Zawahiri Supporting Obama

I am intrigued. It’s a bit like when Usama bin Ladin showed up for the 2004 presidential election, spouting the Democrats’ talking points.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, long second-in-command and now the official head of al Qaida, had put out a video on September 10, 2012. He advised jihadists (which he assumes all Muslims are) to attack the US in Libya, in revenge for the US drone strike in Pakistan that killed a high-ranking Libyan al Qaida commander. 

The next day, of course, the consulate in Benghazi was attacked and Americans including our ambassador killed. We now think we know how many of each Muslim Brotherhood branch were involved.

Zawahiti had been keeping a low profile after bin Ladin’s killing, but found this effort worth risking some exposure. This is significant — the September 10th video had been recorded at least a month earlier, but this one was clearly fast-tracked, which exposes Zawahiri to considerable risk.  (I hope he’s made a fatal mistake.)

There was no protest prior to the attack, and the evening of the attack had been quiet as all witnesses agree. This made the “spontaneous protest over a video that turned violent” storyline from the White House (which, yes, Obama did call an “act of terror”) rather off the mark.

Why would such a story be floated?  Apparently because a strong al Qaida, capable of striking at and killing Americans on American diplomatic soil, would get in the way of the “we’re defeating al Qaida” narrative.  It had been clear from bin Ladin’s surroundings and circumstances that Usama bin Ladin had not been an effective leader for years, though taking him out was entirely appropriate due to his symbolic value to both sides. Zawahiri was in charge already, and he is still in 2012 capable of getting things done against us.

But that was the September 10th video. Now, just days ago and after the Congressional hearings, Zawahiri has risked his own security to rush out another video, in which he now wants jihadists (Muslims) to wage war against the US because of that video. And the new narrative from the State Department, the intelligence services, and the material leaked to the New York Times are all taking this into account.  Basically, it’s “See? We knew it all the time — it was really the video!”

But there are problems with this story. A couple of particular interest:

  • The attack was still composed of al Qaida and other fighters, not a spontaneous mob.
  • And if the US intelligence services knew that Zawahiri was mad about the video and ordered the attack for that reason, as they are now obliquely suggesting, it means that Obama and Clinton rushed out that apology video specifically to apologize to Ayman al-Zawahiri. That’s not a happy implication.

All of this ignores the countless YouTube videos and other available images and writing offensive to jihadists, from Bill Maher’s Religulous (with Muhammad on the cover as a chimpanzee) to literally thousands of anti-jihadist videos to uncountable blogs including my own humble writings.  Some of these are offensive to Muslims as well (not just jihadists), but most Muslims are not inclined to kill people over such things.

The works that would enrage jihadists would certainly extend to pieces like this excellent bit from Andrew Klavan, very relevant to the issue today but already on the Internet long before:


So now Zawahiri, al Qaida’s chief, is making new noises supporting (at least in his mind) Obama’s story of what happened, just as he and Obama are encapsulated by Klavan’s take on the issues. Interesting — but so far, not widely known in the US.

And this article describes another aspect of the Benghazi attacks — tied to the weapons that the US was assisting to get to jihadists as I’ve written about before. I can’t vouch for the article’s conclusion, but it mentions a number of facts that match my understanding.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle