NEVER TOLERATE TYRANNY!....Conservative voices from the GRASSROOTS.

State Dept Hired Al-Qaeda To Defend Diplomatic Mission In Benghazi

Treason is a crime which is unforgivable. Americans died in Benghazi and we have received nothing but lies from this administration. Why would the Obama administration put money into the hands of those who proudly displayed the Al Qaeda flag on their Facebook page?

Today Newsmax reported:

The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi had clear AL-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the AL-Qaida flag on a Facebook page for some months before the deadly attack.

This is the original cover photo of the Facebook Page maintained by the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade” which flies an Al Qaeda flag.

That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack.

The assault claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.

This story surfaced back in October with The Daily Beast, which details the political fallout tied to the hiring of the Martyrs Brigade in a cable sent by Ambassador Stevens:

Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.

The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.

The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty.

The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault.  The U.S. consulate in Benghazi employed a militia called the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade” for security of the four-building compound. In addition, there were five Americans serving as diplomatic security and a group of former special operations forces that acted as a quick reaction force on the day of the 9/11 attack. Members of the militias led by bin-Ahmed and al-Gharabi overlapped with the February 17 militia, the cable says.

The same article from The Daily Beast notes:

Jason Chaffetz, the Republican lawmaker who has led the House Oversight and Government Reform committee’s investigation into the 9/11 attack, says the State Department actually decreased U.S. diplomatic security personnel in the months leading up to the attack.

The Wikipedia listing on The February 17th Martyrs Brigade is as follows:

The Martyrs of 17 February Brigade are considered to be the biggest and best armed militia in eastern Libya. The brigade is financed by the Libyan defence ministry. The brigade consists of at least 12 battalions and possesses a large collection of light and heavy weapons in addition to training facilities. Its membership is estimated at between 1,500 and 3,500. The group has carried out various security and law and order tasks in eastern Libya and Kufra in the south. Some of its members are also believed to be fighting the Assad regime in Syria. [1]

The February 17th Martyrs Brigade also flies the al-Qaeda flag on their Facebook page, and have been al-Qaeda sympathizers for a very long time. [2]

There is also evidence that The February 17th Martyrs Brigade disbanded after the Benghazi attacks:

A few hours after the attack, Martyrs of February 17, together with Bou Salim Martyrs brigade, allegedly agreed to disband,[18] however about 150-200 militiamen moved from Benghazi to Jebel Akhdar area.[19]

Of course they disbanded. Their work was done. Do you smell an Al Qaeda set up?

This whole set up stinks of treason. Not only were we putting money into the hands of Al Qaeda, we were quite possibly arming Syrian rebels in the process. More and more it is starting to look like the U.S. was inviting these attacks on Benghazi and Americans deserve to know the truth.

Why would any American leader hire an organization with the word “Martyrs” in its name? I know my thinking is somewhat simplistic but I think it is a fair question. It makes zero sense. Zero. I understand the significance of the February 17th date. This is the date of the Libyan liberation.

But the term “Martyr” strongly implies those who died or are willing to die for Allah. Is this the kind of security force we want defending our embassies, missions and consulates? Of course they are tied to Al Qaeda. How could anyone not see this possibility? Any organization who flies an Al Qaeda flag on their Facebook page is more than tied to Al Qaeda. In my mind, if you fly the flag then you are Al Qaeda.

The Obama Administration has a lot of explaining to do. If the American people knew that this organization was being paid to defend our foreign interests there would be hell to pay in America. For some reason this story has been very much hidden behind all of the other hype and rhetoric.

So now, as the truth comes out, there is hell to pay in America.

We want answers and we want accountability. Impeachment will not be enough.

An offense of this magnitude cries of treason and demands prosecution. That’s a fact.

Here is a legal definition of treason:

The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

So what do you think? Would sending money to those known to support our enemies qualify as treason? Unfortunately that is an argument to be had by legal scholars and legislators, but I know how the American people would answer that question.

Get angry America.

What is it going to take for you to get angry?

Read more:

Views: 37


You need to be a member of REAL CONSERVATIVES to add comments!


Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on May 5, 2013 at 11:35am


(May 3, 2013) — 6:15 p.m. EDT – Dr. Grace Vuoto, a guest on Carl Gallups’ “Freedom Friday” radio show, is revealing as this article goes to press that new information showing that guns were being run to Syrian rebels up to September 11, 2012 through the U.S. “consulate” in Benghazi, Libya “could bring down the president of the United States.”

Dr. Vuoto, known as “Dr. Grace,” said that a report of which Congress is now in possession shows that Hillary Clinton “clearly lied under oath” when she testified to two congressional committees on January 23 that she played no part in diminishing security at the outpost.

Clinton had also asked “What difference does it make?” when pressed as to the cause of death of the ambassador, an information specialist, and two former Navy SEALS who bravely tried to defend those inside the besieged compound.

Gallups asked Vuoto if Mitt Romney had raised the question of “gun-running” through Libya to Syria during the presidential campaign, to which Vuoto responded that “the president’s re-election premise” was that Al Qaeda had been defeated.  “There was some murmuring about this gun-running scheme,” Vuoto said but added that Sen. Rand Paul is demanding answers to the media reports and that the truth could be stunning.

“There are going to be congressional hearings on May 8,” Vuoto said.  As has been reported, she said that Amb. Christopher Stevens had requested more security prior to the attack on September 11 which took his life and those of the three other Americans.

Gallups commented that Dr. Vuoto’s news dovetailed with things he and Lt. Mike Zullo have been “working on,” referencing the investigation into Obama’s long-form birth certificate which determined that it is an abject forgery and is approaching the level of federal prosecution.

Four “whistleblowers” will be testifying to Congress beginning on Wednesday whom Vuoto described as having been “intimidated,” which has been reported by Fox News and other outlets this week.

Vuoto discussed the fact that chemical weapons have been found to have been used by Syrian dictator Bashir Assad.  Although Obama had stated previously that that would be “a line in the sand,” when the use of the weapons was confirmed, he merely said that he would leave the remedy to “the international community.”

Gallups agreed with Vuoto that Obama’s comportment has been unacceptable for a president of the United States, particularly recently, and stated that Obama’s presidency has been “a fake.”

Referring to Obama’s press conference on Monday, Vuoto called it “a joke.”

Following the September 11 attack, members of the Obama regime told the American public that it had resulted from “a protest.” However, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to members of Congress that talking points provided by the agency to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice and Clinton had been altered to omit references to Islamic terror.  An article by Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard describes a report obtained from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence containing emails which indicated that the official story on Benghazi had been changed several times to avoid the admission that a terrorist attack had occurred.

The report is now in the possession of the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives.

Hayes stated that “If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.”

Earlier this week, a guest whose identity was protected stated on camera that witnesses of the Benghazi terrorist attack had been threatened with “decapitation” if they were to speak out about what they know.

Gallups interviewed Zullo during the first part of his show this evening.

Gallups’ show is heard on 1330 WEBY on Fridays from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. central time.

Comment by Gordon Ray Kissinger on May 5, 2013 at 11:27am

The Difference it makes: Hillary Clinton’s spokesman involved in altering of Benghazi Talking Points?

As Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) – powerful member of the House Oversight Committee – puts it, there are ‘three tranches’ when it comes to the larger scandal known Benghazi-gate.

  1. The decision not to provide security beforehand
  2. What happened during the siege, why assets were not employed
  3. Why Susan Rice mislead all of us on five Sunday talk shows

When it comes to tranche number three, an article by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard sheds some bright light on what problems the Obama administration will be facing. In essence, despite prior protestations, it is now crystal clear that there were forces at work – particularly in the State Department – who did not like the language in the talking points put forth by the Intelligence community on Friday, September 14th, three days after the attacks in Benghazi.

Demonstrable evidence seems to suggest that the CIA’s original talking points were more closely aligned with witness accounts from individuals on the ground in Benghazi. Remember, witness accounts are being headlined as the reason for compelling hearings on May 8th.

Via WS:

A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported thateyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

Fast forward to Friday, September 14th. That evening, officials at the top of various departments and agencies received the CIA community’s version of the talking points that were distributed internally earlier that day. According to Hayes, it didn’t take long for Hillary Clinton’s mouthpiece to object:

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland,worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

Ain’t it interesting that it took the State Department less than one hour to respond to Benghazi talking points it didn’t like but neglected to respond to the Benghazi attacks themselves, which went on for several hours? It’s also interesting to note that earlier that day, at the White House Press Briefing, Obama spokesman Jay Carney implied – quite overtly – that the video was responsible for those attacks. When pressed, he deferred to asking the reporter to prove a negative:

Click Here to sign up for our daily newsletter and never miss what’...

Hayes then writes about the reaction of Nuland (Hillary’s mouthpiece) later that evening, after the CIA created version two of the talking points:

…in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.”

Questions: If Nuland was the official voice / mouthpiece of the Secretary of State, who were her superiors? Was there someone between her and Hillary? If so, who? Then again, does it really matter? Nuland was either Hillary’s spokesman or she was not. If she was, wasn’t she necessarily speaking for Hillary when she said her superiors were not happy?

According to Hayes, the next day – Saturday, the 15th – administration officials would get to work on those talking points.

…according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above).Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

Though not mentioned, it’s at least conceivable at this point – one day prior to Susan Rice going on those Sunday shows – that CIA Director David Petraeus was becoming persona non grata (remember his affair with Paula Broadwell was made public very shortly after the election).

Check out what was attributed to Petraeus on the afternoon of September 14th, via ABC News, presumably after Carney pointed to the video earlier that day:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

We are left to conclude that when Nuland said her superiors were ‘not happy’ on the evening of September 14th, much of that displeasure was likely attributable to what Petraeus said earlier that day as well as what his agency put forth in its initial version of what happened in Benghazi on the night of the 11th.

Again, if the spokesman for the Secretary of State had ‘superiors’, who were they? Did they not include Hillary Clinton herself? Her advisors? Her Deputy Chief of Staff, whose family would most assuredly not want the Benghazi attackers identified as al-Qaeda or Ansar al-Sharia – offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group to which the mother of Hillary’s Deputy Chief of Staff belonged? The spokesman for the Secretary of State is the equivalent of a ventriloquist dummy with the hand in its back being the Secretary of State.

It should indeed be clear why the misleading statements of Susan Rice on September 16th constitute a significant ‘tranche’ of this investigation.

For some reason, this clip of Hillary just becomes more relevant by the day:

About Shoebat Foundation

Born in Bethlehem of Judea, Walid's grandfather was the Muslim Mukhtar (chieftain) of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem (The Shepherd's Fields) and a friend of Haj-Ameen Al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and notorious friend of Adolf Hitler. Walid's great grandfather, Abdullah Ali Awad-Allah, was also a fighter and close associate of both Abdul Qader and Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who led the Palestinians against Israel. Walid lived through and witnessed Israel’s Six Day War while living in Jericho. As a young man, he became a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and participated in acts of terror and violence against Israel, and was later imprisoned in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem's central prison for incitement and violence against Israel. After his release, he continued his life of violence and rioting in Bethlehem and the Temple Mount. After entering the U.S, he worked as a counselor for the Arab Student Organization at Loop College in Chicago and continued his anti-Israel activities. In 1993, Walid studied the Tanach (Jewish Bible) in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam. Six months later, after intense study, Walid realized that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. Convinced he was on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy. Driven by a deep passion to heal his own soul, and to bring the truth about the Jews and Israel to the world, Walid shed his former life and his work as a software engineer and set out to tirelessly bring the cause of Israel to tens of thousands of people throughout the world: churches and synagogues, civic groups, government leaders and media.






Order our book!

$ 9.95







The book RIGHT SIDE UP is a compilation of choice content from this web site...reflecting sometimes forgotten, purely Traditional American Values...


The Unborn

...let them BE !

Image result for BABY BLUE EYES













"The Fox, Golden Gate and Mohammed's Daughter"



© 2023   Created by Your Uncle Sam.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service