Skip to comments.State: 'Core al Qaeda' didn't plan Benghazi
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.
The State Department spokeswoman acknowledged that al Qaedas 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.
LOL! “State” picking up the fumble by their toads at the New Yawk Slimes and running with it. Hey! Somebody has to look out for the Al Qaeda islamfascists and make sure they don’t get a bad rap. It might as well be their pals at the Times and at the U.S. State Department.
I just figured Core Soetero, Jarrett and Clinton were responsible for it.
Right on cue.
core al Qaeda ???
What is that description other than a self-serving designation to cloud the truth and give wiggle room to the administration?
Is that like saying "Core Obama" didn't actually write the ObamaScare law?
Or that core-Hillary didn't actually deny increased security at Benghazi before the 9/11 attack?
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise me or Republicanprofessor.
Great bumper sticker CC!
Al Qaeda has no core. It’s a franchise operation. Another nothing burger statement to provide cover for Obama and Clinton.
Just like 99% of the population, when I talk about al Qaeda I don't mean "core" al Qaeda (whatever the heck THAT is) I mean anyone associated with al Qaeda - that means ANY al Qaeda leader, follower, member, associate, affiliate, auxiliary, groupie, sycophant, hanger-on, brown-noser or a$$-kisser.
Are we clear on that?
Those Libyans have some tough “flash mobs”. They bring their own mortar platoons with them. - Department of State thinking.
I just put it up in my zazzle store this morning but it won’t show up for 24 hours.
Instead of defending their story on Benghazi they spent it attacking Republicans for thinking that the NYT's was covering for Hillary.
Morsi and the Muzzie Brothers did
“Can it core al-Qaida?”
Al Qaeda must love having so many willing liberal stooges running cover for them in the US State Department.
The AQ group in Lebanon didn’t pay their annual membership dues...we know hoe carefully AQ accounts for this stuff..so they were suspended at the time of the attacks, and thus NOT technically part of AQ..
In other words Bin Laden wasn’t there personally so it doesn’t count.
This illustrates perfectly an administration desperately searching for a narrative.
Every single one of them is a pathological liar.
Right. It wasn’t REALLY ayman zawahiri on that tape calling for an attack on Americans and US interests in Libya as payback for yahya al libi.
Dang. Every time I type that name, that stupid song starts playing in my head. Gah.
Sittin’ here la la waitin’ for my ya ya uh ummmmm.
Can’t help it.
The State Department can’t identify Core al Qaeda members because they all signed up for Core Obamacare and the website has been down for routine maintenance.
Ima no like anti-semantics. Semants are good people. Just ask’em.
The Five discussed this last night. This was found on binladens computer-—that he was “rebranding” AQ and , indeed, this was still AQ that was responsible for Benghazi.
The entire Al Qaeda concept was to train decentralized cells to act independently of any “core”. The State Department “spokesperson” cannot possibly be ignorant of this. So she is using her position to spread propaganda for partisan political purposes. The nation is in grave danger when we have political hacks manipulating foreign policy. She and her ilk are unacceptable.
They discussed this on the FNC panel last night. This is the left trying to weasel out of the NY Times no al Qaeda claim. Kristin made the point that it's a moot point anyways. The initial You Tube video claim is what was a lie.
This is like saying the bomb was planted by the militant wing of ..... not the political wing.
oh man, is that good!!!
This just in...
On further examination it has been learned that the military installations at Pearl Harbor were not attacked by the core of the Japanese military.
It’s a great message, but it would need a picture IMO - Low info voters might not have the first clue who “Rodham” refers to.
I thought Al Qaeda had a common core.
It ranks up there with “White Hispanic”!
They just jack with the language to help themselves politically.
By the way - who is core Al Qaeda? Do we have a list of names on their official website? What self-serving nonsense.
I like how the administration gives tidbits of info on Benghazi to serve their political purposes, and refuses to address their incredible stonewalling on the vital information. Where is the autopsy on Ambassador Stevens? What was the President doing while we were being attacked? Where were the US forces? Why and who ordered them to stand down? Who came up with the Video story. Why was the Video story then denied and why is it coming back? Why was it said since there was not enough time to save them, the military would not be sent - where is that irresponsible regulation written? Why is the State Department now contradicting themselves?
Even wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack)says no to the video:
“At various times between September 11 and 17, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subject to protests and violent attacks in response to an inflammatory video, Innocence of Muslims. Initially, it was suggested that the Benghazi attack emerged from a similar spontaneous protest. Subsequent investigations by the U.S. State Department and by the House of Representatives committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, the Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform determined that there was no such protest and that the attack was premeditated and launched by Islamist militants.”
Sad but oh so true.
The State Dept is not exactly comprised of the sharpest knives in the drawer. What fool would believe anything these marshmallow majors say?
The fact that it was led by one of the demonstrably least accomplished human(?) beings in the multiverse - Hillabeast Grifterton - is ample proof that the institution is a joke.
No one gives a smelly Obama about them any more. Least of all, the real countries out there who are fortunate enough to have real leaders.
“State” is stupid.
Mygosh, I read that title and my inner sicko can’t stop laughing. Is AlQaida selling franchises?
Their is no more a Core Al-Qaeda than there is a Core Tea Party. More media doublespeak.
And how does one differentiate between the two?
Does Core Al Qaeda sport a different pattern head rag than Non-Core Al Qaeda?
"This is Benghazi Ambassador One. Please send immediate assistance. We are currently undergoing a severe attack
by terrorists who claim to be Al Qaeda. I believe they said they are with the non-core faction."
"Sorry Benghazi Ambassador One. We provide military support only against core Al Qaeda. We do not provide
support against non-core Al Qaeda. The Secretary of State said "Good Luck, You are on your own."
“Core al Qaeda”, and al Qaeda means ‘the base’.
Does this mean Tea Party is ‘core GOP’?
Rove and GOPe et al. would disagree.
the video spontaneous combustion unruly mob no 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-Qaedas Ayman al-Zawahiri received a letter calling for Al-Qaedas 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 Ladens 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?
Lets 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 Ladens 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.