Militant or Terrorist?

THE controversy over the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the Obama administration’s response to it are being dumbed down and overblown. Dumbed down because the focus is on word choice rather than substantive criticism of the administration’s handling of the incident; overblown because the administration’s critics are trying to make an argument that the facts don’t support.

That this is happening is not surprising, given the nature of U.S. politics, especially during a presidential election campaign. But it has the unfortunate consequence of obscuring the actual significance of the attack.

In the weeks since the attack, the president’s critics have focused their attention on his choice of words to characterize the incident, in particular whether or not he called it an act of terror. There is a valid substantive basis for questioning whether the president and his administration intentionally avoided characterizing the attack as a terrorist act.

After all, the administration has invested a great amount of political capital in the electoral value of having “won” the war on terror. If its reluctance to explicitly acknowledge the premeditated nature of the attack on the Benghazi consulate was intentional and meant to preserve this campaign plank, it amounts to willful dishonesty, a punishable offense for any government official. If it was unintentional, then there are some other valid questions to be asked about the administration’s crisis response and risk preparedness procedures.

But those targeting the president for his choice of words do so with a larger objective in mind: To implicitly call into question his administration’s record on countering global terrorist networks. Here, they are pursuing a red herring.

Obama has been ruthless — some would say too ruthless — in pursuing an “invisible war” against Al Qaeda and its affiliates. As a result of a withering campaign of U.S. drone strikes,.....

“Not every guy with a gun and a grievance is a terrorist. Those responsible for the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi were operating locally, for largely local objectives, and they threaten neither Americans nor America. So while Americans should feel outraged by the attack, it would be absurd for them to feel terrorized by it.”

Wow. Rather than focus on the obvious lies and incompetance of the POS in Chief the NYT tries to make their argument on the definition of a terrorist. According to the NYT definition, if someone operates locally in the mideast they dont threaten Americans so cannot be a terrorist. Brilliant, of course these terrorists DID happen to find some Americans to attack and kill on American soil while operating locally but who cares about minor details when their main job is to elect DemocRATS.

The article is too funny! The author ties himself up in knots trying to make it sound like the upsurge in terrorism in the Mahgreb and even in Mali is (a) not that bad a thing because it’s not really terrorism because they have a political objective and (b) either to Obama’s credit or not his fault.

First of all, attempting to achieve political goals through acts of violence is exactly the defnition of terrorism, which is not just random acts of violence, such as a workplace shooting, but politically directed acts. So it’s hard to see how the author could possibly deny that these attacks are terrorism and the attackers are terrorists. Of course, he may be able to make this airy statement also by the fact that the Times has stopped reporting the car bombings, assassinations and mob assaults in places like Iraq, Syria (and the car bombings were not by Assad forces), Mali, Nigeria, Libya, and in fact any place in the ME and Africa.

As for Obama’s being tough on terrorism with the “withering drone attacks” of Obama’s “secret war,” as they describe it, obviously this has had no result and there is actually more, not less, terrorist activity in places like Yemen, which the author holds up as a triumph!

The drone attacks have clearly have not devastated AQ, and I bet if you checked, they weren’t really meant to. I think you will find that the only country these attacks are meant to protect is not the US, but Saudi Arabia, a police state where the royals are struggling to hold onto power against AQ, a movement that some of their own members spawned. The Saudis are doing so by becoming even more radical themselves - they are going to propose a UN ban on any criticism of “monotheistic religions” (they don’t consider Christianity monotheistic, btw), and of course, they already run a full-sharia state which they feel should be implemented elsewhere in the ME. But Obama adores them. Remember, the Saudi king is among the people he has bowed to, and he would be perfectly happy to see the entire ME become sharia-governed, centrally controlled police states. Heck, he’d be happy to see that happen here, too, and happy to live like a Saudi king.

The NYT is focused on yesterday’s question:

Was Benghazi called “Terror” or “Spontaneous Demonstration against a Video”?

Nobody is focused on that today. The NYT is one month late.

Today’s questions are:

1) Who in the Administration refused Americans’ repeated requests for support from air assets apparently on station?

2) Was the Administration running guns and anti-aircraft missiles from Libya to al Qaeda in Syria?

Let’s say you write at the New York Times, and you know the Democrat President is waging war to make money for himself and his buddies. You refuse to acknowledge this. Wouldn’t that make you guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity? Just want to go on record with that when the tribunal meets. And, less we forget, wasn’t it the ever patriotic New York Times that published THE PENTAGON PAPERS even after being told that they were matters of national security? My, the old grey lady’s cheeks are turning red.

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.