Ex-NFL football player Edawn Coughman, 31 of Buford Georgia owns several pizza and ice-cream restaurants. When police responded to a 911 call about a suspicious person and break-in they discovered Mr. Coughman had just staged a burglary and vandalism of his own business, including the spray painting of “Monkey”, “MAGA” and Swastikas on the walls.
GEORGIA – […] “It’s possible he was trying to stage this as a hate crime,” Pihera said. “We don’t know if he was trying to get attention for this. What we do know is, if that witness had not called us and if those officers had not responded as quickly as they did, we would probably be sitting here talking about a completely different crime in which Mr. Coughman would be trying to say he’s a victim.”
[…] Coughman was arrested and taken to Gwinnett County Jail, charged with false report of a crime, insurance fraud and concealing a license plate. He has since bonded out. Pihera said there is a possibility additional charges will be filed. (read more)
A basic primer on UN Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development
This image is of Petsche’s world with him in the shining city and the rest of us in poverty. Brecksville has been targeted for take over and we must resist. Agenda 21 in all of its various flavors is nothing more than a clever means of implementing communism in America.
In One Easy Lesson
Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development was started by Bill Clinton in 1993, 26 years ago and its US implementation is now at the local level across the nation. Bike paths are a key part of the program. Some citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos.
So here is some help. A starter kit of information on Agenda 21 that can be used to get started. A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
Social Equity (Social injustice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
Economic Prosperity
Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of
Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.
Local Sustainable Development policies
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.
Who is behind it?
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Additional groups include American Planning Association, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
Where did it originate?
The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages of a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.
What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1993, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
Revealing Quotes From the Planners
“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR
Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!
“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
“No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
Agenda 21 and Private Property
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.
“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
Reinvention of Government
“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.
What is not sustainable?
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.
“False Choice” – How Sustainable Development is Transforming Property Rights *NEW!*
U.S. House of Representatives Approves Participation in Agenda 21
In this October 2, 1992 session, the House of Representatives passed HC 353, a resolution calling for the U.S. to assume a strong leadership role in implementing the sustainable development recommendations of the Rio Earth Summit including Agenda 21. Hear sponsors E. Engel (D-NY), N. Pelosi (D-CA) and W. Bloomfield (R-MI).
How Agenda 21 Affects Your Property Rights:
Explanation of The Wildlands Project:
Downloadable Documents
(Scroll down to see the categories below)
Understanding Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
Tracing the History of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
Legislation Addressing the Threat of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
Taking Action to Expose Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
Examples of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development’s Impact on Property Rights
Links to United Nations Websites
Sources for Further Information
1. Understanding Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
This single sheet makes the step by step connection between UN Agenda 21, sustainable development, Smart Growth and local planning activities. It includes sources so you can do your own checking.
Citizens can present the following two page document to their public officials. It contains suggestions for how to protect the rights of property owners and still keep the environment safe.
While conservation easements are widely praised as a way to save the environment and keep property rights, in fact, in the long term they often do neither. The article, “Big Meadows, Big Mistake” tells the “rest of the story” on Conservation Easements.
This conference created the baseline for the UN’s viewpoint and future actions regarding individual property rights. See pdf page 2 [document page 28] under, Land – Preamble, for their stance on private property. This position is reflected in policies being enacted across the U.S. today.
This definition easily identifies UN Agenda 21 related initiatives as it traversed from various reports to the U.S and into our federal agencies. The full report can be found here.
In this candid 1997 interview, ICLEI founder explains how he was tapped to create an organization to “make sure this agreement [Agenda 21/sustainable development] among nations actually will get implemented…”
The Rio Declaration outlines the framework of Agenda 21. It was agreed to by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, thereby establishing official recognition of Agenda 21 by the U.S.. The complete 40 chapter United Nation’s Agenda 21 report can be found here.
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 in 1993, which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Here is a copy of that Executive Order.
This article in the Millennium Papers describes how the name Agenda 21 was replaced with terms such as Smart Growth, Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning to prevent Americans from recognizing the connection to the United Nations. See highlighted page 5.
These pages from the Federal Register clearly indicate that the EPA’s Challenge Grant Program was created for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the U.S.. See the highlighted section on page 2.
This scientific document shows, under the highlighted section,s how the EPA today still follows the basic definitions of sustainable development as defined by the UN’s Brundtland Commission, in their newest decision making process.
In 2009, these three federal agencies partnered using ‘livability’ principles to gain greater involvement in local planning and regulations. Read the ‘Livability Principles” and the “Partnership Agreement.” Notice the affect the federal government can have on your community. See more below.
This HUD Notice of Funds Available clearly shows that along with the grant money come mandates and requirements for social engineering in the form of social equity.
Pres. Obama signed this EO in June of 2011 giving each of the Federal agencies authority over the “food, fiber and energy” for all of rural America or 16% of the US. Control of resources is a key requirement of sustainable development as it enables the governing authority the power to manage their useage more efficiently than individuals and communites.
In March 2012, Pres. Obama signed this EO giving HUD the authority to engage in city, community and regional planning to “augment their vision for stability and economic growth…” This EO insures that “Federal assistance is more efficiently provided and used.” HUD now has the ability to create regulations to enforce that local and regional planning the government feels is beneficial to the fiscal stability of the US.
This partnership is changing the landscape of rural America. Once allowed into your community, the HUD-DOT-EPA partnership defines what qualities your “liveable” locality must include. More transportation choices invariably means more light rail transit and bicycles. The government defines the character, context and needs of each community with token input from citizens. Social enguineering is inherent in what the government calls, “equitable housing, sustainable strategies and value communities.” Most of the plans look appealing in slide presentations, but, once implemented, local citizens are stuck with regulations imposed by the government that offer little future variation and minimal if any opportunity to return to a way of living you may find more desirable. As one planner said, “You will be able to live in a rural area if you want to…but it will cost you.”
Here, in friendly sounding terms, the Secretaries of HUD, DOT and the EPA make it clear the federal government intends to manage your commuunity design, make it livable and environmentally green, all according to their needs and definitions. Each of the projects and grants, though verbally and graphically enticing, precisely echo the Vancouver Plan of Action. The results are exactly as defined in Vancouver in 1976.
In January of 2012, the EPA changed their decision making process to embrace sustainable development as defined in the UN’s 1987 Brundtland Report. In April 2012, the agency created plans to incorporate civil rights regulations in their environmental policy to establish a basis for environmental justice.
3. Legislation Addressing the Threat of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
In January, 2012, the Republican National Committee unanimously approved an historic resolution exposing the dangers of United Nations Agenda 21, ICLEI and the loss of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices and privately owned farms under the banner of “sustainable development” and Smart Growth.
For the first time, the leadership of one of the two major American political parties acknowledged that so-called “social justice” is robbing our society and the environment and replacing our sovereignty with a socialist/communist wealth redistribution scheme. Please read this document carefully and share it freely.
New Hampshire’s bill prevent the state, counties, cities and towns from contracting with or accepting money from ICLEI, a large non-governmental orgnaization[NGO] implementing Agenda 21 throughout the U.S.
The Property Rights Council provides a committee to review planning documents and agreements prior to acceptance to assure that property owner’s rights are not exploited by planners or governmental agencies. For further information, go here.
The EPA, under the Clean Water Act, expanded its control over citizen’s private property by redefining navigable waters to include certain artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes and ponds used for irrigation, non-navigable tributaries to navigable waters, wetlands abutting relatively permanent waters and more. This bill defines “navigable” waters as those that are actually “navigable.”
This bill prohibits Alabama and its political subdivisions from adopting environmental and developmental policies that, without due process, infringe or restrirct private property rights of property owners. Further, it prohibits policies that are traceable to “Agenda 21″ as adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development.
This Florida bill protects all state subdivisions from adopting any developmental policies that, without due process, infringe or restrict the private property rights of the property owner. It specifically mentions any policy recommendations traceable to Agenda 21 as adopted by the UN at the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development. This would include those policies recommended by Non-Governmental Organizations and Federal Agency regulations that are Agenda 21 related.
4. Taking Action to Expose Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
The Coordination Strategy can slow or stop planning processes that may endanger individual property rights. Most federal agencies are required by law to coordinate their plans that will impact the local community with local governments. Often this does not happen as most local governmens are not aware of this requirement, or do not know how to implement the process. When local governments assert coordination authority, the federal agencies must respond.
Recently, the American Planning Association circulated a fact sheet titled, Agenda 21: Myths and Facts. The APA is a large and highly respected planning organization, that often does exemplary work. But their “fact” sheet is rife with distortions, misconceptions and inaccuracies. This document provides information to respond to the APA’s errors.
The American Planning Association, rather than address critics’ concerns for private property rights, chose to re-brand their information by creating a new vocabulary. This transparent attempt to confuse the public while making it easier to implement their own chosen plans sidesteps citizens’ genuine concern for individual rights.
5. Examples of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development’s Impact on Property Rights
Form-based codes are a programmed method for replacing existing zoning regulations with boilerplate zoning and development code models. They make it easier to implement Agenda 21 type plan enforcement. Form-based codes often replace the need for local zoning ordinances and reduce the role of public officials. Once installed, form-based codes become the new laws governing a wide range of activities in your community.
Here is the introduction to a book describing form-based codes. When promoting this method of codification, promoters often show audiences live PowerPoint presentations of their current community followed by dazzling pictures of what their town can become. Most citizens are so impressed with the stunning design work, they overlook the draconian regulations and potential loss of rights that accompany the plans. Notice the fifth paragraph on page 14 in which Peter Katz, Pres. of the Form-Based Codes Institute, describes how to use the “charette” process to manipulate public responses.
Behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund, appearing on Swedish state TV, says to combat climate and deal with the looming food scarcity we need to overcome the “conservative taboo” against eating human flesh. Even if you’re reluctant to taste your neighbor, he says you could become accustomed to cannibalism little by little. Söderlund claims that only selfishness makes us reluctant to eat one another, but as an expert in behaviors he believes people can be “tricked” into “making the right decisions.” Is this “Get woke, eat folk” sensibility just the latest example of climate change scare tactics aimed at forcing government action? Bill Whittle Now deals with the news of the day — no matter how distasteful — in the context of enduring principles. Members fund this, and some four dozen other shows per month, with their contributions at https://BillWhittle.com/register/
I have said this many times, when it comes to understanding interest rates Trump is speaking the standard mantra that people apply when it comes to interest rates. Trump is a borrower, not a lender. His bankruptcies were the result of the business cycle and he leverages himself to the hilt so when the recession comes, he gets in trouble and when it is booming he claims to be a fantastic investor. But he is no trader. He could have hedged the business cycle but did not.
This latest rant that interest rates should be lower illustrates he is a borrower and not a lender. Therefore, he views that lowering interest rates will be bullish when in fact lower interest rates wipe out the savers.
Sorry, I do not agree with this and more than 10-years of low to stupidly low interest rates have FAILED to reverse the economic declines in Europe or Japan. Europe is approaching its 13th year of economic recession. When we look at the German share market, the strongest in Europe, it still has not exceeded the 2000 high on the Price Index. So much for lower interest rates boosting the share market.
Hello President Trump! You better look for some REAL advisers.
QUESTION: I mentioned that you said the stock market rallies with rising rates and declines with lower rates to an analyst. He said you were wrong and everyone knows that is not true and President Trump just came out calling on the Fed to lower rates to zero of negative.
You have only showed 1929 as your example. Can you support your argument otherwise?
Skeptical
REPLY: Well skeptical, we need people like you on the opposite side. It is not my job to convince you. Trump is a borrower and only sees the world through his personal experience. The people with savings and pension funds are being wiped out. That is a statement he has made which is HIGHLYdangerous and proves I do not advise Trump which seems to be a Democratic accusation running around.
I do not care what period you look at. This notorious group of “everyone” illustrates that if you tell a lie long enough, you yourself will believe what you are saying. These people constituting everyone just repeat what others say without any verification whatsoever. They even teach this nonsense in school. I had one student who said his professor was teaching the same nonsense.
I fully understand that the talking heads on TV also portray the stock market from the borrower’s viewpoint just as Trump has done. Not everyone borrows and the big money does not. So if people believe what they want to believe. I prefer to assemble the largest possible database, correlate everything, and see how the world REALLY ticks. So believe what you want. There are always two-sides to a market so I fully respect that it is ABSOLUTELY vital that the major be on the wrong side for that is what makes the markets move.
QUESTION: Marty,
Sometime you compare today’s financial markets and economy to what was going on in the mid to late 1920s . Woodrow Wilson is even referenced concerning the flight of capital and of course that flight came to the United States.
You also say that the global markets and economy are unlike anything in modern history. I can only assume that you are referring to the artificial bond yields and prices due to central banks buying so much of the sovereign debt.
How is this period that same as the late 1920s and how is it different?
I am a huge fan of your work. Thanks for the blog and for Socrates!
NM
ANSWER: There was a flight of capital to the United States pushing the dollar higher for World War I. Woodrow Wilson was president 1913 – March 4, 1921. Wilson introduced a comprehensive program of domestic legislation at the outset of his administration, something no president had ever done before. Willson took a rather interesting view of tariffs. He argued that the system of high tariffs
“cuts us off from our proper part in the commerce of the world, violates the just principles of taxation, and makes the government a facile instrument in the hands of private interests.”
Tariffs were really an additional tax on consumers which Trump does not understand for he is looking only at jobs which is typical. Tariffs benefits only the producers by rewarding them with a higher income than the free market would provide. However, the other side of the coin on this issue was that Wilson also created the income tax. The Revenue Act of 1913 reduced the average import tariff rates from approximately 40% to about 26% and the revenue shortfall was to be be made up with income taxes.
Wilson created the Federal Reserve in 1913. He also moved for major legislation seeking antitrust legislation to enhance the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which was really a response to the consolidation of railroads. The politicians saw mergers as destroying jobs rather than creating an efficient railway system. Wilson was also against the position that the USA should own colonies, and thus he promoted the independence of the Philippines. From 1914 until early 1917, Wilson’s tried to keep the USA out of the war in Europe. That did not sit well with the hawks in Congress.
All of that said, on the one hand we have Trump against war, as was Wilson, but in favor of tariffs as a tool to win free trade ignoring that they are really a consumer tax and protectionism for overpaid jobs. It was Wilson who told the Fed they had to buy US government bonds to prevent the yield from rising, which is sort of the problem we still have today. The Fed was originally designed to stimulate buying corporate paper directly when banks would not lend. Now the Fed stimulates by supporting government buying bonds from the banks who in turn still do not lend to support the economy in a crisis. The very idea why we needed the Federal Reserve has been completely reversed.
The primary difference today is the debt. The capital shifted into the USA and we see divergences between the highs and lows centered around World War I, whereas the 1929 and 1932 lows take place in both British pounds and dollars. For the World War I commodity boom, the US high was November 1919, whereas the British pound high was January 1920.
There was a major debt crisis in Europe, but not the United States. This is what wiped out Britain as it lost the crown of the financial capital of the world to the USA. This time, the debt crisis is systemic. The currencies are showing divergences as they did pre-World War I. But we have a socialist crisis whereas Western economies are collapsing unable to fund all the promises, as was the case with Communism in 1989-1991 in China and Russia. The central banks only keep governments on life-support and there is no direct stimulation of the economy. Every lesson from the past has been forgotten. We have put all the eggs in one basket (government) and we have politics in meltdown as republics are collapsing and the left v right is becoming much more intense which will, as always and without exception, lead to violence, civil unrest, separatist movements rising, and could result in revolutions which increases the risk of international war as politicians need a distraction from their failed domestic agenda.
It is just now our turn to rock & roll.
This will make for a very interesting WEC this year in Orlando.
QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
Thank you for your blog. It has taken the veil off my eyes.
As I understand, not only is the hypothesis that mankind can alter the Earth’s climate nonsense, it is also detrimental to the world’s economy. It misplaces important resources, and anti-CO2 regulations hinder growth and the betterment of mankind.
In Norway, where I write from, there is pure hysteria. Children are being brainwashed into fear. People are talking about “Norway’s climate policies” not being good enough, and such nonsense.
Although I understand that this helps governments grow stronger by allowing them to introduce new taxes and regulations, I also thought that the powers that be, the ones really calling the shots, prefer more economic growth and less regulation.
Why has not the climate hysteria been globally debunked yet? It wouldn’t take so long. Aren’t the financial and industrial powers that be powerful enough? Or do they also benefit from the anthropogenic climate hysteria? Could you please shed some light into this?
Thank you.
ROM
ANSWER: This has become the agenda of the left. They are using it to grab more power and justify class warfare. The media is on board. I asked someone I know in that political camp and he said: “Look, fear politics is best. You know that!”
My summation of dealing with governments most of my adult life, well, I have come away with a simple reality.
When I was young and naive, I believed that the government was really there to help. It soon became clear to me what really drives governments.
I can show with absolute proof, say 25 million people will die next month because of something. They will respond, perhaps you are wrong.
I have come to realize that politicians LOVE a crisis for that is when they can look impressive.
If I were to run for president and said, “Vote for me because I saved your job, home, and your life!”you would look at me and ask how I did such a thing? It is impossible to convince you that whatever I did saved everything that you had no idea was even in jeopardy.
It is far better to run for office with a crisis and then I can say, “Vote for me, I will go get the guy that caused you to lose your job, home, and your family!”
With every crisis, they form committees. Just look at the Russia nonsense. Even if they bought adds on Facebook, that will not win an election. If they released Hillary’s emails, then that was the truth. There was no allegation that anyone faked the emails. So they turned it into a crisis and have kept it going. There is nothing like a good crisis for politicians on both sides.
QUESTION: Hi Martin
I recently stumped upon a documentary on Netflix about you and your model.
I then went on and watched some YouTube videos.
To me it makes totally sense that taxation does not work, but how can we change it. Do we need to become politicians?
We have a very high tax in Denmark. Base level around 39 percent and top level around 60. So it’s eminent to cajnge this in Denmark.
We have a quite new political party here called Liberal alliance. They promote a flat tax of 40 percent, and I think that makes sense…. But, they had such bad election and are so tiny now, they have no influence.
Everyone say we need taxes to have welfare. So how do we go from 60 to 0 percent in tax without sacrifice our welfare. And how do we convince people that it Wan work….. It will be some very tough months or years once the tax is not flowing to the hospitals etc?
I hope you can elaborate on these things.
DB
ANSWER: In building the model, I assembled data on everything I could find and then put it all together to see how and what made the world tick. I investigated tax rates to see how civilizations operated. I investigated what types of governments worked best and what always collapsed into oligarchies, then tyrannical entities, before collapsing into dust.
I read many contemporary historians directly rather than the modern interpretation of events, which have NEVER been unbiased. I discovered that inevitably people interpreted the past with a modern context. I found one of the funniest to be when they named the city of Philadelphia after the Greek meaning “brotherly love.” The founders were devoted Christians, and in their view, they loved their brother as they loved themselves. However, the real meaning in Greek meant incest — the brother was fooling around with his sister. Understanding the meaning in which words were used is critical to understanding history. You can NEVER read it in terms of a modern context.
The Romans generally had a 7% tax. They also had welfare. The difference was that they had NOcentral bank and NO national debt. They controlled the mines and simply minted coins to fund the government and its programs. The Romans controlled the mine Rup Tinto in Spain, which they won from Carthage in the Punic War. The amount of silver they mined from that location funded the government for decades.
The debasement began in 64 AD under Nero when Rome experienced the great fire and Nero had to rebuild the city. As the new silver was declining, we find the debasement. It was not an issue of vote for me and I will give you this or that. The debasement begins because the government funded itself with new money and the sources were running dry.
The problem we face is that it would have been far less inflationary to print the money than borrow it. We have a debt crisis that cannot be paid and the accumulative interest expenditures rose to reach at times even 70% of the national debt. Now that they have discovered NEGATIVE interest rates, they think they discovered a new way to tax people indirectly. They think we are too stupid to realize this is even a tax.
But fear not. We are heading into a Monetary Crisis of untold proportions. If the governments do not listen, they will create the biggest civil unrest in all of history. This is the collapse of socialism, for they have promised everything, funded nothing, and cannot keep raising taxes without causing the economy to collapse. This will undermine their entire tax system.
There are ways to deal with this crisis if we have the courage to first admit that we have a crisis. That is step one.
Anyone who paid attention to the details in the George Zimmerman case knew Florida state prosecutors knowingly, and with malicious intent, falsified witness testimony from Witness #8 Rachel Jeantel; who they claimed was Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend.
Back in November 2012 CTH first emphasized how Trayvon Martin’s family created a completely false narrative about Trayvon’s 16-year-old girlfriend “Dee Dee”. [Go Deep]
Martin family attorneys Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson, Daryl Parks and Jasmine Rand, together with Al Sharpton used ABC journalist Matt Gutman to fabricate the Dee Dee girlfriend media story in order to generate ficticious media evidence toward the goal of arresting George Zimmerman. Once that goal of arrest was achieved; and once a trial was established; then they needed to come up with an actual person to fill the role.
That is where state prosecutors Angela Corey, Bernie De La Rionda and John Guy come in. They knowingly took false testimony from “Dee Dee” who was identified at trial as Rachel Jeantel (Witness #8), in order to prosecute the arrest. However, It was always clear that Ms. Jeantel was never actually the young woman who was Trayvon’s girlfriend.
Throughout the pre-trial phase, and actual trial itself, the fabrication of witness #8 (Rachel Jeantel) was somewhat of a not-funny running joke; it was just absurd, yet the media ran with it without question…. well, until witness #8 took the stand at trial.
The CTH community knew everything about Ms. Jeantel was a big fraud created by the Martin family, Benjamin Crump and their national media allies. The false story/witness was then exploited by willfully blind and complicit Florida prosecutors; and the fraud was eventually on public display during Ms. Jeantel’s courtroom testimony.
However, beyond the fraud that was Rachel Jeantel, the unanswered question was: who was the real Trayvon girlfriend we knew as “Diamond”?
Well, filmmaker Joel Gilbert is about to expose the hoax that was behind the “Dee Dee” narrative. Included in his expose’ is the identity of Trayvon Martin’s real girlfriend, kept hidden in order to continue perpetrating the fraud behind Ms. Jeantel. WATCH:
.
With the launch of a film and book titled: “The Trayvon Hoax – unmasking the witness fraud that divided America“, the filmmaker has a website set up to compliment the launch. [NOTE: CTH has no affiliation with the filmmaker, book, or promotion therein]
Don’t worry, I doubt anyone will make them give back the trashcans full of money….
Civil rights activist Al Sharpton presents the cash haul from a rally with Trayvon Martin’s parents at a church in Los Angeles. The rally was attended by Rick Ross, Councilman Bernard C. Parks, Big Boy, Jesse Jackson, Mary Mary, Oscar Grant’s family, Tony Cornelius, Benjamin Crump, Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Jahvaris Martin, Dawn Haynes, and Minister Omarosa O. Manigault.
To honor the memory of those lost on September 11th/12th 2012:
The Benghazi Brief
The “Benghazi Brief” remains the most controversial research report we have ever produced. The brief contains over two years of research and hundreds of very specific factual citations supporting it. Five years after it was originally written, and not a single aspect outlined within the brief has ever been identified as inaccurate.
We know from the Bret Baier interview with Hillary Clinton that she was physically located at her 7th floor office in Washington DC on the night of the attack 9/11/12.
A “fire” which preceded an unfortunate slip and fall for the Secretary, resulting in a concussion, which led to the discovery of a blood clot, that ultimately delayed her congressional testimony before a Senate Hearing into the events of the night in question.
We know the Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.
We also know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 (Syria).
We know the Libyan “rebels” were positioned in two strategic places. Benghazi, and the port city of Darnah, both located in Northeastern Libya.
We know this 2011 Libyan covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero Footprint“. We know Secretary Clinton and CIA head Panetta were the primary sponsors for the joint State Dept./CIA approach; and we know that specifically because of a U.N. Security Council resolution (unattended by Ambassador Susan Rice) the operation fell under the military command authority of NATO not (important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.
We know by the time operation “Zero Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James G. Stavridis was in charge.
Stavridis was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) at the time of the Libyan uprising. He retired as SACEUR in 2013
In 2011, 57-year-old Stavridis was the perfect pick for NATO Libyan intervention considering he is the son of Turkish immigrants. Turkey played a key role in what might be the most politically dangerous aspect of the events to the White House once the goals changed to redirection of the weapons from Operation Zero Footprint.
We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided the concerns with congressional funding, and potential for public scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.
We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the 2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter Ham.
However, it would be implausible to think that then Defense Secretary Bob Gates or Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral McMullen were completely unaware of the operation. Even today, despite the numerous hearings and reports, this aspect remains murky.
Both Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chair McMullen were in place when Operation Zero Footprint began. However, both retired from their jobs in Sept of 2011, and were replaced by Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey respectively.
Leon Panetta was CIA Director at the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint (March 2011) and was replaced by CIA Director David Petraeus in the fall of 2011 as Panetta replaced Bob Gates and became Secretary of Defense.
However, Panetta (now as Def Sec) and JC Martin Dempsey were the two who initially briefed President Obama on the night of Sept 11th 2012. This is an important fact to remember – because of his previous CIA role in constructing Zero Footprint, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta definitely had knowledge of the intents of the joint State Dept/CIA mission in Benghazi, Martin Dempsey may not have.
We know the White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.
The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.
From Hillary interviews we also know the White House liaison for Secretary Clinton and CIA Director Leon Panetta during Operation Zero Footprintwas National Security Advisor To the President, Tom Donilon.
With this information we can assemble a cast of people “IN THE KNOW” of Operation Zero Footprint on two specific date blocks. March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack – and – Post 9/11/12 attack forward.
March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack: Who knew of Operation “Zero Footprint”?:
President Obama and Vice President Biden (both Dems)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Dem)
CIA Director Leon Panetta (March 2011 – June 2011)
*CIA Director General David Petraeus (?) (Sept 2011 – Nov 2012)
NATO Commander, James G Stavridis
White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (Dem)
White House National Security Spox Tommy Vietor (Donilon aide)
White House National Security Advisor John Brennan (Dem)
Speaker of the House John Boehner (Rep)
Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi (Dem)
House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers (Rep)
Minority House Intel Committee – Charles Ruppersberger (Dem)
[State Dept] U.S. Libyan Ambassador – Chris Stevens
[State Dept] U.S. Asst Secretary of State – Andrew Shapiro
[State Dept] Senior Head of U.S. Weapons Office – Mark Adams
Along with whomever inside each nation’s state government that was involved in either the finance (UAE), or the logistics (Qatar). [and later, 2012 Turkey]
Obviously the “know” crowd would include the ultimate end destination users, “The Libyan Rebel Commanders”:
Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Sufian Ibriham Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu – Darnah Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia
Rebel Leader (Islamic Fighting Group) Abu Khattala – Commander of an Islamist militia group called the Abu Obaida bin Jarrah Brigade (17th Feb Brigade) Benghazi – Ansar Al Sharia
*NOTE* Both of these individuals were labeled as officially recognized State Dept. terrorists in December of 2013. Khattala recently having been arrested.
In addition, the “political face” of the Libyan Transitional Government Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, should also be included in this list of people who knew of operation Zero Footprint while it was underway.
Justice Abdel Jalil served as the international face of, and spokesperson for, “the rebels” in 2011/12. He worked closely with Chris Stevens and highly visibly with Secretary Hillary Clinton – However, in my opinion – after extensive research- Jalil was a total patsy. He was paid well to present a comfortable face of the movement, but once Gaddaffi was killed Jalil was quickly dispatched.
This Brings us to who knew about “Operation Zero Footprint” post Benghazi 9/11/12 attack:
To wit you can easily add:
CIA Director General David Petraeus
Adjunct, and Interim, CIA Director – Mike Morrell
U.S. Attorney General – Eric Holder
President Obama Advisor and now Chief of Staff – Denis McDonough
President Obama Advisor and now Treasury Sec – Jack Lew
President Obama Advisor and now National Security Advisor – Tony Blinkin
Former UN Ambassador and now Senior Nat Sec Advisor – Susan Rice
Chief White House Communications Director – Ben Rhodes
Focusing on the post 9/11/12 team for a moment:
This photo, that looks like one of those royalty free photos was taken on 9/11/12 at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jack Lew (far right) was Obama’s Chief of Staff. Donilon and McDonough had just left Tommy Vietor in the situation room to update POTUS in the Oval Office. POTUS and VPOTUS had just hung up the phone.
We know McDonough and Donilon were in the immediate loop on the night of 9/11/12 because they were photographed updating President Obama at 7:30pm in the Oval Office along with a curious Jack Lew who was Chief of Staff at the time.In addition we know from former White House National Security spokesperson Tommy “dude” Vietor, that President Obama was not in the situation room where Vietor and his boss Tom Donilon were keeping up on events.
Here’s where it gets interesting:
Leon Panetta was the CIA Director when Operation Zero Footprint was authorized and began, but he left the CIA about 4 months later (June 30th, 2011) and was replaced by General David Petraeus (August/Sept 2011).
[*Note* it is important to remember when the 2nd authorized CIA program began in 2012 for Syria Petraeus would have been included]
Under this principle you can see that General Petraeus had ZERO liability for the origin of the Benghazi weapons deals – it was a joint State Dept/CIA program already being conducted when Petraeus arrived. If it blew up, it was not his political problem – THIS MADE PETRAEUS A RISK.
We know that during the summer of 2012 “a whistleblower” popped up and gave House Republican Leader Eric Cantor a tip about CIA Director General Petraeus being in an extramarital affair with a reporter named Paula Broadwell; along with rumors Petraeus may have shared classified information with Broadwell during pillow talk etc.
However, we also know that neither Holder nor Mueller (nor Cantor) informed anyone in congress this investigation of Petraeus was taking place. That investigation included Broadwell turning over her computer to the FBI in the same summer, and later a search of her home which did reveal confidential information supposedly leaked from Petraeus.
Sometime in October of 2012 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had a conversation with Petraeus urging him to leave.
Immediately after the election of 2012 CIA Director David Petraeus resigned (Nov 9th) and interim CIA Director Mike Morrel took over. This is why Petraeus never testified to the Senate, and Morrel took his place.
We also know this timely switch was beneficial to both the Clinton and Obama camps because Morrel was more politically connected to them than Petraeus.
Given the risks of exposure to both “Operation Zero Footprint”, and worse, the buy-back/redirection to Syria, it’s understandable the risk to Clinton that Petraeus carried. However, Petraeus was not of any risk himself; maybe Leon Panetta would be, but not Petraeus – who, it’s important to add, came from the Defense Department to the office of CIA.
Petraeus’s replacement, interim CIA Director Mike Morrel, and White House Communications Director Ben Rhodes, were the two men who constructed the infamous “Susan Rice” talking points.
After Morrel testified to congress about the CIA involvement around Benghazi, and the issues of terrorism vs. Islamic movie (happy squirrel chase) etc. Morrel was replaced at the CIA by John Brennan.
We know that both Hillary Clinton and CBS immediately hired Mike Morrel. CBS News President David Rhodes -who hired Morrel- is the brother of the White House’s Ben Rhodes; who Morrel coordinated the Clinton friendly, albeit controversial, talking points with.
While it may seem suspect to jump to conclusions, the fact that Eric Holder did not inform either Intelligence Committee of the FBI Petraeus investigation -which is generally standard procedure- lends plausible suspicion to an outline that the events were used as leverage to remove Petraeus; and all of the subsequent risk he represented.
If you accept that Petraeus’s knowledge of, but non-involvement in, “Operation Zero Footprint” represented a potential risk to Hillary and Obama; you’d have to admit that Mike Morrel was by far the more White House friendly person talking about the CIA involvement around the joint State Dept/CIA Benghazi objectives.
Also, it would be disingenuous to ignore the fact Morrel’s loyalty therein was rewarded financially.
Lastly, one of the more slippery people to pin down on the Benghazi attack, and subsequent issues, has been Leon Panetta. If you think about Panetta’s role in the origin of Operation Zero Footprint his comment avoidance makes perfect sense.
Trey Gowdy needs to subpoena Panetta for the Special Committee.
OK, sorry that was more than a moment – but was needed.
Now back to Libya 2011/2012 and the Rift Between State/CIA and DoD/Pentagon over the arming of the “Rebels”. THIS IS REALLY QUITE IMPORTANT because it explains how far out Hillary Clinton had put herself in this covert op “Zero Footprint”.
A few reminder articles will outline and refresh why the White House kept DoD and The Pentagon at arms length throughout their covert operation:
[…] defense leaders in Washington [March 2011] slammed the brakes on the extent of US help to the rebels. Top officials said that some country other than the US should perform any future training and equipping of the Libyan opposition groups. Under withering congressional probing and criticism of what was described as an ill-defined mission to aid a rebel force that officials know little about, Robert Gates, the US defense secretary, sketched out a largely limited role for the US military going forward.
Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels. “My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on. (link)
From a New York Times article about the same hearing -AND- the discussion of the CIA involvement. Again, remember this is 2011 – you have Secretary Gates, Joint Chiefs Mullen, and CIA Director Panetta:
2011 […] Gates and Mullen were testifying before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the wake of revelations that small teams of CIA operatives are working in Libya. Gates declined to comment on the CIA activities in Libya. US officials have acknowledged that the CIA has sent small teams of operatives into Libya and helped rescue a crew member of a US fighter jet that crashed.
The CIA’s precise role in Libya is not clear. Intelligence experts said the CIA would have sent officials to make contact with the opposition and assess the strength and needs of the rebel forces in the event Barack Obama, the US president, decided to arm them. (link)
In hindsight we are now fully aware that unknown to both Mullen and Gates -at the time they were speaking- was President Obama having authorized Operation Zero Footprint several weeks earlier, and Panetta carrying it out.
The State Dept (Hillary) and CIA (Panetta) were now in the execution mode of the covert op.
We now know against the March/April 2011 backdrop of growing information about al-Qaeda’s presence within the rebel units – there was a genuine difference of opinion on whether even getting involved was a good idea.
The Defense Department (Gates, Mullen) was saying no, the State Department (Clinton, Rice), was saying yes.
Remember too, this covert operation was going to require NATO Admiral James Stavridis to allow the weapons into Libya. So lets look at what he was quoted saying around the same timeframe as Mullen and Gates, *knowing Stavridis was one of the actual key figures to make the weapons delivery possible*:
2011 – […] Now, as the White House and NATO continue to debate the possible ramifications of arming the Libyan opposition, the Haqqani network-linked Afghan commander says Libyan al Qaeda affiliates seem to be more “enthusiastic” about the war against Gaddafi every day.
And from what the Afghan Taliban commander has seen, there appears to be more than “flickers” of al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, the description given by NATO commander Admiral James Stavridis. (link)
There is Stavridis playing down the possibility of al-Qaeda ideology within the make-up of the Islamic Fighting Group – which is important because by the time this quote was attributed Stavridis was already part of the team coordinating the shipments.
Also, remember R2P? This March/April 2011 time frame is when “Responsibility To Protect” came up as a justification for our engagement. Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton all wanting to fully support “the rebels”.
Ultimately Obama/Jarrett (The White House) agreed with Hillary Inc (State Dept); hence “Zero Footprint” got the nod – well, let’s be really accurate: it “sort of” got the nod.
Think about it. President Obama authorized arming the Libyan rebels, but the covert nature of Zero Footprint actually reflects the political filter through which all Obama White House decisions are made. A White House team that always looks for an escape hatch in case any decision is ever publicly wrong.
If the rebels were al-Qaeda, the covert op lends plausible deniability.
Isn’t it strange how in 2014 hindsight you can clearly see exactly what we now know as the “Benghazi narrative”; the use of their exact escape hatch because they were al-Qaeda, and it did go horribly and publicly wrong.
Operation Zero Footprint Becomes Political and Legal Risk
It should be noted, and actually emphasized, that Operation Zero Footprint, at least in 2011, was not illegal. Indeed, all indicators are that President Obama followed his constitutional responsibility as he carried out his executive authority.
We know in late February 2011 President Obama signed a Presidential Finding Memo authorizing the State Department and CIA to engage in actions within Libya to identify a course of action.
We know in March 2011 when Hillary Clinton (State Dept) and Leon Panetta (CIA) constructed “Operation Zero Footprint” that President Obama approved the covert action and then informed the Gang of Eight of the weapons transfer operation.
Both of those known facts speak well to the Executive Office following a legally outlined process. This does not, however, dismiss the concern, which became the reality, that the action itself was terribly flawed and horridly imprudent.
During March, April and May 2011 there was enough intelligence information flowing to the White House informing them of exactly who would be the beneficiaries of U.S. Libyan involvement and specifically providing weapons. It did not take long to identify the Benghazi and Darnah “rebels” were actually affiliates of al-Qaeda.
While no-one reporting in 2011 was aware of Operation Zero Footprint, there were literally hundreds of media reports showcasing the ideology of the Libyan “rebel” uprising. Indeed there were numerous reports in mainstream media outlets of al-Qaeda fighters (numerous factions) flowing to Libya to oust their life-long nemesis, Gaddaffi.
From a policy standpoint it will have to be left up to historians to pore over the facts and ultimately decide what was *this* White House goal in the entire region.
Ben Ali removal -Tunisia- seemed OK to the administration, Obama and Clinton.
Hosni Mubarak removal -Egypt- seemed even more ok to Obama and Clinton.
Both of the above were viewed as potential sources for favorable policy outcomes. Indeed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -and election of President Morsi- did not seem to be a concern for the White House.
However, when you get to Gaddaffi’s removal -Libya- you see a serious split between ideologies within the U.S. political class as Obama/Clinton actually pushed the outcome. The U.S. defense department saying they were apprehensive about this outcome, and Obama/Clinton going “all in” for Gaddaffi ouster with French President Sarkozy.
The same interventionist Obama/Clinton motivation was evident with Syria’s Assad as yet another uprising surfaced in yet another Mid-East nation – again in March/April 2011.
We know on October 20th 2011 Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddaffi was finally captured, then killed by “the rebels”.
From the standpoint of “regime change” operation Zero Footprint was a success.
The Libyan Transitional National Council was now in control. Well, maybe in charge, or, well, sort of.
The TNC (pictured below 4 days later) may have been the face of Libya the Obama/Clinton team wanted to portray. But they were merely just that, a face.
We know Eastern Libya was then (2011), and is now (2016), a hotbed of radical Islam controlled by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Groups, the very people who benefited from the arms that were part of Zero Footprint.
We know by the Fall/Winter of 2011 the U.S. State Dept and CIA were joined and trying to re-secure the same weapons they provided in the Spring/Summer.
“Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro raised the American desire to arrange a purchase program in a meeting this month with Libya’s new defense minister, according to American officials familiar with the proposal.
The United States has committed $40 million to secure Libya’s arms stockpiles, much of it to prevent the spread of Manpads. No budget has been designed for a purchase program, and the price to be paid for each missile and its components has not been determined, the official said. (link)
We know from a speech delivered by Asst. Secretary of State Shapiro in Feb of 2012 the actual program to recapture the Zero Footprint weapons began in August of 2011 about two months before Gaddaffi was killed:
“Once the stalemate broke and the fighting rapidly shifted in the TNC’s [Libyan Transitional National Council] favor in August, we immediately deployed a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force to Benghazi.
Mark Adams, who you will hear from shortly on the panel, is the head of our MANPADS Task Force and spent considerable time on the ground in Libya.
[… ] The initial primary objective was to reach an agreement with the TNC to set up a MANPADS control and destruction program that would enable us to set up what we call our Phase I efforts.
Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable loose MANPADS across the country. To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists.”
We know those “civilian technical specialists”, being talked about in August 2011, were contractors, CIA contractors, hired by the State Department to recapture the weapons – some of which they provided as a specific consequence of Operation Zero Footprint.
If the story ended there it would be bad enough. A flawed policy, a secret mission arm the Libyan “rebels” without a great deal of thinking through the longer term consequences. A flawed policy with political consequences.
But when you think about the larger picture you understand why the details of the covert weapons operation Zero Footprint were so tightly guarded among select members of Congress (the Gang of Eight), the CIA (Panetta), the State Department (Clinton) and the White House (Donilon).
Each of them was trying to manage a covert operation that would expose a U.S. policy decision to arm al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist militias.
But that’s only “IF” the story ended there, in Libya, at the end of 2011 into the beginning of 2012. It didn’t, the decisions got worse – much worse.
The uprising in Syria was only a few months behind the uprising in Libya. Arguably if the timing were reversed you could ponder that Assad would have met Gaddaffi’s fate, and Gaddaffi would be as alive today as President Assad.
Whichever rebel group got the attention of the R2P crowd was sure to be the first to get assistance. The Obama R2P Doctrine is so tenuous, and so lacking in political principle, it’s subject to change based on the political whims of capitol hill at any given moment.
The Libyan “rebels” got all the weaponry love – the Syrian “rebels”, not-so-much. At least in 2011; by mid 2012 that sentiment appears to have changed.
Enter Hillary Clinton. As she reiterated vehemently to Greta Van Sustern during a recent interview, it was Hillary who wanted to help the Syrian rebels when no-one else wanted to assist them. Secretary Hillary Clinton wanted early and direct interventionist action in Syria to topple Assad just like Gaddaffi.
Obviously consequences from the first covert weapons mission in Libya made a stark case for not repeating it in Syria. Another huge factor against helping the FSA was Israel. Ultimately Israel could not afford to be put into such a risky position if Syrian rebel forces were given arms that ultimately might be used against them.
Additionally, you would think there’s no way congress, in an election year, would approve of funding Syrian rebels against the possibility of it hurting Israel; And the White House was not about to do a known and official covert operation which had a great potential to go sideways, and become far too politically dangerous. 2012 was an election year.
But they did.
Who wanted to aid Syria more? President Obama or Hillary Clinton? That is a question for later year historians. Regardless of how the idea came up, we know a decision was made to do it, and to do it covertly.
Arming the Benghazi Darnah rebels was, well, stupid. It was actually stupid, and politically stupid, but it was not illegal.
Arming jihadist fighters in Syria likewise ended up being stupid but by all appearances NOT illegal.
In August 2012, one month before the attack on the Benghazi Compound, the following Reuters article appeared. This is how we find out about the SECOND presidential findingmemo which again authorized covert CIA involvement, this time in Syria:
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 [2012] (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.
But U.S. and European officials have said that there have been noticeable improvements in the coherence and effectiveness of Syrian rebel groups in the past few weeks. That represents a significant change in assessments of the rebels by Western officials, who previously characterized Assad’s opponents as a disorganized, almost chaotic, rabble.
Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.
The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment.
‘NERVE CENTER’
A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.
Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.
This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.
Turkey’s moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad’s departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment.
European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad’s departure.
On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad’s helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days.
NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.
On Wednesday, however, Bassam al-Dada, a political adviser to the Free Syrian Army, denied the NBC report, telling the Arabic-language TV network Al-Arabiya that the group had “not obtained any such weapons at all.” U.S. government sources said they could not confirm the MANPADs deliveries, but could not rule them out either.
Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.
Indications are that U.S. agencies have not been involved in providing weapons to Assad’s opponents. In order to do so, Obama would have to approve a supplement, known as a “memorandum of notification, to his initial broad intelligence finding.
Further such memoranda would have to be signed by Obama to authorize other specific clandestine operations to support Syrian rebels.
Reuters first reported last week that the White House had crafted a directive authorizing greater U.S. covert assistance to Syrian rebels. It was unclear at that time whether Obama had signed it. (read more)
Note how the FSA says they didn’t get missiles, and yet missiles were shipped. This is important against the backdrop of the reality the extreme elements we now call ISIS were operating in Syria and openly laughing at our inability to identify them:
“NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD” – members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
(JULY 2012) As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder’s men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.
But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations.” Abu Khuder’s men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.
[…] Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida’s organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.
“The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically,” he said. “Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.
“The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.
“In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion.”
At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: “So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?”
“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction. If you don’t commit sins there is nothing to fear.” (link – more)
Against the backdrop of ISIL 2014 does this Sound familiar ?
We know the basic set up to arm the Syrian rebellion was generally not too complex.
Turkey would be used as the distribution hub, and the U.S. had Sunni friends in Saudi Arabia, and Qatar -who were more than willing to see Assad removed- and financially assist in arming the Syrians without too great a concern for what could happen to Israel.
For Obama/Clinton to get weapons to the Syrians, against the shadow of Operation Zero Footprint, without going extensively through congress, could be done covertly and easily. Either ship weapons just like Operation Zero Footprint, Saudi ==> Qatar ==> Turkey ==> Syria, OR, buy back the weapons already floating around from Operation Zero Footprint and redirect them to Syria through Turkey.
OR both.
The Saudis would be a willing financier if the State Dept needed additional money to facilitate the transfers.
We know Ambassador Chris Stevens set up a formal U.S. Embassy consulate in Tripoli around May 26th of 2012; and we know the State Dept and CIA set up their joint operations in Benghazi around the same time. We also now know this is around the EXACT time of the second Presidential CIA Directive.
Looking at the historical timeline, and knowing the contacts developed, gives a great perspective into what would have spurred the CIA/State Department to set up a more expansive presence and operation in the coastal region of Eastern Libya May/June 2012.
The official U.S. State Dept Libyan presence was vacated on Feb 25th of 2011 when the embassy personnel were evacuated. Stevens was re-establishing the diplomatic office and acting as Ambassador to Libya during the 2012 reconstruction phase.
What we did not know at the time was that Chris Stevens was also acting as the facilitator for U.S. arms shipments OUT OF LIBYA, through Turkish diplomatic couriers and into Syria. While coordinating a second covert action to arm the Syrian resistance.
A very strong argument can easily be made that Chris Stevens was a CIA operative inside the State Department. Many people within the State Department are CIA personnel using the State Dept as part of their visible cover.
In Eastern Libya June, July, August 2012 – Obviously the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Ansar Al Sharia, aka 17th Feb Brigade, and all of their commanders knew of the U.S. Benghazi weapons programs. Both the 2011 distribution, and the 2012 repurchase.
Considering the redeployment to Syria – for the most part the Benghazi and Darnah brigades would have been in alignment with their Jihadist brethren in Syria being the beneficiaries of any additional shipments.
But there was in 2011/2012 – as noted in the above articles – an ideological rift between the newly emboldened Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘more initially moderate’ Free Syrian Army (FSA). As the Libyan conflict rolled on through the summer of 2011 more al-Qaeda elements flocked from other engagements into the Syrian fight. Moderates were replaced by extremists.
By the time of the second presidential directive, as Hillary and Chris Stevens were working on support for Syria, Summer 2012, the radical Syrian opposition was embedded inside the FSA. Arguably in hindsight they were the majority element.
The Syrian opposition had three al-Qaida arms operating within it. Including one that also operated in Libya:
Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.
It would be into this eclectic mix of Jihadist ideologues, which later became ISIL, that any diverted U.S. arms would flow. It’s no wonder that Senator John McCain was so confused when he was calling them “moderates” in 2012/2013. Almost no-one knew the severe elements in Syria would rise to the surface and become the modern ISIS now capturing all of the global attention.
And…. If you just realized…. Yes, ISIS or ISIL currently on the march in Iraq, came from Syria, fought in Syria and more than likely was armed by the U.S. inside Syria and Turkey.
They were more likely trained, in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles (100 km) from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence; by the same CIA operatives used by the State Dept to send Syria weapons from Benghazi and Darnah back in Libya.
If Operation Zero Footprint in Libya was stupid, arming the Syrian branches of al-Qaeda two years after the FSA was thoroughly corrupted by al-Qaeda, is infinite degrees beyond stupid.
But that’s hindsight for ya….. or as Secretary Clinton would say “Whether they were, … at this point, what difference does it make?”
By June of 2012 the New York Times was reporting that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program to Syria that sounded exactly like the re-diversion plan Clinton developed with Panetta/Petraeus.
According to the Times suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”
We know on September 5th 2012 – A Libyan flagged ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It is carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun.
In response to the Times of London report, and in a generally dismissed part of her congressional testimony, Senator Rand Paul asked outgoing Secretary Hillary Clinton a very specific question – (See @2:20 of this video and pay attention to the “duping delight”):
Which would bring us to a series of now reconcilable questions surrounding the joint State Dept. and CIA Benghazi Mission.
The entire weapons operation 2011 was labeled “Operation Zero Footprint”. The intent is outlined in the operational title – to leave no visible record of U.S. involvement in arming the Libyan “rebels”. No visible footprint.
We know from congressional inquiry Ambassador Chris Stevens had asked for more security in the months prior to Sept. 11th 2012. Requests sent to the State Dept that were denied.
We also know that NO MARINE DETACHMENT was ever put in place to defend the Benghazi Mission.
We also know the Benghazi Mission was initially, and mistakenly by media, called “a consulate”, or a “consulate outpost”. But there was no State Dept record of any consulate office in Benghazi.
All of these seeming contradictions can be reconciled with the simple understanding that this “Mission” in 2011 was unofficial. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
We also know the Second Operation, in 2012, to arm the Syrians’ was also covert – No visible footprint.
Why were security requests denied? Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
We know from General Carter Ham (AFRICOM Commander now retired) the Department of Defense was not even aware the State Dept was operating a mission in Benghazi during 2012. Remember the goal – No visible footprint.
How could Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or Patrick Kennedy approve or request a marine security detachment knowing the entire mission around both Benghazi operations was covert?
Such a request would have traveled outside the small group of State/CIA insiders. The request would have gone to DoD. Short answer, they couldn’t.
Hence the disconnect between what seemed to be obvious and/or simple questions and the inability to accurately discuss in the public venues of congressional inquiry.
To the public Chris Stevens was a U.S. ambassador, a diplomat. To the folks inside the State Dept and CIA, Chris Stevens was a U.S. Ambassador, AND a CIA operative coordinating covert arms sales.
In 2011 those arms shipments were to aid the Libyan rebels, in 2012 those same arms were redirected to aid the Syrian rebels.
Even after death the public face of Chris Stevens, the official role, was the only role able to be discussed. The covert, or unofficial role, was not. Again, we see the disconnect between inquiry that could be answered, and inquiry that could not be answered. Many irreconcilables surface because of this intelligence role – even through today.
The second role of Stevens, the covert and CIA aspect, still causes problems for people trying to understand the “why not” questions. The broader public asking why have we not seen, or heard from the survivors of the attacks?
The short answer is:
we have not heard from the survivors – but the intelligence community has.
Twice some of the survivors have given testimony to congress. The problem for the public is that those hearings are closed door, classified, intelligence hearings – led by then Chairman Mike Rogers and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Again, go back to the beginning of Operation Zero Footprint and you see the congressional Intelligence Gang of Eight were fully aware of the intents.
The Gang of Eight in 2011 / 2012 was: House Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.
Why was Speaker Boehner reluctant to establish a Select Committee on Benghazi ?
Simple, again he is one of the Gang of Eight – and he was briefed on both operations. How is he going to call for a select committee to investigate when he knows the substance of the committee investigation is classified under national security. Such a committee would not, because it could not, deliver what the public was requesting, sunlight.
The only reason Trey Gowdy was finally assigned the task of a Select Committee, was simply because the public lies of the White House and administration were contradicting themselves. More trumpet, more noise, was needed to cloud the stark reality that both political parties held oversight over the entire Benghazi debacle.
The White House “talking points“, which was/is a ridiculous squirrel hunt, were created to reconcile the problem faced when unable to discuss a covert operation.
It is far easier to look at the reality of the problem faced by the White House and CIA than any nefarious intention.
Unfortunately for the administration, or for any administration, they are not that good at controlling facts when questions that cannot be answered publicly are asked publicly.
Team Obama was so committed to keeping the covert operation “Zero Footprint” a secret (because of the political embarrassment from factually arming al Qaeda) that the cover story they manufactured (on the fly) was fraught with contradictions.
How could President Obama dispatch help to the Benghazi team, when DoD was not even aware of it’s existence? Sending help would have compromised OpSec, Operational Security.
The dispatch of F.E.S.T. would lead to increased knowledge of a covert operation.
Hopefully you are beginning to see the root of the contradictions. Once you understand the truth of what was going on within the back story – there’s almost nothing left which would dangle as an unanswered question. It all reconciles.
Back to the FALL of 2012 – On September 5th/6th 2012 the Turkish vessel “Al Entisar” docked in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. 400 tons of serious cargo including weapons destined for Syrian “rebels”.
In the U.S. that September 5th night former President Bill Clinton was introducing Candidate Barack Obama at the DNC convention in Charlotte North Carolina. In Afghanistan that night something happened that had already become a serious concern for the operatives within “Operation Zero Footprint”.
At the exact time Clinton was speaking in North Carolina, halfway around the world in Afghanistan Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, of San Antonio and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, of San Juan, in the Rio Grande Valley, were killed while flying an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, a Defense Department news release stated.
On September 5th 2012 – A U.S. organized ship loaded with weapons including missiles was offloading at a Turkish port. Bill Clinton was introducing Barack Obama, and the first black female combat pilot was shot down and killed by a shoulder fired missilein Afghanistan.
The relationship between the three events reflects the absolute political fear that revolved around Operation Zero Footprint.
The CIA and Intelligence community had stated earlier the biggest concern anyone held about arming the Libyan Rebels was the possibility those weapons might leave the Libyan conflict and travel to other locations where they would be used against our own soldiers. More and more evidence of this happening was growing.
In 2011 a total of four air assets were destroyed by enemy fire in Afghanistan. Two of those helicopters happened at the same time in August 2011 when we lost the Navy Seal unit that killed Osama Bin Laden. 22 Americans killed.
We had been in close quarter full combat operations in Afghanistan for 10 years, and we never had a problem with close air support. We had never faced the concern of our enemy having MANPADS.
From 2002 through 2010 Combat Operations saw zero occurrences of SAMS, Stingers, or MANPADS in general.
Within months after delivering weapons to the Benghazi and Darnah rebels (May, June and July 2011) we began facing MANPADS in Afghanistan.
Four instances in late in 2011 including the 22 lives lost in what came to be known as Operation “Extortion 17”.
A combined patrol discovered a weapons cache containing three shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, three anti-tank mines, 423 RPGs, 118,600 7.62 mm rounds, 30 rifles and other ordnance in the Tarin Kot district of Uruzgan province. The cache’s contents were destroyed.(link)
By September 5th 2012 in the preceding nine months we had lost 11 helicopters to shoulder fired missiles in Afghanistan. The following headline hit the media:
One of the incidents revealed details of what was being faced. The July 25th 2012 downing of a CH-47 which was found to have been hit with a “new generation” stinger missile. The risks were no longer mere worries, they were real:
[O]n July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.
They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.
The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.
The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile.
Lodged in the right nacelle, they found one fragment that contained an entire serial number.
The investigation took time. Arms were twisted, noses put out of joint. But when the results came back, they were stunning: The Stinger tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet jihad.
Reports of the Stinger reached the highest echelons of the US command in Afghanistan and became a source of intense speculation, but no action.
Everyone knew the war was winding down. Revealing that the Taliban had US-made Stingers risked demoralizing coalition troops. Because there were no coalition casualties, government officials made no public announcement of the attack.
My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.
They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles. (link)
In Afghanistan the DoD field response was immediate; all Close Air Support was cancelled.
The White House had a problem – “Operation Zero Footprint” missiles were now being used against us, but DoD didn’t know the origin because the Defense Department did not know about Zero Footprint, the State Department and CIA did.
The killing of Army Chief Warrant Officers Thalia S. Ramirez, 28, and Jose L. Montenegro Jr., 31, might not have been the final straw – but their September 5th 2012 deaths coincided with an absolute change in direction.
While the ISIS-minded Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the Free Syrian Army were arguing over who gets what from aboard the Turkish vessel, back in Benghazi, Libya it was obvious the ideology of the Syrian factions were too extreme and the CIA could no longer control who would use such weapons.
God forbid DoD ground commanders in Afghanistan find out the MANPADS they were facing originated by our covert efforts in Libya.
Tayyip Erdogan – Turkey, David Cameron – U.K.
Strangely one must give credit to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As unbelievable as it might sound he was the lone Islamic voice in March 2011 saying “don’t arm the Benghazi rebels“:
March 2011 – Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.
Speaking at a joint news conference with David Cameron, the British prime minister, in London, Erdogan said: “Doing that would create a different situation in Libya and we do not find it appropriate to do that.”
Erdogan also said that that sending weapons to Libya could feed terrorism, saying such weapons shipments “could also create an environment which could be conducive to terrorism”. (read more)
Erdogan and U.S. Defense Secretary Bob Gates were of the same mindset.
“My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.” (link)
However, for Syria in 2012 Erdogan had a divergent opinion. He was all for arming the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. This article, again from August 2012 – one month prior to the attack against Chris Stevens, outlines the goal of both Erdogan and President Obama:
(August 2012) President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke by telephone Monday “to coordinate efforts to accelerate a political transition in Syria,” the White House said.
This “would include the departure of (Syrian leader) Bashar Assad and be responsive to the legitimate demands of the Syrian people,” the statement said.
Obama and Erdogan shared their concerns over the Syrian regime’s crackdown on opposition “and the deteriorating humanitarian conditions throughout Syria as a result of the regime’s atrocities.”
Both [Obama and Erodgan] promised to coordinate efforts to help the growing numbers of Syrians displaced by the violence within Syria or forced to flee over the border to take refuse in Turkey or other nations in the region.
The statement said US and Turkish teams “would remain in close contact on ways that Turkey and the United States can work together to promote a democratic transition in Syria.” (link)
Alas, given the backstory of DoD not wanting to arm the rebels, and given the unintended consequences of 2011/2012 from Operation Zero Footprint, and given an upcoming election in November 2012, you can see why in post September 11 of 2012 the Obama administration would want to discontinue this operation and throw a bag over the events of the past 17 months.
Perhaps following the fiasco at the Port of Iskenderun a week earlier, Turkish Diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin arrives at the Benghazi Mission on Sept 11th 2012 to talk about the ongoing efforts to support Syria.
Perhaps, the conversation was about the increasing risk of arming a rising group of radicals against the backdrop of MANPADS being used against U.S. forces in other fields of combat.
Regardless of motivation Ali Sait Akin and Stevens were most certainly discussing the current situation with Turkey suffering the consequences and pushing a greater sense of urgency.
Indeed Turkey’s border region was filled with historic numbers of Syrian refugees fleeing the fighting which was completely out of control. The Scale of the crisis was staggering and out of control. Over 500,000 Syrians were now seeking shelter in Turkey.
Meanwhile the ideology of the radical elements controlling the arms shipments was openly becoming a danger to the entire region, and especially U.S. interests beyond Syria.
This would have put Stevens (U.S.) and Akin (Turkey) as opposing ends of the issue.
What we now know as ISIS – originated inside this group of Zero Footprint recipients, and Erdogan, a Muslim Brotherhood supporter, wanted to see Assad removed at any cost.
The rabid ideologues (now known as ISIS-2014) were quickly evolving into a risk for the region. The U.S. policy team would have viewed the risk far differently than Turkey.
As the New York Times reported in an Oct. 14 2012 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”
We can only imagine the conversation within the Benghazi compound as both Ali Sait Akin and Chris Stevens parted ways for the final time on September 11th 2012.
Outside the compound walls, the 17th Feb Brigade – Ansar Al Sharia – were also assembled to deliver their final goodbyes.
The Turkish delegation was able to navigate the roadblocks without issue. And within 30 minutes of Consul Akin leaving the venue, Ansar Al Sharia executed their attack.
The Benghazi and Darnah Brigades already knew the compound inside and out, as well as the CIA ANNEX compound, a kilometer away, which contained four warehouse type buildings used by the CIA during the collection, distribution and delivery of Zero Footprint’s objectives over the past 17 months.
In June of 2009 the primary Benghazi Mission compound looked like this:
In March of 2011, when Operation Zero Footprint began, the Tactical Operations Command building (TOC) was added and it looked like this:
.
In December of 2005 the area which became the CIA Annex compound held two buildings:
.
In 2009 two more buildings were added bringing the total to FOUR:
.
By the time the CIA took over 2011, and when the compound came under mortar fire 2012, it looked like this:
Author’s notes:
The primary reason for outlining this brief is to deliver a greater understanding of why things happened the way they did in the post 9/11/12 attack media frenzy.
If you understand what took place from March 2011 through the night of the attack itself all of the contradictions reconcile, and most of the questions become answered.
Factually, I would challenge anyone who reads this brief to actually have a question left unanswered.
The events of the attack itself are gut wrenching and troubling. Our brave operations folks had to fight their way out of a situation where they literally were on their own due to the political risks inherent in carrying out their objectives.
However, they knew they were beyond the wire, they knew they were covert – they knew there was no manner, method or possibility of protection…. And this is the point everyone seems to miss:
THEY HAD TO KNOW THE DoD WAS IN THE DARK ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITY. There was NOTHING the Pentagon could have done to help them. Those people inside the Eastern Libya City of Benghazi, operating on behalf of the administration, were, for all intents and purposes, GHOSTS. They did not “technically” exist.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the mission they were tasked to carry out, there is no doubt they worked honorably to serve their nation. Ultimately the leadership within the State Department, The CIA, and the White House are responsible for the outcomes of policy.
Our hope is that this outline will stimulate journalists to question those who were at the heart of these two operations. Ultimately the Trey Gowdy select committee will find there is no venue to discuss intelligence operations with public sunlight. While both Zero Footprint in 2011, and the Unnamed CIA operation in 2012 were flawed policy – they were not necessarily illegal.
There is a matter of an unidentified State Dept $6 billion contractor fund missing from Hillary’s term as Secretary of State; that might bear investigation. However, beyond those smaller questions there is little if anything to gain.
FUBAR.
~ Sundance
Common Questions: The AFTERMATH – “The Cairo Protest VS The Benghazi Attack”
Here is where people get confused – because the U.S. State department wanted people to get confused.
On 9/11/12 the State Department was originally trying to deflect attention away from the Cairo Embassy Protest.
CNN correspondent Nick Robertson interviewed Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Al Zawahiri on the morning of the planned Cairo protest 9/11/12. Zawahiri and team told Robertson they were rallying and protesting for the release of the Blind Sheik.
The protest turned violent and the U.S. Embassy was overrun by extremists who eventually hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda within the compound.
The State Dept was trying desperately to cover their ass and frame the narrative so the optics of the al-Qaeda onslaught to the Embassy could be controlled.
To hide the intentions of the protesting mob (release of the Blind Sheik) the U.S. State Department fell back on a story about the Mohammed video – which they found out about two days earlier.
Against the backdrop of an upcoming election, and with Republicans beating up Democrats over the short-sighted foreign policy, the State Dept did not want the Muhammed Al Zawahiri narrative. The compound being overrun was a political embarrassment so they used the silly video to explain the protest:
(Remember this is all early in the day – prior to the Benghazi attack)
However, Mitt Romney jumped on this State Dept. Press Release to make the case that the U.S. appeared weak and apologetic. It created an immediate stir.
Unknown at the time was an UNRELATED attack was taking place at the Benghazi compound. The attack at Benghazi Libya had nothing to do with the protests at the Cairo embassy.
However, once the Benghazi attack took place, the State Dept needed a cover story which would sell to the U.S. electorate to explain the Benghazi issues. What Hillary and team did was sell/use the Cairo story as an explanation for Benghazi.
This is how the YouTube video came into play.
The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Cairo Embassy Protest.
The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.
Nothing about the YouTube story was correct. It was all manufactured excuse-making, strategically put into the media cycle to protect the administration from the reality of flawed policy.
The YouTube video had nothing to do with the Embassy protest in Cairo, nor the Benghazi attack in Libya. By now I think everyone would concur, albeit the media never went back to the Cairo motive to discuss because it became a secondary issue.
Did the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Cairo, or specifically Muhammed Al Zawahiri, coordinate in some way with Ansar al Sharia in Libya, specifically on 9/11/12?
That’s a good question – unfortunately however, it’s a question without a factual answer. I don’t know; and an argument can be made that given all of the players and the influx of their communication it’s quite possible there was some coordination of effort.
What is factually certain is any communication they did have had nothing to do with a ridiculous U-Tube video.
The Cairo protest was 100% certain to be about the release of the Blind Sheik.
Was the Benghazi attack related in some effort to gain a hostage (Chris Stevens) as leverage toward that Al Zawahiri effort? Possible. I’ve seen that argument made, but have not been able to definitively connect the two.
It is a hard question to answer because the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammed Al Zawahiri (the brother of al-Qaeda’s #1 Ayman Al Zawahiri), and the leadership of Ansar Al Sharia were not necessarily telling the foot soldiers the plans or larger objectives.
We do, however, believe the answer, if known, would be known by Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and his team of military and intelligence people. The most reasonable approach is to listen to the Egyptian intelligence leadership on this point.
News headlines, articles, photos and videos from alternative media and mainstream sources. The EU and Brexit. Internet censorship, the war on free speech and government surveillance. Wars in the Middle East and around the world
“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.
![This photo was taken at 1:28am Benghazi time. [7:28pm DC] Following a one hour phone call between POTUS, V-Potus, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu](https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/white-house-9-11-12-donilon-mcdonough.jpg)
At the exact time Clinton was speaking in North Carolina, halfway around the world in Afghanistan Army Chief Warrant Officers 
