Mitt Romney Blew the Election as Obama Aided Al Qaeda Infused Rebels in Libya

Mitt Romney rushed to a microphone. Rather than wait, do some homework, and discover the truth about Libya, Romney threw the same old tired rhetoric. Obama apologizes for America, something even Daniel Larison of the American Conservative calls Romney out on for lying. This shouldn't be that hard, but then again we are talking about Mitt for Brains.

Had Romney taken a deep breath, thought about his words, and took some time to look at American foreign policy he would have seen Obama is more responsible for the attack in Libyan than some silly movie. The problem is of course, the Republicans in Congressmen like Billy Long came out in favor of regime change and military action in Libya without considering much who it was that was instigating regime change.

You see, as America fights a war on terror, which has led to the loss of American Constitutional freedoms, overseas, American foreign policy once again overlooked who the real terrorists are. Many pundits tried to warn Americans but the stigma surrounding Gaddafi overruled the fact the rebels overthrowing Gaddafi were connected to Al Qaeda.

Mitt Romney took the simple road. Blame Obama with the same old lines in hopes it would stick. Four years later, it's not sticking. Had Romney taken the complex road and actually learned something about foreign policy beyond waving a saber in the air with chants of U.S.A. U.S.A in the background.

You see, it was Obama who took the position that Gadaffi was more dangerous than the Al Qaeda backed and connected rebels in Libya. Our government called these people patriots. Funny, in America the government often calls the patriots "terrorists".

Obama aided the Al Qaeda infused rebels in Libya. Romney's argument was easy. Romney dropped the ball.

"There's no question that the rebels Americans are currently fighting for in Libya include in their ranks jihadis who in recent years traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill Americans. The only question is whether that worries you or not.

Take Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebels in the fighting for Adjabiya. His hometown, Darnah, has produced many jihadis, and after the Sept. 11 attacks al-Hasidi traveled to Afghanistan to fight the "foreign invasion" -- that is, the U.S. military. According to a report in Britain's Daily Telegraph, al-Hasidi says he was later captured in Pakistan, handed over to the U.S., then held in prison in Libya before being released in 2008.

In addition to fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan, al-Hasidi also says he recruited about two dozen men to fight the U.S. in Iraq.

Now al-Hasidi and his allies are moving toward Tripoli, which would not be possible without the military power of the United States. The men who devoted so much energy to killing Americans are now thankfully watching Americans kill for them.

To some observers, that's no big deal. "No one seems all that frightened by him," the New York Times wrote of al-Hasidi after a visit to Darnah in early March. Al-Hasidi, the paper reported, "praises Osama bin Laden's 'good points' but denounces the 9/11 attacks on the United States." And besides, the Times reported, al-Hasidi finds it amusing that the government of Moammar Gadhafi considers him an al Qaeda terrorist. "He promised to lay down his arms once victory is won and return, he said, to teaching," the Times reported.

Maybe you believe that. Maybe you don't. The problem is, al-Hasidi is by no means alone. We know that from intelligence gained in the Iraq War."

York isn't alone. Andy McCArthy reported similar findings at the Nation Reveiw's "Corner".

Jonah [Goldberg] and Mark [Steyn] went back and forth over the weekend on the question of whether Qaddafi has been right in saying that the “’rebels’ are al Qaeda.” In particular, Jonah pointed to the reports about the “rebel” commander Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi (alternatively referred to as al-Hasidi), a member of the Qaeda-connected Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIGF) who was detained by the U.S. for several years after his capture in 2002. (I discussed al-Hasadi in my weekend column.[4])

I’d suggest that the real issue here is not whether Qaddafi was right, it’s that our government knew he was right … unless you think they were lying to us throughout the Bush years. Here,[5] for example, is Secretary of State Condi Rice in 2006, explaining the Bush administration’s decision to restore diplomatic relations with Qaddafi:

We are taking these actions in recognition of Libya’s continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the United States and other members of the international community in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001.

The cooperation she to which she was referring primarily involved intelligence about al Qaeda affiliated terrorists (like the LIGF) in Libya. It was important because, as the Defense Department found, more Libyans (the kind of Libyans who are to be found among the “rebels”) traveled to fight against U.S. forces in the war on terror than the citizens of any other country by percentage of population. 

Good grief Mitt, this wasn't that hard. Once again it illustrates that I am right about you. You aren't a leader with convictions that will lead our Republic in the right direction.