Benghazi: Libyan Terrorists Got Arms From Obama Administration

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wehrwolfen, Dec 10, 2012.

  1. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    Benghazi: Libyan Terrorists Got Arms From Obama Administration​




    Eurasia Review ^
    09 December 2012
    Jim Kouri

    In spite of the threat of American weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups, President Barack Obama secretly approved an arms transfer to Libyan rebels through Qatar at the height of the rebellion against Moamar Khadhafi, a knowledgeable source noted on Friday.

    However, American counterterrorists are discovering that some of those U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of radical Islamists including associates of al-Qaeda, according to a law enforcement source who trained police in the Middle East.

    Some Americans who are retired from the military, as well as intelligence and law enforcement agencies, believe there should be an investigation into possible connections between the weapons provided by the Qataris back then and the attack that killed an American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

    During the months leading up to the terrorist attacks, the Obama administration worried about its part in helping to arm the Libyan rebels who were members of terrorist organizations especially so close to Election Day. (Could this be why BenghaziGate was hushed up and lied about by Obama and the MSM?)
    Experts believe that Obama’s experience with arming Libyan rebels is why his administration is nervous about arming the rebels in Syria, where money and weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries. It’s widely believed that al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups are active in the Syrian rebellion.

    Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are reportedly supplying weapons and equipment to the Syrian rebels. But the Obama administration continues its refusal to directly arm the Syrian opposition, for fear that the weapons may end up in the hands of the more hard-line Islamist groups in the Arab country, said a source within federal law enforcement.



    Read more:
    Benghazi: Libyan Terrorists Got Arms From Obama Administration
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,680
    Thanks Received:
    4,703
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,922
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    So Lakhota, Why does the fact that Obama provided weapons to Al Qaeda bother you that much?
     
  4. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,680
    Thanks Received:
    4,703
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,922
    Nope. Not at all.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    I asked why. It's obvious that it does bother you. Else why would you go into threads on the topic with completely irrelevant tripe that no one cares about?
     
  6. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,680
    Thanks Received:
    4,703
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,922
    Shit happens. Bush proved that.
     
  7. BlindBoo
    Offline

    BlindBoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    19,590
    Thanks Received:
    2,194
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,388
    So what are they going to call this latest pseudo-scandel? Furious Benghazi-Gate?
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,150
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,864
    AQ and the Dems seem to have the same goals, that's why Dems don't care about the dead Ambassador or the lies
     
  9. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,097
    Thanks Received:
    10,151
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,637
    they izzzz just little bumps in bamie's road.
     
  10. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    [snip]
    These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:

    You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]​

    [snip]
    What these and other such statements remind us is that, by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade, ever since the first Gulf war in the early 1990’s. (This was literally the case, the end of hostilities in 1991 being merely a cease-fire and not a formal surrender followed by a peace treaty.) Not only that, but the diplomatic and military framework Bush inherited for neutralizing the Middle East’s most fearsome dictator had been approved by the United Nations.

    [snip]
    Saddam had the WMD know-how, as well as probable stockpiles, that terrorist groups like al Qaeda might want for future operations. Just weeks before 9/11, a privately sponsored exercise had simulated a smallpox attack on the United States. The results were chilling: more than three million people infected within two months, and one million dead. “Today,” declared the official report, “we are ill-equipped to prevent the dire consequences of a biological-weapon attack”—a conclusion that would cast a shadow of apprehension over the post-9/11 Defense Department, as dark as the shadow cast by the anthrax scare that gripped the country after five people received fatal doses in the mail and by the discovery during the invasion of Afghanistan that the Taliban had been experimenting with chemical weapons.

    [snip]
    In September 2002 the Senate virtually arm-twisted Bush into giving it time to pass a new and more specific resolution than the Clinton-era one authorizing regime change in Iraq. In ringing the tocsin, moreover, leading Democrats spoke at least as assertively as leading Republicans. One of them was Charles Schumer:

    "Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations . . . make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States". ​

    Another was Hillary Clinton:

    My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s.​

    John Edwards was still another:

    Every day [Saddam] gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.​

    Howard Dean, then the governor of Vermont, was of a similar mind:

    There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. and our allies. ​

    But let's blame it all on President Bush. It's more than apparent Democrats are just as culpable as the Republicans for the war with Iraq and now facing intervention in Syria.
     

Share This Page