Benghazi Suspect Was Upset Over Video No One Had Seen
Just kidding. He was livid over the US presence in Libya
(The Hill) Federal prosecutors say the suspected ringleader in the 2012 Benghazi attack voiced “concern and opposition to the presence of an American facility in Benghazi” days before the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the U.S. consulate in Libya.
Huh. That can’t be right
(Washington Post) Ahmed Abu Khattala, one of the suspected ringleaders of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, voiced opposition to the presence of a U.S. facility there in the days before the assault and organized the attacks out of a sense of ideological fervor, according to government prosecutors.
Sooooooo, nothing about a video? Strange. Well, perhaps the video was driving him to….
(NY Times) In the document, federal prosecutors said Mr. Abu Khattala had plotted attacks against the United States and other Western interests in recent months. They argued that because he posed a continued threat to the United States he should remain in custody until trial. Mr. Abu Khattala is scheduled to appear before a magistrate judge here on Wednesday for a hearing on whether should continue to be detained.
If he were to be released, the document said, Mr. Abu Khattala could “continue to communicate his plans for additional deadly attacks to other extremists and encourage them to carry out those plans.” The filing calls him “a commander in an extremist militia group who is fully committed to causing death and destruction to American personnel and property.”
Obviously, he’s upset about the video
The Justice Department said that Mr. Abu Khattala is motivated by extremist ideology, has “extensive contacts with senior-level members of extremist groups throughout Libya” and “could communicate and further conspire with many of those extremist individuals.”
Nope, just a normal Islamist wackjob, bent on murder and mayhem.
FacebookTwitterEmail Today the New York Post noted that President Obama did not use the word “win” or “victory” in his
FacebookTwitterEmail A couple thoughts: The New York Times got it right: It was two speeches. The first, to appease the
FacebookTwitterEmail This is going to leave a mark. Of course, Obama listens to no one but Obama and his political