Democrats Should Stop Arming Terrorists Who Attack Us

It now seems quite obvious to many that the “riot” that burned down our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and killed our envoy, J. Christopher Stevens, along with three others, was not a really a riot at all. Instead, it was an orchestrated assault by terrorists, probably Al Qaeda. So we get this kind of analysis from the Shadow Government website:

“The death of Ambassador Stevens is a wake-up call to the U.S. The Arab Spring is in the process of being hijacked by al Qaeda and we ignore the spread of violence and of al Qaeda’s pernicious vision in the Middle East at our own peril.”

“In the process”?

I agree that Al Qaeda probably orchestrated this attack; because Al Qaeda was always involved in the Libyan regime change.

At the very least, we were warned this was going to happen. The Algerian government said that Al Qaeda would get weapons during the conflict, and several reports mentioned the possibility that they would acquire rocket-propelled grenades. It is ironic that we now know the attack on the consulate was from Al Qaeda precisely because they got those RPGs. As Shadow Government said, “AQIM openly boasted of benefiting from Qaddafi’s weapons cache.”  This was completely predictable.

Gaddafi himself claimed that the rebellion was Al Qaeda and/or other Jihdists that opposed his secular dictatorship. The Western media largely dismissed his claims (while at the same time admitting there was a basis for them). But the overthrow did not just attract Al Qaeda after the regime was overthrown. As Qaddafi seemed less vulnerable than NATO had claimed, it became necessary to arm rebels and hire mercenaries. So we got this kind of delusional naiveté from the Administration:

“Washington policy makers have reservations about arming rebels amid credible reports that some have allegiances to Al-Qaeda. But the extent of such influence was down-played by [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates. ‘The future government of Libya is going to be worked out among the principle tribes. And they are the ones that even Gaddafi has had to balance and work with. So I think for some outside group, or some element of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to be able to hijack this thing at this point looks very unlikely to me,’ said Gates.”

This was nonsense. The area where the revolt against Gaddafi began was a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda.  It was easy for the media to find Al-Qaeda connections when they looked:

“Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters ‘are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,’ but added that the ‘members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.'”

For whatever reason, the Administration and NATO decided that regime change in Libya was worth the price of arming and energizing Al Qaeda, but they never openly made a case for that calculus.

Since the President has little to do with national security, we need to ask Hillary why she supports this sort of sleeping with the devil. She gave a moving speech about how our diplomats risk their lives, but empowering terrorists is putting them at unnecessary risk.

Working with terrorists is now Democrat policy. Rather than making excuses for the administration funneling arms through the Muslim Brotherhood and a bunch of other uglies, we should call them out for the blood on their hands and oppose them.