The TRUTH about Benghazi, Amb Stevens and the Clinton-Obama TEAM

The TRUTH about Benghazi, Amb Stevens and the Clinton-Obama TEAM


The TRUTH about Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens and the Clinton Obama TEAM as revealed by Wikileaks

From Wikileaks…..
So here’s the REAL story.
Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi.
Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military.
It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn’t arm the missile and the Chinook didn’t explode, but had to land anyway.

An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA.

Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the stingers.

This was a “do-or-die” mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn’t supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft.

Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK’d the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.


Obama and Hillary committed treason…and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not.
Further…the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals.

Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn…everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised…and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.

Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her.

Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had stingers.


Hillary Clinton Supplied Cash, Weapons, Tanks, Training to Al-Qaeda to Kill Gaddafi & Weaponize “ISIS” in Syria

Hillary Clinton Supplied Cash, Weapons, Tanks, Training to Al-Qaeda to Kill Gaddafi & Weaponize “ISIS” in Syria


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created a secret military alliance between the United States and Al-Qaeda generals to assassinate Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi and distribute weapons to terror factions in Libya and ultimately “ISIS” fighters in Syria.

True Pundit has documented this expose with interviews from intelligence assets, Hillary Clinton’s personal emails, Wikileaks emails, secret Pentagon intelligence audio recordings and previously classified cables from the Defense Intelligence Agency. The intelligence garnered from these sources depict devastating overt and covert revelations of how the United States, under Clinton’s Dept. of State, secretly colluded with terrorist organizations and its leaders to implement America’s foreign policy, including:

  • Clinton directly aligned and forged a State Dept. partnership with Al-Qaeda and its extremist fanatics to overthrow, assassinate Gaddafi.
  • Clinton directly armed and commissioned known terrorists and publicly sworn U.S. foes with weapons in Libya, a secret reversal of U.S. policy and direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which called for a complete arms embargo on Libya.
  • Clinton and President Barack Obama together financed Al-Qaeda to overthrow Libyan government and stockpile weapons, including tanks and heavy artillery, which were ultimately shipped from Libya to “ISIS” factions in Syria and elsewhere.
  • Clinton struck a deal with known senior military officials in Al-Qaeda to implement her U.S. foreign policy master plan in Libya, including shipping weapons to the surrounding region.
  • According to intelligence sources, many of the weapons supplied to Al-Qaeda factions were believed to have be used against Americans in the Sept. 11 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.
  • Libyan officials were deeply worried that weapons were being funneled to U.S.-backed rebels with ties to Al-Qaeda via Clinton’s State Dept., which they feared would ultimately create a vacuum and thereby a safe harbor for well-armed terrorists.
  • Libyan officials cut off diplomatic talks with Clinton’s State Department and instead, worked with the Pentagon to avoid Clinton. Incredibly, the Pentagon initiated the diplomatic end-run around Clinton because uniformed top brass, along with the Libyans, no longer trusted her.
  • A March 2011 email, sent to Clinton’s private email server from intelligence consultant and long-time confidant Sidney Blumenthal, details a list of U.S.-commissioned weapons supplied to Libyan “rebels.” Blumenthal’s email details egregious political and legally questionable abuses stemming from Clinton’s U.S. foreign policy in Libya.

But, as Blumenthal mentions, the United States didn’t act alone. Using the public guise of humanitarian intervention in Libya to prevent a faux massacre by the Gaddafi regime, Britain, France and Egypt acted with the U.S. to train and arm Al-Qaeda to assassinate Gaddafi and stockpile weapons to eventually ship to Syrian. Also, the United Nations and several key NATO countries, including the U.S., also assisted this rebel regime with air strikes. Gaddafi was eventually assassinated on Oct. 20, 2011 at the hands of the Libyan rebels, less than six months after Blumenthal’s email.

Blumenthal’s gem-packed intelligence briefing highlights a list of weapons commissioned by the U.S. that the Libyan “rebels” had stockpiled in Benghazi for the plot against Gaddafi.

These knowledgeable sources add that the insurgents have the following weapons stockpiled in Benghazi:

  • 82 and 120 mm. mortars;
  • GPZ type machine guns;
  • 12.7mm. machine guns mounted on 4×4 vehicles;
  • some anti-aircraft batteries type ZSU 23/2 and 23/4 as well as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS) type SAM7;
  • some tanks type T-72;
  • Possibly some fixed wing aircraft, and some light transport/medium helicopters.
  • A seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition (even for systems ZSU 23/4 and 23/2).

Blumental likewise details that French, British and Egyptian Special Forces troops were training the rebels inside of western Egypt and in the western suburbs of Benghazi. He likewise acknowledges that the foreign “troops are overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels,” a direct violation of international law and UN resolutions.

Blumenthal’s information was corroborated by Pentagon intelligence. In a secret 2011 intelligence correspondence phone recording, a Pentagon asset assigned to Libya tells a Gaddafi regime insider in Tripoli that Clinton and her State Department planned to further weaponize Libyan rebels, and ultimately Al-Qaeda, with millions of funds and assets frozen from Gadaffi.

Continue reading

See below.


Read the full, now Unclassified email, below:


David Cameron, Libya and Disaster

David Cameron, Libya and Disaster

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The UK Foreign Affairs Committee was a long time coming with this judgment, but when it came, it provided a firm reminder about how far the 2011 intervention against the Gaddafi regime was not merely flawed but calamitous in its consequences. There had been no coherent strategy on the part of the Cameron government; the campaign had not been “informed by accurate intelligence.”

For members of the committee, it was clear that the then UK prime minister, David Cameron, had to carry a rather large can on the issue. “Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

The consequential nature of this bloody and ultimately catastrophic blunder of international relations triggered continental instability, with a foul global aftertaste. The collapse of Libya into territories battled over with sectarian fury and the death of Muammar Gaddafi unsettled the ground in Mali. It also propelled violence through North African and the Middle East.

It is hard to rank the levels of severity in what went wrong in the aftermath of the Libyan collapse. Could a finger be pointed at the militia hothouse that was created within the state? (Tripoli alone currently hosts somewhere up to 150.) What of the external outrage stemming from it?

Near the top must be the conflict in northern Mali, precipitated by members of the Tuareg ethnic group who had long supplied Gaddafi with soldiers. Armed to the teeth, the MNLA, with the assistance of such Islamist groups as Ansar Dine, commenced a separatist action that in turn encouraged interventions by al-Qaeda sponsored Islamist groups.

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb eventually became one of the big and most menacing players, busying itself with operations beyond Mali, including Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, Tunisia and Morocco.

Meshed between these skirmishing groups were a French-led intervention in 2013 that petered out, followed by a continuing peace keeping operation which has long since ditched the word “peace” in its equation.

Not even the presence of 12,000 UN soldiers under the mission known as MINUSMA has done much to prevent the fraying of that land, despite the June 2015 peace deal. Since 2013, the mission has taken over a hundred casualties, a deal of it occasioned by the ubiquitous landmine and roadside bomb.

While Mali burned with fury, other African states felt the aftershocks, notably through a huge, easily accessible arms market that was not brought under control after Gaddafi’s fall. Marty Reardon, Senior Vice President of The Soufran Group, a US-based security consultancy, surprised no one in telling The Independent that Libya’s implosion led to the arming of “well-armed and militant groups” in Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt.[1]

In this belligerent free for all, jihadi groups jostle and scratch for gains, creating a further pool of radicalised fighters who will, in time, find nowhere else to go. The Libyan collapse, in other words, has created a certain type of roving tourist jihadi, notching up points with each campaign.

Crispin Blunt, who chaired the committee, scoldingly suggested that the 2011 intervention was based on “erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the country.” This kindergarten world view did not stop there.

Having made a right royal mess, it was incumbent on France and the UK to right the ship, with a “responsibility to support Libyan economic and political reconstruction.” This responsibility was also a muddled one, with British and French institution builders profoundly ignorant about local matters. Having pushed Humpty Dumpty over, they showed scant knowledge on how to put him back together.

The sense of culpability for Cameron is further compounded by the nonsense the intervention made of such international humanitarian doctrines as the responsibility to protect. There was always a sense that the French-UK led mission was struggling for a plausible alibi, but recourse to the nonsensical notion of civilian protection reared its head.

That door was opened by the hoovering effect of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised “all necessary means” to protect that most wonderful contrivance, irrespective of what those in the host state thought.[2] Find the civilians and save the day.

While it remains the most insidious of contrivances at international law, that responsibility to protect could be said to have been discharged rapidly – after the initial round of strikes. In the words of the MPs, “If the primary object of the coalition intervention was the urgent need to protect civilians in Benghazi, then this objective was achieved in March 2011 in less than 24 hours.”

This was not to be. Instead, the intervention ballooned into a monstrous matter of regime change, with no attempt made to “pause military action” when Benghazi was being secured. “This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change by military means.” Docks in international criminal courts should be warmed by such adventurous men.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:




The original source of this article is Global Research

Gaddafi’s Ghosts: The possible unexpected change can happen in Libya

Gaddafi’s Ghosts:  The possible unexpected change can happen in Libya
With the release of the eldest son of Muammar Gaddafi and the Libyan people protests, it is likely that the powerful Libyan Jamahiriya completely change the balance of forces in the country.
With the defeat of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi and his death with the help of NATO, it found the total control of the country had fallen into the hands of rebels and revolutionaries, thus ending the socialist movement and the state ideology known as Jamahiriya, whose leader was Gaddafi himself. 
However, recently it has been reported that the eldest son of Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, was not executed, and has been released from prison, now he could return with this movement .  In his article  for RT, the Dan Glazebrook writer analyzes the possible unexpected change may have for the liberation of Libya Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
According to the analyst, “during destruction operations in Libya by NATO, there were several actions during which were supposed to be going to symbolically crowned Western supremacy over Libya,” such as the “fall of Tripoli” in August 2011, victorious speeches Cameron and Sarkozy next month, and the execution of Muammar Gaddafi, who arrived shortly after. All this, according Glazebrook, were “Pyrrhic victory”. But the death penalty imposed on the eldest son of Gaddafi in July 2015 turned out to be “greatest victory”.
However, according to media, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was released on July 6 by an amnesty law issued by the Government of Libya. The son of Muammar Gaddafi had been sentenced to death in late July 2015 by a court in Tripoli, which found him guilty of allegedly inciting the killing of protesters on February 17, 2011, when the country was experiencing violent protests by groups opposed to government , supported by US and its NATO allies to overthrow the then Libyan leader.

Shut hopes forever

From the point of view of the journalist, the trial “was never recognized by the elected government,” then he moved to Tobruk. “But Western media reported on the death sentence for the eldest son of Gaddafi” because, according to the analyst, “waiting off forever the hopes of the Libyan people for the restoration of independence, peace and prosperity of the country “. 
What was most important about the release of the eldest son of Gaddafi? According says Dan Glazebrook, the important thing was “the recognition by elected officials of Libya, that there is no future for Libya without the participation of Libyan socialist movement”. According to the analyst, “this movement never was”.Conversely, after attempts to suppress, the same “it reborn increasingly”.
From the point of view of a journalist, it was “the death penalty itself that triggered the most open and widespread manifestations of support for the previous government”, with protests held in August 2015 across the country. 
According to Middle East Eye, an average cited by Glazebrook, “protests have been a public representation of an open secret in Libya, the pro Gaddafi movement that existed since the revolution of 2011 has grown strongly, and stems from the dissatisfaction of many citizens about life in recent years. ” According to political analyst Mohammed Eljarh, “some who had initially supported the revolution in 2011, also joined the protests.”
“Most Libyans just want a quiet life. They do not care who controls the money from Libya, they want a comfortable life. That’s why Gaddafi remained in power for 42 years. In that time wages paid on time … and live cheaply was, “says Mohammed Eljarh.
In addition, the American magazine ‘Foreigh Policy’, Mohammed Eljarh  published protests pro – Gaddafi “have the potential to become a national movement against the revolution of 2011, among other things, why more and more Libyans are deeply disillusioned by their result and the atrocities and abuses committed by Gaddafi groups post since the revolution, which exceed by far those committed during the Gaddafi regime “.
At the same time, according to the article Glazebrook, “the Green Resistance” (pro Gaddafi forces) is becoming an increasingly “more influential within the Libyan National (LNA) Army” force. The LNA entered into an alliance with pro-Gaddafi tribes in the east, and began recruiting supporters Gaddafi open in their military structures.Gaddafi commander, Ali Kanna, for example, who fled Libya after the revolution in 2011, reportedly has been welcomed by the LNA. 

The journalist believes that it is most likely that the Libyan, “is back. Even more with the eldest son of Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, released from prison”.

Europe did not listen: These are the ‘prophecies’ of Gaddafi and Assad met sadly
Several years before the deadly attacks in Europe, the leaders of Libya and Syria had already warned about the wave of terrorism with which the continent would find
While Europe is experiencing the consequences of the brutal  attacks  that rocked Brussels on March 22, killing 31 people, warnings about the possible increased terrorist threat in Europe began to ring several years earlier.
In 2011, the then leader Muammar Gaddafi Libya warned Tony Blair in two telephone conversations that his removal would open the door to the rise of Al Qaeda, which then undertake an invasion of Europe. In particular, he warned that the jihadists “want to control the Mediterranean and then attack Europe” as saying  ‘The Guardian’ .The same year, in an interview with France 24, Gaddafi  said  that “Libya plays an important role in security in the Mediterranean”.
In turn, in June 2013, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad also warned that if Europe began supplying weapons to the rebels, would strengthen the terrorists in the “backyard of Europe” and would cause chaos and poverty in Syria, he reported  ‘ The Telegpraph ‘ . Speaking to German newspaper ‘Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’, Assad warned that lifting the arms embargo would also lead to “direct export of terrorism to Europe”. “Terrorists will be trained for combat and return home equipped with extremist ideology , ” he added the president.

“In Europe omit Brussels terrorists are the same who fought against al-Assad”

The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Parliament believes that the recent attacks show where it comes from the real threat.
“The perpetrators of the attacks in Brussels are the same jihadists who fought in Libya Muammar Gaddafi and Syria to  Bashar al Assad , ”  he wrote  in his Twitter account Aleksei Pushkov, director of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the State Duma of Russia. “That’s something that in Europe prefer to keep quiet , ” said the politician, who also expressed his condolences to the families of the victims of the attacks in Belgium.
“The time has come for Europe to understand where the real threat comes and forces with Russia,” Pushkov wrote. According to him, the terrorist attacks Tuesday in Brussels and Paris last November 13 who demonstrated the clear threat to the EU.

Could This Be The Reason Why Ambassador Stevens Was Murdered?

Could This Be The Reason Why Ambassador Stevens Was Murdered?

I just read an article about Hillary Clinton while she was a Secretary of State she was also the director of the French company Lafarge, which was handling the US’s secret mission in Syria that aimed to topple the government of President Assad.

According to Assange from Wikileaks Clinton took $100k cash from & was director of company that gave money to ISIS … docs:

In her hacked emails there are plenty of proof that she has orchestrated everything from the shipping arms from Libya to Syria and also it confirms that Clinton dismissed the reluctance of Pentagon officials to overthrow Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, while they had also predicted the possible outcome of the war in Libya, that we are witnessing today.

So we come back to the Ambassador Stevens, he must have known that Hillary Clinton had partnered with “Lafarge” which was arming Isis and realised that everything eventually will come out (Libyan ship seized in Turkey with a full load of arms) and he (Stevens) will be the scapegoat charged and indicted for treason. When Stevens understood the whole concept I am sure he spoke with Hillary Clinton and the (then Advisor of Obama) now Head of the CIA John Bremman who was responsible for all blackops. Both were not very happy about that and especially that Stevens vowed to expose them… Just think about it for a minute… it makes sense.. Bremman being an expert in Blackops and Hillary being a conniving egotistical expert in murdering people and making it look like an accident.. Both were the perfect match in heaven so easy to get rid of one person who is spoiling their business in earning millions…. And how dare Stevens wants to expose them?

Yes you could chuck it to a conspiracy theory but is it? Just think go back in 2012 Petraeus was kicked out from the CIA so that he wouldn’t testify, Hillary and her staff although they testified at the senate but lied through their teeth, how do we know that through her hacked emails. I could go to more details but if you read on the pages of “Benghazigate” you will find all the information there. You don’t need to hack in the emails its in-front of you if you really want  to know the why and how.