New emails show possible Benghazi deception by Hillary Clinton, Obama admin
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times June 22, 2015
Congress released nearly 200 pages of newly uncovered emails involving former Secretary of StateHillary Rodham Clinton, raising questions Monday about whether the Obama administration and the Democratic presidential candidate herself were truthful when they said they turned over all of her email communications on Benghazi.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the select House committee looking into the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya, demanded the State Department say whether it has the emails — a way of testing whether the administration withheld them against the wishes of the committee, or whether Mrs. Clintonnever turned them over in the first place, contradicting her public statements.
Mr. Gowdy gave the department a deadline of the end of the day Monday.
“Once again the Benghazi Committee uncovers information that should already be part of the public record but was not made available to the American people or congressional investigators,” Mr. Gowdy said.
Mr. Blumenthal turned them over to the committee himself and has also been deposed by the committee behind closed doors.
Democrats countered that “many” of the emails had been turned over before and said Mr. Gowdy’s decision to release the set Monday was a political effort to tarMrs. Clinton.
“Before today, Chairman Gowdy had not officially released a single email from a single witness in this entire investigation, which has lasted more than a year. Now, he has apparently decided that this one witness is so critical that his emails — and his alone — must be released,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the Benghazi probe.
Mrs. Clinton has admitted she set up and used her own email server and account during her time at the State Department, which meant her communications weren’t able to be searched under open-records or congressional information requests, as required by law.
Prodded by Mr. Gowdy’s committee last year, nearly two years after she left officeMrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department about 30,000 messages she decided were related to official business. She said she withheld and expunged another 32,000 messages, and says she has wiped the server clean to prevent anyone from recovering any of them.
The State Department is under a court order to produce all of the emails publicly, though it claimed to have already given Mr. Gowdy’s committee all emails related to the Benghazi investigation.
Mr. Gowdy said the latest releases, however, poke a hole in that version, saying that eitherMrs. Clintondidn’t actually turn over all appropriate messages to her former employer, or else the State Departmentdidn’t comply with the committee’s demand for information.
Democrats have called for Mr. Gowdy to release the transcript of the committee’s deposition of Mr. Blumenthal, which took place last week, saying it would show there was nothing nefarious in the arrangement between him and Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Cummings said the transcript has been available since last week and would put the new emails in context.
“By the chairman’s own admission, these emails have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi, and their selective release demonstrates the Select Committee’s singular focus on attacking Hillary Clinton and her bid for president,” the congressman said.
Benghazi investigators ponder: Is State Dept lying, or is Hillary?
By Byron York
House Select Committee on BenghaziChairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. speaks to reporters before a closed door meeting in the House Visitors Center at the U.S. Capitol June 16, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Last March, when Hillary Clinton made her first public comments on the secret email system she maintained while secretary of state, she took care to say she had turned over everything to the State Department. “I … provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related,” Clinton told reporters. “I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and … the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided.”
The message was clear. Clinton had turned over everything, and the State Department would make it all public.
Then State sent Clinton’s emails that concerned Libya to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Chairman Trey Gowdy immediately expressed skepticism about the claim that everything had been turned over. “There are gaps of months and months and months,” Gowdy said.
Gowdy’s suspicions appear to have been confirmed. As part of the committee’s questioning of Clinton friend and defender Sidney Blumenthal, who exchanged many emails with Clinton on the subject of Libya, Blumenthal turned over a bunch of emails with Clinton that the committee had never seen before. The State Department had not given them to the committee when State originally turned over what were purported to be all of Clinton’s Libya-related emails.
Which led investigators to ask: Did the State Department fail to turn over all the Clinton emails it had pertaining to Libya? Or did Clinton not give all her Libya-related emails to the State Department, which in turn could not pass them on to the committee?
Shorter version: Did the State Department withhold information from the committee, or did Clinton?
The first possibility is entirely consistent with State Department foot-dragging on Benghazi that has been going on from the beginning. Just last month, Gowdy told Secretary of State John Kerry that “the pace of State Department document production has become an impediment to the progress of the committee.”
The second possibility — that Clinton did not turn over all of her work emails as claimed — would call into question everything she has said publicly about the secret email system. That could, in turn, reignite the Benghazi issue in the presidential campaign.
Clinton, of course, has said nothing about the Blumenthal emails. As far as the State Department is concerned — well, try to make sense of this exchange Wednesday between reporters and spokesman John Kirby:
QUESTION: You said that the emails that were provided by Mr. Blumenthal to the committee … were not shared with the Department. Does that mean that the committee didn’t share them, or you did not have them to give to the committee?
KIRBY: No, no. I meant that the documents that Mr. Blumenthal turned over to the — we — they were not shared with us either by him or by the committee.
QUESTION: Well, did you have them?
KIRBY: I can’t speak to their contents.
What does that mean? Certainly the Benghazi investigators don’t know. When the State Department originally turned over the Clinton emails earlier this year, Gowdy asked State to certify that it was turning over all of Clinton’s communications related to Libya. State officials would not do that, arguing they only had what Clinton gave them, although they accepted Clinton’s word that they had everything.
Also baffling to investigators is what is going on with Blumenthal. The materials he turned over could undermine Clinton’s claim of having given all of her work-related emails to the State Department. Yet Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton acolyte who owes his livelihood to the Clintons — during the time in question, he received $10,000a month from the Clinton Foundation and another $10,000 from a Clinton-related media watchdog group— seems the last person in the world who would give Republicans anything they could use against Clinton. So that is another mystery.
This latest tangle illustrates the difficulty Gowdy and his fellow lawmakers face in trying to figure out the Benghazi story.Yes, they have made progress — remember, the world would not even know about Clinton’s secret email system had it not been for Gowdy’s committee. But they face a daunting challenge in getting information not only from Clinton but from her inner circle and the State Department. It’s taken a long time to get this far, and there is still quite a way to go.
The mainstream U.S. news media is lambasting the Europeans for failing to stop the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Mediterranean Sea as desperate Libyans flee their war-torn country in overloaded boats that are sinking as hundreds drown. But the MSM forgets how this Libyan crisis began, including its own key role along with that of “liberal interventionists” such as Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power.
In 2011, it was all the rage in Official Washington to boast about the noble “responsibility to protect” the people of eastern Libya who supposedly were threatened with extermination by the “mad man” Muammar Gaddafi. We also were told endlessly that, back in 1988, Gaddafi’s agents had blown Pan Am 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland.
The R2Pers, led by then-National Security Council aide Power with the backing of Secretary of State Clinton, convinced President Barack Obama that a “humanitarian intervention” was needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering people whom he claimed were Islamic terrorists.
As this U.S.-orchestrated bombing campaign was about to begin in late March 2011, Power told a New York City audience that the failure to act would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.” Power was credited with steeling Obama’s spine to press ahead with the military operation.
Under a United Nations resolution, the intervention was supposed to be limited to establishing no-fly zones to prevent the slaughter of civilians. But the operation quickly morphed into a “regime change” war with the NATO-led bombing devastating Gaddafi’s soldiers who were blown to bits when caught on desert roadways.
Yet, the biggest concern in Official Washington was a quote from an Obama’s aide that the President was “leading from behind” – with European warplanes out front in the air war – when America’s war hawks said the United States should be leading from the front.
At the time, there were a few of us who raised red flags about the Libyan war “group think.” Though no one felt much sympathy for Gaddafi, he wasn’t wrong when he warned that Islamic terrorists were transforming the Benghazi region into a stronghold. Yes, his rhetoric about exterminating rats was over the top, but there was a real danger from these extremists.
And, the Pan Am 103 case, which was repeatedly cited as the indisputable proof of Gaddafi’s depravity, likely was falsely pinned on Libya.Anyone who dispassionately examined the 2001 conviction of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi by a special Scottish court would realize that the case was based on highly dubious evidence and bought-and-paid-fortestimony.
Megrahi was put away more as a political compromise (with a Libyan co-defendant acquitted) than because his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, by 2009, the conviction was falling apart. Even a Scottish appeals court expressed concern about a grave miscarriage of justice. But Megrahi’s appeal was short-circuited by his release to Libya on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer.
Yet the U.S. mainstream media routinely called him “the Lockerbie bomber” and noted that the Libyan government had taken “responsibility” for the bombing, which was true but only because it was the only way to get punitive sanctions lifted. The government, like Megrahi, continued to proclaim innocence.
A Smirking MSM
During those heady days of bombing Libya in 2011, it also was common for the MSM to smirk at the notion that Megrahi was truly suffering from advanced prostate cancer since he hadn’t died as quickly as some doctors thought he might. Then, in September 2011, after Gaddafi’s regime fell, Megrahi’s family invited the BBC and other news organizations to see Megrahi struggling to breathe in his sick bed.
His son, Khaled al-Megrahi, said, “I know my father is innocent and one day his innocence will come out.”Asked about the people who died in the Pan Am bombing, the son said: “We feel sorry about all the people who died. We want to know who did this bad thing. We want to know the truth as well.”
But it was only after Megrahi died on May 20, 2012, that some elements of the MSM acknowledged grudgingly that they were aware of the many doubts about his conviction all along.The New York Times’ obituary carried a detailed account of the evidentiary gaps that were ignored both during the trial in 2001 and during the bombing of Libya in 2011.
The Times noted that “even some world leaders” saw Megrahi
“as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence. … Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.”
Besides the lack of proof supporting that hypothesis was the sheer implausibility that a terrorist would assume that an unattended suitcase could make such an unlikely trip without being detected, especially when it would have been much easier to sneak the suitcase with the bomb onto Pan Am 103 through the lax security at Heathrow Airport outside London.
The Times’ obit also noted that during the 85-day trial,
“None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr. Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr. Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays. …
“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert. Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in [Megrahi’s co-defendant’s] desk in Malta, that Mr. Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.”
In finding Megrahi guilty, the Scottish court admitted that the case was “circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable,” but concluded that “there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt” of Megrahi.
However, the evidence later came under increasing doubt.The Times wrote: “It emerged that Mr. Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr. Megrahibefore the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.” Scottish authorities learned, too, that the U.S. Justice Department paid Gauci $2 million for his testimony.
As for the bomb’s timer, the Times noted that the court called Bollier “untruthful and unreliable” and “In 2007, Mr. Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.
“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored.Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’words echoed by [South African President Nelson] Mandela.”
In other words, Megrahi’s conviction looked to have been a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct,relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane). And those problems were known prior toMegrahi’s return to Libya in 2009 and prior to the U.S.-supported air war against Gaddafi in 2011.
Yet, Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC and pretty much everyone elsein the MSM repeated endlessly that Megrahi was “the Lockerbie bomber” and that Libya was responsible for the atrocity, thus further justifying the “humanitarian intervention” that slaughtered Gaddafi’s soldiers and enabled rebel militias to capture Tripoli in summer 2011.
Similarly, there was scant U.S. media attention given to evidence that eastern Libya, the heart of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, indeed was a hotbed for Islamic militancy, with that region supplying the most per-capita militants fighting U.S. troops in Iraq, often under the banner of Al-Qaeda.
Despite that evidence, Gaddafi’s claim that he was battling Islamic terrorists in the Benghazi region was mocked or ignored. It didn’t even matter that his claim was corroborated by a report from U.S. analysts Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman for West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center.
In their report, “Al-Qaeda’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq,” Felter and Fishman analyzed Al-Qaeda documents captured in 2007 showing personnel records of militants who flocked to Iraq for the war against the Americans. The documents showed eastern Libya providing a surprising number of suicide bombers who traveled to Iraq to kill American troops.
Felter and Fishman wrote that these so-called Sinjar Records disclosed that while Saudis comprised the largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq, Libyans represented the largest per-capita contingent by far.Those Libyans came overwhelmingly from towns and cities in the east.
“The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s Northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (53) and Benghazi 23.9% (21),” Felter and Fishman wrote, adding that Abu Layth al‐Libi, Emir of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), “reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al‐Qa’ida.”
Some important Al-Qaeda leaders operating in Pakistan’s tribal regions also were believed to have come from Libya. For instance, “Atiyah,” who was guiding the anti-U.S. war strategy in Iraq, was identified as a Libyan named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman.
It was Atiyah who urged a strategy of creating a quagmire for U.S. forces in Iraq, buying time for Al-Qaeda Central to rebuild its strength in Pakistan. “Prolonging the war[in Iraq] is in our interest,”Atiyah said in a letter that upbraided Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for his hasty and reckless actions in Iraq.
After U.S. Special Forces killed Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, in Pakistan, Atiyah became al-Qaeda’s second in command until he himself was reportedly killed in a U.S. drone strike in August 2011. [See Consortiumnews.com “Time Finally Ran Out for Atiyah.”]
However, to most Americans who rely on the major U.S. news media, little of this was known, as the Washington Post itself acknowledged in an article on Sept. 12, 2011, after Gaddafi had been overthrown but before his murder. In an article on the rise of Islamists inside the new power structure in Libya, the Post wrote:
“Although it went largely unnoticed during the uprising that toppled Gaddafi last month, Islamists were at the heart of the fight, many as rebel commanders. Now some are clashing with secularists within the rebels’ Transitional National Council, prompting worries among some liberals that the Islamists — who still command the bulk of fighters and weapons — could use their strength to assert an even more dominant role.”
“In the emerging post-Qaddafi Libya, the most influential politician may well beAli Sallabi, who has no formal title but commands broad respect as an Islamic scholar and populist orator who was instrumental in leading the mass uprising.The most powerful military leader is nowAbdel Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of a hard-line group once believed to be aligned with Al Qaeda.”
Belhaj was previously the commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was associated with Al-Qaeda in the past, maintained training bases in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, and was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.
Belhaj and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group denied continued allegiance to Al-Qaeda, but Belhaj was captured during George W. Bush’s post-9/11 “war on terror” and was harshly interrogated by the CIA at a “black site” prison in Thailand before being handed over to Gaddafi’s government which imprisoned and – Belhaj claims – tortured him.
The Times reported that “Belhaj has become so much an insider lately that he is seeking to unseat Mahmoud Jabril, the American-trained economist who is the nominal prime minister of the interim government, after Mr. Jibril obliquely criticized the Islamists.”
The Times article by correspondents Rod Nordland and David D. Kirkpatrick also cited other signs of growing Islamist influence inside the Libyan rebel movement:
“Islamist militias in Libya receive weapons and financing directly from foreign benefactors like Qatar; a Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abel al-Rajazk Abu Hajar, leads the Tripoli Municipal Governing Council, where Islamists are reportedly in the majority.”
It may be commendable that the Post and Times finally gave serious attention to this consequence of the NATO-backed “regime change” in Libya, but the fact that these premier American newspapers ignored the Islamist issue as well as doubts about Libya’s Lockerbie guilt– while the U.S. government was whipping up public support for another war in the Muslim world – raises questions about whether those news organizations primarily serve a propaganda function.
Gaddafi’s Brutal Demise
Even amid these warning signs that Libya was headed toward bloody anarchy, the excited MSM coverage of Libya remained mostly about the manhunt for “the madman” – Muammar Gaddafi. When rebels finally captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, in the town of Sirte – and sodomized him with a knife before killing him – Secretary of State Clinton could barely contain her glee, joking inone interview: “We came, we saw, he died.”
The months of aerial slaughter of Gaddafi’s soldiers and Gaddafi’s own gruesome death seemed less amusing on Sept. 11, 2012, when Islamic terrorists overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. In the two-plus years since, Libya has become a killing ground for rival militias, including some now affiliated with the Islamic State.
As the BBC reported on Feb. 24, 2015, the Islamic State
“has gained a foothold in key towns and cities in the mostly lawless North African state [Libya], prompting Egypt – seeing itself as the bulwark against Islamists in region – to launch air strikes against the group. …
“IS has launched its most high-profile attacks in Libya, bombing an upmarket hotel in the capital, Tripoli, in January, and releasing a video earlier this month showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians it had kidnapped. On 20 February, it killed at least 40 people in a suicide bombing in the eastern town of al-Qubbah.”
Now, the chaos that the U.S.-sponsored “regime change”unleashed has grown so horrific that it is causing desperate Libyans to climb into unseaworthy boats to escape the sharp edges of the Islamic State’s knives and other depredations resulting from the nationwide anarchy.
Thus, Libya should be a powerful lesson to Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and the other R2Pers that often their schemes of armed “humanitarianism” can go badly awry and do much more harm than good.It should also be another reminder to the MSM to question the arguments presented by the U.S. government, rather than simply repeating those dubious claims and false narratives.
But neither seems to be happening. The “liberal interventionists” – like their neoconservative allies – remain unchastened, still pumping for more “regime change” wars, such as in Syria. Yet, many of these moral purists are silent about the slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Palestinians in Gaza, or now Houthis and other Yemenis dying under Saudi bombs in Yemen.
It appears the well-placed R2Pers in the Obama administration are selective in where that “responsibility to protect” applies.
Samantha Power, now serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, remains the same self-righteous scold denouncing human rights abuses in places where there are American-designated “bad guys” while looking the other way in places where the killing is being done by U.S. “allies.”As for Hillary Clinton, she is already being touted as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.
Meanwhile, the MSM has conveniently forgotten its own propaganda role in revving up the war on Libya in 2011.So, instead of self-reflection and self-criticism, the mainstream U.S. media is filled with condemnations of the Europeans for their failure to respond properly to the crisis of some 900 Libyans apparently drowning in a desperate attempt to flee their disintegrating country.
When the truth will out There may be more to Benghazi than officialdom wants to uncover
What if American Weapons Killed in Benghazi Illustration by Greg Groesch
It took four whole years for Washington Times to realise the obvious, we have been shouting on deaf ears for the last four and half years.
Of-course we are not so prominent journalists we are plain people who fight with what ever means we have against the Western media either by blogging, or twitting, or Facebook, or YouTube which ever means available risking prosecution from the militias and gangs who do not like what we say….. If anyone of you readers have been following me since August 2011 you will see that what Andrew Napolitano is writing here below we have said it over and over but no one listened or if they did they are taking our articles and owning them without giving any credit to all Libyan brothers and sisters who have stopped everything in their lives and are working without pay to try to get the truth out….All bloggers and I, do not need their recognition or their congratulation the only thing I can say better late than never……
These internet-newspapers are the same who sold you the war in Libya and Syria! They are the ones who have blood on their hands for having millions killed in Libya and Syria, they are the ones who I hold responsible for Libyans and Syrians that have become refugees. They are the same people who wrote that Qaddafi and Assad are dictators and they must go…. They are the ones responsible that Qaddafi was BRUTALLY MURDERED and made viral the video of his EXECUTION.
It’s not only the American foreign policy or the Cabal mafia who are responsible but also the WESTERN MEDIA which are the LAP DOGS of their own government. They should not be called JOURNALISTS but CRIMINALS FOR HIRE AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED THE SAME AS MASS MURDERERS.
As for the Benghazi Committee their only goal is to clear the CIA and nothing else… they do not want the REAL truth… every single one in the Benghazi Committee have their own agenda and the TRUTH IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
As for Russia and China they are paying a high price for not Vetoing the no flight zone in Libya…
Qaddafi said in his last speech that LIBYA WILL BE THE DEATH OF THE WEST… AND HIS PROPHECY IS BECOMING A REALITY…. LIBYA WILL SURVIVE… LIBYA WILL WIN THE WAR AGAINST THE WESTERN COLONIZATION… LIBYA WILL BE ONCE AGAIN FREE
By Andrew P. Napolitano – June 17, 2015
What if President Obama secretly agreed with others in the government in 2011 to provide arms to rebels in Libya and Syria? What if the scheme called for American arms merchants to sell serious American military hardware to the government of Qatar, which would and did transfer it to rebel groups?What if the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of the Treasury approved those sales?
What if the approvals were kept secret because some of those rebel groups were characterized by the same Departments of State and Treasury as terrorist organizations? What if the ultimate recipients of those arms were the militants and monsters in al Qaeda and ISIS who have slain and tortured innocents?
What if this scheme is defined in federal law as providing material assistance to terrorist organizations?What if that’s a felony? What if that’s the same felony for which the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted dozens of persons merely for attempting? What if this scheme was not a mere attempt, but an actual arming of terrorists?
What if this scheme was approved not only by the president, but also by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton? What if the idea of doing this was hers? What if congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and from both parties signed off on this?What if the remaining members of Congress and the American people were kept in the dark about this scheme? What if those who agreed to permit this scheme knew that the arms were destined for terrorist organizations and they were flirting with a criminal conspiracy to violate federal law?
What if Mrs. Clinton was asked by senators while under oath about the delivery of arms made by American manufacturers to ports in the Middle East and she denied knowing anything about it?What if she knew she had personally approved the deliveries but falsely claimed she had no knowledge?
What if this arms-to-terrorists scheme began to unravel? What if the rebels were really bad guys? What if there are many rebel-terrorist groups with varying degrees of hatredfor the United States? What if some of the groups that received American arms are so hateful of the United States that they will bite the hands that fed them?
What if Clinton’s job was to prevent American arms from slipping into the hands of terrorists? What if she secretly did the opposite of what her job required? What if she and the president and the other conspirators viewed themselves as being above the law? What if they thought the terrorist groups they were arming would overthrow the Gadhafi government in Libya and the Assad government in Syria?What if they believed those revolutions would be greeted with cheers in the West? What if they hoped the cheers would be for them?
What if their goal of regime change succeeded in Libya, and yet the result was chaos? What if under Col. Moammar Gadhafi, Libya had been a stable U.S. ally? What if today there is no central government in Libya and it is ruled by gangs and tribes and militias?
What if the American assistance to Syrian rebels became known to the Russians?What if that knowledge prompted Russian President Putin to help his ally, President Bashar Assad of Syria? What if the American and Russian introduction of heavy military hardware into the Syrian civil war has resulted in prolonged war and more deaths of innocents and destruction of property, not less?
What if one of the terrorist groups that received American arms from this scheme attacked the American consulate in Benghazi, because it wanted more arms from the United States and it knew arms were stored there?What if that attack killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues? What if this was a nightmare scenario for the conspirators? What if the conspirators now fear that the truth of their plot will become known?
What if the tragedy at Benghazi was unwelcome but not unforeseen? What if the conspirators knew of the risks to innocent lives attendant upon breaking the law by giving arms to madmen? What if members of Congress who were kept in the dark about the arms-to-terrorists scheme were outraged over Benghazi?What if leaders of the House of Representatives, some of whom were conspirators, formed a committee to investigate how the murder of Stevens came about?
What if some members of that committee already know that Stevens and the others were murdered with U.S. weapons illegally given to U.S. enemies secretly by U.S. government officials?What if the stated purpose of the committee — to seek the truth about Benghazi — is not the true purpose? What if the real purpose of that committee is to suppress the truth so that the president and Mrs. Clinton and the other conspirators do not get indicted?What if the truth is the last thing the conspirators want to see come out? What do we do about lawless government by secrecy? What do we do about government officials who act as if they are above the law? What do we do if one of them lives in the White House and controls all federal prosecutions? What do we do if another of them is presently on her way there?
Mohammed Hijazi: there is an international conspiracy against us.
Spokesman for the Libyan military spokesman, Major Mohammed Hijazi, said that there were “intelligence international conspiracy” hatched against Libya, aim to divide the country and plunder its resources.
Hijazi said, in a press statement, that “the international community refused to support the army with weapons necessary to be able to fight terrorism and extremism, international draft text to resolve the Libyan crisis, confirms the existenceof a conspiracy against Libya consistency and targeting its unity and its wealth.”
He said: “The plot landmarks have sacrificed and finally the emergence of international draft, which is intended primarily to enter the Islamic entities political scene again .. and spoiler can not fit.”
“As the political scene is linked to the military scene .. Muslim Brotherhood is founded this armor and become a recent armed its arms, which also sought to break the Libyan military, beaten and conspired against her and so I say with the advent of that draft, including its contents if there is an international conspiracy intelligence aimed to splitthe country and the exploitation of wealth and looted, but the Libyan army will prevent check that with God’s help. “
He asked, criticizing “how does the world claims to be fighting terrorism and at the same time leaving the Libyan army fighting terrorism and extremism on its own behalf and with its potential .. if the international community has a real will to fight terrorism should be strengthening of the capabilities of the army.”
In response to a question about the existence of consultations between the military leadership and the House of Representatives about those proposed draft of the peace with Tripoli militias, Hijazi replied: “We as an army our duty is known to fight against terrorism and extremism .. army and the House of Representatives are not only to talk about those drafts .. All Libyans rejected the draft and they came out in demonstrations in Benghazi yesterday evening, with its clear evidence of this refusal. “
The members of the Council of Representatives of the Libyan expressed their anger towards the proposals contained in the draft peace agreement presented to them by the United Nations.
Under the proposed retention of the House of Representatives with the formation of a second Council peace plan it consists mainly of members of parliament with a rival Islamic tendencies, based in Tripoli, and under the proposed handing over control of the armed forces to the presidential council to be chosen by consensus during the talks between the delegations of both sides.
The talks are aimed at forming a national unity government to lead Libya in the midst of the crisis in the country four years after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
On the ground, the Libyan army aircraft carried out, since Wednesday morning, five air strikes against sites for the organization of the Islamic State (Daash) in Darnah, according to an army spokesman,Maj. Mohammed Hijazi.
Hijazi said, in a press statement over the telephone, “The Libyan air force planes bombed gatherings of terrorists in the valley of the camel and secondary police and the head of the Red Crescent and back areas,” noting that “constant bombardment”.
He described the air strikes carried out today as a “preliminary strikes on gatherings of terrorists in the mentioned paralyze their firearms areas,” noting that “these terrorists from al Daash some concentrations of heavy weapons, rockets and Grad in all of the Valley of the camel and the head of the Red Crescent and back, but have been destroyed now.”
“The strikes also aims to open corridors and spaces and pave the way for the army units that only 18 kilometers away from the city and ringed preparation for the storm in a timely manner determined by the military leadership.”
Daash Libya destroy oil wells near Sirte
Libyan source said Thursday that the organization “Daash” terrorist deliberately after control of the city of Sirte to tighten its grip on the oil fields in the vicinity of the city burned it all, according to agency reported Russian Sputnik.
And the agency, citing a Libyan official, that the organization enjoyed a number of important fields such as private “carp” and “dear” and “Oasis” west of Sirte, and set them on fire.
The official, who did not mention the agency named or described, that there is no Libyan army in the city of Sirte, and loyal to the city of Sirte and subsidiaries for “dawn of Libya” forces announced the general alarm, and seeks to centralize in Heisha area, which lies 150 km from the city of Sirte.
Putin: Libya caused by the disaster, led by France, Sarkozy
Russian President Vladimir Putin, on Wednesday, said that “the Libyan disaster is the result of military intervention in 2011,” he said.
Putin said at a press conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in Milan (the capital of Italy Industrial), yesterday, “The disaster experienced by Libya today are the result of external military intervention, which occurred in 2011, and because of the constituent of extremist groups, the government’s performance.”
The Russian president, who visited the Expo, after meeting Renzi, that “Russia wants a peaceful solution to the conflict, in the face of France, led by former President Nicolas Sarkozy, which is primarily responsible for the current disaster in Libya, along with the leading role of the European Union, which supported the aggression military against Libya Gaddafi, “he says, He added,” Today, the cost to address this huge disaster, a lot of lives and years of suffering. “
Berlin meeting: calls for the formation of a unity government in Libya
The agencies and the international community, on Wednesday, want to put an end to the fighting in Libya, and the formation of a national unity government to be able to end the crisis plaguing the country for years.
A joint statement issued after a crisis meeting in Berlin on Libya that “the governments of China, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, Britain, the United States, the European Union, renewed its firm commitment to work with Libya united and enjoyed the peace and in a spirit of partnership.”
The statement renewed confirmation of those governments that “a comprehensive Libyan government depends on the National Accord will provide favorable conditions for the establishment of partnerships in many areas, and that the international community is ready to provide substantial support to such a government.”
This includes support from the international community to combat terrorism and organized crime, and assistance in dealing with irregular migration, and the strengthening of institutions in Libya, and to promote social and economic recovery.
Who attended the meeting hosted by the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmayr – the Special Representative of the United Nations in Libya, Bernardino Leon, and about 20 deputies Libya ****(from Tripoli i.e. most of the terrorists like Belhaj, Muslim Brotherhood, Libyan Dawn and other American puppet terrorists.)
Bernerdino Leon: The international community supports a political solution in Libya
On Wednesday, the international envoy to Libya, Bernardino Leon,that the international community supports access to a political solution in Libya, and the cease-fire.
He said at a news conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, “there is a big security challenges in Libya, with the aim of state regulation (Daash/Isis) to divide the country,****(that is the aim to split the country and Leon is doing everything to succeed that, he has made it impossible for Libyans and HoR to sit on the same table with the terrorists so he is only speaking with the terrorists and all plans that he writes they will be FLAT REFUSED) so it is time to reach an agreement in Libya and get out of the current crisis in the country.”
“The participants in the dialogue German capital, Berlin promised to reach a solution to the Libyan crisis before Ramadan.”
He expressed the hope that “all Libyan parties to respond to the draft and the proposals of the United Nations to resolve the crisis in Libya,” explaining that there is no timetable for the implementation of the United Nations proposal to resolve the crisis in Libya.
He said: “The atmosphere dominated by optimism and hard work requires us to reach an agreement between the Libyan parties”****(What parties there is only one and that is the recognized government which resides in Tobruk all other participants minus the tribes are terrorists so again I ask what PARTIES?).
The German foreign minister said that talks Libyan parties, hosted by Berlin, is the last chance to achieve peace in Libya.
The delegation of the House of Representatives denies dialogue meeting province Berlin
Vice president of the Libyan Parliament in Skhirat talks delegation had boycotted the meetings scheduled to be supervised by the German government starting Wednesday in Berlin.
Mohammad Shoaib said in a telephone interview for “Sky News Arabic” in Berlin, the Parliament delegation will attend the meetings of the German capital, where he arrived yesterday evening.
Shoaib added that what was said by the Libyan parliament elected in a previous statement, is that it must be on the negotiating team to return to the legislative institution before making a decision, in accordance with established practice in all democratic parliaments, as described.
Reports said that the Libyan parliament decided Tuesday, County awaited dialogue sessions in Berlin, also rejected the United Nations proposal to form a unity government to end the conflict on the ongoing power in the country.
He hinted that the official spokesman of the Libyan Parliament on behalf of Faraj Bo Hashim, yesterday, to the possibility that the Council on dismissal or change the members of the delegation participating in the dialogue, which is sponsored by the United Nations Mission, in the case of non-compliance with the Council’s request of them to return to his headquarters in the city of Tobruk Far East of Libya to consult on fourth draft put forward by the UN Mission.
Daash/Isis Libya …. Expands its influence, taking advantage of political dispute
Libyan political parties failed to reach an agreement to resolve the crisis continue to organize Daash achieve progress on the ground, having dominated Sirte, moving elements around Misurata and the Crescent oil.
Extremist organization has become just around the corner from the cusp of Europe after seizing Sirte and progress towards the coastal Misurata.
Daash has tighten its grip on Sirte east of the capital Tripoli on the stages this year a remarkable development, which contributed militias dawn Libya’s withdrawal from the most important sites in the oil city. It enjoyed a power plant west of Sirte, after days of occupation strategy including Alkarzabih air base by the international airport of the city government buildings, the first Libyan airport made sure the control of the extremist organization it, in addition to seizing the headquarters close to the water pump for the Libyan cities.
The control of Sirte growing fears that Daash creeping toward the vital oil Crescent area, which lies about one hundred and fifty kilometers only Alkarzabih base. Crescent is located between the oil region of Sirte and Benghazi and mediates the distance between Benghazi and Tripoli. And has a stockpile is the largest of Libya’s oil, and include institutions and key fields and oil ports are Ras Lanuf and Sidra and Brega.
As the attention of the organization also tend to Misurata third largest city in Libya and aspires Daash takeover because of its strategic beach-side location and has the largest port in the country.
And its arrival to the Libyan coast regulation will tightened its grip on the Libyan ports, about 300 kilometers only for Europe, which probably will start in implementing its threat dumped half a million immigrants in accordance with the Quilliam Foundation.
However, the experts assert that Sirte is not the first foothold for Daash, The organization exists in Darnah and Benghazi and Cyrenaica has sleeper cells in Tripoli and Nofaliya and parts of southern Libya.