Posted on 12/31/2013 5:57:34 AM PST by maggief
The State Department on Monday said it has no evidence that “core al Qaeda” was behind last year's terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
“We have no indications that core al Qaeda, which I think is what most people are referring to when they talk about quote ‘al Qaeda,’ directed or planned what happened in Benghazi,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said at a briefing.
The statement appears to leave open the possibility that associates or followers of the terrorist network were involved in the assault. The comments come on the heels of a New York Times investigation published over the weekend that found no evidence of al Qaeda involvement in the Sept. 11 attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
(snip)
The State Department spokeswoman acknowledged that al Qaeda’s ideology could have influenced the local militias she said were behind the attack.
“Well, it actually matters whether you say core al Qaeda directed and planned it or they didn't, or it's just some folks that are affiliated with a local group or militia or terrorist organization — that's what we're looking into right now — whether they took some inspiration from some sort of similar ideology,” Harf said.
She pushed back on those making stronger statements.
“That distinction actually matters, and for everyone that says they want to know all the facts about Benghazi, I think it's worth their time to look into all these accounts, to look into in depth stories like this and others, and really take that all into account, before going out and making blanket statements that the facts just quite frankly don't back up,” she said.
In a statement that fits with the Times account, Harf said an anti-Muslim video did play a role in the attack, calling that “common sense” from looking at how it sparked protests around the world.
The Times account pointed to local militias as being behind the planning. Harf said Ansar al-Sharia, one of the main groups cited in the Times story as participating in the assault, is “not an affiliate of core al Qaeda.”
the videospontaneous combustionunruly mobno top level al Qaeda planning
al Qaeda planned and executed the whole thing
Slowly but surely, the State Department will come to know what everyone else did from early on.
But wait, who does the State Department report to? Whose orders are they carrying out?
And then it will be clear why ZERO is known as zero.
I have reached the point where, thanks to Obama’s never ending absurd lies, I believe NOTHING this disgusting administration says.
It seems to me that this is just changing the dialogue/talking points. I don’t care WHO killed the ambassador and three others,. I DO care that they were murdered and our government did nothing about it.
How useful. Now we can claim a ‘core Tea Party’.
Candy Crowley said during the Presidential debate that Der Leader called it terrorism. So it must have been terrorism. Right, media?
State is stuck in 2005. They have done a lousy job of keeping up with Al Qaeda 2.0.
They (Democrats) really believe we (The People) are that stupid.
****One such example has to do with the story behind how Ansar Al-Sharia came to be.
Muslim.org reports that Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri received a letter calling for Al-Qaeda’s name to be changed to Ansar Al-Sharia for what should be considered an obvious reason. When the U.S. declares war on Ansar Al-Sharia, the name of the group implies that the U.S. would be declaring war on Sharia law, which would serve as an excellent terrorist recruiting tool.
Bin Laden: Al-Qaeda must change its name to Ansar Al-Sharia Bin Laden: Al-Qaeda must change its name to Ansar Al-Sharia
Mareb Press also reported on this rationale behind the name change.
Al-Shorfa actually reported on Osama bin Laden’s involvement in giving Al-Qaeda a new identity:
“Osama bin Laden has expressed a desire to change the name of the organization, according to a prepared message on his computer, which was confiscated from his home in the Pakistani city of Abbottobad after his death. The letter revealed that bin Laden was aware that the organization needed to be ‘re-marketed’ and change its name to include the new organization so as not to be linked to the activities of al-Qaeda.” [emphasis mine]
The attacks in Benghazi carried the Al-Qaeda trademark. Yet, the Obama administration attempted to avoid identifying Ansar al-Sharia as having been involved. Why?
Let’s take a look at what Magharebia has to say in an article entitled, “Decline in the influence of al-Qaeda and the rise of Ansar al-Sharia”. Again, bin Laden’s wishes come into play:
“Moroccan researcher Abdullah Al-Rami shows that the Ansar al-Sharia groups of today are the ideological arm for human resources and financial support to al-Qaeda.”
He stated further that…
“…this was the last will of Usama Bin Laden.”
How about Almasdar, which announced:
“’Ansar al-Sharia’ announces for the first time that its leader is the commander of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Basir Louhichi.”****
I wasn’t aware of this. Thank you for the post.
I think I remember that protests around the world happened after shrillary popularized the video. No one had heard of it before she opened her big mouth.
Unfortunately, in 2006, 2008, and 2012, they were proved correct. Hopefully, Americans have wised up and it isn't too late.
Thanks maggief, related:
Politico Swallows NYT Farcical Reporting
Eagleye Blog | December 31, 2013 | Bethany Stotts
Posted on 12/31/2013 9:49:35 AM by eagleye85
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3106890/posts
Well, if they weren’t “core” Al Qaeda, then if the Obama administration was caught supporting them, then it really wouldn’t be treason. Or at least a Democrat lawyer could argue that way.
Hey, folks, wake up. They aren’t defending Hillary or Obama’s actions. Why not? They are spending a lot of effort and ink to try and convince us that it wasn’t the “core” Al Qaeda there in Libya murdering Americans. They are trying to put a technicality out there for the Democrat lawyers to use.
Maria Harf can say what she wants. It’s obvious that a group associated with anti-american feelings did this. Who has anti-american feelings? Just take a guess. Need you go any farther? She is just a shill for the administration.
Well we're pretty sure Osama had little to do with it.
I guess the white house and State Department are trolling for more hearings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.