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)

https://i1.wp.com/cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/06/17/3b1f6c50-2ce0-486e-b73e-62e01ab60926/thumbnail/620x350/884fb987d9fb0f71b77c3d7eff9ededb/benghazi.jpg

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.

Conclusion

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.

Advertisements

What Libya taught Europe about playing with fire


What Libya taught Europe about playing with fire

by JAMES POULOS

GettyImages-71006214

There is no way around it: The western intervention in Libya was in vain.

Americans, perhaps, have the luxury of feeling sorry for themselves about it. But in Europe, the feelings are of a different order and urgency. According to recent estimates, it is now likely that somewhere between half a million and a million persons will try to cross the Mediterranean this summer.

British authorities, joined in Europe’s belated effort to prevent mass drownings, predict 500,000 will leave shore, according to The Washington Post. Libyan officials, reported Voice of America, say one million illegal immigrants alone plan to climb aboard packed smugglers’ boats in the weeks and months to come.

For Americans grown used to a dwindling stream of unlawful border crossings from Mexico, the Mediterranean situation is a nightmare of complexity, staggering in scale. Many foreigners are vying not to escape to Europe but to make their way home — to Ghana for instance, from which workers and businessmen looking for opportunity came to Libya’s coastal cities in years past, and now find themselves in a long line to trade one humanitarian catastrophe for, quite plausibly, another.

But, of course, U.S. policymakers have not brought themselves to see the problem as their own. Along with their counterparts in the EU, they refuse to pick a side in Libya’s chaotic struggle for order among rival militias. The Islamic State, with whom we are allegedly at war, has seized the opportunity to capture Sirte, a strategic city midway between Tripoli and Benghazi that supplies half of all Libyans with electricity.

When President Obama ordered airstrikes against the Gadhafi regime, he did so out of fear that Benghazi’s 700,000 residents would be subject to a massacre. ****(these 700.000 residents never feared of a massacre because there was no order, it was faked by Obama’s, Cameron’s and Sarkozy’s regime to intervene their partner in this facade is Jalil of the NTC who in 2014 in national TV said that there was no order and the few who were killed were foreign SPOOKS. This how the FALSE FLAG STARTS also there is thisU.S. intelligence did not support the story that Mrs. Clinton used to sell the war in Libya, mainly that there was an imminent danger of a genocide to be carried out by the Gadhafi regime. The intelligence community, in fact, had come to the opposite conclusion: that Gadhafi would not risk world outrage by killing civilians en masse even as he tried to crush the rebellion in his country… the Pentagon and a key Democrat so distrusted Mrs. Clinton’s decision-making on Libya that they opened their own secret diplomatic conversations with the Gadhafi regime, going around the State Department.” There is also this: As secretary of state under President Barack Obama, Clinton didn’t just vote for the war in Libya. She is one of the policymakers most responsible for the decision to go to war and how the “kinetic military action” would be conducted.Make no mistake, Libya was every bit as much of a foreign-policy blunder as Iraq. In some ways, it was worse. Iraq was at least authorized by a congressional vote. Libya was not.”)But another truth must have been at the back of his mind. As Gadhafi’s forces bore down, “Free Libyans” would do what people have done for millennia when confronted with onrushing armies: flee.

It was painfully apparent in March of 2011 that Europe couldn’t handle a wave of war refugees hundreds of thousands strong spilling into the EU’s weakest, most precarious economies. Now, with Greece on the brink and Italy straining to maintain stability, a wave of “boat people” the size of Benghazi itself would follow a humanitarian disaster with an economic one.

Europe’s response has been to bristle. Terrified that Libya will become a sucking wound, drawing in migrants from as far afield as Somalia, Afghanistan, and the imploding nation of Syria, the EU has made concerted preparations for an interdiction force designed to crack down on human smuggling. ****(I doubt that as human smuggling is a BILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS… Europe will do nothing) In a strategy document obtained by The Guardian, planners noted the potential for an intervention on Libyan soil itself, where “heavy military armaments (including coastal artillery batteries) and military-capable militias present a robust threat to EU ships and aircraft operating in the vicinity.” ***(they intentionally do not mention that there are Russian and Chinese naval ships doing their naval exercise in the Mediterranean sea near the vicinity of the Libyan waters, which also complicates things as European and American ships can not doc on the Libyan ports and support the JIHADISTS which are ISIS/DAESH, LIBYAN DAWN, SHARIA, MUSLIM BORHTERHOOD. Just mentioning it. This is not a coincidence)

To state the obvious, a poorly led or ad hoc approach to this degree of escalation is certain to end in tears. “It is hard to imagine that these groups will stand by while European militaries operate on their turf,” Foreign Policy noted, “even if the targets of EU operations are smugglers rather than militants. The danger of armed action escalating out of control, and leading to further loss of innocent life, is very real.”

To be sure, smugglers are profiting handsomely while civilians are dying at sea en masse. Last week, over 2,000 perished, while one smuggler profiled by The Independent boasted a monthly income of $200,000.

But without a full-dress invasion and protectorate in Libya, Europe’s half-cocked halfway intervention is most likely to create only greater death and confusion. European leaders know they cannot count on America to bail them out this time around. The duty to lead therefore falls to France, the major power most committed morally and politically to the original Libyan crusade. France will have to take charge to forestall the kind of horror its attack on Gadhafi was designed to prevent.

This is a harsh lesson for Paris. Even more, it is a sobering signal of the new world Europe has finally been plunged into. Crisis does not stop at the eurozone’s edge. And despite the continent’s unwillingness to meet America’s demand to swell its own military budgets, the threat posed by Russia is one that will always draw in the U.S. The tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean is different. It is Europe, and Europe alone, that will now have to risk acting in vain.

Uncovered Muslim Brotherhood Documents Could Put Obama in Prison


Uncovered Muslim Brotherhood Documents Could Put Obama in Prison

by Kris Zane

In early 2012, Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohammed Morsi pranced around Egypt proclaiming “Jihad is our path,” and thought there was nothing better than to die in the cause of Allah – that is, the exact language used by terrorists!

Despite this, Barack Obama gushed on national television after Morsi was elected President of Egypt.

And oddly – or not so oddly – Obama continued to gush over Morsi while reports surfaced that the Muslim Brotherhood were setting up torture chambers for their political enemies, not to mention openly crucifying Christians!

When Morsi was deposed, the Egyptian military discovered a treasure trove of documents linking the Obama regime with the illegal activities of the Muslim Brotherhood.

One such document is a list of Muslim Brotherhood officials receiving secret bribes in U.S. currency, paid out by the U.S. consulate, amounting to millions of dollars.

Investigative journalist Jerome Corsi has obtained a copy of the document held by the Egyptian military, proving the Obama regime sent millions of dollars in bribes to the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • But who was managing all of this money?

  • Did the Muslim Brotherhood walk around with hundreds of thousands of dollars in their pockets?

Enter Malik Obama, Obama’s half brother.

According to Egyptian television, citing the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt:

The President’s brother…is one of the architects of the major investments of the Muslim Brotherhood.

We’re not just talking about the bribes the Muslim Brotherhood received in Egypt, but the entire Muslim Brotherhood finances – worldwide – that more than likely included an astounding $8 billion dollar bribe to the Muslim Brotherhood made by the Obama regime.

The bribe was payment to guarantee that the huge tract of Egyptian land, the Sinai Peninsula, be turned over to the Muslim Brotherhood sister group Hamas, undoubtedly to put Israel in an indefensible position. The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas mince no words about their goals for Israel: total annihilation.

According to Egypt Daily News, a document exists showing the eight billion dollar  “holocaust” agreement with the Obama administration that was signed by former Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi and his second in command Khairat Al-Shater, both under arrest by the Egyptian military for murder and treason.

Does this document really exist, showing the $8 billion dollar bribe signed by Obama or one of his representatives?

Undoubtedly.

According to Khairat Al-Shater’s son, Saad Al-Shater, prior to being arrested by the Egyptian military, his father was in possession of information linking Obama with the Muslim Brotherhood that he says would put Obama in prison.

As reported by a multitude of Arabic news sources:

In an interview with the Anatolia News Agency, Saad Al-Shater, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader, the detained Khairat Al-Shater said that his father had in his hand evidence that will land the head of United States of America, President Obama, in prison.

If the Egyptian military releases this document, it would no doubt spell the end of the Obama presidency, bringing impeachment, a long prison term, and perhaps even the death penalty.


Evidence U.S. Bribed…

Muslim Brotherhood Officials
by Jerome R. Corsi
August 24, 2013

from WND Website

 

 

Document surfaces ahead of

criminal trial of ousted leaders

 

Official Morsi government document:

“Direction of Grants and Gifts for 2013,”

submitted by Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabor Al Thani,

former Qatari prime minister and foreign affairs minister

 A question apparently being raised in next week’s trial in Cairo of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders facing criminal charges is this:

Was the Obama administration paying bribes as large as $850,000 a year to the Morsi government that were distributed by top ministerial level officials to Muslim Brotherhood leaders, with the direct involvement of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo?

WND is in possession of an official document from inside the Morsi government that lends credibility to a report published in Arabic by an Egyptian newspaper in Cairo that lists the charges brought by the current military-controlled government against Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

As seen above, WND has obtained official records from the deposed Morsi government in Egypt, with signatures, documenting monthly “gifts” paid to Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt by the former prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar, Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani.

The document was seized from Egyptian government offices in Cairo when the Morsi government was deposed by the military July 3.

As translated by former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, the monthly “gifts” listed in the document amount to bribes paid by the Morsi government to leading Muslim Brotherhood members in Egypt, including an annual payment of $750,000 to $850,000 in U.S. dollars.

Shoebat explained to WND the names listed on the Egyptian government document correspond to information the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon has just published in Egypt reporting that the Cairo district attorney’s office has begun investigating alleged bribes the U.S. has paid through its embassy in Cairo to the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to the newspaper:

“A judicial source stated that the Attorney General Hisham Barakat received during the past few days a number of filed complaints accusing the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and leaders of the centrist party of receiving bribes thinly disguised as ‘gifts’ paid through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

The sources of the complaint stated that among those receiving bribes paid in U.S. dollars from the U.S. include:

  • Mohamed Badie, general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood

  • Khairat Al-Shater, deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and businessman

  • Mohamed Beltagy, the deputy head of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party in Egypt, and the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood group, Essam el-Erian

  • Abu Ela Mady, head of the Wasat Party

  • Essam Sultan, deputy head of the Wasat Party

“What this document suggests,” Shoebot explained to WND, “is that the report the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon published in Cairo may be correct in that it appears the U.S. government was paying monthly bribes in U.S. dollars, with payments as large as $85,000 a month, to top Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, with the money being passed from the United States through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the Morsi government.”

Shoebat stressed to WND that the signatures seen in the document mean it could be used as evidence in the upcoming trials of key Muslim Brotherhood leaders, slated to begin Aug. 25 in Cairo.

Shoebat also noted that the names listed in the document match the names in the Egyptian newspaper Almesryoon, including Mohamed Beltagy.

Reading closely the Almesryoon report, Shoebat concluded the document is likely to be among the evidence the current government of Egypt plans to introduce in its prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

The charges being brought in Cairo next week include not only bribes being taken in U.S. dollars from the U.S. Embassy, but also murders and assassinations, prison escapes, sniping at and the indiscriminate killing of demonstrators, and spying or being a double-agent collaborating with foreign governments, including both the U.S. and Qatar.

“The criminal charge being reported against the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo suggest these are major trials about to start,” Shoebat explained to WND.

“And with government documents entered into evidence, like the one WND is publishing, the criminal charges will likely be construed as capital offenses, with death by hanging the likely sentence.”

The Obama administration’s call for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt is inexplicable.

The trip to Egypt by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during which they called for the same thing is even more inexplicable, especially since both men are demanding answers in Benghazi.

Yes, we know Obama’s leanings but why the rush to release these prisoners and not shine a spotlight on them? If the details of an interview with the son of one of those imprisoned leaders is any indication, we may be getting closer to answering that question.

Saad Al-Shater: My father has the goods on Obama

 

We caution that the following be taken with a grain of salt but considering who said it, we thought it newsworthy too.

Here is a direct translation of the key points, followed by some analysis:

In an interview with the Anatolia News Agency, Saad Al-Shater, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader, the detained Khairat Al-Shater, said that his father had in his hand evidence that will land the head of United States of America, president Obama, in prison.

He stressed that the senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt, knows full well that the fate, future, interests and reputation of their country is in the hands of his father, and they know that he owns the information, documents and recordings that incriminate and would condemn their country.

Such documents, he says, were placed in the hands of people who were entrusted inside and outside Egypt, and that the release of his father is the only way for them to prevent a great catastrophe. He stated that a warning was sent threatening to show how the U.S. administration was directly connected.

The evidence was sent through intermediaries which caused them to change their attitude and corrected their position and that they have taken serious steps to prove good faith.

Saad also said that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mohammed Mursi.

Khairat Al-Shater: Does he have the goods on Obama?

 

That this interview happened and the younger Al-Shater made these claims is backed up by at least six Arabic sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

When Saad’s comments are viewed in the context of the bizarre behavior of U.S. officials, it provides the best explanation to date for extremely irrational and inexplicable behavior of those officials.

First, the interview with Saad was dated August 7, 2013.

The reference made to “senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt” is presumably a reference to McCain, Graham, and Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns.

During that trip, McCain and Graham both called for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders with McCain making news by calling Mursi’s ouster a “coup”. Graham suggested that Egypt was “looking into the abyss” and then suggested releasing Brotherhood leaders was the path away from it (huh?).

In an interview with CNN, McCain named Al-Shater specifically when asked about individuals that could negotiate a future Egyptian government.

 

McCain and Graham: Schizophrenia or self-preservation?

In what may be an effort to play both sides of the fence, Graham was one of eight Congressional Republicans who sent a letter to incoming FBI Director James Comey, just days before Graham went to Egypt.

That letter demanded more answers over what happened in Benghazi. Such a demand, coupled with his call for the release of individuals who, probable cause suggests, should be investigated over Benghazi is beyond curious; it’s schizophrenic.

The two Senators were clearly throwing bones to the Brotherhood. Such behavior makes no sense. It would, however, if Saad Al-Shater is telling the truth; it would also eliminate schizophrenia as a cause.

Second, how about Saad’s claim that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mursi? This is where we’d like to introduce Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns.

While Graham and McCain were busy sucking up to the Brotherhood in Egypt, Burns visited one of its leaders in prison.

Bill Burns: Met with Khairat Al-Shater for 90 Minutes

He didn’t visit Mursi; Burns visited Al-Shater.

Reports put that visit at about 90 minutes, despite attempts by both parties to play the visit down.

As we reported in EXHIBIT A-1 of Addendum A, Al-Shater is implicated in weapons trafficking through the Sinai and into Gaza as well as negotiating prisoner releases in exchange for terrorists. He has also been jailed multiple times.

Again,

  • Why would the United States’ #2 diplomat traipse over to Egypt to talk with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader?

  • And why Al-Shater?

We can’t answer those questions but we can say that Saad Al-Shater’s alleged charges make more sense than the behavior of U.S. officials.

Of course, State Department ventriloquist dummy Jen Psaki called for the release of Mursi last month:

UPDATE on August 13, 2013 at 6:30pm EST


We’ve received feedback from more than one person who doesn’t like our including the “take it with a grain of salt” line in this post.

Just to clarify… We have no doubt that Saad Al-Shater interviewed with Anatolia News Agency and said what he said. In fact, that’s the main reason we decided to post about it.

We’re simply cautious when relying on the veracity of a witness who happens to be the son of a terrorist and who supports his father’s ideology.

We stand by the sourcing.

UPDATE on August 19, 2013 at 8:15pm EST


Due to being unable to independently confirm that Anatolia News Agency actually interviewed Al-Shater, we are issuing a disclaimer.

We stand by our translation and we initially felt somewhat confident reporting this because so many Arabic sources reported it as well. However, with no original source available, we would like to make clear that any of the aforementioned claims attributed to Saad Al-Shater cannot be confirmed.


Special Ops Officer Blows Whistle on CIA Funded ISIS Through Swiss Bank Accounts


Special Ops Officer Blows Whistle on CIA Funded ISIS Through Swiss Bank Accounts

 

 

 

ISIS: "We are here and we are funded by your government through Swiss banks".

ISIS: “We are here and we are funded by your government through Swiss banks”.

 

Have you ever wondered why President Obama is so willing to chase ISIS into Syria and risk war with Russia, but he allows an ISIS base camp to remain intact only 8 miles from El Paso?

Both this article and the subsequent interview will answer the aforementioned question while demonstrating how the U.S. is funding the very enemy we are supposed to be trying to destroy.  All is revealed in this “tell-all” in one of the most important interviews ever conducted on The Common Sense Show.

Scott Bennett Was a “Who’s Who” On International Terrorism and American PSYOPS

ISIS is funded by the CIA, so says Scott Bennett who is a U.S. Army Special Operations Officer (11th Psychological Operations Battalion, Civil Affairs-Psychological Operations Command), and a global psychological warfare-counterterrorism analyst, formerly with defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. He received a Direct Commission as an Officer, held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI)security clearance, and worked in the highest levels of international counterterrorism in Washington DC and MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. He has developed and managed psychological warfare theories, products, and operations for U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Central Command, the State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and other government agencies.

Bennett served in the G.W. Bush Administration from 2003 to 2008, and was a Social Science Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. His writings and lectures seek to enhance global awareness and understanding of modern psychological warfare, the international military-intelligence community, and global surveillance operations being artificially generated under the spectre of “National Security”.

The Message You Are Not Supposed to Hear

Scott Bennett was my guest on Sunday night, May 3, 2015, on The Common Sense Show. At least he was supposed to be my guest until both the servers and the live stream feeds, which are housed three thousand miles apart, were taken down by an unknown source. Fortunately, we were still heard by phone, but that was all. Scott Bennett is an expert on terrorism and the moment we got too deeply into the topic, somebody pulled the plug on our satellite provider, in multiple locations. However, the interview was preserved on our archives and is available for listening. What the bad guys must not realize that about 40 times more people listen to the archives than the live broadcast.

The net effect of taking down the bulk of our interview with Scott Bennett will be about the same as was NPR’s lame attempt to collectively disparage my reporting on Jade Helm. On May 3, my website analytics revealed that about 20,000 NPR readers actually came to The Common Sense Show website, directly from NPR, to take a look around because of the negative article. Thanks NPR and thanks to the people who attacked our show last night. As word spreads about how The Common Sense Show was attacked, the curiosity factor will double or triple our normal listenership. Thanks to NPR and the other would-be-assassins of the truth for helping our staff spread the truth partially through the law of unintended consequences.

 Summary of the Interview

During the course of the interview, we spoke extensively on how 9/11 was most likely a CIA/Mossad operation and key written records were destroyed in two locations both at Building 7 and at the Pentagon. Had the financial records from either site ever been made public, this government would have been brought to its knees because of the massive financial corruption that would have been revealed.

We also spoke of Russian-American relations and the tragedy and needless rise of the new Cold War. Bennett stated our corporate greed and American hegemony has placed us in a position where we are now isolated from our allies and Europe is in the process of turning their collective backs on the United States in which Germany, for example, is likely to leave NATO and align with Russia.

Bennett has written extensively on the intelligence community’s surveillance activities addressed by Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency-Central Intelligence Agency materials; and since 2010, Bennett has filed numerous military-government whistle-blowing reports with Congressional Committees, including: the Intelligence, the Armed Services, the Government Oversight and Reform, the Homeland Security, the Judiciary, the Foreign Affairs, the Banking, and the Terrorism Committees. He has communicated with over a hundred Federal representatives, Senators, senior military officers and Pentagon officials, and journalists about the scandalous abuses of power and deception being employed against the American people by its own military-intelligence community; and the most damning report brought into the public sector occurred when he filed legal action against Booz Allen Hamilton and the Department of Defense for their involvement in secret Swiss Bank Terrorist Finance Operations, in which he uncovered with the help of Union Bank of Switzerland whistleblower, Brad Birkenfeld a massive terrorist funding program. 

We know that ISIS got its “beginnings” from U.S. military equipment deliberately left behind in Iraq. Bennett and I both agree that to leave unsecured weapons on a former battlefield was undoubtedly an intentional act because of the strict military protocols against such a practice. Again, he views ISIS, which is a hybrid terrorist organization, as the artificial creation of the CIA and the Mossad in a joint operation. Ultimately, chasing ISIS into Syria will result in Russian intervention and World War III. But first, we have to contend with ISIS on our doorstep, only 8 miles from El Paso. This is the quintessential false flag cover in which they hope to convince most of America to accept martial law out of ignorance to the role that the CIA and its allies will have played in the event. This parallels the letter I received from the Texas Ranger on the same topic in which he claimed that the Rangers are bracing for an attack by ISIS against targets in Texas.

Insurance Against Harm

Scott Bennett’s information is  so sensitive and so many careers and even individual freedoms rests upon what he reveals, or keeps secret, there are many who would like to see him dead. Subsequently, Bennett has taken steps to insure his longevity.

Bennett is all too keenly aware of what was done to journalist Michael Hastings after he and Michael Isikoff (NBC News) began investigating Bennett’s reports and materials in relation to the Edward Snowden and Brad Birkenfeld connections (CIA-NSA-Swiss Banks-Booz Allen Hamilton-Terrorist Finance). The Birkenfeld, Swiss banking connection, is telling. Birkenfeld oversaw money placed in Swiss bank accounts and then redistributed to terrorist organizations around the world. Subsequently, there are many who would like to see him dead. Bennett has taken steps to insure his longevity. Individuals have been killed for far less and Bennett issues the following warning on his website.

WARNING:      In the event of my untimely death, additional documents and materials will be immediately released which expose all previously undisclosed persons, networks, operations, and financial accounts relating to illegal foreign and domestic terrorism activities.  All materials have been safely  uploaded to legal counsel.   Congress and Military authorities have been notified of this.

Conclusion

This interview has prompted me to issue my own warning:

WARNING: The leadership of our present administration is a criminal enterprise. They have completely forsaken their oath of office. Administration officials are guilty of violating every precept of the United States Constitution. They have engaged in massive lying to the American people, and have absconded with American taxpayer money in order to enrich their corporate and bankster benefactors. They will not hesitate to install a brutal form of martial law in which untold numbers of American citizens will lose their lives and they are practicing for this eventuality, right now, through Jade Helm. These criminals in suits will think nothing about sending our children off to war to die in order to increase the bottom line of the banksters. They will dress up this coming war as the patriotic thing to do. However, patriotism only serves to conceal the underlying and insatiable lust for power and wealth. This administration does not serve the needs of the people, we are its subjects and soon to be its slaves. Scott Bennett has only scratched the bare surface of how bad it is going to get here in the land of the free and the former home of the brave. I weep for the loss of my nation. Long live the King, the King is dead. 

The interview with Scott Bennett can be heard by going to this link.  Scroll down to the date, May 3, and simply follow the prompts. The interview is housed in hour number one and hour number two.

 

If your media player is up to date, you may also listen to the interview through the following links:

Listen to Hour 1

Listen to Hour 2

 

 

 

 

 

The Strange War in Yemen The Senselessness of Joining in a Sunni vs. Shiite War


The Strange War in Yemen
The Senselessness of Joining in a Sunni vs. Shiite War

by GARY LEUPP

What sense does this make? The U.S. is abetting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan. Morocco and Sudan—all ruled by Sunni Muslims who despise Shiite Muslims—to attack and roll back advances by the Shiite Houthis of Yemen who are eager to fight al-Qaeda and ISIL in that impoverished, unstable nation.

Recall that shortly after 9/11, the George W. Bush administration declared that “he who is not for us is against us,” scaring the shit out of anyone hesitant to cooperate with U.S. war plans. Yemeni strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had come to power in 1990, cooperated with the U.S. during the first Gulf War, arranged to get his nation removed from the U.S.’s “terror sponsor” list, purchased weapons from the U.S., and cooperated in the investigation of the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemeni waters in 2000, rushed to Washington in November 2001 to declare fealty.

This meeting was followed up by a meeting between Vice President Dick Cheney, de facto leader of the U.S. “War on Terror” and Saleh in Yemen’s capital Sana’a in March 2002. In the interim the U.S. announced that it would send hundreds of troops to Yemen and afterwards the Yemeni government confirmed that the U.S. would dispatch 200 “advisers” to train local troops against al-Qaeda terrorists (whom, by the way, were then small in number but have burgeoned steadily ever since).

In Yemen on March 14 Cheney stated that the U.S. was “being responsive to Yemen’s request for training its special forces in their counter-terrorism mission, [and also] planning to address essential military equipment needs and to increase assistance to Yemen’s Coast Guard and economy.” But on April 11 Saleh told al-Jazeera the real story: “As for the American anti-terror security experts and technical equipment, it is not we who requested them. It is the U.S. government that said ‘prove your genuineness and let the experts in’ so we let them in.”

Meanwhile Yemen’s ruling General People’s Congress (GPC) accused U.S. ambassador Edmond Hull of “interfering” in domestic affairs and threatened to expel him. “Since he was appointed (last September), ambassador Edmond Hull has behaved like a high commissioner, not like a diplomat in a country which is opposed to any form of interference” by a foreign state, reported a GPC-linked newspaper. “Edmund Hull adopts a very haughty behaviour, far-removed from his diplomatic duties, when he speaks to certain Yemeni officials,” adding that Hull should “respect Yemen in order not to become persona non grata.” From the very beginning of the U.S.-Yemen alliance, the relationship has been characterized by mutual antipathy.

Thirteen years and countless anti-U.S. demonstrations later—protesting U.S. political interference, the asinine anti-Islam Youtube video of 2012, and most importantly the drone strikes—radical Islamists are more numerous and active than ever in the Arab world’s poorest country, where 45% of the people live under the poverty line. Over 800 “al-Qaeda militants” have supposedly been killed by drone strikes, but it’s hard to know how much credibility to attach to the claim. The Obama administration considers any post-pubescent male in the wrong place at the wrong time a “combatant” suitable for slaughter.

In November 2011, the 40-year-old U.S.-born cleric Anwar Awlaki was killed by a drone strike. Few in this country mourned, although the legal precedent (target-killing a U.S. citizen that way without any trial or conviction of a crime) caused some unease in some quarters. Less attention was given to a separate strike the next day that apparently targeted and killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and a teenage cousin. Apparently their only crime was the family connection.

According to the Long War Journal, 35 civilians were killed in U.S. drone strikes in 2012, along with 193 considered “militants.” A 12-year-old boy was among the victims of a strike Feb. 9 this year, after which Slate Magazine asked, “What if drones are part of the problem?” What if they’re just generating more of what the CIA calls “blowback”?

Recall that during the “Arab Spring” of 2011, President Obama concluded at some point that Egypt’s President Mubarak, who had long been a “staunch ally” of the U.S. , had become so unpopular with his people that further U.S. support would damage the relationship with Egypt. So he gave Mubarak his marching orders. (You can do that if you’re the president of the United States.

The Egyptian dictator was succeeded by a democratically elected member of the Muslim Brotherhood, then toppled by the military with tacit U.S. approval. In Yemen, where the “spring” also brought massive protests against the regime in power, Obama ordered long-time U.S. ally Saleh to step down. Saleh was obliged to comply in February 2012, while remaining active behind the scenes in his retirement.

Before that—in the early months of the “Arab Spring” in 2011—Glevum Associates conducted a poll in Yemen of 1005 adult men and women. Its results are telling. It found that 88% of Yemenis at the time thought their country was heading “in the wrong direction.” 98% had an unfavorable perception of the U.S. government (55% “very unfavorable,” 43% “somewhat unfavorable”). Only 40% approved strongly or somewhat with President Saleh’s cooperation with the U.S.

99% opposed the U.S.-led “War on Terrorism.” 99% had an unfavorable perception of U.S. relations with the Islamic world.
66% thought the U.S. had no or very little concern about Yemeni interests. The analysts concluded, “The overwhelming majority of Yemenis think that the economic, military and cultural influence of the U.S. in the world is bad and that the U.S. does not take into account the interests of countries like Yemen when it acts.”

52% of those surveyed thought that the Arab League was best able to help Yemen (only 1% thought this of the U.S.). Perhaps most shocking, Anwar Awlaki’s popularity exceeded that of President Saleh’s.

On September 12, 2012 demonstrators stormed the U.S. embassy in protest of the anti-Islam film posted on YouTube. They were mistaken in supposing that the U.S. government was behind it, or might have prevented it, but this was an indication of the profoundly anti-U.S. sentiments documented in the Gleuvum Associated study. In November there were more demonstrations in Sana’a, this time in support of the ousted Saleh, blaming the U.S. for his departure. They were largely Shiite-led demonstrations.

This is significant. It showed that Saleh (depicted in U.S. propaganda as a casualty of a popular uprising) actually retained his own social base in a complicated society, and that while he had fought the Houthis in the past, with Saudi and U.S. support, he was now aligning himself with Houthis and his fellow Shiites in general against the U.S.-orchestrated Hadi regime.

The U.S. political class and State Department-briefed mainstream press have shown themselves (again) to be totally clueless about intra-Muslim issues. It is as though they find these problems so arcane, requiring so much homework to figure out, that they can dispense with them all together and boil them all down to one allegation: Iran is the headquarters of global Shiism, and wherever Shiites are struggling to retain or acquire power, Iran must be held responsible for their actions.

Syria is led by Alewites, a branch or offshoot of Shiism. Ergo, Tehran supports the Assad regime. Hizbollah in Lebanon is a Shiite movement, so it must be a pawn of Iran. The demonstrators in Bahrain as mainly Shiites; thus the mullahs in Iran are instigating their protests. The Houthis are Shiites, so Iran must be driving their rebellion in a bid to dominate Yemen.

This interpretation is absurd. It is immediately refuted by the fact that Iran has not embraced the cause of Azerbaijan, and its claim to Nagorno-Kabarakh, in relation to the Republic of Armenia that supports the independence of the ethnically Armenian region surrounded by and claimed by Azerbaijan. (In 1923 the Soviet government made the decision to make Nagorno-Kabarakh an autonomous oblast within the Azerbaijan SSR. With the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, the new leaders in Azerbaijan sought to retain control over the region—rather like the new Georgian state tried to retain control over South Ossetia and Abhkazia. Armenia supported the secessionists in the subsequent Nagorno-Karabakh War of 1988 to 1992.)

Iran is the largest primarily Shiite nation in the world, with 81 million people, 90 to 95% of them Shiites. Iraq is number two; of its 32 million people, 60 to 65% are Shiites. Azerbaijan is the third most populous mainly Shiite nation in the world, with 8 million people, around 85% of them Shiites. The Azeris have a mixed Iranian-Turkish culture. And there are only four majority Shiite nations in the world, after all (the last being Bahrain). Shouldn’t Iran be best friends with them?

The answer is no. Tehran is more friendly with Christian Armenia than it is with Shiite Azerbaijan, for various geopolitical reasons that have little to do with the Shiite religion. But how often do you recall this matter being discussed in the U.S. press?

Still, Shiism is an important factor in political and military events in the region. U.S. policy in Iraq from 2003 produced the sort of civil conflict between the Shiite majority and Sunni minority that Baathist secularism had kept in check for decades. The fools in charge, arrogantly traipsing around Baghdad in cowboy boots, had no idea their policies would give rise to Iran-backed Shiite parties and militias rising to power on the one hand, and a Sunni resistance vulnerable to terrorist manipulation and even leadership on the other. The current confrontation between ISIL and combined Iraqi and Iranian forces, that has shaped up so dramatically and unexpectedly, is a lesson in what absolute stupidity and indifference to religious history can produce.

Look at a religious map of the Middle East. To enlarge here

gulf2000-columbia-Mid_East_Religion_med

Notice how there are Shiite communities from Afghanistan to the Anatolian Peninsula and the Levant. (There are also millions in India and Pakistan.) Notice how the island country of Bahrain, located across the Persian Gulf from Iran, is mostly Shiite. Over 60%, in fact, but it is ruled by a Sunni monarch. Feeling themselves victims of discrimination, Shiites rose up in the “Arab Spring” in peaceful demonstrations. The king, Hamad ibn Isa Al Khaifa, cracked down severely, and in March 2011, Saudi Arabia and other member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council invaded to quell disturbances. “I saw them chasing Shiites,” one Sunni resident of the city of Sitra recalled, “like they were hunting.”

It might be worth noting in this connection that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to Washington from 1983 to 2005 (and a dear friend of the Bush family) once told MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove that, “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will literally be ‘God help the Shia.’ More than a billion Shia have simply had enough of them.” A chilling prediction?

The Saudi-led invasion of Bahrain came just after U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had paid a call on the king to thank him for hosting the U.S. Fifth Fleet. The U.S. position on the suppression of this particular expression of the “Arab Spring” was to reiterate its support for the Bahraini and Saudi governments, both of whom blamed Iran for inciting the Bahrainis to rise up. Little evidence has ever been adduced for that.

Similarly, after Shiites in Lebanon responded to the Israeli invasion in 1982 by forming the resistance movement Hizbollah (now aligned with more secular Shiite-based Amal Movement), that movement has been dismissed by its foes as mere proxies and puppets of Iran. As though oppression and invasion do not in themselves invite resistance, but the latter has to be explained in terms of outside agitators’ nefarious interference!

There is in fact a close relationship between Iran and Hizbollah, due in part to deep religious affinities and the studies of its clerics in Iran’s holy city of Qom. But Hizbollah also enjoys close ties to Baathist Syria, which is a far different and more liberal society than Iran. (Women need not wear headscarves. Beer is brewed and sold legally. The state is officially secular, etc.) Those prone to deny the reality of oppressed people’s agency need to depict them as someone else’s surrogates.

And so we come to Yemen. It seems the Bahrain intervention was a mini-dress rehearsal for this, just without the bombs. The Saudis are amassing a huge force to invade, abetted by their allies and receiving logistical and intelligence support from the U.S. Why?

The Yemeni government has long faced multiple insurgencies, including a southern secessionist movement dating back the unification of North Yemen (the Republic of Yemen) and South Yemen (the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen) in 1990. That movement has Baathist and Nasserite elements and is a separate phenomenon from al-Qaeda and ISIL movements in the south. Neither is related to the Shiite movement led by the powerful Houthi tribe in the north. (The Shiite population of Yemen is estimated at 30-35% of the population, the great majority members of the Zaidi denomination of Shiism. This is quite distinct from the form of Shiism prevalent in Iran.)

For many years Houthis have campaigned for a more representative government in Sana’a, and for a greater Houthi voice in parliament (which they dissolved last month). Their primarily peaceful protests, which have never evolved into secessionist demands, met with violent repression in 2004, by the Saleh regime. This led to a six-year war ending in a ceasefire in 2010.

Ironically perhaps, President Saleh was and is a Zaidi Shiite himself, like the Houthis. But he is not overly religious and (according to the Gleuven report) was as well supported by the Sunnis as the Shiites in Yemen while in power. He resigned as noted above in February 2012. In the election for his successor, Vice President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, a Sunni, ran unopposed with U.S. blessing. The point was to appease the masses who had called for Saleh’s resignation (not that he lacked a certain social base which remains supportive), while insuring the continuation of the status quo particularly the U.S. alliance.

But Hadi was less adept at handling the situation(s) in the south, raising Houthi concerns of an al-Qaeda or ISIL takeover or division of the country. Having already obtained control over the governates of Sa’da and al-Jawf (where they have eradicated al-Qaeda), they pressed south to the capital of Sana’a, taking it virtually without bloodshed in January. Representing maybe 40% of the Yemeni population, they seem to enjoy considerable support. They indeed appear to have ex-president Saleh’s support at this point.

In a New York Times interview published February 10 the leader of the Houthi militia, Saleh Ali al-Sammad, said he wanted Yemen to have good relations with the U.S. and other countries, including Saudi Arabia, so long as national sovereignty was respected. He added that the Houthies would reach out to political rivals. Why is Saudi Arabia so determined to crush them—if not to strike terror into the hearts of Shiites everywhere, particularly the rulers of Iran?

The current round of Saudi bombing of the Houthis is by no means the first. In 2009 alone, the Saudi Air Force dropped U.S.-made cluster bombs on 164 locations in the northern province of Sa’ada from U.S.-supplied F-15S fighter jets and UK-supplied Tornado aircraft. On January 22, 2010 UPI reported that Saudi fighter jets had made bombing raids over Houthi rebel positions in northern Yemen, killing about a dozen people and destroying homes.

In late 2010, the director of Amnesty international UK, Kate Allen, reported that over the previous year “Saudi Arabia’s fighter bombers – very likely supplied by the UK – have taken part in the Yemeni government’s massive bombardments of entire villages in Yemen’s restive north, an operation targeting Shia rebels. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilians have been killed, with thousands more forced to flee their homes.” Such reports have drawn little attention, much less outrage, in this country wedded at the hip to the Saudi absolute monarchy that routinely beheads people found guilt of adultery, homosexuality or even “witchcraft.”

Some talking head on CNN or MSNBC was noting how odd it is for the U.S. to be supporting Shiite militias led by Iranian officers against (Sunni) ISIL fighters in Iraq, while supporting Sunnis against Shiites in Yemen. Of course there’s more to it than U.S. forces siding confusedly with this or that form of Islam in the Middle East, or tolerating the expansion of Iranian influence in one country while challenging it in another. It’s not that simple.

In Iraq, the U.S. cannot allow the regime it brought to power (however disappointing its performance has been, causing some to charge in exasperation that “We did all this for them, and then they blew it!”) to fall to forces even more hideous than al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. Even if it does mean making common cause with Iran and the al-Sadr Brigades. The alternative—ISIL in Baghdad, crucifying and beheading, blowing up monuments—would show the world all too clearly how utterly evil and inexcusable the invasion and occupation of Iraq (that directly produced these results) have been.

And on the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda’s original breeding ground, it cannot alienate the Saudi leaders, whose cooperation is vital in containing al-Qaeda and ISIL, promoting peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict and most importantly supplying a steady flow of cheap oil to the world market. A Shiite-led Yemen engaged in ongoing conflict with its Wahhabi Sunni-ruled neighbor could lead to all-out war in the Middle East, pitting Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hizbollah against a coalition of Sunni tyrannies whose religious prejudices (that mean nothing to Washington) could draw this country into even more disaster.

The arrogant Americans who once thought they could call the shots in Yemen have been forced to flee the country with their tails between their legs. Obama, who as recently as last September proclaimed Yemen as a model of the “strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines” has been embarrassed by the collapse of his partners.

In January Hadi resigned as president, citing an irresolvable political “stalemate.” Under house arrest, his home surrounded by Houthi forces, he was able to flee to Aden in February, pronouncing himself once again as “president of the republic” before fleeing the country for Somalia March 25 after Houthis seized the Aden airport.

Meanwhile on February 10 the U.S. embassy, which had evacuated non-essential staff in August 2013, closed down entirely, citing security issues in Sana’a. On February 12 al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula overran a government military base in southern Yemen. Five weeks later 100 U.S. troops evacuated a hitherto secret base near the city of al-Houta as al-Qaeda forces attacked. Not since the retreat of the last U.S. forces from South Vietnam in 1975, or the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, has U.S. imperialism met with such abject humiliation.

Now Washington must rely on Saudi Arabia and its anti-Shia, anti-Iran coalition to re-impose an acceptable level of stability in Yemen. Meanwhile Obama seeks rapprochement with Iran in part to stabilize Iraq, the current catastrophic condition of which is basically the result of U.S. crimes.

The original article from Counterpunch