Is Benghazi Obama's Waterloo?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Bush and temper tantrums.

 

You Hero didn't leave you much to work with on this, huh?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Even if you don't buy into the "conspiracy theory" angle of a cover up (of which I do not), at the VERY least this administration bungled how it was handled. From the reason for it (youtube video) to how the administration handled the crisis itself. At the very least Rice, Hillary, Obama and everyone involved in Washington should have some egg on their face. Maybe there was no malice in some cover up or whathaveyou but the whole situation was handled awful.

It could have been handled better, I agree.

 

Clinton is gone, Rice is gone, there have been reports and investigations. Hopefully a lesson has been learned.

 

Now let's fockin move on already.

[DankNuggs 305]

Think about this for a second: what was the CIA doing providing security for a diplomatic mission?

 

That's not their job. The CIA aren't security guards.

 

This was a CIA operation through and through. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the diplomatic mission was basically a total farce that existed only to explain the curious American presence in Benghazi. Hell, Stevens himself might have been CIA.

 

And do you think the Administration wants to air to the entire world that they use the State Department as a front for clandestine operations? No, that would be focking retarded.

:tinfoilhat:

 

how do you know what the missions of the CIA are?

 

You guys need to get your story straight. Is it a non issue because its MONTHS old? or because it was a super secret tactical operation that was extremely vulnerable?

 

The mission to kill OBL was a movie within MONTHs, Seal team 6 which was previously basically an unknown untalked about unit is now a household name.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

:tinfoilhat:

 

how do you know what the missions of the CIA are?

 

You guys need to get your story straight. Is it a non issue because its MONTHS old? or because it was a super secret tactical operation that was extremely vulnerable?

 

The mission to kill OBL was a movie within MONTHs, Seal team 6 which was previously basically an unknown untalked about unit is now a household name.

Way to not address my points at all.

 

Not one thing I said was tin foil hat. We know for a fact that the CIA was heavily involved. (Admittedly what I said about Stevens himself was conjecture, but it fits with what we know was going on there.)

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Way to not address my points at all.

 

Not one thing I said was tin foil hat. We know for a fact that the CIA was heavily involved. (Admittedly what I said about Stevens himself was conjecture, but it fits with what we know was going on there.)

You point was that since there were 2 CIA guys in Benghazi we should just move on.

 

What needs to be addressed?

[DankNuggs 305]

Way to not address my points at all.

 

Not one thing I said was tin foil hat. We know for a fact that the CIA was heavily involved.

You were making speculations as to the purpose of the consulate as a CIA front. Stevens was clearly an ambassador. It don't think it really matters or changes anything.

This excuse sounds manufactured like the air traffic controller cutbacks...

[IGotWorms 4,060]

You guys have to be about the only two people left on the planet who haven't realized the significance of the CIA's involvement.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You guys have to be about the only two people left on the planet who haven't realized the significance of the CIA's involvement.

 

And that would be?

 

 

I mean, other than you using it to march lockstep with the yaksqueeze coming from Sgt. Barrack Schultz and chant "I know nothing, I see nothing".

[TimmySmith 2,783]

You guys have to be about the only two people left on the planet who haven't realized the significance of the CIA's involvement.

Yeah, do tell. The WH and CIA have become mum after their first lie was a failure.

[rholio 339]

Even if you don't buy into the "conspiracy theory" angle of a cover up (of which I do not), at the VERY least this administration bungled how it was handled. From the reason for it (youtube video) to how the administration handled the crisis itself. At the very least Rice, Hillary, Obama and everyone involved in Washington should have some egg on their face. Maybe there was no malice in some cover up or whathaveyou but the whole situation was handled awful.

 

This.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Hey Worms, Obama's comment on Benghazi in his presser a while ago:

 

"There is no there, there".

 

So, you have your latest talking point to run with.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Looks like Hillary's scapegoat isn't going away quietly.

 

 

 

 

Exclusive: Hillary's Benghazi 'Scapegoat' Speaks Out
by Josh Rogin

May 20, 2013 2:53 PM EDT

Raymond Maxwell, the only official at the State Department's bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to lose his job after the attacks, tells Josh Rogin that he’s been scapegoated by Hillary Clinton’s team.

 

 

 

Following the attack in Benghazi, senior State Department officials close to Hillary Clinton ordered the removal of a mid-level official who had no role in security decisions and has never been told the charges against him. He is now accusing Clinton’s team of scapegoating him for the failures that led to the death of four Americans last year

 

 

 

 

Raymond Maxwell was placed on forced “administrative leave” after the State Department’s own internal investigation, conducted by an Administrative Review Board (ARB) led by former State Department official Tom Pickering. Five months after he was told to clean out his desk and leave the building, Maxwell remains in professional and legal limbo, having been associated publicly with the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American for reasons that remain unclear.

 

Maxwell, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs from August 2011 until his removal last December, following tours in Iraq and Syria, spoke publicly for the first time in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast.

 

“The overall goal is to restore my honor,” said Maxwell, who has now filed grievances regarding his treatment with the State Department’s human resources bureau and the American Foreign Service Association, which represents the interests of foreign-service officers. The other three officials placed on leave were in the diplomatic security bureau, leaving Maxwell as the only official in the bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which had responsibility for Libya, to lose his job.

 

“I had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi,” he said.

 

Maxwell was removed from his job on Dec. 18, the day after the ARB report was released, and subsequently placed on administrative leave, which is meant to give the State Department time to investigate whether Maxwell should be fired or return to work. Five months later, that investigation seems stalled and Maxwell sits at home, where he continues to be paid but is not allowed to return to his job.

 

The State Department declined to comment on the reasons that Maxwell and the other officials were placed on administrative leave, or on what the four were told about the reasons for the decision. It did confirm that the ARB did not recommend direct disciplinary action because it didn’t find misconduct or a direct breach of duty by the officials. “As a matter of policy, we don’t speak to specific personnel matters,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

 

Since the leave is not considered a formal disciplinary action, Maxwell has no means to appeal the status, as he would if he had been outright fired. To this day, he says, nobody from the State Department has ever told him why he was singled out for discipline. He has never had access to the classified portion of the ARB report, where all of the details regarding personnel failures leading up to Benghazi are confined. He also says he has never been shown any evidence or witness testimony linking him to the Benghazi incident.

 

Maxwell says he had planned to retire last September, but extended his time voluntarily after the Sept. 11 attack to help the bureau in its time of need. Now, he is refusing to retire until his situation is clarified. He is seeking a restoration of his previous position, a public statement of apology from State, reimbursement for his legal fees, and an extension of his time in service to equal the time he has spent at home on administrative leave.

 

“For any FSO being at work is the essence of everything and being deprived of that and being cast out was devastating,” he said.

 

Soon after being removed from his job, Maxwell was visited at his home late one evening and directed to sign a letter acknowledging his administrative leave and forfeiting his right to enter the State Department. He refused to sign, responding in writing that it amounted to an admission he had done something wrong.

 

“They just wanted me to go away but I wouldn’t just go away,” he said. “I knew Chris [stevens]. Chris was a friend of mine.”

 

“Behind Beth’s back, Maxwell ended up being put on administrative leave.”

The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately.

 

"Cheryl Mills directed me to remove you immediately from the [deputy assistant secretary] position," Jones told Maxwell, according to Maxwell.

 

The decision to remove Maxwell and not Jones seems to conflict with the finding of the ARB that responsibility for the security failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi should fall on more senior officials.

 

“We fixed [the responsibility] at the assistant secretary level, which is in our view the appropriate place to look, where the decision-making in fact takes place, where, if you like, the rubber hits the road," Pickering said when releasing the ARB report.

 

The report found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department,” namely the Diplomatic Security (DS) and Near East bureaus. Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns testified in December that requests for more security in Libya, denied by the State Department, did reach the assistant secretaries and “it may be that some of my colleagues on the 7th floor saw them as well."

 

But Jones was not disciplined in any way following the release of the report, nor was the principal deputy assistant secretary of State at NEA, Liz Dibble, who is slated to receive a plush post as the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in London this summer. In the DS bureau, the assistant secretary, principal deputy, and deputy assistant all lost their jobs. In the NEA bureau, only Maxwell was asked to leave.

 

Jones and Dibble were responsible for security in Libya, Maxwell and three State Department officials said. What’s more, when Maxwell was promoted to his DAS position in August 2011, most responsibility for Libya was carved out of his portfolio, which also included Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Although Maxwell did some work on Libya, all security related decisions were handled by Dibble and Jones, according to the three officials.

 

One State Department official close to the issue told The Daily Beast that Clinton’s people told the leadership of the NEA bureau that Maxwell would be given another job at State when the Benghazi scandal blew over. Maxwell said Jones assured him he would eventually be brought back to NEA as a “senior advisor,” but that Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, reneged.

 

“The deal that NEA made with Cheryl Mills and the 7th floor was to keep Ray within NEA and just give him another portfolio. For whatever reason, it didn’t go down like that and that was a complete shock to Beth [Jones], because that was the deal that Beth made with Cheryl,” the official said. “Behind Beth’s back, Maxwell ended up being put on administrative leave.”

 

Jones and Mills both declined to comment for this article, but a source close to Mills denied that any kind of deal was made or reneged on regarding Maxwell’s future employment. The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was based on the classified portion of the ARB’s report, which named Maxwell specifically, the source said, but since the ARB didn’t say that Maxwell had committed a “breach of duty,” he couldn’t be outright fired.

 

“Administrative leave was the best option available within the very narrow authority that anyone had. That was the harshest discipline the department could mete out,” a State Department official involved in the decision making process said. “There really weren’t any other options available. If they could have been fired they would have been.”

 

One person who reviewed the classified portion of the ARB report told The Daily Beast that it called out Maxwell for the specific infraction of not reading his daily classified briefings, something that person said Maxwell admitted to the ARB panel during his interview.

 

“The crime that he is being punished for is not reading his intel. That explains why Jones and Dibble were not disciplined,” this person said.

 

Maxwell had no response to this allegation other than to say he has not been officially counseled on what he did wrong and has not been allowed to read the classified report. Also, he believes that Clinton’s staff, not the ARB, was in charge of the review of the attack that took place during her watch.

 

“The flaws in the process were perpetrated by the political leadership at State with the complicity of the senior career leadership,” he said. “They should be called to account.”

 

“There are people who seem to have responsibility who have yet to be held accountable.”

Eight months after the attack, Congressional investigators and outside groups are still pressing the State Department to explain how the ARB came to the conclusion that four mid-level officials were the only ones with responsibility for the failures that led up to the attack.

 

The Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA), has announced that he will subpoena Pickering in order to compel him to submit to a deposition. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the subcommittee on national security, told The Daily Beast in an interview that he wants to know exactly why Maxwell and the three other officials were placed on administrative leave, and have not been granted due process to defend themselves.

 

“I certainly would like to hear their side of the story. It seems fair that they should be given that opportunity. If they can’t get it within the administration, I think Congress would love to hear their story,” he said. “Secretary Clinton says she takes responsibility, but that seems like lip service rather than the reality because there are people who seem to have responsibility who have yet to be held accountable and I don’t understand that.”

 

Chaffetz and Issa sent a letter in January to State asking why Clinton, Deputy Secretary Tom Nides, and Deputy Secretary Bill Burns were not interviewed by the ARB. Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted in Oct. 10 congressional testimony that he was in the loop on decisions regarding security requests in Libya before the attack. He was interviewed by the ARB but not identified as having done anything wrong.

 

“The ARB tried to blame everyone but hold no one responsible, except for some of the lower level people who were not in control of the situation,” said Chaffetz. “You have a report that seems incomplete at best.”

 

Susan Johnson, the president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), told The Daily Beast that administrative leave does damage to a foreign service officer’s reputation and career if it goes on for more than a couple of weeks, much less several months. The treatment amounts to a de facto disciplinary action, she said.

 

“There’s a feeling that foreign service officers often end up as scapegoats when scandals rise to congressional or public attention,” she said. “Our broader concern is to ensure some measure of fairness and transparency, ensure some reasonable process that meets some kind of minimal standard here.”

 

AFSA sent a letter to Burns in January asking a number of questions about the review process and the criteria senior department leaders used in choosing to discipline the four individuals removed from their jobs in relation to the Benghazi attack.

 

“The State Department began an administrative process to review the status of the four individuals placed on administrative leave. That review process continues and Secretary Kerry will be briefed with an update, and decisions will be made about the status of these employees,” Psaki told the Beast. “This internal administrative process can take some time.”

 

She added: “It is also important to remember that the four people discussed are all long-serving government officials who over the years have provided dedicated service to the U.S. Government in challenging assignments.”

 

Maxwell just wants his day in court. He wrote a poem on his personal blog in April which referred to the State Department’s treatment of the four officials removed from their jobs after Benghazi as a “lynching.”

 

Last week, he posted another poem about the growing Benghazi scandal.

 

“The web of lies they weave gets tighter and tighter in its deceit until it bottoms out -at a very low frequency – and implodes,” he wrote. “Yet all the while, the more they talk, the more they lie, and the deeper down the hole they go.”

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/exclusive-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html

[MDC 7,767]

Hillary will never win reelection now.

[wiffleball 4,795]

Love what TDS had to reveal on this:

 

Turns out, there were 54 attacks on diplomatic personnel under Bush.

 

3 hearings.

 

When confronted with this, the GOP response was, "Well, a LOT of that happened in Iraq during a time of war."

 

Turns out, a LOT meant: Eight.

 

Still 3 hearings total. Yet, massive outrage for Bengazi. Brilliant.

 

Focking Brilliant Turds they are.

 

Look up the daily show to see for yourself.

[rholio 339]

Love what TDS had to reveal on this:

 

Turns out, there were 54 attacks on diplomatic personnel under Bush.

 

3 hearings.

 

When confronted with this, the GOP response was, "Well, a LOT of that happened in Iraq during a time of war."

 

Turns out, a LOT meant: Eight.

 

Still 3 hearings total. Yet, massive outrage for Bengazi. Brilliant.

 

Focking Brilliant Turds they are.

 

Look up the daily show to see for yourself

 

It's not a scandal when the Republicans do it.

[jerryskids 7,015]

Love what TDS had to reveal on this:

 

Turns out, there were 54 attacks on diplomatic personnel under Bush.

 

3 hearings.

 

When confronted with this, the GOP response was, "Well, a LOT of that happened in Iraq during a time of war."

 

Turns out, a LOT meant: Eight.

 

Still 3 hearings total. Yet, massive outrage for Bengazi. Brilliant.

 

Focking Brilliant Turds they are.

 

Look up the daily show to see for yourself.

I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone is blaming the administration for the fact that the embassy was attacked per se. I think the objections are for things like disregarding repeated requests for increased security, pathetic response during the crisis, utter bullshiot lying about the cause to help an election, etc.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Still 3 hearings total. Yet, massive outrage for Bengazi. Brilliant.

 

Besides what Jerry pointed out, the Dems controlled the House and Senate from 2006 until the end of Bush's term. Why didn't they call for hearings?

 

Must not have been much there there.

[drobeski 3,061]

When we find out that Stevens was there to buy back stinger missiles Hilary provided to al queda and the reason help was denied to cover that part of the story, that stevens was left to be sodomized and brutally murdered to cover the criminals obama and Hilary, will it still be a non story to the hacks ?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

PJM EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama

 

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

 

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known the Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

We will report more as we learn it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

[NewbieJr 541]

 

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

 

Other similarly unbiased articles from the same website:

 

"Dems who did campaign time get the prime state department spots"

 

"The Liberals' Benghazi stupidity"

 

"Obama, the betrayer"

 

"How Barack Obama's 'tone' left Americans defenseless in Benghazi"

 

"Why would Eric Holder want to deport this white, evangelical, Christan family?"

 

[Phurfur 70]

U.S. military sources serving in North Africa are challenging the latest White House claim that the administration is applying "all the resources" at its disposal to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice, charging instead that the Obama administration knows who is responsible but is not acting.

"They have let it slip by because of politics, and now we've taken all the correlation we had and dropped the ball because of risk (aversion) -- and now the security in Libya is more fragile than ever," one U.S. special operator told Fox News. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirms that U.S. forces have tracked the alleged attackers since October but have since lost the trail of some of them, as no one up the chain of command would authorize them to capture or kill the targeted militia members

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/21/sources-challenge-white-house-over-claim-all-hands-on-deck/#ixzz2TyPXGPcu

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

[MDC 7,767]

Did Napoleon Obummerparte lose the battle of Waterloo yet?

[Voltaire 5,442]

Did Napoleon Obummerparte lose the battle of Waterloo yet?

The answer came in clearly last November, It was a resounding NO!

 

Which is why the lemmings are so disappointed. Decent people don't understand so don't gives a sh*t why freaks are so angry.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

From the "There is no there there" defense, to "Benghazi is a laughable joke".

 

Good to know how the Dem leadership feels about 4 dead Americans.

 

 

[Voltaire 5,442]

From the "There is no there there" defense, to "Benghazi is a laughable joke".

 

Good to know how the Dem leadership feels about 4 dead Americans.

 

 

We all know how your feel by looking at page one of this thread ------->

[Recliner Pilot 61]

We all know how your feel by looking at page one of this thread ------->

Nothing gets by you.

 

Good to see you making a joke of 4 American deaths.......again, like your buttbuddy Dean.

[Voltaire 5,442]

Nothing gets by you.

 

Good to see you making a joke of 4 American deaths.......again, like your buttbuddy Dean.

Whereas I can show proof of you celebrating their deaths (because you hoped it would turn the tide in the election which was all the four matter to you-everything gets filtered through a political lens with you, even embassy death), I'm certain you'll have a hard time showing me making any jokes because I didn't make any.

[Phurfur 70]

The State Department official who played a key role in massaging the Obama administration's storyline on the Benghazi attack has been put up for a promotion -- a move that could trigger a heated confirmation battle on the Hill.

Victoria Nuland was nominated Thursday by President Obama for the position of assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/26/state-department-official-who-pushed-to-change-benghazi-storyline-up-for/#ixzz2US1iqFjv

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Whereas I can show proof of you celebrating their deaths

Go ahead.

[BudBro 183]

Qatar bankrolls Syrian revolt with cash and arms

By Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding Smith

 

The gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

 

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.

In dozens of interviews with the Financial Times conducted in recent weeks, rebel leaders both abroad and within Syria as well as regional and western officials detailed Qatar’s role in the Syrian conflict, a source of mounting controversy.

 

The small state with a gargantuan appetite is the biggest donor to the political opposition, providing generous refugee packages to defectors (one estimate puts it at $50,000 a year for a defector and his family) and has provided vast amounts of humanitarian support.

In September, many rebels in Syria’s Aleppo province received a one-off payment of $150 courtesy of Qatar. Sources close to the Qatari government say total spending has reached as much as $3bn, while rebel and diplomatic sources put the figure at $1bn at most.

 

For Qatar, owner of the world’s third-largest gas reserves, its intervention in Syria is part of an aggressive quest for global recognition and is merely the latest chapter in its attempt to establish itself as a major player in the region, following its backing of Libya’s rebels who overthrew Muammer Gaddafi in 2011.

 

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, Qatar has sent the most weapons deliveries to Syria, with more than 70 military cargo flights into neighbouring Turkey between April 2012 and March this year.

 

But though its approach is driven more by pragmatism and opportunism, than ideology, Qatar has become entangled in the polarised politics of the region, setting off scathing criticism. “You can’t buy a revolution,” says an opposition businessman.

 

Qatar’s support for Islamist groups in the Arab world, which puts it at odds with its peers in the Gulf states, has fuelled rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Qatar’s ruling emir, “wants to be the Arab world’s Islamist (Gamal) Abdelnasser”, said an Arab politician, referring to Egypt’s fiery late president and devoted pan-Arab leader.

 

Qatar’s intervention is coming under mounting scrutiny. Regional rivals contend it is using its financial firepower simply to buy future influence and that it has ended up splintering Syria’s opposition.

 

Against this backdrop Saudi Arabia, which until now has been a more deliberate backer of Syria’s rebels, has stepped up its involvement.

 

Recent tensions over the opposition’s election of an interim prime minister who won the support of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood has also driven Saudi Arabia to tighten its relationship to the political opposition, a job it had largely left in the hands of Qatar.

 

The relegation of Qatar to second place in providing weapons follows concern in the West and among other Arab states that weapons it supplies could fall into the hands of an al-Qaeda-linked group, Jabhat al-Nusrah.

 

Diplomats also say the Qataris have had trouble securing a steady supply of arms, something the Saudis have been able to do via their more developed networks.

 

A supply route across Jordan’s border to southern Syria has opened up in recent months. The Jordanian government, which is terrified of jihadis getting the upper hand in its neighbour, has been reluctantly allowing Saudi deliveries.

 

The west’s reluctance to intervene more forcefully in Syria has all but left Bashar al-Assad’s opponents reliant for support on Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey though since late last year, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan have joined the rebels’ backers as junior partners.

 

Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar’s state minister for foreign affairs, who handles its Syrian policy, dismissed talk of rivalry with the Saudis and denied allegations that Qatar’s support for the rebels has splintered Syria’s opposition and weakened nascent institutions.

 

In an interview with the Financial Times, he said every move Qatar has made has been in conjunction with the Friends of Syria group of Arab and western nations, not alone. “Our problem in Qatar is that we don’t have a hidden agenda so people start fixing you one,” he said. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/86e3f28e-be3a-11e2-bb35-00144feab7de.html#axzz2Tysp0gfQ

 

 

 

 

Benghazi is Not about Gun Running, It’s about the Money

 

by John Galt

May 22, 2013 05:00 ET

Over the last six plus months, I have penned two articles about the Assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and “The Other Truth about Benghazi,” both of which were fairly simple to understand when one realizes the level of corruption and financial incest occurring inside the nation’s capitol. To this day not one national talk show host nor political animal has asked the most important question remaining in the investigation which will topple the regime in D.C.

 

Last week The National, a newspaper out of the United Arab Emirates published a fascinating article which drove the point home about what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria:

Saudis overtaking Qatar in sponsoring Syrian rebels

In the article by Hassan Hassan it was stated:

Last week, a 12-member delegation from the Syrian opposition visited Saudi Arabia, for an unprecedented two-day official meeting.

Saudi authorities had consistently declined to meet the opposition, despite repeated requests. This was partly because the kingdom has opposed Muslim Brotherhood dominance in the Syrian National Council and then the National Coalition, owing to the Brotherhood’s alliance with Qatar and Turkey and opposition to inclusivity.

 

But last week, surprisingly, the Saudi foreign minister, Saud Al Faisal, met Syrian Brotherhood deputy leader Mahmoud Farouq Tayfour, in one-to-one talks.

The Brotherhood had previously been confident in its alliance with Qatar and Turkey, and saw no need to offer concessions to engage other countries, including Saudi Arabia. So this meeting, which came after an “eager appeal” from the Brotherhood, suggests a shift in regional dynamics.

 

Two separate sources close to the opposition say Mr Tayfour assured the Saudi minister that “Syria’s Brotherhood will definitely not be like Egypt’s Brotherhood”.

He also “harshly” criticised Qatar’s role, even though Qatar had helped revive the Brotherhood in Syria after the Baathists massacred it out of existence in 1982.

Still, this meeting does not mean there has been a breakthrough in the kingdom’s relationship with the Brotherhood, which in 2004 then-Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz (who died last June) called the “source of all problems”.

 

The meeting was meant to build channels of communication with the coalition as Riyadh apparently took over sponsorship of the opposition from Doha. Last week Al Arab newspaper, citing opposition sources, said Doha had told the coalition’s secretary general, Mustafa Al Sabbagh, that “the Syrian dossier is now in the hands of Saudi Arabia”.

What was conveniently left out was the fact that Qatar was actively arming the rebels just as they did in Libya and had allegedly spent over $3 billion to aid the opposition in Syria according to an article in the Financial Times. The interesting part of the story by Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding Smith was this one paragraph:

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, Qatar has sent the most weapons deliveries to Syria, with more than 70 military cargo flights into neighbouring Turkey between April 2012 and March this year.

The only supplier of arms which match the Soviet style in question is in fact those seized by United States forces after Gaddafi’s collapse then transferred to Libya. Apparently the U.S. wants to keep this supply line source quiet so as not to upset the Chinese and Russians but also to prevent any appearance of wrong doing by the Obama administration. These two stories plus older stories from The Blaze and other sources point to the only question remaining to solve the Benghazi scandal mystery:

Where’s the money?

If Qatar and Saudi Arabia are willing to spend north of $3 billion to overthrow the regime in Syria, then if the United States received the cash for those Libyan weapons, as it appears they have, who received the money, where is an accounting for it, and did any of it accidentally “slosh” into someone’s campaign re-election efforts via the numerous PACs and other support mechanisms?

 

http://johngaltfla.com/wordpress/2013/05/22/benghazi-is-not-about-gun-running-its-about-the-money/

 

 

 

 

PJM EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

 

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

 

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

 

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

 

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

 

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

 

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

 

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

 

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

 

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

 

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

 

The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known that Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.

 

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

We will report more as we learn it.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/?singlepage=true

 

the easy recap: (which i shoulda just put first, but i can't get the quote box to move, so now it's last)

 

The only supplier of arms which match the Soviet style in question is in fact those seized by United States forces after Gaddafi’s collapse then transferred to Libya.

 

Qatar was actively arming the rebels just as they did in Libya and had allegedly spent over $3 billion to aid the opposition in Syria.

 

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

 

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda. (the 2 seals that were killed had already said they were there to clean up the mess and find weapons)

 

If the United States received the $3b cash for those Libyan weapons, as it appears they have, who received the money, where is an accounting for it?

 

Did any of it accidentally “slosh” into someone’s campaign re-election efforts via the numerous PACs and other support mechanisms? (which it probably didn't...it probably went directly into offshore accounts for hillary and obama)

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Gun running weapons to drug kingpins along the U.S/Mexico border, and selling stinger missiles to Al Queda.

 

Seems like a good strategery to me.

[drobeski 3,061]

Gun running weapons to drug kingpins along the U.S/Mexico border, and selling stinger missiles to Al Queda.

 

Seems like a good strategery to me.

non story

[Recliner Pilot 61]

non story

Mebbe some day it will make today.com.

[NewbieJr 541]

Impeached yet? I haven't been following. :popcorn:

[FlaHawker 24]

Impeached yet? I haven't been following. :popcorn:

Glad to see that you approve of B. Hussein's ignorance which directly led to 4 American deaths. But then again his cack hasn't been out your mouth for 5 years now.

[NewbieJr 541]

Glad to see that you approve of B. Hussein's ignorance which directly led to 4 American deaths. But then again his cack hasn't been out your mouth for 5 years now.

And mine hasn't been out of yours, Pussieboy.

[MDC 7,767]

Glad to see that you approve of B. Hussein's ignorance which directly led to 4 American deaths. But then again his cack hasn't been out your mouth for 5 years now.

Bush's ignorance led to 3,000 American deaths and you didn't care. So GFY.

[pussycat 0]

Glad to see that you approve of B. Hussein's ignorance which directly led to 4 American deaths. But then again his cack hasn't been out your mouth for 5 years now.

 

4?

4?

 

OmG, how many Americans died (on American soil, I might add) on Sept. 11, 2001 while President Cheney and boy W played Sgt. Schultz.

Clinton warned 'em. Clark warned 'em.

 

Are you sure you want to play the 4 dead people card? I mean do you, REALLY?

 

Good grief!

[NewbieJr 541]

Bush's ignorance led to 3,000 American deaths and you didn't care. So GFY.

This. Asswholes like Flahawker spent eight years giving that turd a free pass. That's why they're so laughable now.