New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick recently published a lengthy piece arguing that President Barack Obama’s original al-Qaeda-free description of the causes of the 9/11/12 attack on our Benghazi consulate was accurate, and that then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice’s claim that the attack was instigated by a YouTube video was correct.
Whatever happened to the Bush Doctrine?
Since Sept. 11, 2001, the major provision of our predominant foreign policy doctrine asserts that the U.S. makes no distinction between local thugs-for-hire who perpetrate terrorist acts, extremist militia offshoots of larger terrorist networks, international terrorist organizations and state sponsors of terror that train and fund and harbor the above.
Yet Kirkpatrick wrote, “Months of investigation by The New York Times… turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” His argument rests on the premise that Ansar al-Shariah, the group believed to have plotted the Benghazi attack, is not technically part of the formal al-Qaeda leadership structure, but rather a local Libyan branch of a network allied with and supportive of al-Qaeda’s goals.
But Ansar al-Shariah is an extremist militia that is known to be part of al-Qaeda’s fundraising network. Therefore, according to the Bush Doctrine, we do not distinguish between the two.
Kirkpatrick also claimed that the attacks were sparked by that infamous 13-minute, low-budget YouTube movie trailer. His evidence? After Egyptians in Cairo protested at the American embassy, some random looters and arsonists in Benghazi who had seen the video ransacked the compound following the initial attack.
But these Johnny-come-latelies were the equivalent of disaffected teens who wander into a flash mob half an hour after the organizers start it and grab sneakers and radios. As Kirkpatrick wrote, “Men looted suits of clothes… They lugged out televisions. Some emerged from buildings clutching food they had found, and one poured what appeared to be Hershey’s chocolate syrup into his mouth.” If this behavior reflects proud Muslims upset over a religious insult high-mindedly defending their faith, I don’t see it.
In sum, Kirkpatrick gave the most generous possible interpretation of Obama and Rice’s remarks, and held those who believe the attack was planned by an al-Qaeda affiliate to the strictest standards of evidence. But even if the truth lies halfway between Obama’s telling and the Intelligence Committee’s version, the administration is guilty of distortion of the facts and preventing the country from learning the truth before a Presidential election.
As Kirkpatrick admitted, “The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of [the two] story lines suggests.”
Or, as President Bill Clinton might put it, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘al-Qaeda’ is.”
