The last three days should have proven to those who have had any doubts that not only is the turmoil in Libya nowhere close to being over, but that US military intervention is also at the beginning of its trajectory rather than at the end.  I’ve written in the past about JSOC’s (Joint Special Operations Command) assassination program in Libya and how they have been arming and training local militia to target terrorist cells.  The arrest of several Americans carrying Department of State passports near the Tunisian border appears to dovetail with previous reports.  Apparently two of the individuals attempted to run from Libyan security forces and it appears that one intentionally torched their vehicle, probably with a thermite grenade in order to destroy sensitive communications or electronic warfare equipment.  At least one photo has appeared on social media along with their DOS credentials which show a Glock handgun with a threaded barrel and MP7 Sub-Machine Gun which raises questions if these individuals are not JSOC operators working under official cover.  Either way, it seems that whatever their task that they worked with the acquiescence of the Libyan government because the men were released just hours after being captured on the night of December 27th.


Photo: Burned out US Armored Vehicle in Benghazi

The very next day, the New York Times published a story by David Kirkpatrick called “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi.”  The article is a laughable retread of the Obama Administrations initial claims about what happened during the Benghazi attack and why it happened to begin with.  Kirkpatrick may very well have been taken in by interviewing local sources who wished to portray Libyans in as much of a positive light as possible, something I’ve had to be wary of myself.  However, it has been alleged that the New York Times has made a deliberate, if informal, editorial decision to begin preparing the environment for a Hillary Clinton ticket in the next US Presidential election.  In order to do that, the NYT wants to get ahead of future headlines when Congress released a new report about Benghazi in the spring or fall which is reported to be fairly scathing of Department of State security failures.


Photo: Glock handgun with a threaded barrel and MP7 Sub-Machine Gun 

The article itself simply boggles the mind and engages in revisionist history.  Kirkpatrick insists that a youtube video which defamed the prophet Mohammed was what infuriated locals in Benghazi, inspiring them to attack the US consulate in a hasty and ad hoc manner.  There is no evidence to actually support this, however emails shown to congress to point towards these being official talking points that came out of the White House soon after the attack.  Those talking points are said to have John Brennan’s fingerprints all over them.  The Times article also tries to tell us that those who attacked the consulate were locals, with few foreign fighters even though we know that Eastern Libya was awash which foreign jihadists.  We know that many of those jihadists were tied to Al Qaeda, another fact which Kirkpatrick conveniently ignores.  This isn’t just the opinion of myself but a fact established by the attackers own admissions and backed up by documentation in some case such as Ben Qumu who I wrote about extensively in Benghazi the Definitive Report with Brandon Webb.  Fox News and Long War Journal concur with this assessment. Also, our sources at the CIA confirmed that Benghazi Annex security camera footage revealed caucasian fighters on the perimeter, most likely Chechens with ties to AQ.