« | »

LAT: No Evidence Of Al Qaeda In Libya Attack

From an utterly shameless Los Angeles Times:

No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack

U.S. intelligence agencies and witnesses paint a picture of an assault carried out with little planning at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

By Ken Dilanian and Shashank Bengali | Fri October 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya

Hilarious. This doesn’t even pass the straight face test. "Opportunistic" mobs don’t suddenly show up with AK-47s, 12.7mm machine guns, RPGs and 82mm mortars.

Opportunistic protesters don’t attack in waves. They don’t know where the ‘safe house’ is.

After five weeks of investigation, U.S. intelligence agencies say they have found no evidence of Al Qaeda participation.

Five weeks of investigation? The FBI and other authorities were not even allowed into Libya for three weeks. They have not even been able to question the 40 suspects rounded up by the Libyan government.

Also, notice the timing here. We have been told by Hillary and others that any investigation would take months, and that we would never hear the results before election day.

But, lo and behold, we have this ‘leak’ just in time for tonight’s debate on foreign policy.

The attack was "carried out following a minimum amount of planning," said a U.S. intelligence official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter still under investigation. "The attackers exhibited a high degree of disorganization. Some joined the attack in progress, some did not have weapons and others just seemed interested in looting."

A second U.S. official added, "There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance." Most of the evidence so far suggests that "the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" earlier that day, the official said…

Real life US intelligence officers are expressly prohibited from talking to the media. They have to take polygraphs, on a regular as well as random basis, where they are asked about their contact with the press.

Which makes us suspect that these intelligence officials are not what they claim or they were just made up out of whole cloth by the LA Times.

Republicans began portraying the attack as the work of Al Qaeda, and they accused the administration of deliberately seeking to downplay that possibility.

Now, however, said another official with access to the intelligence, "it may turn out that the initial assessment was not that far off."

Hilarious. The administration is going back to their first story. Or was it their second story? We’re confused.

Meanwhile, as we noted on Friday, we were told this by the Associated Press:

CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit

October 19, 2012

WASHINGTON The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press…

The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaeda-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed the "fog of war" for the early conflicting accounts…

The White House and their lickspittle media minions need to pick a story and to stick to it.

For the record, here is a reminder about the heavy presence of Al Qaeda in Benghazi from almost a year ago, via the National Review:

See No Al-Qaeda: The New York Times and Libya

By John Rosenthal | November 2, 2011

The spotting of al-Qaeda’s black flag flying atop the Benghazi courthouse a few days ago sparked much excitement on the Internet regarding the role being played by the Islamic terror organization in post-Qaddafi Libya. As I have pointed out, anti-Qaddafi forces had already been spotted flying the related “Islamic Caliphate” flag during the siege of Sirte: the decisive battle of the anti-Qaddafi rebellion…

[T]he New York Times published a story online accompanied by the [above] Reuters photo, which clearly shows protestors in Benghazi waving not one, but several al-Qaeda flags (including a novel black-on-white variant).

The accompanying caption, however, simply reads: “In Benghazi on Friday, several hundred men rallied to demand the application of Islamic law, or Shariah, in Libya. That could clear the way for polygamy.” There is no mention of the flag or its provenance.

This is to say, in effect, that one can wave the al-Qaeda flag in the noses of Western journalists in broad daylight in Libya, and they will either not recognize it, or if they do, not deign to inform their readers. The episode could serve as a parable for the virtual entirety of Western reporting on the Libyan war.

And, see also the subsequent article from the National Review: "Benghazi: A Sea of Al-Qaeda Flags," which has many more photos of Al Qaeda flags in Benghazi.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, October 22nd, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “LAT: No Evidence Of Al Qaeda In Libya Attack”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    I’m fairly well off.

    A cut above the average American.

    It would break me financially to buy:

    A brace of AK 47s with enough ammunition to mame a difference. Say, 4,000 – 5,000 rounds per weapon.

    Just one 12.7mm machine gun http://warfare.ru/0702ey70/update/december2010/kord.jpg which is tasked to everything from anti-armor to air support suppression – it’s really a .50 heavy weapon. Now let’s speak to ammunition. My costs would be around $180 per 50 rounds, or, $3.60 per round. To do any good I assume around 2,000 rounds just to be able to make a point in a fire fight, which can get sustained over many hours, but let’s just say 2,000 for kicks and giggles

    Then there’s the RPGs – although the firing unit itself is reported to be fairly cheap at $500 apx. the rounds are anywhere from $100 – $200 each. Figure 5-+ for a small attack – and say 4-5 RPGs per small unti engaging in an assault

    82mm Mortars – you can find anything on the Internets – 82’s firing HE will run about $1,000 apiece with a case of ten rounds costing $950. Call it mortar for this assault with five cases of mortar rounds.

    Grand Total – a lot. You do the math.

    Now, I used to ask this question of Shining Path Maoists down in South America. No shoes, no good food, no uniforms, no technical backup, no infrastructure, etc – how the hell were they buying thousands of AKs, ammo, RPGs, mortars etc. This stuff ain’t cheap and they go through weapons of war like grass goes through a goose.

    The ragheads are profligate about using up their material.

    So, this wasn’t “just a mob”, unless that mob is flush with cash. A lot of cash. A LOT OF CASH

    So, LA Times can go suck wind

« Front Page | To Top
« | »