web analytics

Did Obama Cut a Deal With Al Qaeda That Went Bad in Benghazi?


On October 24, I shared some details with you related to the attack in Benghazi. As a follow-up, I have a theory that the reason America has not experienced a terrorist attack on the level of 9-11-01 since Barack Obama took office is not due to his being “tough on terror.” Rather, it is because he cut a deal with Al Qaeda to support the “Arab Spring” in exchange for a pledge that our shores would not be attacked. Sound crazy? This is exactly what the New York Times is recommending as policy in the wake of the Benghazi attack. I think this article from the Gray Lady was posted as a trial balloon for the Obama campaign to gauge public response to see if it would be politically damaging for Obama to come clean on Benghazi.

The NY Times suggests that it might be a good idea to support Al Qaeda-inspired jihadist groups as long as they do not attack America’s shores. One thing that really jumped out at me was the endearing terms employed for Al Qaeda (“mystique” and “legend,” for example) coupled with the callous disregard for the impact on Christendom.

What Al Qaeda retains is a mystique, the legend of a small band of warriors who took on an empire and struck a devastating blow. That mystique still has tremendous appeal, even for insurgents who differ with Al Qaeda’s methods or its focus on attacking America.

Recent years have seen the proliferation of jihadist movements that may take some inspiration from Al Qaeda, but have greatly divergent goals. In Nigeria, the radical Islamist group Boko Haram has killed thousands of people in the past few years in its struggle to overthrow the government and establish an Islamic state. There, the struggle is largely sectarian; Boko Haram has struck mostly at Christians and burned churches.

Jihadists now control Mali’s vast north, as Mr. Romney mentioned more than once in the last debate, and have links to an older group officially affiliated with Al Qaeda that grew out of Algeria’s civil conflict in the 1990s. Although these groups are well armed and dangerous, some appear to be more criminal than ideological, focused on kidnapping and drug smuggling. Jihadists have also gained strength in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, just across the border from Israel.

This argument is in line with the consistent ideology of the Left, including the type that we find within the Obama Administration itself. We can see the paper trail, just by doing a little online research, of the Benghazi attacker being supported by Obama allies and by Obama himself. It is my understanding that some of this information below has already come out and been denied by the Obama Administration, but the denial doesn’t hold water, in my book.

Let’s take a look at what we can find readily available online. Attorney General William Holder’s former law firm is responsible for obtaining the release of Abu Sufian bin Qumu from Guantanamo Bay. In April, 2011, the New York Times referred to Qumu as a “U.S. Ally” in Libya, for purposes of overthrowing Qaddafi, which indicates that he was backed by our government. That is, Qumu is a friend of the Obama Administration. In August, a mere one month before the attack in Benghazi, Qumu (Qhumu) was named in a federal research report (.pdf) as one of the handful of men who is now a principal leader of Al Qaeda in Libya. Imagine that. He went from being a terror suspect at Gitmo, under the Bush Administration, to a “U.S. ally” in Libya. Qumu leads Ansar al-Sharia, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda and which claimed responsibility for the attack. On September 10, 2012, one day before the attack in Benghazi, a video was released by Al Qaeda’s #1 in the region, Ayman al Zawahiri, which called for revenge for the killing of his Libyan deputy by a drone. Apparently, the September 11 attack was in response to that video, not the video the Obama Administration blamed.

The White House knew of Ansar al Sharia’s claim of responsibility within hours, but lied about it for several days to the American people. Did they lie because their only choice was to either tell a lie casting blame on a scapegoat or to admit that people they were arming had attacked us and killed four Americans? Being close to the election, Obama chose to blame the video (update: an anti-Muslim film made by a civilian), likely because it is usually people on the far right who make such videos. Better to blame the far right if you’re going to lie about the cause of the attack, right?

Remember, he even went before the United Nations and delivered a speech blaming the video.

Why would they deny help to our people who were being attacked? My theory is that it is because they were absolutely dumbfounded, in a complete state of confusion, because they could not believe that these “friendly allies” were attacking them. They are that naive, just as the New York Times is naive to suggest that it might be a good idea to support Al Qaeda-inspired groups in exchange for a promise not to attack us here.

Yes, I believe the New York Times story was published as a trial balloon. They want to know how appalled you are by this idea before Obama confesses that this is precisely what happened. It’s been two days since the article was published. Apparently, like me, you are not okay with the idea.

There is court precedent in the form of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project on the issue of material support for terrorists. Barack Obama has violated the Constitution, even more seriously than we find in that case, if he has been sending weapons to Al Qaeda for the “Arab Spring” in exchange for no major attacks on American shores.

Vote Romney. There is an enemy of Christendom in the White House.


Military Uniform Supply