The report repeatedly referred to al Qaida as solely responsible for the attack on the compound, and made no mention of Ansar al Shariah, the Islamic extremist group that controls and provides much of the security in restive Benghazi and that has long been suspected in the attack. While the two organizations have worked together in Libya, experts said they have different aims – al Qaida has global objectives while Ansar al Shariah is focused on turning Libya into an Islamic state.
It is an important distinction, experts on those groups said. Additionally, al Qaida’s role, if any, in the attack has not been determined, and Logan’s narration offered no source for her repeated assertion that it had been.
“I think there are definitely connections, but I am not sure there is command and control” between al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah, said Aaron Y. Zelin, the Richard Berow fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who studies insurgent activity in North Africa.
Logan claimed that “it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida in a well-planned assault.” But al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator. Rather it is believed a number of groups were part of the assault, including members and supporters of al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah as well as attackers angered by a video made by an American that insulted Prophet Muhammad. The video spurred angry protests outside Cairo hours beforehand.
7 documents found in 0.002 seconds.
- Associated Press
- Bain Capital
- Barack Obama
- Benjamin Netanyahu
- Bin Laden
- Charles Krauthammer
- Elliott Abrams
- Fox News
- Freedom Agenda
- George W. Bush
- Hot Air
- Innocence of Muslims
- Lara Logan
- Liz Cheney
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
- Mitt Romney
- Osama bin Laden
- Rev. Terry Jones
- Right Wing Stupidity
- Sam Bacile
- War Crimes
- al Qaeda
- george bush
- nuclear program
- september 11
- united nations
- war powers
If there were any lingering doubts about Mitt Romney's unfitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief, his shameful response to the killings of four Americans at a U.S. consulate in Libya should have put them to rest. Romney didn't know the facts. He didn't know the timeline of events. He didn't know who was responsible for the embassy breaches in Cairo and Benghazi. Yet even before Americans had learned of and could mourn their deaths, Governor Romney used their murdered countrymen to slander the President of the United States. When the proverbial 3 A.M. phone call came, Romney let it go to voice mail, where his pre-recorded message called the President "disgraceful" and charged that Obama "sympathize[d] with those who waged the attacks."
Of course, it shouldn't have taken this appalling episode for Mitt Romney to disqualify himself in the eyes of so many. He long ago proved he lacks the judgment, temperament and steadfastness needed to guide the United States during times of crisis.
Consider, in no particular order, the following examples:
Thanks to multiple deferments, Mitt Romney avoided combat duty in the rice fields of Vietnam by instead serving his church in the tony 16th arrondissement of Paris. But while Time reported in 2007 that "he felt guilty about the draft deferment," during his Senate run in 1994 Mitt acknowledged "he did not have any desire to serve in the military during his college and missionary days." (Ironically, the mockery of France would become a centerpiece of Romney's planned campaigns against Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2012.) Regardless, four decades after his time in France, he told Iowa voters in 2007 that his own five sons had a higher calling than the U.S. armed forces in Iraq:
"My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
And five years ago, would-be President Romney had a message about a potential nightmare facing the United States. Echoing Glenn Beck, Romney warned that "It's this century's nightmare, jihadism - violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism. Their goal is to unite the world under a single jihadist caliphate." And Romney's "they," it turned out, conflated virtually every Muslim, friend or foe, into one, undifferentiated threat:
"But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there's going to be another and another. This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate."
And asked about that "one person, Osama Bin Laden," Mitt Romney was of two minds. In late April 2007, he announced, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." But just days later, Romney reversed course and declared of Bin Laden, "He's going to pay, and he will die."
And thanks to President Obama, die he did. But during his first run for the White House, Mitt Romney opposed the very kind of unilateral U.S. strike in Pakistan candidate Barack Obama promised to carry out against Bin Laden and other high value Al Qaeda targets. Of course, after Bin Laden was killed, Romney repeatedly insisted "I think other presidents and other candidates, like myself, would do exactly the same thing." Put another way, if Mitt Romney gets that phone call at 3 A.M., he'd give you a different answer at 3:15.
That was hardly Romney's first foreign policy turnabout. Four years ago Mitt Romney felt pretty good about killing Saddam Hussein, too. As Byron York noted, during a January 2008 GOP debate, Romney was asked, "Was the war in Iraq a good idea worth the cost in blood and treasure we have spent?" Mitt's response?
"It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now."
But despite no new evidence in the intervening three years, by 2011 Multiple Choice Mitt was not so sure:
"Well, if we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction -- if somehow we had been given that information, why, obviously we would not have gone in."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks about the deaths of diplomatic staff in Libya.
UPDATE: Two of the victims of yesterday's riot have been identified as U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens and foreign officer Sean Smith.
Mrs. Clinton's statement identified another of those killed in Benghazi as Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer who was the father of two. The names of the remaining two diplomats were being withheld pending notification of their families, according to U.S. officials.
A team of 50 Marines is on their way to Libya.
Muslim-hating American extremists will do almost anything to get publicity, and it doesn't matter who gets hurt, or what it does to our own country. Now a U.S. official in Libya has been killed, thanks to their efforts. The Rev. Terry Jones, famous for causing a major uproar by threatening to burn Korans, was last seen hanging President Obama in effigy. What disgusting, ego-maniacal people these haters are:
A U.S. State Department officer was killed in Benghazi, Libya after armed protesters stormed the U.S. Consulate there, furious about an amateur video allegedly produced in the U.S. that has been viewed as insulting to the Prophet Muhammad.
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton confirmed American's death in a statement on Tuesday evening.
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said in the statement. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."
The attack left much of the consulate burned, witnesses said, and came hours after demonstrators in Egypt climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest the video.
The Wall Street Journal says Jones posted the inflammatory video online:
The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," was directed and produced by an Israeli-American real-estate developer who characterized it as a political effort to call attention to the hypocrisies of Islam. It has been promoted by Terry Jones, the Florida pastor whose burning of Qurans previously sparked deadly riots around the world.
[...] The film's 52-year-old writer, director and producer, Sam Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. "Islam is a cancer," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie."
[...] The flashpoint appeared to be the film about the Prophet Muhammad, portions of which in recent days have been circulating on the Internet. Contravening the Islamic prohibition of portraying the prophet, clips from the film show him not only as flesh and blood—but as a homosexual son of undetermined patrimony, who rises to advocate child slavery and extramarital sex, for himself, in the name of religion.
Mittens, of course, accused the administration of sympathizing with those who attacked the consulate instead of condemning them. Apparently he has yet to understand the meaning of the word "diplomacy."
Lara Logan in Cairo, reporting for CBS News
The details are slight, but it makes the story no less disturbing:
"60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan suffered a "brutal and sustained" sexual assault at the hands of a large group of men while covering the Egyptian uprising, CBS News said.
It happened during Friday's jubilation in Cairo's Tahrir Square after President Hosni Mubarak finally stepped down.
"A dangerous element" in the crowd surrounded Logan and her crew, said CBS spokesman Kevin Tedesco. "It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy. In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew," he said in a statement Tuesday.
"She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."
Logan went home to the United States on the first flight Saturday and is recovering in a hospital, Tedesco said. [..]
At least 140 reporters have been injured or killed covering Egypt since Jan. 30, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Logan's personal life has been fodder for tabloids--and I'm not entirely sure some of it wasn't furthered by DC types threatened by her no-nonsense reporting of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and her lack of fear of calling out pundits (aka Fox's Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham) for their studio armchair war coverage heavy on spin and light on facts--but for the sake of her husband and child, I hope that the media respects her desire for privacy on this. It would be truly horrible to learn that she had been victimized quite so brutally again by pro-government forces because of her desire to report the truth on the ground.
I know most of America understands this, but let me say it anyway. President Obama's speech to the middle east was not meant for the neocon, warmongering fringe psychos like Charles Krauthammer. He was apoplectic on Brett Baier's show today on FOX because Obama's team didn't craft a speech that the AEI would approve of. It was meant to reach out to the Muslim population and try to repair some of the damage caused by war hungry neocon fanatics that got their wish under George Bush with disastrous consequences.
Kauthammer: The damage in policy was rather small. The damage to our position philosophically was large. On policy the speech was small because the speech was so abstract and vapid in self absorbed that it didn't touch on a lot of policy except on Iran. Here he was exceedingly weak, that was the weakest statement on Iran on Nukes in at least eight or nine years from anyone in the west....there was once again apologies over and over again. Apologies in moral equivalence....
Moral equivalency was his theme and he gets crazier as he goes on...What he obviously means is that George Bush and Cheney are no longer in power to incite violence around the world...
President Obama's message has a much greater chance to start influencing some hearts and minds in the middle east where we need to do exactly that. I hope they realize that we all don't want to invade their countries and turn them into Christians. On that major point he succeeded. To all the neocon pundits that unfortunately dominate our airwaves I think I speak for many liberals when I say: Go Cheney yourself.
I want to give some props to Ed Morrissey (who I disagree with on most issues, but met and like personally) for not taking the usual conservative line as he called the speech: Quite Good. The readers on Hot Air were not too please with Ed on this one. I doubt you can read many of their comments because you'll constantly read teabagger nonsense about Obama like this: 'The first Muslim president,' and so forth...
And Malkin's comment section is much different then ours because we don't pre-screen and then approve people like they do.
That’s not really an exaggeration! On an appearance on MSNBC, Liz Cheney appeared to say that Obama’s speech in Cairo today showed that he wants to deal with terrorists by “hand-holding.” Check out what she said starting around 30 seconds in.
Here’s a transcript:
“I think that if we lived in a world where terrorism, and the slaughter of innocents, and Iran’s hegemonic hopes for the Middle East could be met, could be defeated, could be dealt with by sort of hand-holding going forward, then we’d be in a much simpler environment. But these are very, very tough issues. And I was troubled by the extent to which I heard moral relativism.”
That’s some highly suggestive language coming from Ms. Cheney, isn’t it?
In reality, in his speech today, Obama strongly denounced 9/11-denial to an Arab audience, said American troops are in Afghanistan out of “necessity,” because terrorists are “determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can,” and said America’s commitment to destroying terror networks “will not waver.”
She's just in line with the usual conservative nutty attacks. Remember when Rove said this about liberals in 2005:
(The C&L video archives rule again!)
Rove last night also criticized Democrats for responding weakly to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said
Rove should have been fired for this, but the media never minds when conservatives call liberals traitors. Froomkin wrote an excellent piece on this. Nothing has changed much from 2005, has it?
Omar Osama bin Laden bears a striking resemblance to his notorious father — except for the dreadlocks that dangle halfway down his back. Then there's the black leather biker jacket.
The 26-year-old does not renounce his father, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, but in an interview with The Associated Press, he said there is better way to defend Islam than militancy: Omar wants to be an "ambassador for peace" between Muslims and the West.
"It's about changing the ideas of the Western mind. A lot of people think Arabs — especially the bin Ladens, especially the sons of Osama — are all terrorists. This is not the truth," Omar told the AP last week at a cafe in a Cairo shopping mall. Read on...
(Nicole:) One of the things that has always annoyed me about the current demonization of Muslims by many in the press and GOP as silently complicit with the "Islamofascists" (a word that makes no sense) is that they are not silent. But rarely does the press give air time to someone who believes in peace.