January 16, 2014

“Stevens Cabled Washington: CIA Says ‘AQ [Al Qaeda] Training Camps Within Benghazi’”

Really?  Well, he’s dead now — and who knows what was done to his body.  So to borrow from the next President of the Amerikka, “what difference does it make?”

An internet trailer, Al Qaeda building forces in an election year wherein the incumbent was running on the false narrative that Al Qaeda had all but been eradicated, even as his diplomatic corps worked to bolster and aid the Muslim Brotherhood — it’s all relative, right?

Being anti-foundationalist means never having to say you’re sorry.  Because that, too, is bogus construct, egged on by outmoded moral tenets that have little to do with the self-interest and single-mindedness that must often be brought to bear on those who resist Change — decided upon by their intellectual betters — made for the Greater Good.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:34am
7 comments | Trackback

Comments (7)

  1. Who knew that deliberately letting an ambassador and several other Americans die in an Al-Qaeda attack would clinch the presidency for Cankles Clinton? She really is the smartest woman in the world.

  2. Well fine, but Stephens didn’t cable to out an anti-Islam Coptic Christian outrage film, so hey, the State Dept. can’t be faulted for inattention. I mean, how were they to know? It’s not like the State Dept. can be expected to recall silly stuff like pretextual world-wide protests against Muhammed Cartoons or goofs like that Van Gogh guy shot and stabbed on the street.

  3. Sounds like the State Department has a fundamental lack of cultural ombudsmen. I for one am appalled at this shocking dearth of sensitivity. Oh, and dead Americans are sort of embarrassing as we have to rely on the Fourth Estate to obscure that detail.

  4. Sounds like the State Department has a fundamental lack of cultural ombudsmen.

    Oof, thank god for the lack: we can’t have our people engaged in othering, after all. It just wouldn’t look right.

  5. Stevens claimed this, but hey, what did he know?

    The NYT just told us recently that AQ was *not* involved according to a reporter who was at the scene (which was a revelation 1 1/2 years after the attack, huh?), and they’re the “paper of record,” so you know…

  6. It makes no sense at all that this was an Al Qaeda attack. We were supplying arms to the Al Qaeda rebels in Syria from Benghazi. Why would they shoot the golden goose? Try this on for size.

    We were attacked by an Iranian proxy. The Iranians were more than a bit upset with our arming the rebels fighting their ally Assad.

    That theory explains a lot of what happened in Benghazi.

  7. Why would they shoot the golden goose?

    Not goose. Frog.

    The arms deal was based on a similar misconception.

Leave a Reply