The New York Times has generated a lot of buzz over their
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.
Yes, months of talking to jihadis who'd rather not hear a drone overhead now that they reflect on the joys of not being a martyr in the cause; and to Hillary Clinton operatives who at this point certainly do think it makes a difference how the attacks happened, no doubt.
Later, another weasel word is used to minimize the planned nature of the attack:
The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
Ah, it wasn't meticulously planned! The jihadis didn't even have a PowerPoint presentation involved, so it doesn't count as "planning." Or something.
And just because locals joined in spontaneously after the assault began is not an argument against an assault planned for the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.
Suffice it to say, that many people are stunned at the conclusion that al Qaeda was not involved and absolutely reject that conclusion, which seems to rest on the notion that if those involved didn't directly work for al Qaeda Prime it doesn't count as al Qaeda.
As for the video? Surely, it is possible that somebody over there heard of it. Although there is no evidence that it was known enough to spark a spontaneous mob attack, complete with heavy weapons.
And even if true, it begs the question of what won't set those nutballs off in a bloody rage?
Seriously, this Mohammad video approaches the status of the Tonkin Gulf Incident. Something that almost certainly didn't happen which sparked our overt intervention in Vietnam, but which symbolized actions that did take place in the recent past. And which would have taken place again.
I mean, it's not like trivial things don't set Islamists off on a regular basis.
So I'll even admit that in theory, a mere video could have set off Islamist nutballs. But that's not an excuse--that's an indictment of the intolerance of the Islamists and how easily provoked to violence they are. As I've asked, what doesn't set them off on a spasm of violence?
But the evidence doesn't support the conclusion of Kirkpatrick.
And even if the video was the exclusive and direct cause of the attacks, this still does not answer the main question that I had early on and still ask: why didn't we send help at any time during the 7 hours that the crisis lasted?
Seriously, who in the White House decided to write off the score or so of people on the ground rather than even make an effort to send forces--any forces--to, over, or near Benghazi?
Yeah, that's a lovely vase that Kirkpatrick writes about in his piece. That's the kind of detail we rely on the Times to provide us.
It will look lovely on the mantle in the Hillary Oval Office. But fresh flowers, please. Let's not be tacky.
UPDATE: Yeah, this seems to be the point of the Times article:
The really disappointing part of Peter Hoekstra’s post below is the failure to recover any official al-Qaeda membership cards from the scene at Benghazi. I have a Justice League membership card in my wallet (supernumerary) and had always assumed that the other side had it together at least as well on an organizational level.
Question: If only al Qaeda Prime counts, just who is on the presidential kill list that our drone fleet uses?
And more here.
The Times article is long, I'll grant. The better to hide the lack of substance, I suppose.
