Posts Tagged ‘Chris Stevens’

Whistleblowers: Did Clinton push sale of missiles to al-Qaeda?

Hillary Clinton

by Leonardo Blair

Newscast Media WASHINGTON—Two former U.S. diplomats are reporting that whistleblowers are getting ready to reveal information that might turn the simmering Benghazi scandal into an explosive fiasco for both former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Barack Obama.

According to a PJ Media report, the whistleblowers who are colleagues of the ex-diplomats are now securing lawyers because the areas in which they work aren’t fully covered by the Whistleblower law.

PJ Media also noted that while the information “is largely hearsay…the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.”

The revelations according to the diplomats will focus on Ambassador Chris Stevens’ real purpose in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens was killed during a controversial attack on the U.S. consulate on September 11 in Benghazi last year.

“Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming ‘insurgents’ with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft,” said the report.

However, it continued: “Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted ‘to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.’” Muammar Gaddafi, the former Libyan leader, was allegedly killed on October 20, 2011.

But according to the report, Clinton’s decision on Gaddafi allegedly “left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the ‘insurgents’ actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.”

The whistleblowers are also expected to reveal how General Carter Ham, then leader of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was pressured not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel in Libya.

“Military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops ‘assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours),’” said the report.

“Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House ‘called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.’”

Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.


Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Joseph Earnest - May 24, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,

Liberals push the war on women myth and play victim card

The Congressional Black Caucus with women from the House and Nancy Pelosi to the far right in white. --Photo by Joseph Earnest

Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—As Senator Dianne Feinstein continues her investigation on the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, liberals are pushing the narrative that Republicans are waging a war on women, because Senator John McCain believes Susan Rice gave misleading and conflicting statements about the death of Chris Stevens.

The victim card was first played by Obama who said last week, “If Senator McCain and Senator Graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me. But to go after the UN Ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi?”

Having set the stage, Black liberal women followed in Obama’s footsteps, with Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis leading the pack who said, “To batter this woman because they don’t feel they have the ability to batter President Obama is something we the women are not going to stand by and watch. Their feckless and reckless speculation is unworthy of their offices as senators.”

“It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities,” Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told journalists at a news conference on Capitol Hill. On Monday USA Today wrote an article asserting:

“While the two Republican senators might prevail in keeping Rice from becoming secretary of State — either by forestalling her nomination or blocking a Senate confirmation vote — their opposition to her almost certainly will be seen by many others as proof of a GOP war on women. And that will cost Republicans dearly at the polls. A dozen female members of the House of Representatives drove home that point when they held a news conference to accuse McCain and Graham of being sexist and racist in their attack on Rice, who is black.”

To refresh the memory of liberals who are playing the sexist and race card, where were they in 2005 when Condoleeza Rice’s reputation was being impugned by liberals over a war in Iraq she had nothing to do with? Why did Democrats fight so hard to block the first Black female Secretary of State if they themselves weren’t sexist? Does the war on women only pertain to liberal women, but not conservatives?

In a CNN article dated January 5, 2005 Senator Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin opposed her with Durban saying, “Dr. Condoleezza Rice was in the room, at the table, when decisions were made, and she has to accept responsibility for what she said.”

The war on women is a myth invented by liberals. The underlying theme on this imaginary war always has to with sexual connotations, which is evident from the attacks made on women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Watch below:

Video courtesy SHEPAC

Until liberals start speaking up for the women in places like the Middle East, and Asia who experience antagonism, they will always be viewed as hypocrites who care nothing about women, but are agitators and button-pushers who accuse anyone who opposes them of being anti-Obama, racist or sexist.


Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Joseph Earnest - November 20, 2012 at 6:24 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Pt.2 Ambassador Chris Stevens–The Benghazi cover-up

John McCain

Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C—”I don’t know if it’s either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence, which doesn’t qualify the president as commander in chief,” John McCain said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday, as published by CBS News in this article.

While some might think McCain is on a “wild goose chase”, there seems to be a method to his madness. We should therefore consider and explore the cover-up as the fourth theory.

The question this journalist must now confront is, “What is the cover-up?”

During the civil war that eventually led to the overthrow of Libya’s Col. Gaddafi, it was reported that his immense cache of weapons that he had accumulated over decades went missing.

“All of Libya is a grand arms bazaar,” said Mr. Peter Bouckaert, who said it appeared that SA-14 and SA-7 missiles had also been taken.

Speaking to the BBC from Tripoli, Mr. Bouckaert said the rebels had no use for SAMs anymore, given that there was no longer a threat from the air, but that they were still going missing – and were often the first to go.

“It begs the question – why are these being so sought out?” He asked, according to the BBC.

In Part 1 we settled the question regarding how Stevens found himself in Benghazi, now we have to link the al-Qaeda rebels to him, before we can answer the question of the cover-up.

During the uprising, Libyan rebel commander Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, admitted in an interview with Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore that members of Al Qaeda whom he referred to as “good Muslims” were fighting with the rebels in Libya.

It’s the reason Gaddafi called them “rats” because his intel identified al-Qaeda elements amongst the rebels.

We also know that they were al-Qaeda rebels fighting, because after Benghazi had been overriden they flew the al-Qaeda flag above the Benghazi courthouse.

After Gaddafi was overthrown, these same rebels began occupying Benghazi, and we saw earlier that Chris Stevens was sent as a liaison to the Libyan opposition. We’ve also determined, based on the rebel commander Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi’s interview, that al-Qaeda was among the opposition. We have therefore established a link between al-Qaeda and Chris Stevens the “liaison” as described by Hillary. We should now take this a step further and ask, “How would the rebels and the US benefit from each other, since Stevens was sent to create a bridge between the two?”

In order to answer that question, we also have to also answer the question above posed to the BBC by Mr. Peter Bouckaert, who asked, “Why are these weapons (SA-14 and SA-7 missiles) being sought out? The answer will help us hit two birds with one stone.

The first question has to do with how the US would benefit from creating a bridge between Stevens and opposition, and the answer is, they (the opposition) were the ones who would be used as pawns to fight the war in Syria in exchange for the US helping remove Gaddafi—Without outside intervention, the rebels could not do it by themselves.

The second question by Mr. Bouckart as to why the SA-14 and SA-7 missiles were being sought out, and where the cache of weapons had disappeared, also point to Syria. Those are the same weapons that would be used to bring down Assad’s jets and helicopters, and would also be used to destroy tanks.

Yet in order to fully solve this puzzle, we have to be able to place the Libyan opposition and al-Qaeda in Syria. After all, we have just determined that the weapons cache would be used in Syria against Assad, by these very same rebels. After we place the rebels in Syria, we also have to place the weapons that disappeared, in Syria.

Ruth Sherlock of The Telegraph, was on the ground in Idlib province in Syria, and according to her, when she asked the leader of the Free Syria Army (FSA) who the fighters were in Syria, he identified them as Libyans.

“Libyans”, muttered the rebel Free Syria Army leader under his breath, shooting the men a dirty look. “We don’t want these extremist people here. Look at them; we didn’t have this style in Syria – who is this? Bin Laden?” The Telegraph reported in this article.

After we place the weapons in Syria, the cover-up McCain was talking about will begin to make sense. Part 3. Continue to the cover-up alluded to by McCain>>


Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Joseph Earnest - October 30, 2012 at 8:43 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Pt.1 Was Chris Stevens linked to a Benghazi Fast and Furious?

Barack Obama

Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C—The Benghazi murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens refuses to go away. The more the administration evades questions on the subject, the more people hypothesize what took place and why it happened. There are several theories floating around as to why Chris Stevens was killed. All theories will be explored in a three-part series, including an analysis by this writer.

The controversy stems from the untimely death of Chris Stevens who was stationed in Libya. How, we should ask, did Chris Stevens end up in Benghazi?

It all started when Stevens attended Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meeting in Paris on Monday night March 14, 2011 with representatives of the Libyan opposition, as did U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz, who has also had contacts with the opposition. Stevens was thereafter assigned to Benghazi by Hillary Clinton as reported by ABC News.

Christopher Steven had also converted to Islam and was a Sufi Muslim, something the media neglects to report. He therefore felt comfortable accepting the job in a predominantly Muslim country like Libya. Now that we have established how Stevens ended up in Libya, the next question we should ask is, “What went wrong?”

There are several theories that I will tackle on an individual basis. The first theory was floated by the White House upon his death, which was, Chris Stevens died as a result of a YouTube amateur video. This first theory should be rejected, since there is no evidence linking the video to Chris Stevens’ murder, and it has already been proven that his assassination had been planned in advance.

The second theory is that Chris Stevens died because the administration was kept in the dark, therefore they had no time to rescue him. Again, this theory is not only erroneous but also misleading, as we have now found out through emails released by CBS News, that the White House was receiving real-time intel about the Benghazi attack. Accordingly, this theory may not be considered, and must also be rejected.

The third theory is that Christopher Stevens was a closet homosexual and when Muslims found out about his sexual orientation, he was raped then killed. This theory originated from the Chicago gay district, thereafter the story went viral.

Kevin DuJan, a gay radio and TV commentator on politics in Chicago said, “I was told by friends in the City’s protocol office to go over to the Second Story Bar in downtown Chicago, just off Michigan Avenue, because it’s where a lot of gay guys who work for both the city and the consulates go after work…The Serbian consulate employee identified himself to me as “Dino” and wouldn’t give me any more of a name than that, but told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that “it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual,”" as he details his findings on his blog.

Pt 2: Find out the truth behind the Chris Stevens murder>>


Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Joseph Earnest - at 8:26 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,

CBS uncovers the truth and emails behind Benghazi-gate

Barack Obama

Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—CBS News has stunned the mainstream media by releasing emails showing the Obama administration was aware that the Benghazi attacks were conducted by terrorists. In the emails, there is no mention of a Mohammed video or demonstrations getting out of hand. This revelation is very unusual considering how the mainstream media is extremely protective of Barack Obama.

In an article we published last week, CBS journalist Lara Logan criticized the Obama administration for its misleading statements about the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, that led to the deaths of Chris Stevens and three other Americans. She also criticized the media who cover terrorism for not paying attention to what terrorists are saying about America.

“Our way of life is under attack. And if you think that is government propaganda, if you think that’s nonsense, if you think that’s war-mongering, you’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight,” Logan said emphatically.

“In your arrogance, you think you write the script, but you don’t. There’s two sides and we don’t dictate the terms,” she added.

CBS has obtained emails in which the State Department, in one if its emails, has the subject line: “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack”

The body of the email reads: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

The State Department sent these emails out on September 11, the same day the attacks happened.

Click here to read or download the emails.

The Obama administration initially claimed the attacks were triggered by a YouTube video, while Mitt Romney called them terrorist attacks. After pressure from the media and the public, the administration upgraded them to terror attacks. Whether or not this will have an impact on the election remains to be seen.


Be the first to comment - What do you think?  Posted by Joseph Earnest - October 24, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , ,