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: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-report-britain-uk-gaddafi-civil-war-david-cameron-responsible-terrorism-isis-al-qaeda-mali-a7309821.html

[2] http://www.elac.ox.ac.uk/downloads/Welsh%20Civilian%20Protection%20in%20Libya.pdf

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.
Source:

Clinton Foundation’s “pay-to-play” structure becoming clearer


From Wayne Madsen Report (WMR):

August 15-16, 2016 —

Clinton Foundation’s “pay-to-play” structure becoming clearer

The recent release of additional private emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email servers based at her New York home provide a clearer picture of the “pay-to-play” connections between Clinton’s State Department, her and her husband’s and daughter’s Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative, and the private investment consulting and investment firm of Teneo Holdings, Inc. in Manhattan. In addition to these entities, there are separate Clinton family foundations that maintain their own revenue streams: the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton (BHCC) Foundation, the Clinton Foundation Hong Kong, William J. Clinton Foundation Charitable Trust (Kenya), William J. Clinton Foundation Charitable Trust (UK), and the Clinton Foundation Insalingsstiftelse (Sweden). All these entities maintain separate operations for the Clintons’ pay-to-play global racketeering operations.

The Clinton operations are massive in relation to the reported lobbying dealings that Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, maintained with the former Yanukovych government of Ukraine. The sudden appearance of “secret ledgers” containing Manafort’s name and alleged cash payments to him by the puppet Ukrainian government of George Soros bear all the signs of another Soros/Cass Sunstein disinformation operation.
.

Donor Amount given to Clinton Foundation/Global Initiative (CGI) Received in return

-Prince of Abu Dhabi and Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates Shaikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahayan and the Al Nahayan family of Abu Dhabi <$5,000,000 Access to HRC at State Dept. and a $500,000 environmental speech by Bill Clinton given at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi while HRC was meeting in Washington with Shaikh Abdullah.

-Algeria $500,000 State clearance for U.S. arms sales to Algeria. Deal included biological and chemical agents.

-Australia, Commonwealth of $75,000,000 Strong State Dept. for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which stands to be a boon for Australian multinational firms.

-Bahrain, Kingdom of $250,000 Muted criticism by State of Bahrain’s abysmal human rights practices.
Boeing Corp. $900,000 State Dept. clearance for $29 billion arms U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia, including Boeing’s F-15 fighter.

Brunei Darussalam, Sultanate of $5,000,000 State Dept. clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Brunei.

Cameroon, Republic of <$100,000 Influence buying by the Cameroon government with the Clinton State Department.

-Canada $500,000 State Dept. support for Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline, eventually vetoed by Barack Obama.

Chagoury Group <$5,000,000 in cash and a $1,000,000,000 pledge HRC delayed designating Nigeria’s Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization because of Chagoury Group’s investments and operations in Nigeria. Chagoury Group received the “Sustainable Development Award” from the CGI. Chagooury helped the family of Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha hide his wealth stolen from Nigeria’s oil revenues.

-Confederation of Indian Industry <$1,000,000 Access for Indian businesses to U.S. government officials.
Corning, Inc. $150,000 Clinton arranged for international access for the New York-based firm.
Dahdaleh, Victor <$5,000,000 Lobbyist for Bahrain state-owned aluminum company who sought a contract between the Bahraini firm and the U.S.-owned Alcoa World Alumina.

Dominican Republic <$25,000,000 Clinton Foundation board member Rolando Gonzalez’s company InterEnergy received contracts from Dominican government for wind energy projects. The firm received Domican President’s Gold Citizen Award in 2010.

Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) <$100,000 State pressure on Justice Dept. to curtail criminal investigation of FIFA.

Fernwood Foundation (Canadian foundation run by Canadian uranium mining mogul Ian Telfer $2,600,000 Telfer’s UrAsia and Uranium One Corporations, co-owned with Canadian mining magnate and “Friend of Bill” Frank Giustra receved favorable uranium mining deals with Kazakhstan and Russia’s ROSATOM and Kazakhstan’s KAZATOMPROM.

-Flanders, Government of €780,000 ($872,000) High-level access to U.S. government officials by Flemish government officials and businesses.

GEMS Education, Dubai $5,600,000 Bill Clinton made “honorary chairman” of the Dubai company.

Germany, Federal Republic of $250,000 High-level access to U.S. government officials by German officials and businessmen.

-Giustra, Frank (Canadian mining magnate) (Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership/Radcliffe Foundation) $31,300,000 State soft-peddled threat of the Islamic State because Lafarge had negotiated with the terrorists to maintain its operations in ISIL-controlled territory in Syria. arranged favorable deals with Kazakhstan and its president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Hindustan Construction Corp. (India) <$500,000 Access for corporate officials to U.S. government officials.

Ireland, Republic of <$158,300,000 Influence-buying by Irish government with the Clintons.

Italy, Republic of $100,000 Influence buying by the Italian government with the Clinton State Department.

Jamaica $100,000 Digicel Group, owned by Irish billionaire and Friend of Bill, Denis O’Brien, received USAID grant for a telecommunications project in Jamaica. Digicel (Jamaica) paid Bill Clinton $225,000 for a speech in Kingston. That was in addition to the $100,000 kicked in by Jamaica to the Clinton Foundation.

Kuwait, Emirate of $10,000,000 State Dept. clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Kuwait.

Lafarge Group <$100,000 State soft-peddled threat of Islamic State (ISIL) in Syria because Lafarge had an agreement with ISIL not to interfere in Lafarge activities in ISIL-controlled territory in Syria. HRC was a director of Lafarge between 1990 and 1992, at a time when the firm was selling strategic military materials to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Lesotho, Kingdom of <$100,000 Kickback from $11.2 million Irish grant to Clinton Foundation for HIV/AIDS abatement in Lesotho.

Mittal, Lakshmi, owner of ArcelorMittal, a major steel company, and board member of Goldman Sachs <$5,000,000 Favorable opportunities in Kazakhstan, where Mittal is a member of the Foreign Investment Council of Kazakhstan. Dovetails with Bill Clinton’s uranium deals with Giustra and Nazarbayev.

-Sheikh Mohammed H. Al Amoudi (Ethiopian-Saudi billionaire)1 <$10,000,000 Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.

Monsanto <$5,000,000 State advocated for Monsanto “Frankenfood” and “Frankenseeds” worldwide.

Netherlands, Kingdom of the (Netherlands National Lottery) $10,000,000 State helped open up investment opportunities for Dutch firms in Africa.

-New Zealand, Government of $1,200,000 Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.

Norway, Kingdom of $89,600,000 Norwegian government split up donations to make them look smaller than they actually were. Norwegian firms received investment opportunities in the developing world, courtesy of the U.S. Millennium Goals Corporation.

Oman, Sultanate of <$5,000,000 State clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Oman.

Papua New Guinea, Government of <$100,000 Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.

Qatar, Emirate of <$5,000,000 State Dept. approval for U.S. arms sales to Qatar. State pressure on Justice Dept. to curtail investigation of bribery payments regarding FIFA and 2022 World Cup host, Qatar.

Ras al Khaimah, Emirate of $50,000 Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.

Rwanda, Republic of $200,000 Influence-buying with HRC’s State Department.

Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of $25,000,000 State Dept. approval for U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia

Suzlon Energy, Ltd. (Amsterdam) <$5,000,000 State and CGI promoted wind turbine solutions in developing countries. Suzlon, owned by an Indian national, is a leading supplier of wind turbines.

Swaziland, Kingdom of <$100,000 Access to U.S. government officials for Swazi government/private business leaders.

Sweden, Kingdom of $7,200,000 Access to U.S. government officials for Swedish government/private business leaders.

Switzerland, Confederation of $325,000 Access to U.S. government officials for Swiss government/private business leaders.

Tenerife Island, Government of $50,000 High-level access to U.S. government officials by Flemish government officials and businesses.

Taiwan $10,000,000 State Dept. approval for U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan.

United Arab Emirates <$5,000,000 State Dept. approval for U.S. weapons sales to the UAE.

United Kingdom £50,000,000 ($78,000,000) Access for key UK officials and UK businesses to key U.S.government policymakers.

Victor Pinchuk Foundation (Ukraine) $8,600,000 Buy influence with Clinton at State to pressure Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to free jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Walmart, Inc. <$5,000,000 HRC pressured Indian government to open up India to Walmart, an action opposed by India’s small retailers.

1 Al Amoudi once threatened to sue WMR and he demanded some $110,000 to be deposited in his Swiss bank account to drop the suit. Al Amoudi hired the Jewish law firm of Nabarro Nathanson in London to make his legal threat. WMR informed the FBI that a Saudi national, who we reported had links to Saudi-funded jihadist organizations, attempted an extortion shakedown of WMR. WMR never heard back from Al Amoudi or his Jewish lawyers after we informed him that he could go pound sand up his ass (and there is a lot of that in Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia for him to pound).

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 http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/29/paris-strikes-astonishing-partnership-secret-isis-sponsor-ties-hillary-clinton/ … docs: https://search.wikileaks.org/?

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.

Critical Update on Benghazi- CIA Confirms That Obama & Hillary are Traitors


Critical Update on Benghazi- CIA Confirms That Obama & Hillary are Traitors

This was released back in May of 2015, but I somehow missed it (no doubt because of my trial). But investigators have finally obtained secret reports from the Obama administration (by suing them in court) that prove that Obama, Hillary and all the talking heads from the top to the bottom outright lied to the American People. They knew the attacks were imminent 10 days before they happened. That means that moving our soldiers away from the embassy was treason and murder.

The CIA reports also show that the attacks were specifically in retaliation for the assassination of a terrorist leader and specifically in memorial of 9/11. There was absolutely no mention of any movie. Thus, the lies told about the movie were intentional.

This means that Obama and his entire administration, including General Dempsey lied to President Karzai of Afghanistan about the movie who then sent warning throughout his nation which spread throughout the Middle East- thus sending rage throughout the Muslim population. This led to more embassy attacks and riots. This also places the blame for the resulting fear, rage and uncertainty about whether other embassies would also be attacked directly on the intentional lies told by Obama, Hillary, Dempsey and others. This is treason that led to American deaths and violence in the Middle East. One must ask what motive they had.

One need not look any further than our own borders for the answer. The ensuing attacks and uncertainly of more attacks on U.S. embassies overseas led to the overturning of the decision to strike down the NDAA 2012 bill. “What is that?”, you might ask. NDAA 2012 is one of the most important pieces of legislature that has passed under Obama. Thanks to our state controlled media, most Americans don’t know anything about it.

It was passed on New Year’s Eve under the noses of the American People in the guise of a yearly funding bill for the military. However, it actually gives massive, unconstitutional authority to the president, without any approval of Congress and without oversight from any elected official, to use the entire might of the U.S. military against any American citizen on American soil. This bill was struck down as unconstitutional because it directly violates the Posse Comitatus Act, a critical part of American legislation, passed in 1878. It was due to be finalized exactly on Sept. 12, 2012 when the Benghazi nightmare ‘happened’ on Sept 11, 2012. (Remember, the Obama administration had been preparing for this since Jan 13, 2012 when the legal challenge was issued. They had time to plan this move.) Obama’s attorneys argued that domestic terrorists here at home might also react in rage and violence because of the movie and needed the right to use the U.S. military on domestic soil. Obama got a federal judge to STAY the finalization of the first federal judge’s order to strike NDAA 2012 as unconstitutional on Sept 13, 2012. It remains in legal limbo today which basically means that it is still legal. In other words, Benghazi ensured that Obama (and Hillary- because you know she will win) retains the power to arrest Christians, deny them all their constitutional rights and make them disappear forever without needing permission from anyone.)

Do you all understand the crimes committed in Benghazi and why it was done? NDAA 2012 is that important. Killing the ambassador and embassy workers was just a necessity to the media drama. Without the dead bodies, no one would pay enough attention and the bill injunction wouldn’t get stayed. People needed to really believe that terror could spread to U.S. shores. The violence caused by the movie rumor (most Muslims never saw the silly trailer- (no movie even existed) was also necessary to create the appropriate rage. Lying to President Karzai was a necessity, too, because you need a Muslim spreading the panic too. Oh, and getting the media to interview the pastor in Florida who burned the Koran was delightful, too. Just to add fuel to the fire- even though he had nothing to do with the infantile movie trailer. That was just to make even more Muslims as mad as possible- it was all one big lie. In hindsight, each one of these lies has only one thing in common- get as many Muslims as mad as possible in order to incite as much violence on American targets as possible. The goal: get a federal judge to stay the first federal judge’s injunction and keep it legal. Result of Benghazi: 4 Americans dead and NDAA 2012 is still alive. To Progressives: an acceptable loss for a powerful result.

Being allowed to use our military against American citizens here at home is key to overthrowing our nation’s constitution and turning this nation into a dictatorship– or whatever else a powerful group of individual wants. Add media control, internet control, quasi-digitized money and a powerful Progressive morality/loss of Christian values to the general population and you have a very ripe situation for the plucking.

All the proof is right there in black and white in the CIA reports. And yet, where are the Congressional hearings for the president, Hillary, Dempsey, Susan Rice, etc? Each and everyone of them are guilty of treason. The news did a story, but why did it die such a quiet death? Because the media is controlled and Americans are asleep. It is so sad. We deserve what we are getting. That is all I can say.

*****There is a video that you can see from this link: http://myfreshnews.com/critical-update-benghazi-cia-confirms-obama-hillary-traitors