Posts Tagged With: Benghazi

ALERT – Secret Service Agents Have Officially Confirmed THIS About Hillary, It’s BAD….


Hillary Clinton appears to have made showing disdain for Americans a habit. Long before she insulted tens of millions of Americans by calling them an “irredeemable…basket of deplorables,” she exhibited equally insulting behavior to the men and women who were tasked with taking bullets to save her life!

“[Redacted] explained that CLINTON’s treatment of DS [State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security] agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” a senior Secret Service agent said during an interview about Hillary Clinton with the FBI.

“Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the secretary of state’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”

The same Secret Service agent went on to tell FBI agents investigating Hillary’s actions while she served as secretary of state that she had spoken with multiple other senior agents who felt the same way. According to the agent, her peers had also been subjected to rude and contemptuous behavior from Hillary while she was the first lady and the head of the State Department.

“From her own experience and information obtained through [redacted] and other agents, [redacted] described a ‘stark difference’ between [Condoleezza] RICE and CLINTON with regard to obedience to security and diplomatic protocols,” the FBI report summary also said. “RICE observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols while CLINTON frequently and ‘blatantly’ disregarded them.”

The Secret Service agent went on to state Hillary treated United States ambassadors with the same level of disrespect she subjected her protection detail to on a routine basis,BizPacReview reports. Abandoning Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi to be assassinated along with three other brave Americans definitely sounds like an act of “rude” and disrespectful behavior.

According to the statements made by the Secret Service agent to the FBI, Hillary Clinton ignored security protocols when she traveled overseas. Instead of being transported via an armored limo with the U.S. ambassador stationed in the country, Hillary demanded to ride in a separate vehicle.

“CLINTON refused to do so, instead choosing to be accompanied in the limousine by her chief of staff, HUMA ABEDIN. This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol,” the same FBI report also noted.

Hillary’s protocol breeches were reportedly widely known throughout the Diplomatic Security agency. Such infractions were “abundant,” according to the Secret Service agent.

This is not the first time Secret Service agents have spoken out about Hillary’s temper, demeaning attitude towards them, and failure to follow national security and safety protocols. As previously reported by the Angry Patriot, Clinton was allegedly prone to fits of rage and even once hit an agent with a Bible left in the back of her limousine.

Ronald Kessler, a former Secret Service agent turned author, has gone into great detail about Hillary’s arrogant antics and nasty insults hurled at those assigned to protect her. Kessler said both Bill Clinton and Chelsea treated staffers in an appreciative and positive manner, but the former first lady was avoided at all costs due to physically and verbally violent nature.

Hillary-Clinton-worried-220x150

Advertisements
Categories: Big Brother Spying, CIA, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Obama, One Government, Politics, Uncategorized, Unlawfull | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Benghazi Brief – Three Year Anniversary…The Truth, The Facts, The Horror…


th

Benghazi Hillary,The “Benghazi Brief” remains the most controversial research report we have ever produced. The brief contains over two years of research and hundreds of very specific citations supporting it.

The Brief has also been challenged and with extensive vetting factually withstood all scrutiny. The report, while exhaustive in detail, remains the strongest summary of events surrounding the two years leading up to the Benghazi Libya attack on 9/11/12.

We have repeatedly stated The Benghazi Brief, and ALL of the cited information contained therein, is available for use by anyone who has a goal of learning and/or communicating the truth surrounding the controversial events.

We present the brief so that a larger understanding, a factual understanding, is possible. It can be used in part or in whole, or edited for use by any party. Anyone can do whatever they want with the detailed information provided. Our only request – the truth contained within be maintained.

God Bless.

benghazi4

We know from the Bret Baier interview with Hillary Clinton that she was physically located at her 7th floor office in Washington DC on the night of the attack. Unfortunately we also know during the November 2012 Thanksgiving holiday a mysterious fire took place in that building. Well, actually directly above her exact office – cause undetermined.

A “fire” which preceded an unfortunate slip and fall for the Secretary, resulting in a concussion, which led to the discovery of a blood clot, that ultimately delayed her congressional testimony before a Senate Hearing into the events of the night in question.

We know the Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.

We also know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.

We know the Libyan “rebels” were positioned in two strategic places. Benghazi, and the port city of Darnah, both located in Northeastern Libya.

We know this 2011 Libyan covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero Footprint“, and fell under the military command authority of NATO not (important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.

We know by the time operation “Zero Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James G. Stavridis was in charge.

Stavridis was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) at the time of the Libyan uprising. He retired as SACEUR in 2013

In 2011, 57-year-old Stavridis was the perfect pick for NATO Libyan intervention considering he is the son of Turkish immigrants. Turkey played a key role in what might be the most politically dangerous aspect of the events to the White House once the goals changed to redirection of the weapons from Operation Zero Footprint.

We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided the concerns with congressional funding, and potential for public scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.

We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the 2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter Ham.

However, it would be implausible to think that then Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral McMullen were completely unaware of the operation, this aspect remains murky.

Both Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair McMullen were in place when Operation Zero Footprint began but retired from their jobs in Sept of 2011, and were replaced by Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey respectively.

Leon Panetta was CIA Director at the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint (March 2011) and was replaced by CIA Director David Petraeus in the fall of 2011 as Panetta replaced Bob Gates and became Secretary of Defense.

However, Panetta (now as Def Sec) and JC Martin Dempsey were the two who initially briefed President Obama on the night of Sept 11th 2012. Because of his previous role in constructing Zero Footprint, Leon Panetta definitely had knowledge of the intents of the joint State Dept/Cia mission in Benghazi, Dempsey may not have.

We know the White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

From Hillary interviews we also know the White House liaison for Secretary Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta during Operation Zero Footprint was National Security Advisor To the President, Tom Donilon.

With this information we can assemble a cast of people “IN THE KNOW” of Operation Zero Footprint on two specific date blocks. March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack – and – Post 9/11/12 attack forward.
March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack: Who knew of Operation “Zero Footprint”?:

President Obama and Vice President Biden (both Dems)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Dem)
CIA Director Leon Panetta (March 2011 – June 2011)
*CIA Director General David Petraeus (?) (Sept 2011 – Nov 2012)
NATO Commander, James G Stavridis
White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (Dem)
White House National Security Spox Tommy Vietor (Donilon aide)
White House National Security Advisor John Brennan (Dem)
Speaker of the House John Boehner (Rep)
Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi (Dem)
House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers (Rep)
Minority House Intel Committee – Charles Ruppersberger (Dem)
Senate Minority Leader – Mitch McConnell (Rep)
Senate Majority Leader – Harry Reid (Dem)
Senate Intel Chair – Diane Feinstein (Dem)
Minority Senate Intel Committee – Saxby Chambliss (Rep)
[State Dept] U.S. Libyan Ambassador – Chris Stevens
[State Dept] U.S. Asst Secretary of State – Andrew Shapiro
[State Dept] Senior Head of U.S. Weapons Office – Mark Adams

Along with whomever inside each nation’s state government that was involved in either the finance (UAE), or the logistics (Qatar). [and later, 2012 Turkey]

Obviously the “know” crowd would include the ultimate end destination users, “The Libyan Rebel Commanders”:

Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Sufian Ibriham Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu – Darnah Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia
Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Khattala – Commander of an Islamist militia group called the Abu Obaida bin Jarrah Brigade (17th Feb Brigade) Benghazi – Ansar Al Sharia

*NOTE* Both of these individuals were labeled as officially recognized State Dept. terrorists in December of 2013. Khattala recently having been arrested.

In addition, the “political face” of the Libyan Transitional Government Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, should also be included in this list of people who knew of operation Zero Footprint while it was underway.

Justice Abdel Jalil served as the international face of, and spokesperson for, “the rebels” in 2011/12. He worked closely with Chris Stevens and highly visibly with Secretary Hillary Clinton – However, in my opinion – after extensive research- Jalil was a total patsy. He was paid well to present a comfortable face of the movement, but once Gaddaffi was killed Jalil was quickly dispatched.
This Brings us to who knew about “Operation Zero Footprint” post Benghazi 9/11/12 attack:

To wit you can easily add:

CIA Director General David Petraeus
Adjunct, and Interim, CIA Director – Mike Morrel
U.S. Attorney General – Eric Holder
President Obama Advisor and now Chief of Staff – Denis McDonough
President Obama Advisor and now Treasury Sec – Jack Lew
President Obama Advisor and now National Security Advisor – Tony Blinkin
Former UN Ambassador and now Senior Nat Sec Advisor – Susan Rice
Chief White House Communications Director – Ben Rhodes

Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jack Lew (far right) was Obama’s Chief of Staff. Donilon and McDonough had just left Tommy Vietor in the situation room to update POTUS in the Oval Office. POTUS and VPOTUS had just hung up the phone.
We know McDonough and Donilon were in the immediate loop on the night of 9/11/12 because they were photographed updating President Obama at 7:30pm in the Oval Office along with a curious Jack Lew who was Chief of Staff at the time.

In addition we know from former White House National Security spokesperson Tommy “dude” Vietor, that President Obama was not in the situation room where Vietor and his boss Tom Donilon were keeping up on events.

Here’s where it gets interesting:

Leon Panetta was the CIA Director when Operation Zero Footprint was authorized and began, but he left the CIA about 4 months later (June 30th, 2011) and was replaced by General David Petraeus (August/Sept 2011).
[*Note* it is important to remember when the 2nd authorized CIA program began in 2012 for Syria Petraeus would have been included]

Under this principle you can see that General Petraeus had ZERO liability for the origin of the Benghazi weapons deals – it was a joint State Dept/CIA program already being conducted when Petraeus arrived. If it blew up, it was not his political problem – THIS MADE PETRAEUS A RISK.

We know that during the summer of 2012 “a whistle blower” popped up and gave House Republican Leader Eric Cantor a tip about CIA Director General Petraeus being in an extramarital affair with a reporter named Paula Broadwell; along with rumors Petraeus may have shared classified information with Broadwell during pillow talk etc.

We also know that Eric Cantor told AG Eric Holder and FBI director Robert Mueller about the claim and Mueller began an investigation of Petraeus in the Summer of 2012 before the Benghazi attack in September.

However, we also know that neither Holder nor Mueller (nor Cantor) informed anyone in congress this investigation of Petraeus was taking place. That investigation included Broadwell turning over her computer to the FBI in the same summer, and later a search of her home which did reveal confidential information supposedly leaked from Petraeus.

Sometime in October of 2012 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had a conversation with Petraeus urging him to leave.

Immediately after the election of 2012 CIA Director David Petraeus resigned (Nov 9th) and interim CIA Director Mike Morrel took over. This is why Petraeus never testified to the Senate, and Morrel took his place.

We also know this timely switch was beneficial to both the Clinton and Obama camps because Morrel was more politically connected to them than Petraeus.

Given the risks of exposure to both “Operation Zero Footprint”, and worse, the buy-back/redirection to Syria, it’s understandable the risk to Clinton that Petraeus carried. However, Petraeus was not of any risk himself; maybe Leon Panetta would be, but not Petraeus – who, it’s important to add, came from the Defense Department to the office of CIA.

Petraeus’s replacement, interim CIA Director Mike Morrel, and White House Communications Director Ben Rhodes, were the two men who constructed the infamous “Susan Rice” talking points.

After Morrel testified to congress about the CIA involvement around Benghazi, and the issues of terrorism vs. Islamic movie (happy squirrel chase) etc. Morrel was replaced at the CIA by John Brennan.

We know that both Hillary Clinton and CBS immediately hired Mike Morrel. CBS News President David Rhodes -who hired Morrel- is the brother of the White House’s Ben Rhodes; who Morrel coordinated the Clinton friendly, albeit controversial, talking points with.

While it may seem suspect to jump to conclusions, the fact that Eric Holder did not inform either Intelligence Committee of the FBI Petraeus investigation -which is generally standard procedure- lends plausible suspicion to an outline that the events were used as leverage to remove Petraeus; and all of the subsequent risk he represented.

If you accept that Petraeus’s knowledge of, but non-involvement in, “Operation Zero Footprint” represented a potential risk to Hillary and Obama; you’d have to admit that Mike Morrel was by far the more White House friendly person talking about the CIA involvement around the joint State Dept/CIA Benghazi objectives.

Also, it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact Morrel’s loyalty therein was rewarded financially.

Lastly, one of the more slippery people to pin down on the Benghazi attack, and subsequent issues, has been Leon Panetta. If you think about Panetta’s role in the origin of Operation Zero Footprint his comment avoidance makes perfect sense.

Trey Gowdy needs to subpoena Panetta for the Special Committee.
OK, sorry that was more than a moment – but was needed.

Now back to Libya 2011/2012 and the Rift Between State/CIA and DoD/Pentagon over the arming of the “Rebels”. THIS IS REALLY QUITE IMPORTANT because it explains how far out Hillary Clinton had put herself in this covert op “Zero Footprint”.

Duty – by Robert Gates

A few reminder articles will outline and refresh why the White House kept DoD and The Pentagon at arms length throughout their covert operation:

[…] defense leaders in Washington [March 2011] slammed the brakes on the extent of US help to the rebels. Top officials said that some country other than the US should perform any future training and equipping of the Libyan opposition groups. Under withering congressional probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the US defense secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US military going forward.

Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels. “My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on. (link)

From a New York Times article about the same hearing -AND- the discussion of the CIA involvement. Again, remember this is 2011 – you have Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Mullen, and CIA Director Panetta:

2011 […] Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya. Gates declined to comment on the CIA activities in Libya. US officials have acknowledged that the CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.

The CIA’s precise role in Libya is not clear. Intelligence experts said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them.

In hindsight we are now fully aware that unknown to both Mullen and Gates -at the time they were speaking- was President Obama having authorized Operation Zero Footprint several weeks earlier, and Panetta carrying it out.

The State Dept (Hillary) and CIA (Panetta) were now in the execution mode of the covert op.

We now know against the March/April 2011 backdrop of growing information about al-Qaeda’s presence within the rebel units – there was a genuine difference of opinion on whether even getting involved was a good idea.

The Defense Department (Gates, Mullen) was saying no, the State Department (Clinton, Rice), was saying yes.

Remember too, this covert operation was going to require NATO Admiral James Stavridis to allow the weapons into Libya. So lets look at what he was quoted saying around the same timeframe as Mullen and Gates, *knowing Stavridis was one of the actual key figures to make the weapons delivery possible*:

2011 – […] Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day.

And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis. (link)

There is Stavridis playing down the possibility of al-Qaeda ideology within the make-up of the Islamic Fighting Group – which is important because by the time this quote was attributed Stavridis was already part of the team coordinating the shipments.

Samantha Power – Susan Rice – President Obama

Also, remember R2P? This March/April 2011 time frame is when “Responsibility To Protect” came up as a justification for our engagement. Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton all wanting to fully support “the rebels”.

Ultimately Obama/Jarrett (The White House) agreed with Hillary Inc (State Dept); hence “Zero Footprint” got the nod – well, let’s be really accurate: it “sort of” got the nod.

Think about it. President Obama authorized arming the Libyan rebels, but the covert nature of Zero Footprint actually reflects the political filter through which all Obama White House decisions are made. A White House team that always looks for an escape hatch in case any decision is ever publicly wrong.

If the rebels were al-Qaeda, the covert op lends plausible deniability.

Isn’t it strange how in 2014 hindsight you can clearly see exactly what we now know as the “Benghazi narrative”; the use of their exact escape hatch because they were al-Qaeda, and it did go horribly and publicly wrong.

Operation Zero Footprint Becomes Political and Legal Risk

It should be noted, and actually emphasized, that Operation Zero Footprint, at least in 2011, was not illegal. Indeed, all indicators are that President Obama followed his constitutional responsibility as he carried out his executive authority.

We know in late February 2011 President Obama signed a Presidential Finding Memo authorizing the State Department and CIA to engage in actions within Libya to identify a course of action.

We know in March 2011 when Hillary Clinton (State Dept) and Leon Panetta (CIA) constructed “Operation Zero Footprint” that President Obama approved the covert action and then informed the Gang of Eight of the weapons transfer operation.

Both of those known facts speak well to the Executive Office following a legally outlined process. This does not, however, dismiss the concern, which became the reality, that the action itself was terribly flawed and horridly imprudent.

During March, April and May 2011 there was enough intelligence information flowing to the White House informing them of exactly who would be the beneficiaries of U.S. Libyan involvement and specifically providing weapons. It did not take long to identify the Benghazi and Darnah “rebels” were actually affiliates of al-Qaeda.

While no-one reporting in 2011 was aware of Operation Zero Footprint, there were literally hundreds of media reports showcasing the ideology of the Libyan “rebel” uprising. Indeed there were numerous reports in mainstream media outlets of al-Qaeda fighters (numerous factions) flowing to Libya to oust their life-long nemesis, Gaddaffi.

From a policy standpoint it will have to be left up to historians to pore over the facts and ultimately decide what was *this* White House goal in the entire region.

Ben Ali removal -Tunisia- seemed OK to the administration, Obama and Clinton.
Hosni Mubarak removal -Egypt- seemed even more ok to Obama and Clinton.

Both of the above were viewed as potential sources for favorable policy outcomes. Indeed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -and election of President Morsi- did not seem to be a concern for the White House.

However, when you get to Gaddaffi’s removal -Libya- you see a serious split between ideologies within the U.S. political class as Obama/Clinton actually pushed the outcome. The U.S. defense department saying they were apprehensive about this outcome, and Obama/Clinton going “all in” for Gaddaffi ouster with French President Sarkozy.

The same interventionist Obama/Clinton motivation was evident with Syria’s Assad as yet another uprising surfaced in yet another Mid-East nation – again in March/April 2011.

We know on October 20th 2011 Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddaffi was finally captured, then killed by “the rebels”.

Gaddafi being shotDead-Gaddafi

From the standpoint of “regime change” operation Zero Footprint was a success.

The Libyan Transitional National Council was now in control. Well, maybe in charge, or, well, sort of.

The TNC (pictured below 4 days later) may have been the face of Libya the Obama/Clinton team wanted to portray. But they were merely just that, a face.

Abdel Jalil and the Libyan National Transitional Council

We know Eastern Libya was then (2011), and is now (2014), a hotbed of radical Islam controlled by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups, the very people who benefitted from the arms that were part of Zero Footprint.

We know by the Fall/Winter of 2011 the U.S. State Dept and CIA were joined and trying to re-secure the same weapons they provided in the Spring/Summer.

December 2011 – New York Times:

“Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro raised the American desire to arrange a purchase program in a meeting this month with Libya’s new defense minister, according to American officials familiar with the proposal.

The United States has committed $40 million to secure Libya’s arms stockpiles, much of it to prevent the spread of Manpads. No budget has been designed for a purchase program, and the price to be paid for each missile and its components has not been determined, the official said. (link)

We know from a speech delivered by Asst. Secretary of State Shapiro in Feb of 2012 the actual program to recapture the Zero Footprint weapons began in August of 2011 about two months before Gaddaffi was killed:

“Once the stalemate broke and the fighting rapidly shifted in the TNC’s [Libyan Transitional National Council] favor in August, we immediately deployed a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force to Benghazi.

Mark Adams, who you will hear from shortly on the panel, is the head of our MANPADS Task Force and spent considerable time on the ground in Libya.

[… ] The initial primary objective was to reach an agreement with the TNC to set up a MANPADS control and destruction program that would enable us to set up what we call our Phase I efforts.

Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable loose MANPADS across the country. To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists.”

We know those “civilian technical specialists”, being talked about in August 2011, were contractors, CIA contractors, hired by the State Department to recapture the weapons – some of which they provided as a specific consequence of Operation Zero Footprint.

If the story ended there it would be bad enough. A flawed policy, a secret mission arm the Libyan “rebels” without a great deal of thinking through the longer term consequences. A flawed policy with political consequences.

But when you think about the larger picture you understand why the details of the covert weapons operation Zero Footprint were so tightly guarded among select members of Congress (the Gang of Eight), the CIA (Panetta), the State Department (Clinton) and the White House (Donilon).

Each of them was trying to manage a covert operation that would expose a U.S. policy decision to arm al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist militias.
But that’s only “IF” the story ended there, in Libya, at the end of 2011 into the beginning of 2012. It didn’t, the decisions got worse – much worse.

Syria Banner

The uprising in Syria was only a few months behind the uprising in Libya. Arguably if the timing were reversed you could ponder that Assad would have met Gaddaffi’s fate, and Gaddaffi would be as alive today as President Assad.

Whichever rebel group got the attention of the R2P crowd was sure to be the first to get assistance. The Obama R2P Doctrine is so tenuous, and so lacking in political principle, it’s subject to change based on the political whims of capitol hill at any given moment.

The Libyan “rebels” got all the weaponry love – the Syrian “rebels”, not-so-much. At least in 2011; by mid 2012 that sentiment appears to have changed.

Enter Hillary Clinton. As she reiterated vehemently to Greta Van Sustern during a recent interview, it was Hillary who wanted to help the Syrian rebels when no-one else wanted to assist them. Secretary Hillary Clinton wanted early and direct interventionist action in Syria to topple Assad just like Gaddaffi.

Obviously consequences from the first covert weapons mission in Libya made a stark case for not repeating it in Syria. Another huge factor against helping the FSA was Israel. Ultimately Israel could not afford to be put into such a risky position if Syrian rebel forces were given arms that ultimately might be used against them.

Additionally, you would think there’s no way congress, in an election year, would approve of funding Syrian rebels against the possibility of it hurting Israel; And the White House was not about to do a known and official covert operation which had a great potential to go sideways, and become far too politically dangerous. 2012 was an election year.

But they did.

Who wanted to aid Syria more? President Obama or Hillary Clinton? That is a question for later year historians. Regardless of how the idea came up, we know a decision was made to do it, and to do it covertly.

Arming the Benghazi Darnah rebels was, well, stupid. It was actually stupid, and politically stupid, but it was not illegal.

Arming jihadist fighters in Syria likewise ended up being stupid but by all appearances NOT illegal.

obama-hillary-holding-hands-wh-photo

In August 2012, one month before the attack on the Benghazi Compound, the following Reuters article appeared. This is how we find out about the SECOND presidential finding which again authorized covert CIA involvement, this time in Syria:

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 [2012] (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.

Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.

But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.

Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.

‘NERVE CENTER’

A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.

Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.

This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

Turkey’s moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad’s departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.

European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad’s departure.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad’s helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days.

NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.

On Wednesday, however, Bassam al-Dada, a political adviser to the Free Syrian Army, denied the NBC report, telling the Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya that the group had “not obtained any such weapons at all.” U.S. government sources said they could not confirm the MANPADs deliveries, but could not rule them out either.

Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.

Indications are that U.S. agencies have not been involved in providing weapons to Assad’s opponents. In order to do so, Obama would have to approve a supplement, known as a “memorandum of notification, to his initial broad intelligence finding.

Further such memoranda would have to be signed by Obama to authorize other specific clandestine operations to support Syrian rebels.

Reuters first reported last week that the White House had crafted a directive authorizing greater U.S. covert assistance to Syrian rebels. It was unclear at that time whether Obama had signed it. (read more)

Note how the FSA says they didn’t get missiles, and yet missiles were shipped. This is important against the backdrop of the reality the extreme elements we now call ISIL were operating in Syria and openly laughing at our inability to identify them:

“NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD” – members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.

(JULY 2012) As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder’s men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.

But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.

They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.

According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.” Abu Khuder’s men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.

[…] Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.

“The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically,” he said. “Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.

“The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.

“In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion.”

At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: “So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?”

“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction. If you don’t commit sins there is nothing to fear.” (link – more)

Against the backdrop of ISIL 2014 does this Sound familiar ?

It should also be noted this is the exact time (August 2012) when the U.N. and Kofi Annan gave up trying to influence a peaceful outcome in Syria – things had escalated beyond any hope for a diplomatic resolution.

We know the basic set up to arm the Syrian rebellion was generally not too complex.

Turkey would be used as the distribution hub, and the U.S. had Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia, and Qatar -who were more than willing to see Assad removed- and financially assist in arming the Syrians without too great a concern for what could happen to Israel.

For Obama/Clinton to get weapons to the Syrians, against the shadow of Operation Zero Footprint, without going extensively through congress, could be done covertly and easily. Either ship weapons just like Operation Zero Footprint, Saudi ==> Qatar ==> Turkey ==> Syria, OR, buy back the weapons already floating around from Operation Zero Footprint and redirect them to Syria through Turkey.

OR both.

The Saudis would be a willing financier if the State Dept needed additional money to facilitate the transfers.

We know Ambassador Chris Stevens set up a formal U.S. Embassy consulate in Tripoli around May 26th of 2012; and we know the State Dept and CIA set up their joint operations in Benghazi around the same time. We also now know this is around the EXACT time of the second Presidential CIA Directive.

Looking at the historical timeline, and knowing the contacts developed, gives a great perspective into what would have spurred the CIA/State Department to set up a more expansive presence and operation in the coastal region of Eastern Libya May/June 2012.

The official U.S. State Dept Libyan presence was vacated on Feb 25th of 2011 when the embassy personnel were evacuated. Stevens was re-establishing the diplomatic office and acting as Ambassador to Libya during the 2012 reconstruction phase.

What we did not know at the time was that Chris Stevens was also acting as the facilitator for U.S. arms shipments OUT OF LIBYA, through Turkish diplomatic couriers and into Syria. While coordinating a second covert action to arm the Syrian resistance.

A very strong argument can easily be made that Chris Stevens was a CIA operative inside the State Department. Many people within the State Department are CIA personnel using the State Dept as part of their visible cover.

In Eastern Libya June, July, August 2012 – Obviously the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar Al Sharia, aka 17th Feb Brigade, and all of their commanders knew of the U.S. Benghazi weapons programs. Both the 2011 distribution, and the 2012 repurchase.

Considering the redeployment to Syria – for the most part the Benghazi and Darnah brigades would have been in alignment with their Jihadist brethren in Syria being the beneficiaries of any additional shipments.

But there was in 2011/2012 – as noted in the above articles – an ideological rift between the newly emboldened Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘more initially moderate’ Free Syrian Army (FSA). As the Libyan conflict rolled on through the summer of 2011 more al-Qaeda elements flocked from other engagements into the Syrian fight. Moderates were replaced by extremists.

By the time of the second presidential directive, as Hillary and Chris Stevens were working on support for Syria, Summer 2012, the radical Syrian opposition was embedded inside the FSA. Arguably in hindsight they were the majority element.

The Syrian opposition had three al-Qaida arms operating within it. Including one that also operated in Libya:

Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.

It would be into this eclectic mix of Jihadist ideologues, which later became ISIL, that any diverted U.S. arms would flow. It’s no wonder that Senator John McCain was so confused when he was calling them “moderates” in 2012/2013. Almost no-one knew the severe elements in Syria would rise to the surface and become the modern ISIS now capturing all of the global attention.

ISIS John McCain – Abu Mosa

And…. If you just realized…. Yes, ISIS or ISIL currently on the march in Iraq, came from Syria, fought in Syria and more than likely was armed by the U.S. inside Syria and Turkey. They were more likely trained, in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence; by the same CIA operatives used by the State Dept to send Syria weapons from Benghazi and Darnah back in Libya.

If Operation Zero Footprint in Libya was stupid, arming the Syrian branches of al-Qaeda two years after the FSA was thoroughly corrupted by al-Qaeda, is infinite degrees beyond stupid.

But that’s hindsight for ya….. or as Secretary Clinton would say “Whether they were, … at this point, what difference does it make?”

By June of 2012 the New York Times was reporting that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program to Syria that sounded exactly like the re-diversion plan Clinton developed with Panetta/Petraeus. According to the Times suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”

The Reuters article in August 2012 confirms the earlier report.

We know on September 5th 2012 – A Libyan flagged ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It is carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun.

The ship’s captain told the Times of London that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army broke into a fight over the arms.

Operation Zero Footprint

In response to the Times of London report, and in a generally dismissed part of her congressional testimony, Senator Rand Paul asked outgoing Secretary Hillary Clinton a very specific question – (See @2:20 of this video and pay attention to the “duping delight”):

Which would bring us to a series of now reconcilable questions surrounding the joint State Dept. and CIA Benghazi Mission.

The entire weapons operation 2011 was labeled “Operation Zero Footprint”. The intent is outlined in the operational title – to leave no visible record of U.S. involvement in arming the Libyan “rebels”. No visible footprint.

We know from congressional inquiry Ambassador Chris Stevens had asked for more security in the months prior to Sept. 11th 2012. Requests sent to the State Dept that were denied.

We also know that NO MARINE DETACHMENT was ever put in place to defend the Benghazi Mission.

We also know the Benghazi Mission was initially, and mistakenly by media, called “a consulate”, or a “consulate outpost”. But there was no State Dept record of any consulate office in Benghazi.

All of these seeming contradictions can be reconciled with the simple understanding that this “Mission” in 2011 was unofficial. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

We also know the Second Operation, in 2012, to arm the Syrians’was also covert – No visible footprint.

Why were security requests denied? Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

We know from General Carter Ham (AFRICOM Commander now retired) the Department of Defense was not even aware the State Dept was operating a mission in Benghazi during 2012. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.

How could Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or Patrick Kennedy approve or request a marine security detachment knowing the entire mission around both Benghazi operations was covert?

Such a request would have travelled outside the small group of State/CIA insiders. The request would have gone to DoD. Short answer, they couldn’t.

Hence the disconnect between what seemed to be obvious and/or simple questions and the inability to accurately discuss in the public venues of congressional inquiry.

To the public Chris Stevens was a U.S. ambassador, a diplomat. To the folks inside the State Dept and CIA, Chris Stevens was a U.S. Ambassador, AND a CIA operative coordinating covert arms sales.

In 2011 those arms shipments were to aid the Libyan rebels, in 2012 those same arms were redirected to aid the Syrian rebels.

Even after death the public face of Chris Stevens, the official role, was the only role able to be discussed. The covert, or unofficial role, was not. Again, we see the disconnect between inquiry that could be answered, and inquiry that could not be answered. Many irreconcilable surface because of this intelligence role – even through today.

The second role of Stevens, the covert and CIA aspect, still causes problems for people trying to understand the “why not” questions. The broader public asking why have we not seen, or heard from the survivors of the attacks?

The short answer is, we have not heard from the survivors – but the intelligence community has.

Twice some of the survivors have given testimony to congress. The problem for the public is that those hearings are closed door, classified, intelligence hearings – led by Chairman Mike Rogers and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Again, go back to the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint and you see the congressional Intelligence Gang of Eight were fully aware of the intents.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 / 2012 was: House Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

Why was Speaker Boehner reluctant to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi ?

Simple, again he is one of the Gang of Eight – and he was briefed on both operations. How is he going to call for a select committee when he knows the substance of the committee investigation is classified under national security. Such a committee would not, because it could not, deliver what the public was requesting, sunlight.

The only reason Trey Gowdy was finally assigned the task of a Select Committee, was simply because the public lies of the White House and administration were contradicting themselves.

The White House “talking points“, which was/is a ridiculous squirrel hunt, were created to reconcile the problem faced when unable to discuss a covert operation.

It is far easier to look at the reality of the problem faced by the White House and CIA than any nefarious intention.

Unfortunately for the administration they are not that good.

Team Obama was so committed to keeping the covert operations “Zero Footprint” a secret (because of the political embarrassment from factually arming al Qaeda) that the cover story they manufactured (on the fly) was fraught with contradictions.

How could President Obama dispatch help to the Benghazi team, when DoD was not even aware of it’s existence? Sending help would have compromised OpSec, Operational Security.

The dispatch of F.E.S.T. would lead to increased knowledge of a covert operation.

Hopefully you are beginning to see the root of the contradictions. Once you understand the truth of what was going on within the backstory – there’s almost nothing left which would dangle as an unanswered question. It all reconciles.

Back to the FALL of 2012 – On September 5th/6th 2012 the Turkish vessel “Al Entisar” docked in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. 400 tons of serious cargo including weapons destined for Syrian “rebels”.

In the U.S. that September 5th night former President Bill Clinton was introducing Candidate Barack Obama at the DNC convention in Charlotte North Carolina. In Afghanistan that night something happened that had already become a serious concern for the operatives within “Operation Zero Footprint”.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Thalia Ramirez. Ramirez was killed when her OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan Sept. 5, 2012. Ramirez was assigned to Troop F, 1-17 Air Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division. Photo: Photo Courtesy Pro Image Digital;Inc., Courtesy / U.S. ArmyAt the exact time Clinton was speaking in North Carolina, halfway around the world in Afghanistan Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, of San Antonio and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, of San Juan, in the Rio Grande Valley, were killed while flying an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, a Defense Department news release stated.

On September 5th 2012 – A U.S. organized ship loaded with weapons including missiles was offloading at a Turkish port. Bill Clinton was introducing Barack Obama, and the first black female combat pilot was shot down and killed by a shoulder fired missile in Afghanistan.

The relationship between the three events reflects the absolute political fear that revolved around Operation Zero Footprint.

The CIA and Intelligence community had stated earlier the biggest concern anyone held about arming the Libyan Rebels was the possibility those weapons might leave the Libyan conflict and travel to other locations where they would be used against our own soldiers. More and more evidence of this happening was growing.

In 2011 a total of four air assets were destroyed by enemy fire in Afghanistan. Two of those helicopters happened at the same time in August 2011 when we lost the Navy Seal unit that killed Osama Bin Laden. 22 Americans killed.

We had been in close quarter full combat operations in Afghanistan for 10 years, and we never had a problem with close air support. We had never faced the concern of our enemy having MANPADS.

From 2002 through 2010 Combat Operations saw zero occurrences of SAMS, Stingers, or MANPADS in general.

Within months after delivering weapons to the Benghazi and Darnah rebels (May, June and July 2011) we began facing MANPADS in Afghanistan.

Four instances in late in 2011 including the 22 lives lost in what came to be known as Operation “Extortion 17”.

In 2012 it got worse, much worse: June 1st AFGHANISTAN:

A combined patrol discovered a weapons cache containing three shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, three anti-tank mines, 423 RPGs, 118,600 7.62 mm rounds, 30 rifles and other ordnance in the Tarin Kot district of Uruzgan province. The cache’s contents were destroyed. (link)

We had a serious problem and it was picking up speed exponentially. June 6th 2012 we lost another crew. July 25th 2012 yet another. August 16th 2012 again more losses. September 5th 2012 more deaths. It just kept getting worse.

By September 5th 2012 in the preceding nine months we had lost 11 helicopters to shoulder fired missiles in Afghanistan. The following headline hit the media:
America Suffers Worst Airpower Loss Since Vietnam

One of the incidents revealed details of what was being faced. The July 25th 2012 downing of a CH-47 which was found to have been hit with a “new generation” stinger missile. The risks were no longer mere worries, they were real:

[O]n July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.

They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.

The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.

The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile.

Lodged in the right nacelle, they found one fragment that contained an entire serial number.

The investigation took time. Arms were twisted, noses put out of joint. But when the results came back, they were stunning: The Stinger tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet ­jihad.

Reports of the Stinger reached the highest echelons of the US command in Afghanistan and became a source of intense speculation, but no action.

Everyone knew the war was winding down. Revealing that the Taliban had US-made Stingers risked demoralizing coalition troops. Because there were no coalition casualties, government officials made no public announcement of the attack.

My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the ­Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.

They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles. (link)

In Afghanistan the DoD field response was immediate; all Close Air Support was cancelled.

The White House had a problem – “Operation Zero Footprint” missiles were now being used against us, but DoD didn’t know the origin because the Defense Department did not know about Zero Footprint, the State Department and CIA did.

The killing of Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, might not have been the final straw – but their September 5th 2012 deaths coincided with an absolute change in direction.

While the ISIS-minded Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army were arguing over who gets what from aboard the Turkish vessel, back in Benghazi, Libya it was obvious the ideology of the Syrian factions were too extreme and the CIA could no longer control who would use such weapons.

God forbid DoD ground commanders in Afghanistan find out the MANPADS they were facing originated by our covert efforts in Libya.
Tayyip Erdogan – Turkey, David Cameron – U.K.

Tayyip Erdogan – Turkey, David Cameron – U.K.

Strangely one must give credit to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As unbelievable as it might sound he was the lone Islamic voice in March 2011 saying “don’t arm the Benghazi rebels“:

March 2011 – Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.

Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: “Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that.”

Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments “could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism”. (read more)

Erdogan and U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Gates were of the same mindset.

“My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” (link)

However, for Syria in 2012 Erdogan had a divergent opinion. He was all for arming the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. This article, again from August 2012 – one month prior to the attack against Chris Stevens, outlines the goal of both Erdogan and President Obama:

(August 2012) President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke by telephone Monday “to coordinate efforts to accelerate a political transition in Syria,” the White House said.

This “would include the departure of (Syrian leader) Bashar Assad and be responsive to the legitimate demands of the Syrian people,” the statement said.

Obama and Erdogan shared their concerns over the Syrian regime’s crackdown on opposition “and the deteriorating humanitarian conditions throughout Syria as a result of the regime’s atrocities.”

Both [Obama and Erodgan] promised to coordinate efforts to help the growing numbers of Syrians displaced by the violence within Syria or forced to flee over the border to take refuse in Turkey or other nations in the region.

The statement said US and Turkish teams “would remain in close contact on ways that Turkey and the United States can work together to promote a democratic transition in Syria.” (link)

Obama Erdogan – Turkey

Alas, given the backstory of DoD not wanting to arm the rebels, and given the unintended consequences of 2011/2012 from Operation Zero Footprint, and given an upcoming election in November 2012, you can see why in post September 11 of 2012 the Obama administration would want to discontinue this operation and throw a bag over the events of the past 17 months.

Perhaps following the fiasco at the Port of Iskenderun a week earlier, Turkish Diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin arrives at the Benghazi Mission on Sept 11th 2012 to talk about the ongoing efforts to support Syria.

Perhaps, the conversation was about the increasing risk of arming a rising group of radicals against the backdrop of MANPADS being used against U.S. forces in other fields of combat.

Regardless of motivation Ali Sait Akin and Stevens were most certainly discussing the current situation with Turkey suffering the consequences and pushing a greater sense of urgency.

Indeed Turkey’s border region was filled with historic numbers of Syrian refugees fleeing the fighting which was completely out of control. The Scale of the crisis was staggering and out of control. Over 500,000 Syrians were now seeking shelter in Turkey.

Meanwhile the ideology of the radical elements controlling the arms shipments was openly becoming a danger to the entire region, and especially U.S. interests beyond Syria.

This would have put Stevens (U.S.) and Akin (Turkey) as opposing ends of the issue.

What we now know as ISIS – originated inside this group of Zero Footprint recipients, and Erdogan while willing to see Assad removed, was also well aware that these elements do not believe in borders. These rabid ideologues (now known as ISIS-2014) were quickly evolving into a risk for the region.

The U.S. policy team would have viewed the risk far differently than Turkey.

As the New York Times reported in an Oct. 14 2012 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

We can only imagine the conversation within the Benghazi compound as both Ali Sait Akin and Chris Stevens parted ways for the final time on September 11th 2012.

Outside the compound walls, the 17th Feb Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia – were also assembled to deliver their final goodbyes.

The Turkish delegation was able to navigate the roadblocks without issue. And within 30 minutes of Consul Akin leaving the venue, Ansar Al Sharia executed their attack.

The Benghazi and Darnah Brigades already knew the compound inside and out, as well as the CIA ANNEX compound, a kilometer away, which contained four warehouse type buildings used by the CIA during the collection, distribution and delivery of Zero Footprint’s objectives over the past 17 months.
In June of 2009 the primary Benghazi Mission compound looked like this:

In March of 2011, when Operation Zero Footprint began, the Tactical Operations Command building (TOC) was added and it looked like this:

.
In December of 2005 the area which became the CIA Annex compound held two buildings:

.
In 2009 two more buildings were added bringing the total to FOUR:

.
By the time the CIA took over 2011, and when the compound came under mortar fire 2012, it looked like this:
Author’s notes:

patriotThe primary reason for outlining this brief is to deliver a greater understanding of why things happened the way they did in the post 9/11/12 attack media frenzy.

If you understand what took place from March 2011 through the night of the attack itself all of the contradictions reconcile, and most of the questions become answered.

Factually, I would challenge anyone who reads this brief to actually have a question left unanswered.

The events of the attack itself are gut wrenching and troubling. Our brave operations folks had to fight their way out of a situation where they literally were on their own due to the political risks inherent in carrying out their objectives.

However, they knew they were beyond the wire – they knew there was no manner, method or possibility of protection…. And this is the point everyone seems to miss:

THEY KNEW THE DoD WAS IN THE DARK ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITY. There was NOTHING the Pentagon could have done to help them. Those people inside the Eastern Libya City of Benghazi, operating on behalf of the administration, were, for all intents and purposes, GHOSTS. They did not “technically” exist.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the mission they were tasked to carry out, there is no doubt they worked honorably to serve their nation. Ultimately the leadership within the State Department, The CIA, and the White House are responsible for the outcomes of policy.

Our hope is that this outline will stimulate journalists to question those who were at the heart of these two operations. Ultimately the Trey Gowdy select committee will find there is no venue to discuss intelligence operations with public sunlight. While both Zero Footprint in 2011, and the Unnamed CIA operation in 2012 were flawed policy – they were not necessarily illegal.

There is a matter of an unidentified State Dept $6 billion contractor fund missing from Hillary’s term as Secretary of State; that might bear investigation. However, beyond those smaller questions there is little if anything to gain.
FUBAR.

~ Sundance
Common Questions: The AFTERMATH – “The Cairo Protest VS The Benghazi Attack”

Here is where people get confused – because the U.S. State department wanted people to get confused.

On 9/11/12 the State Department was originally trying to deflect attention away from the Cairo Embassy Protest.

CNN correspondent Nick Robertson interviewed Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Al Zawahiri on the morning of the planned Cairo protest 9/11/12. Zawahiri and team told Robertson they were rallying and protesting for the release of the Blind Sheik.

The protest turned violent and the U.S. Embassy was overrun by extremists who eventually hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda within the compound.

The State Dept was trying desperately to cover their ass and frame the narrative so the optics of the al-Qaeda onslaught to the Embassy could be controlled.

To hide the intentions of the protesting mob (release of the Blind Sheik) the U.S. State Department fell back on a story about the Mohammed video – which they found out about two days earlier.

Against the backdrop of an upcoming election, and with Republicans beating up Democrats over the short-sighted foreign policy, the State Dept did not want the Muhammed Al Zawahiri narrative. The compound being overrun was a political embarrassment so they used the silly video to explain the protest:

(Remember this is all early in the day – prior to the Benghazi attack)

However, Mitt Romney jumped on this State Dept. Press Release to make the case that the U.S. appeared weak and apologetic. It created an immediate stir.

Unknown at the time was an UNRELATED attack was taking place at the Benghazi compound. The attack at Benghazi Libya had nothing to do with the protests at the Cairo embassy.

However, once the Benghazi attack took place, the State Dept needed a cover story which would sell to the U.S. electorate to explain the Benghazi issues. What Hillary and team did was sell/use the Cairo story as an explanation for Benghazi.

This is how the U-Tube video came into play.

The U-Tube video had nothing to do with the Cairo Embassy Protest.
The U-Tube video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.

Nothing about the U-Tube story was correct. It was all manufactured excuse-making, strategically put into the media cycle to protect the administration from the reality of flawed policy.

The U-Tube video had nothing to do with the Embassy protest in Cairo, nor the Benghazi attack in Libya. By now I think everyone would concur, albeit the media never went back to the Cairo motive to discuss because it became a secondary issue.

Did the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Cairo, or specifically Muhammed Al Zawahiri, coordinate in some way with Ansar al Sharia in Libya, specifically on 9/11/12?

That’s a good question – unfortunately however, it’s a question without a factual answer. I don’t know; and an argument can be made that given all of the players and the influx of their communication it’s quite possible there was some coordination of effort.

What is factually certain is any communication they did have had nothing to do with a ridiculous U-Tube video.

The Cairo protest was 100% certain to be about the release of the Blind Sheik.

Was the Benghazi attack related in some effort to gain a hostage (Chris Stevens) as leverage toward that Al Zawahiri effort? Possible. I’ve seen that argument made, but have not been able to definitively connect the two.

It is a hard question to answer because the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammed Al Zawahiri (the brother of al-Qaeda’s #1 Ayman Al Zawahiri), and the leadership of Ansar Al Sharia were not necessarily telling the foot soldiers the plans or larger objectives.

I do, however, believe the answer, if known, would be known by Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and his team of military and intelligence people. The most reasonable approach is to listen to the Egyptian intelligence leadership on this point.

The original article with photos can be found here:

The Benghazi Brief – Three Year Anniversary…

 

Categories: CIA, Execution, Government Secrets, Muslims, Obama, Politics, Syria, Terrorists, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GOP Benghazi team brings long list of accusations…..


.

 Republicans hoping to ride their Benghazi investigation to a November election sweep have entrusted a seven-member team with “getting to the truth,” in the words of House Speaker John Boehner, about whether the Obama administration misled Americans about the deadly attack in Libya.

They insist the investigation isn’t political.

But several GOP members of the new House Select Committee on Benghazi have made claims about administration wrongdoing. Some have participated in previous investigations into how the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans were killed on Sept. 11, 2012, and how the administration responded.

Democrats have yet to say if they’ll participate in what will be the eighth investigation since the attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in the eastern Libyan city.

Republicans say they need to find out why security was insufficient, what the president did the night of the attack, why the U.S. military didn’t intervene, why initial explanations focused on a protest over a YouTube video and whether the administration deliberately sought to hide evidence about its conduct.

Some of the more contentious arguments made by the GOP members:

___

CHAIRMAN TREY GOWDY:

The second-term tea partyer and former prosecutor from South Carolina said two weeks ago there is evidence of a “cover-up.” He cited a recently released email by White House national security communications aide Ben Rhodes.

He said the email “probably was the straw that broke the camel’s back because that memo made it really clear we’re going to blame an Internet video and not a broader policy failure in Libya.” The White House has said Rhodes was referring to attacks across the Muslim world, not Benghazi specifically.

Gowdy has said former CIA Director Michael Morell “sanitized” a series of talking points used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the violence, substituting the term “extremist” for all references to “terrorist,” and “demonstration” for “attack.” Republicans say this was part of an effort by President Barack Obama’s team to play down a major terrorist attack in the final weeks of his re-election campaign.

In April, Morell testified that he made no changes to provide political benefit to Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is considering running for president in 2016. He said the CIA considers extremist and terrorist as synonyms, and that references to al-Qaida in the talking points were avoided to protect classified sources.

___

REP. MARTHA ROBY:

The 37-year-old Alabama congresswoman, attorney and daughter of a federal judge led the House Armed Services Committee’s investigation. That panel rejected claims by conservatives that the military failed to respond the night of the attack — putting her at odds with other Republicans.

Her investigative panel concluded in a report in February that there was no “stand down” order issued to military personnel in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, who wanted to aid Americans in Benghazi. Select committee colleagues Gowdy and Rep. Jim Jordan have suggested otherwise.

“We simply were not postured to respond in time,” Roby said seven months ago.

___

REP. LYNN WESTMORELAND:

The Georgia congressman also is a veteran of a Benghazi investigation, one conducted by the House Intelligence Committee. In April 2013, he issued a news release describing his “two conclusions”: that Clinton personally denied much-needed additional security for U.S. diplomats in Libya and that White House officials perpetuated a “lie” about the anti-Muslim film “to protect their own backsides.”

Westmoreland pointed to a department cable declining security requests “signed” by Clinton. The conclusion has been widely challenged. The secretary of state’s name is routinely attached to State Department correspondence from Washington, most of which he or she never sees or is consulted on. Lower-level department officials have said they were responsible for specific security decisions related to Benghazi.

In recent days, Democrats have targeted Westmoreland for “politicizing” Benghazi because he serves as deputy chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which has begun an election-year fundraising drive linked to the attack.

Westmoreland, 64, has been criticized before as being overly partisan. Democrats disparaged him during the 2008 presidential election for describing candidate Barack Obama and wife Michelle as “uppity” — a derogatory term for blacks who sought equal treatment in the segregated South.

___

REP. JIM JORDAN:

The hard-charging conservative and occasional GOP leadership thorn has repeatedly pressed witnesses on Benghazi as a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Jordan has accused Clinton personally of trying to obstruct Congress’ investigation of Benghazi after a top aide asked for a department lawyer to be present when members of Congress spoke with U.S. diplomats in Tripoli after the attack.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, the Ohio Republican said at a Heritage Foundation event this month that the State Department rejected more than 200 requests for additional security. And when the attack happened, he said there was little effort to fight back. “Why weren’t we running to the sound of the guns?” Jordan reportedly asked.

Jordan, 50, said he wanted to know who started the narrative that Benghazi wasn’t a terrorist attack and has said in the past Republicans would like to have Rice testify about the matter.

___

REP. MIKE POMPEO:

The 50-year-old Kansas congressman similarly has focused on the talking points. In May 2013, he said the State Department and White House produced a document that “didn’t reflect the reality on the ground as they knew it at the time.” He accused “political” actors of withholding intelligence from the public.

“Were we misled?” Pompeo asked Morell at the hearing. “No,” Morell responded. “I have a different view,” Pompeo shot back.

___

REP. PETER ROSKAM

A confidant of Boehner, the congressman from Illinois has been less vocal about Benghazi than many of his colleagues. He may have less motivation to criticize the administration for the wording of its unclassified Benghazi talking points. Two days before the talking points were drafted, Roskam issued his own statement condemning the attacks. Roskam, 52, blamed “violent extremists” and not “terrorists” for the anti-American unrest in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere.

___

REP. SUSAN BROOKS:

The Indiana freshman also has been among the more reserved on Benghazi. The 53-year-old former Bush administration appointee who served six years as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Indiana has said of the attack: “Until we have all the facts, we don’t believe that justice has really been served.”

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘100 MILLION CITIZENS’ JOIN NSA-SLAYER’S FIGHT…..


Class-action filing follows ruling against spy-on-Americans program.

A new class-action claim against President Obama and the National Security Agency’s spying on Americans could end up with 100 million or more plaintiffs, according to lawyer Larry Klayman, who earlier won a judgment in federal court that the NSA program likely is unconstitutional.

Klayman, founder of FreedomWatch, is fighting the NSA’s telephone-call tracking program in federal court in Washington, where a judge ruled the government’s actions are “almost Orwellian.”

He announced late Thursday that the new case was filed to streamline work on the earlier cases, which are pending before Judge Richard J. Leon.

Klayman has filed a petition for review that would allow the cases to leapfrog intermediate courts and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the massive and indiscriminate collection of data by the federal government violates the Fourth Amendment.

Klayman explained that plaintiffs removed the class-action demand in the earlier cases and dropped the Verizon defendants, with the right to add them later, to move the cases more quickly to the discovery phase.

The original cases are now simplified to speed up the litigation, while the new class action can potentially involve millions of Americans as plaintiffs.

The filing explains that the class “is so numerous that the individual joinder of all members, in this or any action is impracticable. The exact number or identification of class members is presently unknown to plaintiffs, but it is believed that the class numbers over a hundred million citizens.”

“The ongoing outrageous violation of constitutional rights should be adjudicated as fully and swiftly as possible, while allowing all aggrieved citizens to bring suit. The government defendants, including the president, must be held accountable and these violations of constitutional rights must be brought to an end. As for Verizon and the other cell phone and Internet providers who claim that they have no liability as they were acting under orders of the FISC or Justice Department, discovery in the on-going cases will test whether this is true. If not, they will be added to the cases at a later date.”

Obama held a news conference recently to announce he wants to enable the NSA to continue reviewing telephone-call metadata “when we need” but to no longer hold the information.

In response, Klayman charged the president was “spewing smoke … to make himself look good.”

“If you believe he was serious about investigating the IRS, investigating Benghazi, telling the truth about Obamacare … then you can believe what he said today. He doesn’t mean it,” Klayman told WND.

Obama said he wants to have intelligence agencies get permission from a secret court before using the telephone data. He also said he wants to cut back on eavesdropping on the leaders of foreign allies, which has ignited a diplomatic firestorm.

But Obama stood behind the NSA’s activities, calling them necessary for national security. He failed, however, to address several recommendations from a review panel that looked at surveillance issues. The panel recommended that the NSA “not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken or make vulnerable” commercial software and that it discontinue exploiting flaws in software.

Klayman has urged the district court to move forward quickly on the dispute, citing an earlier warning from the court itself.

The court said: “We work 24/7 around this courthouse, my friend. 24/7. I don’t want to hear anything about vacations, weddings, days off. Forget about it. This is a case at the pinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle. All hands 24/7. No excuses. You got a team of lawyers; Mr. Klayman is alone apparently. You have litigated cases in this courthouse when it is matters of this consequence and enormity. You know how this court operates.”

The new case lists Klayman, Charles and Mary Ann Strange, Michael Ferrari and Matt Garrison as plaintiffs. Defendants include Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, NSA chief Keith Alexander, Roger Vinson of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, CIA chief John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, the NSA, the Department of Justice and the CIA.

It alleges the government’s spy programs are collecting records “of all communications companies including Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple, Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint.”

“Moreover, the government has acknowledged that it is collecting’ metadata’ about every phone call made or received by residents of the United States, and these records provide intricate details, including the identity of the individual who was spoken to, the length of time of the conversation, and where the conversation too place,” the new claim explains.

“It gives the government a comprehensive record of an individual’s associations, speech, and public movements while revealing personal details about an individual’s familial, political, professional, religious, and intimate associations.”

It alleges the defendants have set up procedures to obtain “the communication records of over 100 million U.S. citizens … regardless of whether there is reasonable suspicion or any ‘probable cause’ of any wrongdoing.”

Washington’s “schemes” have “subjected untold number of innocent people to the constant surveillance of government agents” and have not been stopped.

“Defendants have not issued substantive and meaningful explanations to the American people describing what has occurred. Rather, on information and belief, the NSA, under the authorization of President Obama, continues to engage in a systematic of warrantless eavesdropping upon phone and email communications of hundreds of millions of individuals.”

Klayman also charged he was put under surveillance by the agency when he filed the case.

Klayman, a WND commentary contributor and founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, FreedomWatch, told WND that once his allegations that the federal government was violating the Constitution with its “watch-every-call” strategy hit the courts, he noticed problems with his email.

“People began receiving from me emails that I had never sent,” Klayman told WND at the time, suggesting harassment in response to his work. “The government just wanted me to know they were watching me.”

Klayman brought the case on behalf of Charles Strange, the father of Michael Strange, a cryptologist technician for the NSA and a support personnel member of Navy SEAL Team 6.

Michael Strange was killed in Afghanistan in 2011 when his helicopter was shot down.

Charles Strange, as a subscriber of Verizon Wireless, brought the original case against the NSA, Department of Justice and several U.S. officials, including President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

The complaint alleged the government, with the participation of private telephone companies, has been conducting “a secret and illegal government scheme to intercept and analyze vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications.”

nsa_eye

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BENGHAZI GUARDS REFUSED TO PROTECT FLEEING AMERICANS..Senate report provides new, startling detail….


The Senate’s 88-page report on the Benghazi assault provides a new detail about the role of an al-Qaida-linked organization that provided external security to the fated U.S. special mission.

According to the report, the Libyan 17th of February Brigade militia refused to “provide cover” for the U.S. security team that was trapped inside the compound.

The detail was not mentioned in the State Department-sanctioned Accountability Review Board, or ARB, investigating the Benghazi attack. The ARB paints a picture of the 17th of February Brigade as largely aiding in the evacuation of the U.S. personnel at the mission.

The 17th of February Brigade, which was hired by the State Department to protect the U.S. facility in Benghazi, operates under the Ansar-Al-Sharia banner.

Ansar al-Sharia, tied to al-Qaida, has been implicated in carrying out the attack.

Senate report contradicts State Department

The Senate report states “there were three armed members of the Libyan 17th of February Brigade militia” present and working as part of the mission’s security external detail during the attack.

“Outside the compound, the security team asked 17th of February Brigade members to ‘provide cover’ for them to advance to the gate of the Temporary Mission Facility with gun trucks,” the report says. “The February Brigade members refused, saying they preferred to negotiate with the attackers instead.

“Eventually,” states the report, “the security team initiated their plan of assault on the Mission compound. Some members of the 17th of February Brigade ‘jump[ed] into the vehicle’ and ‘a few 17 Feb members follow[ed] behind on foot to support the team’ according to the informal CIA notes provided to the Committee.”

The Senate picture of 17th of February Brigade members refusing to “provide cover” contrasts sharply with the image of the brigade painted in the State Department’s ARB.

The ARB claims the 17th of February Brigade helped American personnel escape a roadblock while fleeing the compound.

“The driver, ARSO 1, reversed direction to avoid a crowd farther down the street, then reverted back to the original easterly route towards the crowd after a man whom the DS agents believed to be with February 17 signaled them to do so.”

The ARB recounted how the 17th of February Brigade complained to the local Libyan government on the U.S. special mission’s behalf after a uniformed Libyan police officer was caught taking pictures of the compound prior to the attack.

The ARB states that as soon as the attack began, the 17th of February Brigade guards advanced “towards the Villa B area.”

Continued the ARB: “At the urging of the Annex security team and friendly militia members, who warned that the compound was at risk of being overrun, the TDY RSO and four ARSOs departed for the Annex without having found Ambassador Stevens.”

It’s all about spreading Islam

The Ansar al-Sharia group promotes strict Shariah, or Islamic law, implementation and the creation of an Islamic empire, or caliphate. It was first to take responsibility for the attack in social media. The group later claimed it “didn’t participate [in the attack] as a sole entity,” stating the assault “was a spontaneous popular uprising” in response to the anti-Muhammad film.

Witnesses told media they saw vehicles at the scene of the attack bearing Ansar al-Sharia’s logo and said gunmen taking part boasted of belonging to the group.

The role of Ansar al-Sharia’s 17th of February Brigade in providing security at the compound may prompt more questions following the naming last week of senior Ansar leader Abu Sufian bin Qumu as a ringleader in the Benghazi attack.

The Washington Post reported gunmen under the command of Qumu, participated in the Benghazi attack, according to a U.S. official.

The Post identified Qumu as “leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah,” while the extensive, 54-page Library of Congress document said Qumu in 2012 was “the leader of Ansar Al-Sharia” in Libya and not just in Darnah.

The Post reported witnesses told American officials that Qumu’s militia arrived in Benghazi before the attack and that the State Department was set to implicate him in the deadly assault.

The information will be used in part to designate Qumu’s branch of Ansar al-Sharia as a terrorist group, along with two other al-Sharia branches, reported the Post.

Qumu, formerly a driver for Osama bin Laden, was released by the U.S. from Guantanamo Bay in 2007 and was transferred to a Libyan prison where he remained until he was freed in a 2010 amnesty deal.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who are real war criminals? Time for House Select Committee to exercise subpoena powers over Benghazi. Written by Allen West on January 16, 2014


By Allen West….

The Left likes to castigate me as a “war criminal” in an Alinsky-like attempt to attack and destroy my character. I find it quite absurd and desperate.

Consider this, I am an Honorably Discharged retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who took an action to protect my Soldiers — fellow Americans — in a combat zone. It was an action I fully reported, took responsibility for, and accepted the ramifications for conducting — there no lies, no blame.

Contrast that with someone who, after learning of Americans under attack by Islamic terrorists, went to bed, caught a flight the next day to Las Vegas, lied about the genesis of the attack, never took any responsibility for the lack of response and inaction, and referred to the whole episode as a “phony scandal.”

Or the irony of someone else who refused the requests for support from an American Ambassador, enjoined in a lie about the nature of the attack, and in an emotional rant declared, “what difference does it make?” Or finally, the person America must now entrust as its National Security Advisor, who promulgated the lie about the attack on the Americans in Benghazi and dismissed it as a “false controversy.”

Based on recently released Senate Intelligence Committee Benghazi report, and as discussed by Fox News:

A comprehensive report by the Senate Intelligence Committee definitively declared that individuals tied to Al Qaeda groups were involved in the Benghazi attack, challenging recent claims that the terror network was not a factor.

The report was released Monday, nearly one year after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, under congressional questioning over the nature of the attack, shouted at lawmakers: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The administration initially claimed the attack sprung out of a protest, but has since given a more complicated assessment.” While the report does not implicate Al Qaeda “core” — the leadership believed to be in the Pakistan region — it does blame some of the most influential Al Qaeda branches, including Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks.

Of course detractors will still say the impetus behind the attack was an “anti-islam” video trailer — hardly the case since this crude video had been published on the internet for some time. The report firmly stated that there was no protest in Benghazi.

Perhaps most damning for Obama, Clinton, Rice, and their support minions in this charade is that the committee determined:

The attack was “preventable” and the administration failed to respond to “ample” warnings that security was deteriorating before Sept. 11, 2012. The report faulted the State and Defense departments. It also cited the failure of the Obama administration to “bring the attackers to justice.”Specifically, the report said the intelligence community provided “ample strategic warning” that security in eastern Libya was deteriorating and U.S. personnel “were at risk.” The report said multiple “tripwires” were crossed signaling security problems, and the State Department should have increased its security posture in response.

So to all the liberal progressives — especially the media — if this was a Republican administration would you be so dismissive? Who are the real criminals — a decorated combat veteran who took an action to protect American lives or three individuals who took no action and allowed Americans to die, and then lie about it?

It is indeed time for the House Select Committee with subpoena powers to exercise them. Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, there is no excuse. If those on Capitol Hill will not get laser focused, the American people will. In the end, the real criminals will reap what they have sown.

 

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

What is going on?…Purging the Military…


On October 12, 2013, ABC’s Dianne Sawyer brought us a video of a 9th, yes 9th, General fired from the military this week. It’s even reaching some of the more liberal stations and begging them to ask the question, “What is going on?” It seems President Obama is preparing what he calls “my military” for his version of the final solution. With all the documentation we have, it looks as though he is purging the military for the next step.
We have now seen this official President Obama temper-tantrum in action this week. But is it a temper-tantrum or is there a method to his madness?

We have been warned by a Official to expect radical changes. You heard of our dire warnings of foreclose and forming the Treaty that could set a global economy in motion. We have the very real possibility of shutdown and handed over due to debt in this mess. We even have a blower warning us that President Obama wants to radically take over power. People are crying out, where is our military in this mess?

Well, there seems to be some very credible evidence that since last year and through this year that there has been a test “given to American Military Officers. The Main point of that test, “Would you fire on an American Citizen?” If you say no, then as Donald Trump would say, “Your fired!” Since the beginning of the year these retired officer’s have came forward with “ war against the U.S. ”. We even know others confirmed this litmus test. Then we have heard President Obama himself talk about “My Military”.

And this isn’t all. This strange chain of firings from the Military is so bizarre and so unheard of that even Dianne Sawyer of ABC news reached out to cover it when the 9th, yes 9th, Military Commanding Officer was relieved of duty in less than a year. This doesn’t include the long list last year, this is just the nine individuals this year alone.

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Gen-Ham.jpgGeneral Carter Hamm, United States Army-Served as head of the United States African Command. Was in charge of the US African command during the fateful night of September 11, 2012 when the lives of four American citizens was taken in the Embassy in Benghazi . Hamm was extremely critical of our Commander and Chief and stated he lied about not having reinforcements in the area on that night. Hamm “resigned and retired” on April of 2013.

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/thumb_RDML-Gaouette.jpgRear Admiral Charles Gaouette/ United States Navy-Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three. His most recent activity served as Deputy Commander of the US Naval Forces, US Central Command. He was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea the night of September 11, 2012. He testified before the hearing committee and said that there may not have been time to get the flight crews there but left the door open on if told when the events took place if that he could have had the aircraft launched upon cross-examination by Rep. Tray Gowdey. Recently fired from the Administrative post and relieved of Duty by the Obama Administration for “utterance of a racial slur”.

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ralphbaker.jpegMajor General Ralph Baker, United States Army- Major General Baker served as the Commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar , Djibouti , Africa . Was also involved in some aspect with the incident September 11, 2012, being under the African Command. Had said he believed attack helicopters could have made it in time. Relieved of command and fired for groping a civilian (no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges filed with JAG)

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts, United States Army-General Roberts took command of Fort Jackson in 2011. Was considered a rising star in his field. He served in Iraq during his service as the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, and was the Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox , KY. Relieved of Duty and Fired for Adultery. While this is still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/MG_Gregg_Sturdevant.jpgMajor General Gregg A. Sturdevant, United States Marine Corps-Director of Strategic Planning and Policy of for the United States Pacific Command and Commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion , Afghanistan . Highly decorated soldier with two Naval and Marine Commendations and two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals. He also has an Air Medal with a gold star. He served honorably and distinctively. He had asked about supplies to his command. He was one of two commanding officers suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure of proper force protection.

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/MG_Charles_Gurganus1.jpgMajor General Charles M.M. Gurganus, United States Marine Corps- Regional Commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force (a forward or frontal division) in Afghanistan. Also Highly decorated with a Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merritt w/Valor, and three Meritorious Service Commendations. Major General C.M.M.Gurganus had questioned the use of Afghanistan patrols along side American patrols after two officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines. Was the other commander relieved of duty for failure of proper force protection.

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/220px-LTG_David_Huntoon.jpgLieutenant General David Holmes Huntoon Jr, United States Army-Served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY. He had graduated from the same academy in 1973 and had served in Senior Planning and Education Services through the majority of his career. He was “censored” for“an investigation” into an “improper relationship” according to The Department of Defense.Nothing was released to the nature of the improper relationship. Nothing was even mentioned if an actual investigation even took place.

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/thumb_VADM-Tim-Giardina.jpgVice Admiral Tim Giardina, United States Navy-Deputy Commander of the United States Strategic Command. Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10, where every single one of the 18 Nuclear Submarines with Nuclear Trident Missiles of those three groups were in his command. This commander earned six Legions of Merit, Two Meritorious Service Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, and several other medals, ribbons and decorations in his illustrious career. He was removed from service and fired from the military for the charge of using counterfeit poker chips (not making that up).

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GetFile_xlarge.jpegLast on the list, Major General Michael Carry, United States Air Force-Commander 20th Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) at three operational wings and served in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He was Fired October 11, 2013, for “Personal Misbehavior” is what was told to ABC News. He and Giardina were both the two top Commanders over the United States Nuclear Arsenal before their dismissal within 48 hours of each other.
As ABC News reports, this is an extremely alarming rate and one of the biggest and fastest purges of military personnel ever recorded. It apparently is such a shock at the rate even for a long time veteran of reporting the news as Dianne Sawyer, because at one point she gets heated saying two Commanders of the Nuclear Command.
You don’t put people who are not very intelligent and without a squeaky clean record over that area of the Military. It is enough to make the hardest and staunchest of supporters as the ABC news crew to pause and ask themselves, “what step is he planning?”.

This is beyond politics!

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Muslim Brotherhood claim: We’ve got ‘goods on Obama’ ….


Son of jailed leader says evidence could put U.S. president in prison…

The claim came as the Obama administration, with the assistance of Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and the open involvement of the No. 2 man at the U.S. State Department, made a concerted effort to see Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt released.

In an interview with the News Agency Anatolia in Turkey, Saad Al-Shater, the son of imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat Al-Shater, said his father “had in his hand” evidence that will put Obama in prison.

In a thinly veiled threat, Saad Al-Shater said a U.S. delegation was sent to Cairo by Obama to press for the release of the imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood leaders, including his father to prevent the release of explosive information.

Arabic-speaking former PLO member Walid Shoebat has translated the report by the Turkish News Agency Anatolia as follows:

In an interview with the Anatolia News Agency, Saad Al-Shater, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader, the detained Khairat Al-Shater, said that his father had in his hand evidence that will land the head of United States of America, President Obama, in prison. He stressed that the senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt, knows full well that the fate, future, interests and reputation of their country is in the hands of his father, and they know that he owns the information, documents and recordings that incriminate and would condemn their country. Such documents, he says, were placed in the hands of people who were entrusted inside and outside Egypt, and that the release of his father is the only way for them to prevent a great catastrophe. He stated that a warning was sent threatening to show how the U.S. administration was directly connected. The evidence was sent through intermediaries which caused them to change their attitude and corrected their position, and that they have taken serious steps to prove good faith. Saad also said that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mohamed Morsi.

Writing in his blog, Shoebat noted that six different Arabic sources confirmed the interview with Saad Al-Shater and the report of Al-Shater’s claims.

Shoebat said the interview with Saad Al-Shater was Aug. 7, making it likely the reference to the “senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt” was about the trip by McCain, Graham and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns.

On Aug. 6, with interim Egyptian Vice President Mohamed ElBaradei, the former general director of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, McCain and Graham called Khairat Al-Shater and other jailed Muslim Brotherhood leaders “political prisoners.” They told reporters in Cairo that failing to release Muslim Brotherhood prisoners would be “a huge mistake.”

Egypt’s interim president, Adly Mansour, rebuffed the U.S. delegation’s request, telling reporters in Cairo that it constituted an “unacceptable interference in internal politics.”

On Aug. 6, the Associated Press reported the Egyptian government planned to prosecute Khairat Al-Shater and the other imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood leaders on charges of inciting violence last December when Muslim Brotherhood members attacked sit-in protestors outside then-President Mohamed Morsi’s office, resulting in the deaths of 10 people.

ABC News reported that Burns traveled separately late Sunday night, Aug. 4, to the notorious Tora Prison in the middle of Cairo to meet with Khairat Al-Shater, despite claims by the Muslim Brotherhood that Al-Shater refused to meet.

In an Aug. 6 interview with CNN in Egypt, McCain mentioned jailed Khairat Al-Shater, an openly acknowledged Muslim Brotherhood leader, when asked about individuals who could successfully negotiate a future Egyptian government.

Shoebat has published evidence documenting Khairat Al-Shater has been implicated in weapons trafficking through the Sinai and into Gaza as well as negotiating prisoner releases in exchange for terrorists.

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova, legal representative for Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson, claimed this week that intelligence officers with knowledge of the attack on the Benghazi consulate believe it was was tied to 400 surface-to-air missiles intended for Syrian rebels that U.S. officials feared could be used to shoot down an airliner or attack a U.S. embassy.

Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, WND was the first to report sources claiming the Benghazi compound was an intelligence and planning center the CIA used to recruit and arm Islamic rebels to fight Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Categories: Politics, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Benghazi….hero left on rooftop for over 20 hrs…..


While Obama and Hillary Slept, Injured Benghazi Hero David Ubben Left on Rooftop for 20 Hours.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/69183-while-obama-and-hillary-slept-injured-benghazi-hero-david-ubben-left-on-rooftop-for-20-hours/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%234303&utm_campaign=07-31-2013+IJ+Review

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Betrayal in Benghazi….AIR FORCE EXPERT ON BENGHAZI


“Hands” Handley was my boss when I was on the USAF Stan Eval team
when you and I were both stationed at Ramstein in the late 70’s. I
guess “outspoken” is an understatement because Phil would tell it like
it was and that is the main reason he was so well respected by all of
those who ever worked for him. As far as I know he was the only pilot
“living” to loop a C-130. His “outspokenness” did get him fired as the
F-15 wing commander at Luke. At his going away speech he was given a 45
minute (or something close to that. I wasn’t there, just heard about
it) standing ovation. Phil is kind of like a George Patton in that he
needed to be wrapped up and saved for combat. He is a hell of a guy and
I would fly with him anytime.

Gentlemen

I would say every US fighter pilot, retired or on active duty, knows
that Panetta and Dempsey both are full of crap when they said there was
no time to send help to Benghazi. They claim it was a problem of
“time/space.” All my friends and I say, “Bullshit.” We know they could
have gotten F-16s there from Aviano.

“Hands” Handley is a well-respected USAF fighter pilot. Here is his short resume and what he just wrote about Benghazi below that. If
anything, Handley is pessimistic in his timeline of when F-16s could
have reached Benghazi. I think they could have been airborne even
sooner and turned quicker at Sigonella. The decision to not try was not based
on capability. We had the operational capability in every way.

I hope Handley’s taxes are in order. His IRS audit is forthcoming.

Eagle Biography

Colonel Phil “Hands” Handley

Colonel Phil “Hands” Handley is credited with the highest speed air-
to-air gun kill in the history of aerial combat. He flew operationally
for all but 11 months of a 26-year career, in aircraft such as the F-86
Saber, F-15 Eagle, and the C-130A Hercules. Additionally, he flew 275
combat missions during two tours in Southeast Asia in the F- 4D and
F-4E. His awards include 21 Air Medals, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses,
and the Silver Star.
———————————————-

Betrayal In Benghazi

Phil “Hands” Handley Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead
or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots
don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down,
still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get
him or die trying.

Among America ‘s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such
an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith
and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope
in the face of terribly long odds.

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave
ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is
nothing short of dereliction-of-duty.

Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was
fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield
the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in
Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog” press
has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.

The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened
the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those
responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the
most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the
contention “that there were simply no military assets that could be
brought to bear in time to make a difference” mainly due to the
unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.

This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed “experts” the
Administration trot out to make such an assertion.

The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of
response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your
penguin ass and do nothing.

The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the
world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of
F-16Cs are based.

Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When
Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens
informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), he
immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate
initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.”

At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort,
but is told to “stand down”. By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead above
the compound and streaming live feed to various “Command and Control
Agencies” and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on.

At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving
in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the
attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a
mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that
tanker support really “was not available” what about this:

When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano
Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation
for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS
Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.

By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five
hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover
the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. While
in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules
of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover
the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at
1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty
and their team.

Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full
afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its
tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity
would assuredly do the trick.

Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonella after
jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at
Tripoli International Airport, only one-half hour away.

As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR
clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing
rights, political correctness, and dozens of other reasons not to act,
screw them. It is high time that our “leadership” get their priorities
straight and put America ‘s interests first.

The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive.
Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins”
and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS
terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a
good idea to “tug” on Superman’s cape.

Of course all this would depend upon a commander-in-chief that was
more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than
getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas
the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood
“What difference did it make?” or a Secretary of Defense whose
immediate response was not to the effect that “One of the military
tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the
tactical situation.” Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed
drone, and he didn’t understand the tactical situation?

YGBSM!

Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to
stand down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed,
removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty.
The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership
that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.

Categories: Politics, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

hocuspocus13

Magickal Arts

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

mayanexplore.com

Riviera Maya Travel Guide

That's How He Rolls

A 100% grassroots effort to fund a wheelchair van for Jaime

Cajun Food, Louisiana History, and a Little Lagniappe

Preservation of traditional River Road cuisine, Louisiana history & architecture, and the communities between Baton Rouge & NOLA

Jali Wanders

Wondering and Wandering

politicalconnection

Connecting the world to Truth, so that Justice can be served

Tourism Oxford. Click "New Blog Home" in menu for our new website

Visit our blog at its new home http://www.tourismoxford.ca/blog

Southpaw Tracks

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” ~Samuel Adams

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

Biblical Archaeology

The history and archaeology of the Bible

what's the formula?

Nurturing awesomeness: from the parents of celebrities, heroes, trailblazers and leaders

Digging History

Metal Detecting, History, Birds, Animals, Fylde Coast, River Ribble and more....

River's Flow

Combat Vets for Combat Vets www.riversflow.net

My Encore Life In Focus

Life is a bowl of photos

Tarheel Red

A Voice of Conservatism Living in Carolina Blue

cancer killing recipe

Just another WordPress.com site

%d bloggers like this: