The Libya attack scandal

This scandal could dwarf “fast and furious” -

Did White House arm al-Qaida operatives who killed U.S. ambassador?

WND,

30 September, 2012

While echoes of the “Fast and Furious” scandal still resound in the White House, another administration decision at the heart of Obama’s Mideast policy may prove even more explosive.

Almost entirely missing from the debate surrounding the anti-U.S. attacks in Libya is the administration’s policy of arming jihadists to overthrow Mideast governments. But in the case of Libya, the arming of jihadists may have directly resulted in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the subsequent murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, private security employees and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

After changing its story multiple times, the White House finally conceded the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate was a planned attack linked to al-Qaida, as per information released by national intelligence agencies.

The admission prompted Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to call for the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for pushing the narrative that the attacks were part of a spontaneous uprising.

King may instead want to focus his investigative energies on the larger story: How the Obama administration armed Libyan rebels who were known to include al-Qaida and other anti-Western jihadists, and how the White House is currently continuing that same policy in Syria.

During the revolution against Muammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.

At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi boasted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida gunmen, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Even Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted during the Libyan revolution that Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”

At the time, former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”

The arming of the Libyan rebels may have aided in the attacks on our consulate in Libya. One witness to those attacks said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.

The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.

Ambassador Stevens was directly involved in arming the rebels, reported Egyptian security officials speaking to WND. Those officials claimed Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The officials further claimed Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The Egyptian security officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

Regardless of Stevens’ alleged role, the Obama administration now continues to support the Syrian rebels, including the Free Syrian Army, despite widespread reports that al-Qaida is prominent among their ranks.

In addition to a reported $450 million in emergency cash for the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday announced $45 million in additional aid for Syrian the opposition after nearly $100 million was provided to the Syrian rebels this year.

The problem? Last month, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at lease 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.

Also last month, WND reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.

WND reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida, as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.

The military official said that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates 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.

U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels, while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.

Is U.S. aid to Syrian rebels helping al-Qaida?

Secret assistance to rebel groups may be winding up in the hands of America's greatest enemies

Baltimore Sun,

16 August , 2012

A recent intelligence leak confirms something that regular readers of this column already know: that the Obama administration has officially authorized covert support of local "rebel" groups, through government agencies like the CIA, with the goal of destabilizing and subverting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. The interesting consequence is that al-Qaida is likely among the groups President Obama's directive now supports.

Just think about this for a minute. The president of the United States, according to an intelligence leak initially reported by Reuters, has secretly authorized support of an undisclosed nature for armed fighters in a region, including members of the group now synonymous with terrorism against American and Western interests in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Presumably, Mr. Obama is leaving it up to those responsible for distributing said "support" to ensure that no arms fall into the hands of any al-Qaida members. But the reality is that, given the fog of war permeating Syria right now, Mr. Obama would have better luck determining which trick-or-treating children arriving at his door on any given Halloween are little hellions undeserving of candy.

Mr. Obama reportedly signed the order earlier this year, closer to when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggested to the Senate Armed Services Committee that al-Qaida had taken a discreet approach in Syria, choosing not to draw attention to itself. The Washington Post quoted Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess as saying that there was no "clarion call to outsiders coming in."

Well, Mr. Burgess must not have gotten the memo, because just a few days earlier, al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri had issued that call, declaring in an eight-minute video: "Wounded Syria is still bleeding day after day, and the butcher (Assad) isn't deterred and doesn't stop. However, the resistance of our people in Syria is escalating and growing despite all the pains, sacrifices and blood."

Mr. Obama has now engaged America in a covert war against a regime trying to wipe out al-Qaida. If this was at all about fighting global terrorism, Mr. Obama would just sit back and do precisely nothing while al-Qaida spilled into Syria and Mr. Assad's forces wiped them out. Mr. Assad is a horrible guy, but is it really worth getting in bed with al-Qaida to have a hand in his ouster?

If Mr. Obama's order had anything to do with humanitarian intervention to assist the Syrian civilian population, he would be following Canada's lead in differentiating between genuinely innocent civilians and the undifferentiated mass of rebel fighters -- providing strictly humanitarian aid and protection to the former while letting the latter fight it out with Mr. Assad.

Russian officials once rebuffed the Islamic extremists of the region when they actively sought Russian cooperation against America in Afghanistan post-9/11. Why couldn't Mr. Obama find the sense to do the same?

It's because this is about economics and position, nothing else. And for some harebrained reason, Mr. Obama sees fit to take a chance on dealing with al-Qaida in order to make inroads rather than being upfront, honest and authentic with China and Russia over what America really wants out of Mr. Assad's ouster in Syria: economic benefits and favorable geopolitical positioning. Could there possibly be a bigger slap in the face to the leaders of Russia and China than to suggest, via covert yet concrete action, that taking a chance on the group responsible for the most heinous act of terrorism on American soil is preferable to dealing with the leaders of those nations forthrightly and honestly?

Now it's all too late, and a hangover likely awaits. Russia and China have every right to be offended by Mr. Obama trying to play them for fools all while attempting to bring them to the table under false pretenses. Does Mr. Obama think Vladimir Putin, a former director of Russian intelligence, doesn't understand subversive tactics, or that the Chinese don't understand Sun Tzu's "Art of War" principle of leveraging chaos? It's like a friend who's constantly trying to rope you into some kind of pyramid scheme under the guise of a great business opportunity. At what point do you just get fed up with it all?

Mr. Obama could have done things much differently and laid out an economic impetus for action in Syria, bringing the two major opposing geopolitical players in this particular game to the table on an honest footing rather than insulting them in seemingly every way possible. Is there no one in this administration capable of constructing an honest, forthright, respectful diplomatic pitch? Subterfuge and deception should be reserved for those lacking the intelligence, creativity and character to do anything else.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and former Fox News host who writes regularly for major publications in the U.S. and abroad. Her new book, "American Bombshell: A Tale of Domestic and International Invasion," is available through Amazon.com. Her website can be found at http://www.rachelmarsden.com.