by John Galt
May 9, 2013 05:00 EDT
Yesterday afternoon, a brave group of whistle-blowers gave testimony which some considered explosive, I would consider just plain brave (from CNSNews.com):
Throughout the entire Libyan “revolution” ignited by quite possibly a teaming up of Saudi, Qatari, U.S., and U.K. intelligence resources, there were several factors which for a lack of better words “smelled quite rotten’ and had everyone scratching their collective heads. The questions that stood out in Europe and the United States related to the use of NATO resources to attack a nation which had not declared war nor instigated any recent action against treaty members. In fact the 1949 NATO Treaty states in Article 1:
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
And as a follow up in Article 5:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
There was no attack on a NATO member, no violation of international law under the United Nations treaty, nor consideration of a threat to any NATO member justifying an attack on Libya yet we engaged in a covert followed up with an overt undeclared war with our allies against Muammar Qaddafi for no apparent political or humanitarian reason. The stories started to fly in 2011 about the actions and the timeline of events which followed culminating with the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stephens.
I. The Covert Action Phase and Greater Middle East Policy Implications
On March 30, 2011 Reuters published the following story:
From the article above:
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
The finding meant that the green light was on for American aid to the Libyan rebels and as it turned out participation by U.S. military and intelligence units in assisting the anti-Qaddafi forces in overthrowing the regime. The March 30th story was an indication of something that might well have been underway for some period of time with the headlines reflecting a conflict involving Al-Qaeda along with assistance from throughout the region:
Turkey Reveals Quiet Rebel Payments – Ankara Says It Has Given the Opposition $200 Million and NATO Will Stay in Libya Until Situation Is Under Control
The one constant revealed from all the headlines above? Al-Qaeda involvement, Saudi involvement, and U.S. covert intervention despite the fact that the Libyan regime had never made nor taken any action against either NATO members or GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) nations. The other interesting aspect was the expansion of the cordial relationship between the Obama administration and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, this time in matters relating to Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) foreign affairs. This relationship wold continue into the next election cycle and another conflict, this time in Syria.
II. Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Sarin
The blueprint created within the heart of CIA headquarters with coordination via the United Kingdom’s MI-6 and key allied intelligence services in the Middle East, Qatar and Saudi Arabia primarily, was deemed a successful program by 2012 with successes in Egypt and Libya. The suppression of Shiite and radical Sunni movements in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia itself provided a certain level of confidence to expand the program one more time against the last former Soviet client in the region, Syria, and rid the region of another pro-Iranian state to help isolate that regime further.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has never made it a secret in world affairs that the Assad family and their intransigent support of Iran was a thorn in their side. When a small rebellion flared up again in Syria the opportunity to use the Libyan blueprint was envisioned and sure enough the United States became entangled, as if almost under orders from the Saudi royal family. What was interesting to begin this story was that in February 2012, the Obama regime opposed aiding the rebels. Why the sudden change and how did that impact the timeline in this conflict?
The news flow followed an almost eerily identical pattern to the Libyan overthrow of Qaddafi:
The last story from March 29, 2012 provided an entry point for the United States into the conflict which will be discussed in the next section of this story. The opportunity created by the Saudi and Qatari funding of the Libyan rebellion was now providing a chance to shift the captured arms from Libya into the Syrian conflict. Of course the U.S. was cautious about this due to the appearance of Al-Qaeda rebels once again in another Islamic religious conflict. This did not deter the U.S. to intervene after mid-May with an announcement of the expansion of humanitarian aid followed with even more as the headlines reveal:
The last story is the key to tying Benghazi, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Obama together so bookmark this story for future reference. Just like everyone needs to remember the importance of the sarin gas connection to Libya also. In the British newspaper the UK Telegraph reported on March 2, 2011 that the SAS (Special Air Service) was prepared to seize control of Qadaffi’s chemical weapons stockpiles which included sarin gas. Assad knows that the first use of chemical or biological agents in the civil war would drag the international community into a direct conflict with his forces, something he could ill afford if he wished to stay in power. Thus with the weapons flow from Libya to Syria well underway, one has to ask if the New York Times report about the rebels using sarin gas might have been an attempt to try to draw NATO and Israel into a war with Assad to help them to victory is not so outlandish.
The problem with a conflict of this nature is that once the deal has been struck, the “finding” signed by the President of the U.S., and the money plus weapons flowing into one side it is almost impossible to predict the extent or severity of the conflict that would evolve in one of the most unstable regions of the world throughout history. So why would any politician dare to take a chance by engaging in such a policy?
III. = I. + II.
The Benghazi disaster on September 11, 2012 had several precursor events which allowed the murder of our Ambassador and the two brave soldiers to occur but the largest question never asked was simple:
Were the Saudis continuing to fund Al-Qaeda based militias inside of Libya as they had been doing in Syria?
Inside of the rebellion in Egypt, Saudi support via the Wahhabi religious sect to the Muslim Brotherhood has been underway for decades but the economic instability in Cairo finally provided the spark needed to accelerate the change. The blanket support of the Saudi programs to remove unfriendly regimes in nations which act contrary to their interests by the United States was puzzling to many of our allies but the move into the Syrian conflict confounded the world. In this writer’s opinion there is something that every reporter has failed to engage in, and that is the simple rule of following the money.
The Obama campaign in 2012 appeared to experience some degree of financial floundering after spending a tremendous amount of money attacking Republican candidates but by April of that year, the fundraising appeared to fall far behind the 2008 pace. The following graphic from the NY Times appeared to reflect this fact:
The section in red I circled above is about the same time weapons and further aid started flowing into Syria from Libya via U.S. bases in Turkey as alleged in recent stories and via Jordan through Saudi Arabia. Why is this time period so important? There is a history of alleged campaign contributions starting with the 2008 elections when Marueen Dowd in her editorial titled “Obama’s Troubling Internet Fund Raising” (no link to the original NY Times article available)published on June 29, 2008 revealed the following:
Obama’s internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking, lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites. Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were “programmed” by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
The extremist left websites immediately attacked this story as nonsense and as McCain imploded along with the economy, everyone forgot about the possibility that indeed a U.S. Presidential candidate was receiving campaign funding potentially in violation of election laws from overseas sources. The same allegations appeared again in this last election cycle:
In the April 2012 story from the Powerline blog by Scott Johnson above, he states the following:
Barack Obama has proved the greatest campaign fund-raiser of all time by a long shot. In 2008 his campaign raised more than $750 million. The Obama campaign even went the extra mile to raise campaign funds by failing to adopt standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions and requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must accordingly keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200.
As we and others noted, the 2008 Obama campaign’s records revealed big contributors with names like “Doodad Pro” (employer: “Loving,” profession: “You”) and “Good Will” (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. I believe it was Pamela Geller who reported that some donations came from overseas — raising the question of whether Obama was accepting donations from foreigners.
Further into the article this revelation came to light:
Urgent Agenda reader Adrian Murray wondered if the Obama campaign has become any more compliant this time around than it was last time. He conducted the necessary experiment and wrote Urgent Agenda proprietor Bill Katz:
If you go here you will note that credit card donations to the Obama election campaign do not require the credit card security code [i.e., the CVV code]. What they have done is disable the Address Verification System (AVS) which prevents credit card fraud. Yesterday, just to see what would happen, I submitted a donation and filled out the form as follows:
Name – Adolph Hitler
Address – 123 Nuremburg Way, Berlin, Germany
Occupation – Dictator
Employer – Nazi Party
After submitting, I received an email that began, “Dear Adolph, thank you for your generous donation….”
Seriously? As if this were not bad enough, World Net Daily tested it also and guess what?
Bingo. So if Osama bin Laden can create a fake account and contribute to Obama’s re-election how hard would it be for a foreign government, say an individual within the government of one of the anti-Assad, Gulf Cooperation Council nations of the Arabian Peninsula to donate to his 2012 campaign?
Thus even using sub-$200 donations to fund his campaign, literally millions of fake accounts using the 2008 database, a phone book, and in the donation above an apparently blatantly illegal donation, the possibility of a quid-pro-quot must be inquired upon:
Did Obama change his mind on supporting the overthrow of Assad by transferring weapons from Libya to U.S. bases in Turkey and escorting the shipments into Syria in exchange for campaign contributions from Arab Sheikdoms?
It seems logical based on the circumstantial evidence I have presented thus far that a further investigation is prudent if anyone has the capabilities to pry the list all donors from the Obama campaign. In fact on October 4, 2012 Paul Bedard a notably reliable political reporter for the Washington Examiner hinted that the foreign money question was indeed about to literally hit the President’s campaign so hard that it rattled him at the first debate:
A brief excerpt from the piece at the link above:
President Obama’s reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.
Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.
According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.
Convenient how this happened again isn’t it?
Even more convenient that after Hillary Clinton met with the Saudis and GCC in the spring of 2012 when Obama was still opposed to aiding the Syrian rebels with arms his mind was changed and suddenly weapons departed Libya and campaign cash started to slosh into Washington, D.C. This relationship and apparent arrangement between the Obama administration and the Saudis might well have continued up through recent times when the mysterious meeting occurred with the Saudi Foreign Minister after the Boston bombing.
I hope this gives everyone a different perspective on the Benghazi testimony and the stories those brave men told. Their sacrifice may have been for our country on paper but in reality, quite sadly I might add, it possibly may have happened to cover up a guns for campaign contributions controversy that must remain buried until Obama leaves office in 2016. Buried like our Ambassador, brave soldiers who died in Libya and fighting proxy wars for the Saudis, and many other secrets which appear to validate the suspicions that this is the most corrupt regime in United States history.