How the Times downplays the Libyan reality
Yesterday’s New York Times article which I posted, “Islamists’ Growing Sway Raises Questions for Libya,” miniminized those questions even as it raised them. Thus it said, “The most powerful military leader is now Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of a hard-line group once believed to be aligned with Al Qaeda.” [Italics added.]
To which Diana West replies at her blog:
“Once believed”? What a deceptively fuzzy term to use, given that the U.S. State Department, in its 2008 rundown of terrorist organizations, describes a 2007 “merger” between Belhaj’s “hard-line group” (the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) and al Qaeda!Let’s just take that in. Kaddafi opposed the al Qaeda-aligned LIFG, and he aligned himself with the U.S. war against al Qaeda. The U.S., by contrast, has helped LIFG come to power in Libya. We have become our own enemy. We are the ones now aligned with and facilitating our enemy.
And there have been no forceful denunciations of our insane and criminal Libyan intervention anywhere in mainstream American politics or media. For all our famous energy as a people, we are dead.
Diana also brings out that the cleric Ali Sallabi, described by the Times as one of the two most influential men in Libya along with Belhaj, is a serious Muslim (a.k.a. “Islamist”). So what is that business at the end of the article about Sallabi expressing his admiration for George Washington as the man who voluntarily gave up power? Here is the end of her blog post, where she quotes and comments on the Times article:
Most Libyans are quick to bristle at suggestions that their own Islamists might one day go the way of Iran, where after the fall of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini stomped out a short-lived liberal government by denouncing democracy as un-Islamic.They do lay it on thick, don’t they?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 16, 2011 07:59 AM | Send