Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Their Roles in Libya

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Their Roles in Libya

By: Frank de Varona

A Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi was set up in September 2013 to investigate the causes and the circumstances involved in the attacks of September 11, 2012 on the U.S. Consulate and CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya. The members of the commission include former CIA officers, retired military from the different branches of the Armed Forces, journalists, and defense consultants.

Among the members are Roger Aronoff, editor of Accuracy in Media, Brigadier General Charles Jones (Ret.), Admiral James Lyons (Ret.), General Thomas McInerney (Ret.), former CIA officer Clare Lopez, former CIA officer Wayne Simmons, former CIA officer Kevin Shipp, General Paul Vallely (Ret), former Congressman and Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Allen West, Captain Larry Bailey (SEAL Ret.), and John A. Shaw, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for International Technology Security.

After many months of investigation and research which involved interviews with several knowledgeable sources, the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi issued on April 22, 2014 an interim report entitled “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror.”

This is a summary of the alarming findings:

“1) The war in Libya was unnecessary, served no articulable U.S. national security objective, and led to preventable chaos region-wide. In the period since 2011 revolution in Libya, the country has remained fragmented, poorly governed, and overrun with violent militias, the majority of which are jihadist al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) affiliates. Yet, at the time of his overthrow, Muammar Qaddafi was an ally of the United States in the Global War on Terror.

On March 17, 2011 the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1973 for a “No Fly Zone,” ostensibly to protect Libyan civilians caught up in the hostilities between the Libyan government forces and the rebel forces, which were dominated by the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. The following day in London, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced U.S. government support for the Muslim Brotherhood-led Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC) in its revolt against Qaddafi.”

The commission found out that the civil war in Libya could have been avoided, and would have saved thousands of lives and the enormous turmoil that followed the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. After a few days of the Obama administration declaration that the United States would support the Libyan rebels, Qaddafi wanted to enter negotiations to discuss his possible abdication and exile.

On March 20, 2011 General Abdulqader Yusef Dibri, head of personal security for Qaddafi, contacted Rear Admiral (Ret.) Chuck Kubic. Upon receiving this information, Rear Admiral Kubic telephoned Lieutenant Colonel Brian Linvill in Stuttgart, Germany, the U.S. AFRICOM officer point of contact for all military matters involving Libya.

Lieutenant Colonel Linvill immediately notified the head of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham, stating that the Libyan leader was ready to establish communication with the Africa military command. General Ham was quite interested. However, the Obama administration did not give permission to General Ham to proceed with the negotiations.

The opportunity for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Libya did not interest President Obama. The war continued and tens of thousands of lives were lost. It was absolutely appalling that the White House and the State Department did not even consider entering into negotiations with Qaddafi to avoid bloodshed since President Obama and Secretary Clinton wanted to pursue the unconstitutional war in Libya supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and the al Qaeda-linked rebels. Both Obama and Clinton need to explain to the American people and to Congress why both of them wanted to empower jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, which went against the national security interest of our nation.

“2) Changing sides in the War on Terror: Even more disturbingly, the United States was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al Qaeda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion. The jihadist agenda of AQIM, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.

The rebels made no secret of their al Qaeda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic Jihad, according to author John Rosenthal and multiple media reports. And yet, the White House and senior Congressional members deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al Qaeda. The result in Libya, across much of North Africa, and beyond has been utter chaos, disruption of Libya’s oil industry, the spread of dangerous weapons (including surface-to-air missiles), and the empowerment of jihadist organizations like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“3) The weapons flow: An American citizen source trusted by the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi who has long experience in the Middle East described the flow of weapons from Qatar to the Libyan rebels and the diversion of some of those arms. After Qaddafi’s regime had been ousted, a delegation from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) traveled to Libya to collect payment for the weapons that the UAE had financed and Qatar had delivered to the Transitional National Council (TNC) during the war.

During their visit to Tripoli, the UAE officials discovered that half of the $1 billion worth of weapons it had financed for the rebels had, in fact, been diverted by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the Muslim Brotherhood head of the Libyan TNC, and sold to Qaddafi.

Furthermore, according to information learned during the UAE visit to Tripoli, when Jalil learned that Major General Abdel Fatah Younis, Qaddafi’s former Minister of the Interior before his late February 2011 defection to the rebel forces, had found out about the weapons diversion, he ordered Abu Salim Abu Khattala… to kill him. Abu Khattala, later identified as the Ansar al-Shariah commander who led the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, accepted the order and directed the killing of General Abdel Fatah Younis in July 2011. ****(Let me make something clear for the late General Abdel Fatah Younis he was set up by CIA/QATAR/UAE/FRANCE/TURKEY/UK agencies as he didn’t agree with what was going on.. therefore they Western Media, Benghazi Committee and other extremists are trying to cover their involvement.)

The key significance of this episode is a demonstration of a military chain-of-command relationship between the Libyan Muslim brotherhood leadership of the TNC and the al Qaeda-affiliated militia (Ansar al-Shariah) that has been named responsible for the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Abu Khattala is under a Department of Justice sealed indictment. His brigade merged into Ansar al-Shariah in 2012, and he was positively identified to the FBI in a cell-phone photo from the scene of the attack, yet remains free and available for interviews to the media.”  ****(He is in custody in the United States after he was kidnapped by SAS in Libya, but I have a question for you see the photo of Abu Khattala does it strike you that he could plan and execute the US mission in Benghazi? BTW the real organizer of this strike after I had spoken with one of the Benghazi Committee people was kidnapped and executed. Here is the photo)

Abu Khattala


The future ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, was sent to Benghazi to coordinate the assistance provided by the Obama administration to the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaida-linked terrorist organizations ****(What she does not say is that Chris Stevens was ordained by Hillary Clinton to ambassador is this also a coincidence?). Once he became the U.S. Ambassador, Stevens continued working with the jihadist terrorists. Somehow a dispute must have arisen ****(the dispute was not with Ansar al Shariah but with Clinton, Brennan and the CIA)and he was assassinated by Ansar al-Shariah, the terrorist group that he had been assisting during the civil war, and later working with Ansar al-Shariah jihadists to send weapons to Syria.

Many of these weapons fell into the hands of al Qaida-link terrorist groups trying to overthrow the Syrian dictator ****(tell me again who is the dictator?Just because Arabs have accustomed differently than the West that does not mean every leader is a dictator. Also we know how America works when there is a real democratic leader they assassinate him, mentioning a few countries Iran, Iraq, Latin America, Italy, Africa and all they are for their resources). Perhaps Obama let him die to avoid a future Congressional investigation or that the gun-running operation could have come to light just before the 2012 presidential election.

The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi also investigated the White House cover-up on Benghazi. It stated the following: “The White House campaign appears to have been well-coordinated with U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations as well as Islamic nations members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, who all joined in condemnation of the video, and, even more troubling, issued calls for restriction on Americans’ free-speech rights. The Obama administration officials knew that the YouTube video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, yet for two weeks President Obama and members of his administration deliberately falsely claim that a protest had preceded the attack on our Benghazi mission.”

There is no question in my mind that President Obama committed treason, dereliction of duty, and criminal negligence in Libya during the civil war against Qaddafi, and for his refusal to save our diplomats and Navy SEALs in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton is also guilty of treason and criminal negligence since she supported assisting the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists to overthrow Qaddafi and later her State Department denied repeated requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens for protection and for her lies and participation in the cover-up

The House of Representatives voted to create a Select Committee to probe Benghazi attack

On May 8, 2014, the House of Representatives voted a resolution creating a Select Committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the United States Consulate and the CIA safe house annex in Benghazi, Libya. The vote was 232-186, with seven Democrats joining 225 Republicans in support of the resolution. This panel should have been set up 20 months ago. But it’s never too late to seek justice and accountability.

A Select Committee comprised of seven Republicans and five Democrats will investigate what happened before, during, and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. House Speaker John Boehner appointed Representative Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina, a former prosecutor, to chair the Select Committee. Congressman Gowdy stated that he plans to aggressively pursue interviews with any official who he believes has information about the attack, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Select Committee will have the authority to subpoena witnesses and view classified materials, tools that will help the committee to determine why the United States was not able to prevent the terrorist attack, send military assistance to save the lives of the Americans at Benghazi, and whether Obama administration officials tried to mislead the public on why it happened.

House Speaker John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, explained why he called a vote to create the Select Committee, after having resisted demands to do so in the past. Boehner decided to create the Select Committee after a lawsuit by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch forced the release of an email that had been sent from President Obama’s National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in the days following the attack. In that email Rhodes advised Rice to stick to blaming the attack on the anti-Muslim video in her upcoming appearances on five Sunday television talk shows.

President Obama and Ben Rhodes, as well as the rest of the officials in his administration in the White House, Central Intelligence Agency, FBI, State Department, and Defense Department, were fully aware that the premeditated terrorist attacks at Benghazi had nothing to do with a video. The White House decided to mislead the nation once again. Speaker Boehner stated that “a line was crossed” when new information was discovered that pointed out the White House involvement in misguiding the American people in the talking points used by former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday television shows.

The Obama administration officials, as well as the president, blamed the terrorist attacks in Benghazi on a video for two weeks since Barack Obama was campaigning for reelection stating that he had defeated al Qaeda. The attack at Benghazi contradicted his speeches over his victory over al Qaeda. The president was well aware that al Qaeda, rather than being defeated, was getting stronger in Africa and the Middle East.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about the “fog of war” and, together with Obama, both deliberately lied to the family members of the four brave Americans who were assassinated by terrorists in Benghazi. Administration officials knowingly lied by stating that the CIA intelligence indicated that the attack in Libya was due to a video. Lying is a felony. President Obama and Secretary Clinton should be held accountable for their actions.

Doug Hagmann of the Canadian Free Press, James Robbins of the Washington Times, and Aaron Klein of WND explained that the Obama administration was engaged in a massive gun-running operation to al Qaeda, which included transporting heavy weapons from Libya to Syria. Ambassador Stevens was in charge of this operation, which also involved recruiting jihadists to fight against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. When the attack began around 9:40 p.m. on September 11, 2012, Ambassador Stevens contacted Greg Hicks in Tripoli and told him, “Greg, we are under attack!” And he requested assistance. Hicks immediately notified all agencies so that they could initiate an emergency response plan.

There were soldiers at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, as well as soldiers in all the Western embassies and consulates of countries, such as Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, that upon request by President Obama would have sent their military personnel immediately to Benghazi to provide assistance to our diplomat and other personnel. Yet nothing was done!

The Benghazi scandal involved criminal negligence and dereliction of duty as the Obama administration allowed Ambassador Chris Stevens, two former Navy Seals and a computer specialist to die for political reasons when the United States had forces nearby that could have saved them.

As stated, the Benghazi consulate and CIA safe house were attacked at approximately 9:40 p.m. For seven hours, a small group of brave Americans fought approximately 120 terrorists while notifying our government and repeatedly requesting help. There were two squadrons of F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy. The F-16 aircraft is armed with 500 20 MM rounds and other weapons and they are able to fly at 0.92 mach speed. A Marine detachment was at U.S. Navy Base in Rota, Spain. U.S. forces were also stationed in Greece. The ensuing cover up was disgraceful and is completely unacceptable. It violated our armed forces Code of Conduct which states that we do not leave someone behind.

 Is it because Barack Obama is an ally of this al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group that like him wants to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad of Syria? Perhaps, this is why the President signed an executive order on September 16, 2013 waiving a ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to the Syrian rebels, many of which are supporters of al Qaeda. In essence, he exempted himself from any laws, such as the Patriot Act, that prohibits anyone from giving weapons to a terrorist organization. This executive order should be grounds for impeachment. In reality, Obama has been secretly shipping weapons from Libya to Turkey for a couple of years. The weapons were being given to the rebels fighting the Syrian regime, which included al Qaeda-linked rebel groups. One of the largest al Qaeda group is the Nusra Front. Abu Mohammed al Golani is the leader of this al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group and he has an army of 10,000 soldiers under his command in Syria.

Benghazi Scandal and other threats as seen by Admiral James Lyons

James Lyons is a retired four-star admiral in the United States Navy who is part of the Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi. He served honorably our country for 36 years. During his service to our nation Admiral Lyons was appointed to many important positions in the U.S. Navy. Admiral Lyons served as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 to 1985, and subsequently as Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Fleet from 1985 to 1987. Admiral Lyons was interviewed by Roger Aronoff of Accuracy in Media, who also serves on the Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi. The interview was published by the New Zeal Blog on February 15, 2013.

The interview was done the day after outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton´s testimony to Congress. Secretary Clinton, when asked repeatedly about the scandal and cover-up of Benghazi, Libya, became very upset and at one point pounded the table. When asked why the Obama administration kept claiming for weeks after the attack that what had occurred in Libya was in response to an anti-Islamic video produced in the United States, when it was obvious that this was a lie, she answered “What difference [at this point] does it make?”

Admiral Lyons, in response to the statement made by Secretary Clinton, responded with the following: “Richard Nixon found out what the difference is when you lie to the American public and in his lie, it was only a bungled burglary attempt; nobody got killed. In this case, we had four Americans murdered. Furthermore, we knew, within a matter of hours, that this was determined, preplanned terrorist attack. So you have to ask yourself that ‘in perpetuating this lie, we had administration officials lying to Congressional committees. That´s a felony.’ So, ‘what difference does it make?’” Lyons explained, “It makes all the difference in the world. You cannot flaunt the truth here, just walked away from it and, basically, tell the American public to stuff it. That’s not acceptable.”?Admiral Lyons has been highly critical regarding the way the Obama administration handled the attack on our Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. When asked about the report provided by Secretary Clinton´s Independent Accountability Review Board, which took several months to look into the terrorist attack, Admiral Lyons explained that, from his perspective, the board ”was like having the Mafia investigate a crime scene.” He said that Thomas Pickering, a former career employee of the State Department who is now the chairman of the International Crisis Group, which is a Soros-funded group, could hardly be trusted to conduct a fair investigation. He said that you are never going to get the true story until you appoint a Special Prosecutor who can interview people under oath to find out what actually went on.

Now, of course, we have a Select Committee with the power to subpoena administration officials, including President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. General Carter Ham, Commander of the United States African Command and Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who was in charge of Carrier Strike Group Three, which included the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis, were both fired for trying to send a rapid response team to Benghazi to save our people in violation of the order that they were given to stand down, meaning do nothing should be interviewed. Former CIA director, David Petraeus, should also be sent a subpoena.

Other high-ranking generals, as well as White House officials from the National Security Council who were aware of what happened at Benghazi, should be sent subpoenas and forced to testify under oath. Only then will the truth be found out, and it could very well be career ending for Barack Obama.

In an interview with Lou Dobbs, Admiral Lyons, when asked what did he think that went on in Benghazi, he responded: “If I had to speculate, I believe this was a bungled attack-kidnapping, the object being to kidnap Ambassador Stevens, and hold him in exchange for the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, who sits in jail in the United States for his role in planning the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.” Lyons explained that in June 2012 both the British Consulate and the International Red Cross had to close their offices due to the assassination attempt on the British Consul General and other assassinations. The bombing outside our Special Mission Compound in Benghazi took place on June 6.

Ambassador Chris Stevens had requested additional security assistance on multiple locations. Secretary Clinton sent home Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood and the 16-man security force which was at our embassy in Tripoli. The pleas from our Ambassador for additional security were ignored and denied by the State Department. Lyons stated: “Perhaps this was supposed to be part of a kidnapping, hostage situation, holding him in exchange for the Blind Sheikh. Because killing Ambassador Stevens made no sense to me since he was the great facilitator in funneling the arms to the rebels, to other militias, many of which were al Qaeda-affiliated, who have been fighting our troops in Iraq. So why would you kill the golden goose? It made the no sense to me.”

Admiral Lyons was highly critical of the Obama administration for its lack of response to the terrorist attack against our men in our Consulate ans CIA safe house in Benghazi. He explained that we had 130 Marines at our Base at Sigonella, Sicily and another Marine detachment at our naval base in Rota, Spain. We also had F-16 aircraft that could have been there in an hour.

Lyons also criticized the fact that the Obama administration did not ask for help from the other Western Consulates that had security forces and could have assisted our men. Later, Consul Generals stated that if they had been requested assistance, they would have provided it. Lastly, Lyons stated that what happened at Benghazi would make the Iran-Contra scandal look like child’s play.

During his interview Admiral Lyons covering another topic. He stated the following: “The Muslim Brotherhood penetration in this country is really unconscionable. They have been able to penetrate almost every one of our government agencies. You see it reflected down in the administration´s directive, where we have to purge all of our training manuals and instructors on anything that purports the truth about Islam. Anything that is considered anti-Islamic must be purged, and instructors who do not fall in line, find themselves with new orders elsewhere. We have the Organization of Islamic Cooperation that our great Secretary of State has endorsed, which impinges on our First Amendment right of freedom of expression, and the administration is embracing this, that we leave it up to the 57 or 58 Islamic states that make up the organization, to determine what they consider to be insulting to Islam, and, therefore, they can impose sanctions or bring you to trial, or whatever on this. None of this makes any sense to me.”

Admiral Lyons, when asked what signal is being sent to Iran and Israel by sending advanced weapons to the president of Egypt, as well as the appointments of John Kerry to the State Department, Chuck Hagel to the Defense Department and John Brennan to the CIA, he responded: “Certainly, if I were Iran, I would be thrilled to death with those appointments.” He stated the following: “Because none of them are for taking any military action against Iran, which is giving Iran a clear sailing for the development of their nuclear weapon capability. And it is not just their capability in Iran, you have got to look at what they have done in Latin America. We have Iranian operational missile bases today in Venezuela fully up and operational. They have been able to accomplish what the Soviet Union was unable to do in Cuba in 1962. We have cities in the United States today which are on their threat umbrella of those missiles that are in Venezuela. It needs to be addressed. In fact, they should be forced out of there post-haste. Either take them out, or we will take them out. I do not see that happening”.

Admiral Lyons ended the interview with Roger Aronoff by saying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan and that is: “It is to institute Shariah law in the United States in place of our Constitution—they call it the “Stealth Jihad”—and, in their own words, to destroy us by our own miserable hands.”

We have to thank this brave Admiral for condemning the Obama administration for its lack of response and prevention in the terrorist attack against our diplomats in Benghazi and for participating in the commission. We need other retired generals and admirals to come forward and tell the American people the true story on Benghazi. There is no question in my mind that there were repeated lies and a huge cover-up, as well as criminal negligence, committed by high officials and by President Obama. As Admiral Lyons indicated, felonies were committed and the newly appointed Select Committee needs to conduct a comprehensive investigation.

The danger that Admiral Lyons pointed out regarding of the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our government is a clear and present danger. Unfortunately, president´s older brother, Malik Obama, was accused by the Vice President of the Supreme Court of Egypt on a television station in Cairo as “being the architect of the finances of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Additionally, Malik Obama works with the Da´wa organization in the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled and terrorist nation of Sudan.


The Select Committee needs to investigate not only the terrorist attacks on the mission in Benghazi but also the Obama administration assistance to the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists during the civil war. Additionally, the Select Committee needs to investigate the White House cover-up with Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States and Muslim nations in the world.

President Obama entered into a war in Libya violating the Constitution since Congress did not authorized it. Later Obama had been engaged in a Middle Eastern gun-running operation without Congressional authority and in violation of United States laws. If the Select Committee does its job properly, it will uncover what my investigative research found months ago. The president violated his oath of office and multiple laws by sending weapons working with terrorist groups during the civil war in Libya and later by sending weapons from Libya to Turkey knowing that those weapons would eventually fall into the hands of al Qaeda-link terrorist groups fighting in Libya. Moreover, Obama worked with the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. and Muslim nations to engaged in a cover-up. This is shameful and Obama is a traitor who should be prosecuted. For this reason, the House of Representatives must file impeachment charges against President Barack Obama. As pointed out earlier, President Obama committed treason, dereliction of duty, and criminal negligence in Libya during the civil war against Qaddafi and his refusal to save our diplomats and Navy SEALs in Benghazi. President Barack Obama is unfit to be our commander-in-chief and must be impeached by the House of Representatives.



This article was originally published at Bear Witness Central.

Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya

Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya

By: Daniel Greenfield

Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.



As Libya continues melting down, the Washington Times’ Kelly Riddell has an important story on just how conflicted the situation was. This war a tug of war between Hillary Clinton, who wanted to bomb Libya, and the Pentagon which didn’t.

Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.

“You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,” an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.

So the Pentagon went rogue over Hillary’s War.

The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”…

While Mrs. Clinton urged the Pentagon to cease its communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward…

As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times with officials directly familiar with the overture.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to help.

That more than Benghazi may explain Ham’s abrupt exit. He had been proven right, but Hillary was the heir to the throne.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business consultant in Libya at the time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for Libya. Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.

“The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored,” Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.

“[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions,” Mr. Kubic said. “First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable.”

But not the State Department.

Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.

It’s ironic considering how the media liked to play up Saddam’s truce offers, but this doesn’t get reported. The Pentagon wanted to avoid a war, but Hillary was howling for one.

Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.

In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya “its all Secretary Clinton’s matter” and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.

More like he didn’t care. So he let Hillary have her war.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book “Worthy Fights” that the goal of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq and Afghanistan “for both substance and symbolism.”

“In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we’d be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn’t officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya was regime change.”

That’s what I’ve written all along, but the Secretary of Defense admitting that the American public was lied to over an illegal war just isn’t interesting when Obama is in power.

New emails show possible Benghazi deception by Hillary Clinton, Obama admin

New emails show possible Benghazi deception by Hillary Clinton, Obama admin

hillary stevens2e0c9bb1c7c99150d1f951f62e0f878b

Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times June 22, 2015

Congress released nearly 200 pages of newly uncovered emails involving former Secretary of State Hillary 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. Clinton never 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.

The new emails were between Mrs. Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime aide who had no official position in the State Department but whom the Clintons appeared to rely on for advice and political intelligence work.

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 tar Mrs. 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 office Mrs. 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 either Mrs. Clinton didn’t actually turn over all appropriate messages to her former employer, or else the State Department didn’t comply with the committee’s demand for information.

“These emails should have been part of the public record when Secretary Clinton left office and at a bare minimum included when the State Department released Clinton’s self-selected records on Libya,” Mr. Gowdy said.

He also questioned the propriety of Mrs. Clinton relying on Mr. Blumenthal for external advice on Libya, given that the State Department had its own intelligence gathering tools that she should have been using.

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?

Benghazi investigators ponder: Is State Dept lying, or is Hillary?

By Byron York

Photo - 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)

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.

Hillary fired

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 $10,000 a 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 US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy

The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy


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-for testimony.

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. Megrahi before 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 to Megrahi’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 else in 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.

Al-Qaeda Hotbed

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 “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.”

On Sept. 15, 2011, the New York Times published a similar article, entitled “Islamists’ Growing Sway Raises Questions for Libya.” It began:

“In the emerging post-Qaddafi Libya, the most influential politician may well be Ali 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 now Abdel 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 in one 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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,548 other followers

%d bloggers like this: