Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ category

Can the establishment trump Trump?

March 6, 2016

Can the establishment trump Trump? Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, March 6, 2016

Some in the Republican establishment are playing with fire. It is plain obvious that they would like to deny Donald Trump the party’s nomination, and they have every right to try to do so.

But this onslaught on Trump — led by GOP big guns, along with its two most recent presidential nominees, Mitt Romney and John McCain — could backfire and turn the real estate mogul into a political martyr. They face an excruciating dilemma: how to drive home the notion that Trump is unfit to be president even as the public rallies behind him?

Some in the GOP establishment failed to pick up the political undercurrents among rank-and-filed Republicans during the first few months of the campaign. This helped Trump’s ascent. But the establishment may still be oblivious to what GOP voters want. As a result of this disconnect, they may actually help him seal the deal. Saturday’s votes in Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine could provide insight on the way forward. Remember, so far every attack on Trump has helped him.

Unlike the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, Trump has yet to run away with the delegates, despite having momentum on his side and winning 10 of the 15 states that held primaries (not including Saturday’s votes).

Before there was Trump, it was Texas Sen. Ted Cruz who was hated by the party’s big wigs. In fact, Cruz has yet to be endorsed by any of his colleagues in the Senate because of the bad rapport he has with the people in Washington. Nevertheless, in states where primaries have been closed (meaning, only registered Republicans can vote, like those on Saturday), Cruz has fared well.

At first, the establishment couldn’t decide between Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush; then it came out against Cruz; and all the while, it ignored Trump. Now the establishment has a conundrum on its hands: How do you attack two unwanted front-runners (the first of the two is the most pressing problem)? Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, an also-ran in this cycle and in 2008, has warned the establishment not to meddle with the process. “Let’s remember, we have an election process and not a selection process,” he said recently.

Republican voters have viewed the GOP establishment’s efforts with scorn and may very well set the house ablaze. In fact, 78% of Trump supporters say they would continue to back him no matter what he does. On Super Tuesday, Trump garnered almost 70% of the vote among those who said they wanted an outsider as their next president.

Rubio is not an outsider; neither is Cruz. The outsider is Trump. Trump has bested his opponents in virtually every possible measure. This only adds to his success and exacerbates the party’s headache.

The establishment’s efforts may very well be a case too much, too late. Perhaps the Republican voters truly are fed up with Washington; perhaps they truly are disappointed by the economy and view the billionaire as their savior (or at the very least, someone who can punish Washington). The establishment enlisted the help of Romney, who has become the face of the anti-Trump campaign. But Romney, lest you forget, lost to President Barack Obama in 2012 and to McCain in 2008.

These elections are about being a winner. They are about making America win again. Romney is not quite the right person. Perhaps the establishment has no choice but to attack. It is now or never. We are likely to see more surprises in this race, but for the time being, the campaign to stop Trump is the biggest story.

Let’s hope the Republican leaders don’t forget who their real adversary is. Judging from how they have conducted themselves, they could very well start viewing Hillary Clinton as their big savior. By doing so, they will have severed their ties with the GOP rank and file for good.

Libya disaster: Have Western leaders learned anything?

February 20, 2016

Libya disaster: Have Western leaders learned anything? Investigative Project on Terrorism via Fox News, Pete Hoekstra, February 19, 2016

(Please see also, Exclusive: Obama Refuses to Hit ISIS’s Libyan Capital. — DM)

That the U.S. has launched airstrikes against ISIS in Libya should demonstrate once and for all the total disaster of the NATO-led adventure to overthrow Muammar al-Qaddafi in 2011.

Libya devolved into a failed state when NATO assisted Qaddafi’s radical jihadist opponents in killing him and then promptly abandoned the country. Left in the wake were two rival governments competing for power, which created space for Islamists to turn Libya into a cesspool of extremism.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to call the debacle American “smart power at its best.” Other presidential candidates still argue that it was the right thing to do.

How will the West ever learn anything if it can’t identify its most obvious failures?

Libya has no central functioning government that can provide security for its citizens. ISIS fights to expand its caliphate along the Mediterranean to points as close as 200 miles from Europe’s vulnerable southern border. It controls Qaddafi’s hometown of Sirte. It has imposed Shariah law in the areas under its control. It exploits Libya as a base to export weapons, jihadists and ideology to Europe, other African countries and the Middle East.

Benghazi and Derna, which have long been hotbeds of radicalism, provided more fighters per capita to Afghanistan and Iraq than nearly any other area in the world. The difference between then and now is that Qaddafi kept the lid on the garbage can long before 2002-2003, when he became a reliable U.S. ally against radical Islam. He changed his behavior, gave up his nuclear weapons program, paid reparations to the victims of his atrocities and provided invaluable intelligence that disrupted numerous Islamist terror plots.

It represented a massive foreign policy success, and the U.S. thanked him by facilitating his murder.

Similarly, the West embraced former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in his struggles against Islamist forces, and then it threw him under the bus. Both Qaddafi and Mubarak did everything asked of them, but they ended up dead or in jail.

Any leader would really need to ask why he should trust NATO or the West. Is there any question why Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad does not negotiate an end to his country’s civil war and clings to Iran and Russia to keep him in power?

Iran cheated on its nuclear program for years. As a result, the U.S. gifted it with more than $100 billion – including $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars – and it hasn’t changed its behavior in the slightest. In addition to its military ambitions, Iran will most assuredly spend the money on supporting Assad and its terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East, Africa and, yes, Europe.

I’m amazed by some of the statements now coming from the coalition. The French defense minister is concerned about ISIS fighters blending in with refugees crossing the Mediterranean. Talk about restating the obvious. The British want troops to identify friendly militias in order to avoid targeting them in future airstrikes. Has something changed where we have improved the vetting of “moderate” militia groups?

NATO failed miserably in Libya and in Syria the first time around. What’s different now?

The only official who seems to make any sense is U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who said recently, “The Libyans don’t welcome outsiders intruding on their territory.” He was referring to ISIS, but he might as well have been talking about the West. Libyans have not forgotten that NATO all but vanished once Qaddafi was killed.

Western foreign policy is in disarray. The scariest part is that supposed leaders don’t even know it, and therefore they can’t admit to previous mistakes. Allies that brought stability to the region are gone. Former and current antagonists benefited from Western incompetence.

Who would have predicted six years ago that those rulers battling Islamist terror would be deposed and that those committing it would become the West’s new friends?

NATO snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Libya. Refugees flood Europe. Terrorist attacks continue to spread geographically and in lethality. The Syrian civil war rages on. Iran lavishes its newfound wealth on its nuclear program and campaign of global terror.

Is it any wonder that citizens in Western countries are frustrated and angry with those in positions of authority?

Humor+ | Laugh. It’s the Best Medicine. Then get serious again.

February 11, 2016

Laugh. It’s the Best Medicine. Then get serious again. Dan Miller’s Blog, February 11, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Obama and Hillary are evil and some Republican candidates are bad. Stay mad, but laugh occasionally because it’s refreshing. Then, let’s take America back.

Sometimes life is hard.

Yeah, but wouldn’t it be terrible if everything always happened just as we want it to?

This is pretty much how government really works. They just aren’t this good as telling us.

Jimmy Buffett manages to offend just about everyone while being funny as he does it. That’s good!

It’s about time for a drink.

 

OK, it’s time to get serious again.

Obama said, “You didn’t build that.” Yes we did; He didn’t, and He keeps trying to tear her down and to rebuild her in His own image.

Now she’s ours. We intend to keep her and to make her as productive, strong and hopeful as she once was. Xenophobic? Damn right.

We can take her back. Will we? You betcha!

Hillary Classified Emails Included Names of Undercover CIA Agent

February 1, 2016

Hillary Classified Emails Included Names of Undercover CIA Agent, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 1, 2016

Hillary NBCpix

A lifetime ago the left went mad over Valerie Plame, claiming that her exposure endangered her life, even though in no way, shape or form was Plame ever in a position in which she would be endangered. The same does not appear to be true of the CIA agents in Hillary Clinton’s classified emails.

From John R. Schindler at the Observer, it appears that the worst is true of Clinton’s email scandal… it endangered American lives.

Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.

Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.

People really go to jail for breaking this law. John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, recently emerged from two years in prison for unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including exposing the identity of an Agency colleague who was serving under cover.

This is about as bad as it gets. And all of this happened because Hillary Clinton wanted to preemptively protect her presidential aspirations by blocking transparency. This is the cost of that.

And there’s another troubling wrinkle.

Four emails from Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary’s close friend and factotum, were withheld by the Intelligence Community because they were judged to be entirely classified. How Mr. Blumenthal, who held no U.S. Government position after January 2001, when Bill Clinton left the White House, had access to classified information a decade after that is not explained.

This column has previously detailed how Mr. Blumenthal was running an impressive private intelligence agency for the Secretary of State, and that his emails to Ms. Clinton inexplicably included highly sensitive Top Secret Codeword intelligence from the National Security Agency. Since Mr. Blumenthal’s emails were illegally accessed by a private hacker, they can be safely assumed in to be in the hands of numerous foreign intelligence services.

Blumenthal is a deeply troubling individual whom even Obama Inc. did not want anywhere near the White House. His son Max is a rabid bigot who wants to destroy Israel and whose hate mails were routinely forwarded by his father to Hillary. Some of them may have shaped her view of Benghazi. Sidney Blumenthal had all sorts of troubling business interests and an agenda for the Libyan War.

There are many problems with him having classified information. And his email was hacked by Guccifer and partly made public.

And what about those 30,000 emails that Ms. Clinton had deleted? “I’ll spend the rest of my career trying to figure out what classified information was in those,” stated an exasperated Pentagon counterintelligence official, “everybody is mad as hell right now.” “The worst part,” the counterspy added,” is that Moscow and Beijing have that information but the Intelligence Community maybe never will.”

So we’ve got an escalating mess and a major national security breach and a woman who wanted to be president so badly that she put the lives of CIA personnel at risk in a preemptive coverup.

This is worse than Watergate. Much worse.

Humor | Hillary is Transparent and Open

January 31, 2016

Hillary is Transparent and Open, Dan Miller’s Blog, January 31, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or any of its other editors. — DM)

President Obama claimed to be the most open and transparent president ever but did not follow through. During her term as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton showed her persistent openness and transparency to friend and foe alike.

Right.

Clinton emails

Hillary demonstrated her openness and transparency to the entire world  — friend and foe alike — through her use of an unsecured home-brew server for e-mails containing classified national security information. As of late December, more than 1,200 e-mails found on Hillary’s server had been deemed classified. More continued to be found.

According to a report by Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III dated January 14th, “‘several dozen’ additional classified emails — including specific intelligence known as ‘special access programs’ (SAP)” had been discovered.

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

As of January 29th, at least twenty-two of the most recently discovered e-mails were top secret and contained such damaging information that not even redacted copies can be released to members of the Congress.

With such undiscriminating openness to our enemies, Hillary demonstrated unprecedented impartiality. By doing so, she helped to dispel vicious rumors that America helps only its few remaining friends. The State Department, now under the direction of John Kerry, was unwilling to extend the same courtesy to the Congress, doubtless a greater enemy than any foreign nation. This may have been hard for him to do. But then, sometimes it’s hard to be John Kerry.

Hillary’s principal opponent in the race for the Democrat presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders, merely says that to be true socialists we must share everything. Hillary does more than talk; she shares.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for openness. Due to her exceptional devotion to non-discriminatory transparency, our enemies will love us even more, perhaps even until death do us part.

Clare Lopez Exposes Benghazi – Obama Disaster 1 of 3

January 14, 2016

Clare Lopez Exposes Benghazi – Obama Disaster, United West via You Tube, January 12, 2016

Clinton mulled secret plan to spark Palestinian unrest

January 11, 2016

Clinton mulled secret plan to spark Palestinian unrest, Israel National News, Gil Ronen, January 11, 2016

Hillary and IsraelHillary Clinton

Four years ago, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton considered a secret plan created by her advisers to clandestinely foment unrest among Arabs in Judea and Samaria, in order to push the Israeli government back to the negotiating table.

The revelation arises from emails released as part of the investigation into the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s private email server.

The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that in a December 18, 2011, email, former US ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering suggested that Clinton consider restarting peace negotiations by stirring up Palestinian demonstrations against Israel.

Pickering described the idea as a potential “game changer in the region.” Clinton reportedly asked that his email be printed.

“What will change the situation is a major effort to use non-violent protests and demonstrations to put peace back in the center of people’s aspirations as well as their thoughts, and use that to influence the political leadership,” Pickering wrote.

“This is far from a sure thing, but far, in my humble view, from hopeless,” he added, and suggested that the protests be led by women, because they are less likely to turn to violence.

“It must be all and only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force,” Pickering wrote. “Palestinian men will not for long patiently demonstrate – they will be inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated and use force. Their male culture comes close to requiring it.”

Pickering added that the US must keep its role in the demonstrations secret.

“Most of all the United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind it for reasons you will understand better than anyone,” he wrote, suggesting that the government enlist leftist non-profit groups in Israel. “I believe third parties and a number (of) NGOs on both sides would help.”

Another Clinton confidant, Anne Marie Slaughter, sent an email to Clinton staffers recommending that they undertake a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign to convince US millionaires and billionaires to donate significant portions of their wealth to the Palestinian cause.

Slaughter wrote in the September 2010 email that the campaign would include “a certain shaming effect re Israelis, who would be building settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”

As in other, previously leaked emails from Clinton’s server, the ideas discussed are largely broached by Clinton’s confidants, and she usually does not respond to them, either positively or negatively. However, the emails do appear to indicate the atmosphere that surrounds Clinton, and the way the people closest to her regard the Jewish state.

Hillary Clinton Finally Decides Christians are Suffering Genocide

December 30, 2015

Hillary Clinton Finally Decides Christians are Suffering Genocide, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, December 30, 2015

(Did Ms. Clinton refer to the non-Islamic Islamic State? If so, Muslims must not be doing it. Perhaps others might be. Mormons? Amish? Jews? Who knows?  Please see, Muslims “Have Nothing Whatsoever to do with Terrorism” — DM)

dd3cd-hilly2

How nice of Hillary.

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday called the killing of Christians and other religious groups in the Middle East a “genocide” -— a term she had previously been reluctant to use.

“Yes, I will now. I will because we now have enough evidence,” Clinton told a man during atown hall at Berlin High School, who asked whether she would join the Pope and other religious and political leaders in using the term.

What “new evidence” suddenly showed up to change her mind?

The statistics have been there for some time now. ISIS has been at it ever since it began its campaign in Syria.

Of course not. Only Muslims can really suffer. When Christians are killed, they are “these communities”. When Jews are killed, they’re “random folks in a deli”. But when a Muslim gets a dirty look, it’s an Islamophobic crisis that is immediately on the front page of every newspaper and requires immediate intervention by the Attorney General. Not to mention an Obama speech.

Tonight, Clinton said she had been asked to use the term a few months ago, but declined then.

“I said, you know that term carries with it, legal import. It’s a very important concept and label for behavior that deserves that name. And I said we are only beginning to see this and I’m not sure yet we have enough evidence,” she said, “I’m sure now we have enough evidence.”

So is ISIS is killing more Christians now than it was a few months ago? What missing evidence did Hillary suddenly come up with? Or is she just worried enough about a Webb independent run that she decided to admit what everyone knew last year?

Jews Denied Security Clearance While Huma Infiltrates the Government

December 24, 2015

Jews Denied Security Clearance While Huma Infiltrates the Government, Front Page MagazineJoseph Klein, December 24, 2015

(This has nothing to do with Islam or Obama? Please see also, The United States and Islam: What Is Going On? — — DM)

huma_abedins_muslim_brotherhood_ties

The Obama administration’s anti-Israel sentiment knows no bounds. The latest example involves the denial of a security clearance to a Jewish-American dentist, Dr. Gershon Pincus, on the grounds that he has “divided loyalties.” All that Dr. Pincus wanted to do was to use the experience and skills he had gained over a lifetime of private practice to give back to his country – the United States of America. He wanted to serve American troops as a dentist at an off-base U.S. Navy clinic. Nothing doing, decided the Obama administration after a second security investigation of the dentist. Using a McCarthyite guilt by association rationale, the dentist was disqualified because of his close family ties in Israel and the possible contact of his family members with their Israeli neighbors. 

Dr. Pincus’s original security investigation had reached a positive conclusion: “There is nothing in subject’s background or character that would make him vulnerable to blackmail, extortion, coercion or duress.” That should have ended the matter. After all, Dr. Pincus was not applying for a sensitive job in the Department of Defense or the CIA. He was simply seeking to provide dental services at an off-base U.S. Naval clinic.

However, the Obama administration was not through investigating Dr. Pincus. It ordered a second investigation, conducted this time by a contract investigator sent by the Office of Personnel Management. The bill of particulars resulting from this second investigation are set out in the “Statement of Reasons” for denying Dr. Pincus’s request for security clearance. They included such shocking details as the fact that the dentist’s ailing mother now lives in Israel along with his brother and sister. He sends money to his mother to help her pay her rent. He calls his family members and has even visited Israel three times in the last eight years for his father’s funeral, his niece’s wedding and to see his mother. Dr. Pincus’s deceased son was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and also served for six months in the Israeli Army.

“Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern due to divided loyalties or financial foreign interests,” quoted the Statement of Reasons from the federal government’s Adjudicative Guideline B – Foreign Influence. They “may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interests.”

Just regurgitating this expression of security concerns from the Guideline is meaningless without considering the context in which it is supposed to be applied. Guideline B lists a number of mitigating circumstances that investigators are expected to take into account, among which are whether “the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the U.S.”

In Dr. Pincus’s case, the Statement of Reasons explaining the decision to deny his security clearance does not point to any security risk posed by the dentist himself or his relatives living in Israel. There is not a single shred of evidence cited, including any questionable statements or associations, which calls into question the loyalty of Dr. Pincus’s family members to the United States.  Nor are any activities referenced that could pose a conflict of interest for Dr. Pincus in serving as a dentist at the Navy clinic. The dentist’s son who had served in the Israeli army is no longer alive. His mother is ailing. His brother does not want to become an Israeli citizen. His sister does hold dual citizenship, but there is nothing to indicate that she is in a position of influence in Israel that would force Dr. Pincus to have to choose between Israel’s interests and the interests of the United States, assuming there were even a circumstance in which his dental activities and access to the Navy clinic could cause a problem.

Moreover, the Statement of Reasons admits that Dr. Pincus himself has “no intentions of moving to Israel, or obtaining Israeli citizenship.” Nevertheless, the second investigation led to his disqualification.

This disgraceful decision was not an isolated occurrence. Although subject to an appeal, there is not much cause for optimism that it will be reversed. A Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Bret Stephens reported that “there have been a total of 58 cases in which Israeli ties were a significant factor in the decision. Of these, 36 applicants—an astonishing 62% of the total—lost their appeals and had their clearance applications denied.”

Contrast the arbitrary, discriminatory treatment of a Jewish American dentist who has family ties to Israel with a Muslim American who has family ties to Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The latter, Huma Abedin, was allowed to serve in the Obama State Department and remains a close confidante of Hillary Clinton.

Obama’s Office of Personnel Management and State Department evidently did not consider Ms. Abedin a security risk for a much more sensitive job than serving as a dentist at an off-base Navy clinic, despite the following undisputed facts:

1. Although born in the United States, Huma Abedin grew up in Saudi Arabia, where her parents were recruited by Abdullah Omar Naseef (a jihadist affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Muslim World League) to establish an organization known as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). The principle underlying the notion of Muslim Minority Affairs is to discourage assimilation of Muslim minority populations into the culture and society of their host non-Muslim majority countries. Such separatism would enable the Muslim minority population to grow over time and expand the influence of sharia law in their host countries.

2. Huma Abedin returned to the United States from Saudi Arabia to attend George Washington University, where she was an executive board member of George Washington University’s Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Muslim Students Association.

3. Huma’s late father founded IMMA’s Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, now run by Abedin’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin.  Saleha Abedin is a sociologist with ties to numerous jihadist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood. She has directed the Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), which supports the implementation of strict sharia law. Saleha Abedin still lives in Saudi Arabia.

4. Huma Abedin served as an assistant editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for twelve years, leaving shortly before she joined the State Department in 2009. The first seven of the years in which Huma was an assistant editor overlapped with the al-Qaeda-affiliated Naseef’s active presence at IMMA, including one year in which Huma and Naseef served together on the editorial board of the journal.

5. Huma Abedin did not distance herself from her mother, despite her mother’s jihadist views that place sharia law over man-made law and self-governance. In fact, Huma Abedin introduced Hillary Clinton to her mother during a visit to Saudi Arabia, while Hillary was serving as Secretary of State.

In short, Huma Abedin has a family connection to Saudi Arabia, the source of the Wahhabi jihadist ideology and the country where fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from. She grew up there. Huma’s mother is a well-known jihadist in Saudi Arabia still active in pushing a sharia law agenda that is antithetical in material respects to the Constitution of the United States and American values. Dr. Gershon Pincus has a mother, brother and sister living in Israel, which, at least prior to the Obama administration, has been our closest ally in the Middle East. His mother has dementia and neither she, nor Dr. Pincus’s siblings, have expressed any ideology incompatible with the U.S. Constitution or American values.

Yet Huma Abedin, a self-proclaimed “proud Muslim,” slid through her security screening to a highly sensitive job at the State Department and is now a key adviser to the leading Democratic candidate for president. No such luck for Dr. Pincus, who just wanted to take care of the dental needs of some Navy personnel. If this isn’t an example of blatant discrimination against American Jews with family members living in Israel, then pray tell what is?

Benghazi Commission: Obama Admin Gun-Running Scheme Armed Islamic State

December 1, 2015

Benghazi Commission: Obama Admin Gun-Running Scheme Armed Islamic State, BreitbartEdwin Mora, November 30, 2015

ISIS-fires-rockets-FlickrAmir-Farshad-Ebraham-640x480

To avoid having the funds tracked back to the Obama administration, the arms flow to Libya was financed thru the United Arab Emirates, while Qatar served as the logistical and shipping hub, she noted.

****************************

The Obama administration pursued a policy in Libya back in 2011 that ultimately allowed guns to walk into the hands of jihadists linked to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda (AQ) in Syria, according to a former CIA officer who co-authored a report on behalf of the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi (CCB), detailing the gun running scheme.

In Congress, the then-bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Eight,” at a minimum, knew of the operation to aid and abet America’s jihadist enemies by providing them with material support. So says Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and the primary author of CCB’s interim report, titled How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror, speaking with Breitbart News.

The ripple effects of the illegal policy to arm America’s enemies continue to be felt as the U.S. military is currently leading a war against ISIS and AQ terrorists in Iraq and Syria, according to Lopez.

In late October, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that the U.S. would begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria who may have reaped the benefits from the gun-running scheme that started in Libya.

“The Obama administration effectively switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror [GWOT] when it decided to overthrow the sovereign government of our Libyan ally, Muammar Qaddafi, who’d been helping in the fight against al-Qaeda, by actually teaming up with and facilitating gun-running to Libyan al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood [MB] elements there in 2011,” explained Lopez. “This U.S. gun-running policy in 2011 during the Libyan revolution was directed by [then] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and [the late Libya Ambassador] Christopher Stevens, who was her official envoy to the Libyan AQ rebels.”

To avoid having the funds tracked back to the Obama administration, the arms flow to Libya was financed thru the United Arab Emirates, while Qatar served as the logistical and shipping hub, she noted.

“In 2012, the gun-running into Libya turned around and began to flow outward, from Benghazi to the AQ-and-MB-dominated rebels in Syria,” Lopez added. “This time, it was the CIA Base of Operations that was in charge of collecting up and shipping out [surface-to-air missiles] SAMs from Libya on Libyan ships to Turkey for overland delivery to a variety of jihadist militias, some of whose members later coalesced into groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS [also known as IS].”

Jabhat al-Nusra is al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

“The downstream consequences of Obama White House decisions in the Syrian conflict are still playing out, but certainly the U.S. – and particularly CIA – support of identifiable jihadist groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, the Islamic State and other [jihadists] has only exacerbated what was already a devastating situation,” declared Lopez.

Some of the other weapons that eventually ended up in Syria included thousands of MAN-Portable-Air-Defense-System (MANPADS) missile units, such as shoulder-launched SAMs, from late dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s extensive arms stockpiles that pose a threat to low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters.

“It’s been reported that President Obama signed an Executive Order on Syria in early 2012 [just as he had done for Libya in early 2011], that legally covered the CIA and other U.S. agencies that otherwise would have been in violation of aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war and providing material support to terrorism,” notes Lopez. “Still, such blatant disregard for U.S. national security can only be described as deeply corrosive of core American principles.”

Libya Amb. Stevens was killed by jihadists in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, along with three other Americans.

Echoing a Benghazi resident who provided a first-hand account of the incident, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis Haney, a CCB member, suggested to Breitbart News that Hillary Clinton’s State Department armed some of the al-Qaeda linked jihadists who may have killed the four Americans in Benghazi.

“The reason the U.S. government was operating in Libya is absolutely critical to this debacle because it reflects where America went off the tracks and literally switched sides in the GWOT,” points out Lopez. “This is about who we are as a country, as a people — where we are going with this Republic of ours.”

“There can be no greater treason than aiding and abetting the jihadist enemy in time of war – or providing material – weapons, funding, intel, NATO bombing – support to terrorism,” she continued. “The reason Benghazi is not the burning issue it ought to be is because so many at top levels of U.S. government were implicated in wrong-doing: White House, Pentagon, Intel Community-CIA, Gang of Eight, at a minimum, in Congress, the Department of State, etc.”

The State Department and the CIA did not respond to Breitbart News’ requests for comment.

Clinton was asked about the gun running operation when testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October.

The Democratic presidential frontrunner claimed she was not aware of any U.S. government efforts to arm jihadists in Libya and Syria.

Clinton did admit to being open to the idea of using private security experts to arm the Qaddafi opposition, which included al-Qaeda elements, but added that it was “not considered seriously.”

Members of the 2011 “Gang of Eight” mentioned in this report included: then-House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), then-Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), (R-MI), Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), then-Sen. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), then-Sen. Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).