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."
The NY Times article is helpful in showing how a lack of security leads to tragedy and how gullible trust in Islamic factions revealed the dangerous lack of understanding of the volatile situation the administration was dealing with. The total disregard for connection between various "militant" groups and the major umbrella of ideology inspired by larger Islamic organizations such as Al Qaeda had to be denied in order to carry out the mission in such an unprepared, naively idealistic, rather foolish way. The Benghazi incident was a total bungle, not just by Dept. of State headed by Hillary, but by the Administration as a whole
The refusal to understand the implicit cohesion among "militant" or "extreme" Islamic groups toward the global jihad creates trusts which lead to tragedy. Not understanding the basic religious connection between differing Islamist groups in their mission to bring down the West is an incompetent view which only aids their mission. And it is known that Al Qaeda's, jihadist goals have over the past couple of years been implemented by affiliated groups inspired by Al Qaeda and many of whose leaders came directly from Al Qaeda. It was Bin Laden's plan that his mission was to be carried out by Muslims worldwide, regardless of local affiliations, which would eventually erupt in global jihad.
State took a lot of grief over this event from the non-partisan investigations already complete.
Blaming State and absolving its boss is political whitewash. Apparently the buck in this administration always stops at lower levels. Leading from behind, no doubt.
So far, what we've seen is a strained attempt to fit the facts with a conspiracy theory that's gone no where.
-spence
|
