Former Gitmo detainee and AQ operative took part in Benghazi attack

posted at 8:01 am on January 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Almost sixteen months after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, we still have held no one accountable — but the roster of terrorists is expanding in familiar directions. The Washington Post reported overnight that Obama administration officials now suspect a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay as being one of the leaders. Abu Sufian bin Qumu has connections to al-Qaeda as well, despite a recent report from the New York Times asserting that AQ had no involvement in the attack:

U.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Militiamen under the command of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah, participated in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, U.S. officials said.

Witnesses have told American officials that Qumu’s men were in Benghazi before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, according to the officials. It’s unclear whether they were there as part of a planned attack or out of happenstance. The drive from Darnah to Benghazi takes several hours.

The State Department is expected to tie Qumu’s group to the Benghazi attack when it designates three branches of Ansar al-Sharia, in Darnah, Benghazi and Tunisia, as foreign terrorist organizations in the coming days.

The Bush administration freed Qumu in 2007 and sent him back to Libya.  At the time, the US government was under pressure at home and internationally to close Gitmo and release all of the prisoners detained there. Qumu isn’t the first Gitmo alumnus to return to terrorism, but he may have made himself the most successful at it, at least in relation to terror attacks on Americans.

The Post gives a long description of Qumu’s affiliation with AQ, which started in 1993, and included links to Abu Zubayda, who is still in Gitmo. Qumu got a monthly salary from AQ, discovered in captured files. Thomas Joscelyn has more at the Weekly Standard:

Ben Qumu is one of the original “Arab Afghans” who traveled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. In the years that followed the end of the anti-Soviet jihad, Ben Qumu followed al Qaeda to the Sudan and then, in the mid-to-late 1990s, back to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was eventually arrested in Pakistan after the 9/11 attacks and transferred to the American detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.

A leaked Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment describes Ben Qumu as an “associate” of Osama bin Laden. JTF-GTMO found that Ben Qumu worked as a driver for a company owned by bin Laden in the Sudan, fought alongside al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and maintained ties to several other well-known al Qaeda leaders. Ben Qumu’s alias was found on the laptop of an al Qaeda operative responsible for overseeing the finances for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The information on the laptop indicated that Ben Qumu was an al Qaeda “member receiving family support.”

Fast forward to the present:

An August 2012 report published by the Library of Congress in conjunction with the Defense Department, titled “Al Qaeda in Libya: a Profile,” identified Ben Qumu as the possible “new face of al Qaeda in Libya despite” his denial of an ongoing al Qaeda role. The report also noted that Ben Qumu and his Ansar al Sharia fighters are “believed to be close to the al Qaeda clandestine network” in Libya. According to the report’s authors, that same network is headed by al Qaeda operatives who report to al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Pakistan, including Ayman al Zawahiri.

The reporting on Ben Qumu’s ties to the Benghazi attack directly refutes an account by David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times. Kirkpatrick reported that “neither Mr. Qumu nor anyone else in Derna appears to have played a significant role in the attack on the American Mission, officials briefed on the investigation and the intelligence said.”

August 2012 was just a month before the Benghazi attack — which, not coincidentally, took place on the eleventh anniversary of AQ’s greatest triumph, the 9/11 attacks. That makes AQ involvement hard to deny, unless one is really, really committed to ignoring it.

Update: David Kirkpatrick’s report flatly stated that the US did not think Qumu took part in the attack. How did he get it so wrong? Patrick Brennan wonders about that, too:

And second, why did the Times report just a week ago that “neither Mr. Qumu nor anyone else in Derna appears to have played a significant role in the attack on the American Mission,” based on reporting from “officials briefed on the investigation and the intelligence,” just a week before the U.S. makes it pretty clear they do think Qumu played a role? A few of the possibilities: The Times’ reporting was stale, and the reporter, David Kirkpatrick, didn’t ensure that the bin Qumu story hadn’t changed; the officials he spoke to simply didn’t know that bin Qumu was now a suspect again, which would seem careless (for him to relate such a denial from officials who didn’t know the whole the situation); Kirkpatrick was relaying a narrowly tailored denial that somehow hinged on the word “significant” (doing, if he understood as much, his readers a big disservice); or maybe even suspicion about bin Qumu has surged back only very recently.

Shouldn’t the suggestion that al-Qaeda didn’t take part in an attack on the anniversary of 9/11 in an area rife with its affiliates have generated a wee bit more journalistic skepticism?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Released from Gitmo. Ambassador Stevens’ blood is literally on their hands.

crrr6 on January 8, 2014 at 8:07 AM

Nothing to see here…..let’s focus on gates
-lsm helping Hillary

Unstinkingbelievable the info that keeps trickling out and yet we have another 4 years of dear leader with help from Candy…..

cmsinaz on January 8, 2014 at 8:10 AM

Almost sixteen months after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, we still have held no one accountable

You mean besides that guy in California with a YouTube video. He had to be accountable. Killary and the rat-eared wonder even spent $100K on an ad campaign apologizing for his actions. And, to the best of my knowledge, the administration has never backed down from the claim that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest based on outrage over this video.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 8:11 AM

I guess that nyt reporter missed this huh

cmsinaz on January 8, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Qumu isn’t the first Gitmo alumnus to return to terrorism, but he may have made himself the most successful at it, at least in relation to terror attacks on Americans.

There are enough terrorists running around Al Qaeda after being detained that they could set up a Gitmo Alumni Association.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 8:15 AM

Released by GWB. Let’s not kid ourselves just because we want all this to be on Obama.

Bat Chain Puller on January 8, 2014 at 8:15 AM

History hit hardest…..
And facts……

Electrongod on January 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM

Witnesses have told American officials that Qumu’s men were in Benghazi before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, according to the officials. It’s unclear whether they were there as part of a planned attack or out of happenstance. The drive from Darnah to Benghazi takes several hours.

It’s only unclear to those who don’t want to admit it was a planned attack.

Steve Eggleston on January 8, 2014 at 8:19 AM

Released by GWB. Let’s not kid ourselves just because we want all this to be on Obama.

Bat Chain Puller on January 8, 2014 at 8:15 AM

This may be true…

But Obama is president…
And commander-in-Chief..
For about 4 years then…

Where was he?

Electrongod on January 8, 2014 at 8:19 AM

All the more reason to release the Islamokazis from 35,000 feet sans parachute if we have to release them at all.

Steve Eggleston on January 8, 2014 at 8:21 AM

Well then, if we’re lucky enough to catch the SOB again, my recommendation is death by lead poisoning. Don’t waste any more resources on the jerk.

NavyMustang on January 8, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Released by GWB. Let’s not kid ourselves just because we want all this to be on Obama.

Bat Chain Puller on January 8, 2014 at 8:15 AM

For years we’ve been listening to morons on the left call for closure of Gitmo. Whether GWB released this guy under political pressure or whether he slipped through the cracks is besides the point. It should be a very high bar to get out of that prison, and instead of closing that facility, we should be talking about expanding it.

crrr6 on January 8, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Shouldn’t the suggestion that al-Qaeda didn’t take part in an attack on the anniversary of 9/11 in an area rife with its affiliates have generated a wee bit more journalistic skepticism?

…not when someone is a political slut…and whore!
…traitors!

KOOLAID2 on January 8, 2014 at 8:29 AM

Why was there a Gitmo?How many Americans can name an AQ operative besides Bin Laden?They should have been disappeared after capture and interrogation.No one outside of that circle would have known and the world would be better off.

docflash on January 8, 2014 at 8:31 AM

Shouldn’t the suggestion that al-Qaeda didn’t take part in an attack on the anniversary of 9/11 in an area rife with its affiliates have generated a wee bit more journalistic skepticism?

Not if said skepticism is being asked of an al-Qaeda collaborator, sympathizer, member with NYT credentials, etc. The gray lady qualifies as one of Obama’s most trusted and reliable “willing assasin”.

onomo on January 8, 2014 at 8:34 AM

This Bush blunder is just more evidence we cannot tell which detainees are actually dangerous and which ones are innocents held in cages forever by the tyrannical American military machine.

So obviously we should release them all. Better 100 guilty men go free than a single innocent man is wrongly punished.

- Typical Clueless Democrat Dingbat

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Better 100 guilty men go free than a single innocent man is wrongly punished.

- Typical Clueless Democrat Dingbat

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Same logic they’ll be using when the tribunals start to deal with all the criminals in the Obama administration.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 8:43 AM

Update: David Kirkpatrick’s report flatly stated that the US did not think Qumu took part in the attack. How did he get it so wrong? Patrick Brennan wonders about that, too:

Because they wanted to get it wrong. Lies and Misdirection all aimed at removing any blame from the Hilda Beast in her 2016 run.

Johnnyreb on January 8, 2014 at 8:43 AM

Radical left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights represented Abu Sufian bin Qumu

The left-wing organization that helped spring Qumu was the Center for Constitutional Rights. Last April, the group issued an indignant press release painting Qumu as a harmless victim and blasting those concerned about his unrepentant jihadi ways. After a trove of Gitmo documents found their way to Wikileaks and were published by the New York Times, CCR rose to Qumu’s defense and parroted jihadi propaganda that the aggrieved Qumu was actually a friend of the U.S.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/09/20/radical-left-wing-center-for-constitutional-rights-represented-abu-sufian-bin-qumu/

lynncgb on January 8, 2014 at 8:55 AM

What difference does it make?

myiq2xu on January 8, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Released by GWB. Let’s not kid ourselves just because we want all this to be on Obama.

Bat Chain Puller on January 8, 2014 at 8:15 AM

The Bush administration freed Qumu in 2007 and sent him back to Libya. At the time, the US government was under pressure at home and internationally to close Gitmo and release all of the prisoners detained there.

Gee, I wonder WHO was lodging that pressure to close Gitmo? Remember, republicans got thumped in the 2006 midterms.
And, who made it his first act as president to CLOSE Gitmo? Another lie.
Pay attention and stop pulling your own chain, Bat! It’s making you go blind!

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 9:04 AM

It’s unclear whether they were there as part of a planned attack or out of happenstance.

LOL. Clearly it was happenstance. Just like it was a coincidence that the AQ flag was flying over the Benghazi consulate hours after the attack.

BTW, I have some lovely oceanfront property for sale here in AZ for any of you sophisticated, well-educated NY Times readers who may be interested in making a savvy real estate investment. It’s reasonably priced too. And Paul Krugman says it’s a great buy. You can’t go wrong!

AZCoyote on January 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Ed –
As you entertain and promote the theory that ‘significant’ details are dismissed by the Times and others who attempt a more sober telling of all of this, I hope you also allow for the fact that the story the right wants to be true is told mostly via the amplification and warping of insignificant details.
Unfortunately, Benghazi has entered the realm of the Kennedy assassination – where infinite conspiracies will forever mute what is an obvious and tragic reality.

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

why did the Times report just a week ago that “neither Mr. Qumu nor anyone else in Derna appears to have played a significant role in the attack on the American Mission,”

Someone has to ask this? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

rrpjr on January 8, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Why was there a Gitmo?How many Americans can name an AQ operative besides Bin Laden?They should have been disappeared after capture and interrogation.No one outside of that circle would have known and the world would be better off.

docflash on January 8, 2014 at 8:31 AM

I’ve always wondered the same thing. At the very least they should never be released.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 8, 2014 at 9:23 AM

See? If we had only given him a fair trial in NYC this never would have happened!

/s

MJBrutus on January 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM

where infinite conspiracies will forever mute what is an obvious and tragic reality.

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

You don’t need to believe in conspiracies to recognize the decision not to try to help our people under fire on the ground was a ghastly betrayal.

You don’t need to believe in conspiracies to recognize blaming a guy who made a video for the murderous terrorist attack in Benghazi is an attack on free speech.

You don’t need to believe in conspiracies to recognize Muslims knew what Obama was saying when he told the UN “the future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam.”

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

What were Obama and Hillary doing the night of the Benghazi attack and what were they doing about it? Do you have to be a conspiracy theorist to want to know the answer to the very first question that should have been asked?

crrr6 on January 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Ed –
As you entertain and promote the theory that ‘significant’ details are dismissed by the Times and others who attempt a more sober telling of all of this, I hope you also allow for the fact that the story the right wants to be true is told mostly via the amplification and warping of insignificant details.
Unfortunately, Benghazi has entered the realm of the Kennedy assassination – where infinite conspiracies will forever mute what is an obvious and tragic reality.

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Ed-

As you post facts and twist the panties of our resident trolls, who still believe the theory, lie, told by Obama, Clinton, and Rice, that this was a attack based on a video that no one had seen, I hope you also allow for the fact that the story the Left Wants to be true is told mostly via the amplification and warping of lies. Remember, it’s HER turn in 2016.
Unfortunately, Benghazi has entered the realm of the Kennedy Assasination-where four American men died and infinite conspiracies will forever mute the obvious traitorous lies of this administration.
But, what difference does it make? It’s HER turn!

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM

You want to know why Boehner is not moving Benghazi forward? Because the political cost for him is too high;

Letter questions whether Boehner was briefed on Benghazi ops

There are apparently people in both parties who don’t want Benghazi investigated.

So politics are more important than answers on why four Americans were left to be murdered Mr. Boehner?

Marcus Traianus on January 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Perhaps there would be a smidge less room for creative interpretation if we had an administration that hasn’t tried to cover up their role at every step. If the POTUS and his cabinet stopped lying to us and blaming stupid, little You Tube vids.

MJBrutus on January 8, 2014 at 9:27 AM

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Yeah. Whatever! You actually believe that the Times had a reporter on the ground during the murder of our men.

Vince on January 8, 2014 at 9:27 AM

Pay attention and stop pulling your own chain, Bat! It’s making you go blind!

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 9:04 AM

GWB rolled out a red carpet for Obama and his policies. Blindness is believing otherwise.

Bat Chain Puller on January 8, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Pay attention and stop pulling your own chain, Bat! It’s making you go blind!

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 9:04 AM

GWB rolled out a red carpet for Obama and his policies. Blindness is believing otherwise.

Bat Chain Puller on January 8, 2014 at 9:38 AM

GWB was horrible with his spending and his amnesty push, but please, the only reason we haven’t been hit again with a 9/11 style attack HERE is because of Bush’s structure that Obama has worked to dismantle, queer, or otherwise destroy.
You blaming Bush sounds as ignorant as Obama.

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Too bad the Joint Task Force didn’t leak to the NYT. They would have had the truth to print and saved a lot of money from the reporters expense account.

Kissmygrits on January 8, 2014 at 9:53 AM

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

rogerb on January 8, 2014 at 9:56 AM

The Bush administration freed Qumu in 2007

Now it’s a scandal.

Buddahpundit on January 8, 2014 at 10:02 AM

David Kirkpatrick’s report flatly stated that the US did not think Qumu took part in the attack. How did he get it so wrong?

“Remember, Jerry, it’s not a Lie, if you believe it!”

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Ed –

As you entertain and promote the theory that ‘significant’ details are dismissed by the Times and others who attempt a more sober telling of all of this, I hope you also allow for the fact that the story the right wants to be true is told mostly via the amplification and warping of insignificant details.

Unfortunately, Benghazi has entered the realm of the Kennedy assassination – where infinite conspiracies will forever mute what is an obvious and tragic reality.

Hillary Clinton on January 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 10:04 AM

GWB was horrible with his spending and his amnesty push, but please, the only reason we haven’t been hit again with a 9/11 style attack HERE is because of Bush’s structure that Obama has worked to dismantle, queer, or otherwise destroy.
You blaming Bush sounds as ignorant as Obama.

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 9:50 AM

As a direct result of 9/11 having been a one-off we have failed to fix the problem.

As horrifying as it is, sometimes populations need to really feel the pain before they will stop doing something incredibly stupid. Our immigration and visa systems are still ridiculous, and the ‘reforms’ currently under discussion are not to make the mess better. They are only intended to make the matter much worse.

Now we have the TSA and other freedom reducing ‘solutions.’

I was one of those who turned a blind eye to the waterboarding. It was necessary to protect us from further horror. I rationalized pushing the Constitutional edges.

I no longer think that was wise. We should have played straight up by the rules and taken the bloody hits. Then we might have identified the real enemy and fought back.

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 10:06 AM

@ Marcus Traianus on January 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM -
Thanks for that link! WOW!

GrannySunni on January 8, 2014 at 10:07 AM

It sure would be nice to know who pressured the US into releasing this one and all the conditions of his release. I suspect we’ll have the entire media, left and right, covering it up.

One thing looks apparent: Obama’s illegal Arab Spring army in Libya contained freed Gitmo al qaeda prisoners. Obama put an assault rifle in his hands. It’s not real difficult to understand why Obama can’t afford to bring any of them to justice. He would be bringing himself to justice in the process.

Buddahpundit on January 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Marcus Traianus on January 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Closely parallels Pelosi and her failure to remember being briefed on enhanced interrogation methods. If this is true – it’s just another reason to hate Boehner. Excellent article by Catherine Herridge.

Hill60 on January 8, 2014 at 10:20 AM

GWB was horrible with his spending and his amnesty push, but please, the only reason we haven’t been hit again with a 9/11 style attack HERE is because of Bush’s structure that Obama has worked to dismantle, queer, or otherwise destroy.
You blaming Bush sounds as ignorant as Obama.

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 9:50 AM

As a direct result of 9/11 having been a one-off we have failed to fix the problem.

As horrifying as it is, sometimes populations need to really feel the pain before they will stop doing something incredibly stupid. Our immigration and visa systems are still ridiculous, and the ‘reforms’ currently under discussion are not to make the mess better. They are only intended to make the matter much worse.

Now we have the TSA and other freedom reducing ‘solutions.’

I was one of those who turned a blind eye to the waterboarding. It was necessary to protect us from further horror. I rationalized pushing the Constitutional edges.

I no longer think that was wise. We should have played straight up by the rules and taken the bloody hits. Then we might have identified the real enemy and fought back.

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 10:06 AM

I will agree, we need to work smarter both with buttoning up immigration/visa, and hiring former military instead of a former burger flipper to be a TSA worker.
As far as water boarding, I’m still all for it. They brought the war to us, so I’m not going to lose sleep that some jihadist thinks he might drown. I’m actually for a Texas style execution lane at Gitmo with quick and slick military tribunals. But, I response, we need to stop nation building and thinking savages everywhere want freedom. If they come from a certain country to attack us , we carpet bomb those areas and don’t get bogged down. The countries hosting AQ will quickly learn the money isn’t worth the trouble to host terrorists.
As long as we have mealy mouthed jackasses like McCain and the democrats, the enemy will never be identified.

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Since GITMO became the gathering place for islamic terrorists, aka, human garbage, I have advocated a, shall I say, less than charitable treatment of this human waste as compared to regular criminals and murderers.

It seems that with every passing day, that inmates of this popular terrorist resort that have conned their captors into releasing them continually show up back in the terrorist game with unusual vengeance – killing assorted folks and especially American troops that had once put them into the Caribbean terrorist resort on the island of Cuba with an expectation that they wouldn’t be back.

I have to admit that I had no patience with the idea of warehousing terrorists, and early on advocated disposing of their finger and toeless skinned bodies rapidly and in an ecologically sound and PETA-approved manner after exhausting any intelligence value they might have once possessed.

Now, after nearly a decade of liberal/progressive Democrat coddling islamic terrorists for purely political reasons, I see no evidence that “nice” has had any effect other than keeping them fat and happy as they contemplate killing Yankee infidel dogs with their newly acquired English-speaking skills as inmates in a resort prison.

Before stupidly releasing any of these “inmates,” who undoubtedly will rush right back into their previous occupations as terrorists, I would suggest lining up every last terrorist inmate in group formation, naked and securely bound with plastic leg and wrist cuffs, and star them in an afternoon’s group happy purge in the name of sanity by tossing every last remaining occupant into a row of roaring tree shredding machines with discharge chutes aligned to dump their product into Guantanamo Bay where they can end their worthless existences in a somewhat useful mannee feeding the crabs and fishes.

dockywocky on January 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Before stupidly releasing any of these “inmates,” who undoubtedly will rush right back into their previous occupations as terrorists, I would suggest lining up every last terrorist inmate in group formation, naked and securely bound with plastic leg and wrist cuffs, and star them in an afternoon’s group happy purge in the name of sanity by tossing every last remaining occupant into a row of roaring tree shredding machines with discharge chutes aligned to dump their product into Guantanamo Bay where they can end their worthless existences in a somewhat useful mannee feeding the crabs and fishes.

dockywocky on January 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM

You had me at wood chipper.

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 9:12 AM

You don’t need to believe in conspiracies to recognize Muslims knew what Obama was saying when he told the UN “the future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam.”

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM

The actual quote:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Better 100 guilty men go free than a single innocent man is wrongly punished.

- Typical Clueless Democrat Dingbat

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Except if the wrongly punished innocent man is Kenneth Bae in North Korea. That’s OK with Dingbat Rodman if he can shoot hoops with his pal Kim who fed his uncle to the dogs.

Steve Z on January 8, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Benghazi….Never forget….

crosshugger on January 8, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Benghazi…never forget

crosshugger on January 8, 2014 at 11:00 AM

The actual quote:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Exactly. We need to condemn the hatred and destruction Muslims rain down on Christians and Jews right along with condemning any comments that may seem critical of the Prophet of Islam (Obama knows perfectly well that is what “slander the Prophet of Islam” means to Muslims). So condemning the “slanderers” will be credible.

And you do not see some problems there.

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Released by GWB. Let’s not kid ourselves just because we want all this to be on Obama.

Bat Chain Puller on January 8, 2014 at 8:15 AM

That may be true but the fact that on 9/11 there wasn’t enough security at the Benghazi compound and the whereabouts of the president and his sec of state remain murky at best, as well as what their mission was at the time, should Bush answer for that as well? No. Should an SOS have uttered the words “what difference now does it make” and still not be held accountable 16 months later?

scalleywag on January 8, 2014 at 11:09 AM

“If he wasn’t directly related to Zawahiri, he’s not AlQaida, fools” — the NYT

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Only thing missing from this story is the discovery that the weapons used came from the Fast & Furious gunrunning scandal.

kurtzz3 on January 8, 2014 at 11:33 AM

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Oh…so he was sending coded messages.
/

The angle you push is an old one…with no legs. Even when, as you do, right blogs did their darnedest to take that one line out of context and raise eyebrows, they got a collective yawn.
Although for sure many take great issue with Obama’s policies, these ‘he’s speaking to the scary Muslims’ routine is a dead horse.

As POTUS, he has to act…you know, Presidential.
And that’s what he did with his UN speech then.
If you want a leader that lights torches and hands out pitchforks, you might ironically in some ways find yourself more comfortable elsewhere.

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Oh…so he was sending coded messages.

There is nothing “coded” about it, and anyone who knows anything at all about Islam knows it.

Muhammed was the perfect man. When you say things critical of him, that is slander.

Your ignorance is appalling.

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 11:56 AM

There is nothing “coded” about it, and anyone who knows anything at all about Islam knows it.

Muhammed was the perfect man. When you say things critical of him, that is slander.

fadetogray on January 8, 2014 at 11:56 AM

That may be, of the 1.6 billion Muslims, few cared all that much.

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Released by GWB. Let’s not kid ourselves just because we want all this to be on Obama.

Bat Chain Puller on January 8, 2014 at 8:15 AM

What part of Obama was President and Clinton was Secretary of State on September 11, 2012 is so hard to grasp? So the guy was let go in 2007. That’s about 5 years worth of inactivity. And President Bush was out of office for 3 of those years.

It WAS all on Obama.

Mitoch55 on January 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Obama’s shining success. Hillary’s warm up for when she takes the reigns of power again and goes for Hitler-Stalin sized body count.

Murphy9 on January 8, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Remember when closing Gitmo was “imperative”??

Good times, good times……

KMC1 on January 8, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Bat

Chain Puller

…you’re pulling a chain alright!

KOOLAID2 on January 8, 2014 at 8:59 PM

I would wager that this is not so much a reflection of American values or culinary culture, but rather an indication of how media can be directed and effectiveness of a novel marketing plan.

lexhamfox on January 8, 2014 at 11:51 PM