It’s hard for most people to deny what’s right in front of them.
That hasn’t kept the New York Times from trying.
Months after all us “wingnut conservatives” realized the Obama Administration was arming Islamists in North Africa and the Middle East, the New York Times has finally run a story about U.S. weapons being sent to Libyan fighters and winding up in Islamist hands.
Don’t get too excited, though. It doesn’t mean the NYT has finally returned to the old-fashioned notion of journalism, asking questions and being the public’s government watchdog.
The NYT only goes so far as to admit that the Administration “secretly” approved giving arms to Libyans in Qatar and then became “worried” that some weapons were being put in Islamist hands by the Qataris.
The article blames the Qataris and a lack of CIA personnel overseeing the program for the “wrong” people being armed.
It also insists there’s no evidence that any of the U.S. weapons were involved in the murders of the ambassador and other U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya.
There were a few sentences in the NYT story that I found particularly interesting:
“But in the months before (the Benghazi attack), the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported.”
Now this is probably true that the Administration “concerns” have not been reported, since most conservative commentators assume the Administration does everything on purpose.
“The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.”
The money and weapons from Qatar, which we gave them. … First, it was a video’s fault, then it was Hillary Clinton’s fault, then it was everyone in the D.C. food chain’s fault, now it’s some unnamed Qataris’ fault. The buck certainly does not stop anywhere near this Oval Office, does it?
“The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from other countries.”
This line is an outright guffaw. “Considers whether” to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria? Note to NYT editors: The word you’re looking for is “continues.” You could have learned as much by reading Pravda before the Benghazi attacks. Or Der Spiegel. Or Le Monde. Or Al Jazeera. Etc. The entire world outside of America has been aware since the beginning of the “civil war” in Syria that Obama has been funding and arming the “rebels.”
The funniest part is the one about weapons flowing in from “other countries” — yes, like Turkey and Jordan, where we have shipped them. In fact, Ambassador Chris Stevens’ last meeting before he was killed was with a Turkish diplomat. It’s even in Wikipedia, for goodness’ sake.
Now that the election is over, the New York Times is finally allowed to admit there’s some monkey business going on in the Middle East and North Africa. But this, and probably any future stories they run will just be to further deflect attention from the man who’s truly responsible, President Obama.