Clinton says removing Assad in Syria is No. 1 priority

[MikeWB]

Forget about ISIS... US doesn't give a fuck about ISIS. Priority has always been removing Assad.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-usa-election-clinton-syria-idUSKCN0RZ1C020151005
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton makes a point during a speech to supporters at the Human Rights Campaign Breakfast in Washington, October 3, 2015.
Reuters/Joshua Roberts

HOLLIS, N.H. U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Monday said removing President Bashar al-Assad is the top priority in Syria.

Clinton, speaking at a town hall meeting in Hollis, said the United States should pursue a diplomatic solution in resolving Syria's internal conflict.

[Idaho Kid]

Well, what do ya know.  and here I was thinking that stapling her mouth to her arsehole was our top priority. 

[rmstock]

Goto 5:40 and hear Assange speak about the chapter titled `Syria' in his
book "The Wikileak Files", and mentions a cable from then acting deputy
chief of mission William Roebuck at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus
suggesting the toppling of Assad in a memo written in 2006.

U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain: Who Is William Roebuck?
-Steve Straehley , Sunday, October 19, 2014
http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/us-ambassador-to-bahrain-who-is-william-roebuck-141019?news=854569
  "[ ... ]
   His first assignment was as a consular officer in Kingston, Jamaica,
   until 1994. In 1995, Roebuck had his first posting to the Middle East,
   as a political officer in the consulate in Jerusalem. He returned to
   Washington in 1997 to become a staff assistant to the assistant
   secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. The following year, he
   began to study Arabic at the Foreign Service institutes in Washington
   and Tunis, Tunisia.
   
   Roebuck began an eventful tour as political officer at the U.S. Embassy
   in Tel Aviv in 2000. He worked on political issues in the Gaza Strip.
   On October 15, 2003, a convoy in which he was riding in Gaza City drove
   over a buried improvised explosive device (IED). Three American private
   security officers were killed in the explosion. Roebuck had been on his
   way to interview potential Fulbright scholars.
   
   Roebuck was named political section chief at the U.S. Embassy in
   Damascus, Syria, in 2004 and for the last year of his tour was acting
   deputy chief of mission. He was brought home in 2007 as deputy office
   director in the Office of Arabian Peninsula Affairs. He served a tour
   in Baghdad from July 2009 until August 2010 as deputy political
   counselor at the embassy there. His main emphasis was providing support
   for national elections in March 2010 He returned to Washington in
   September 2010 as director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs, a post he
   held until December 2012.
   
   Roebuck was sent to Libya in January 2013 in the wake of the attacks on
   the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi to serve as chargé d'affaires at the
   embassy in Tripoli, staying there for six months.
   [ ... ]"


Julian Assange: US & Israel Planned To Overthrow Assad In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
By Kit O'Connell Follow @KitOConnell @KitOConnell | September 14, 2015
http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planned-to-overthrow-assad-in-2006/209493/

[rmstock]

     INFLUENCING THE SARG IN THE END OF 2006
     Date: 2006 December 13, 16:03 (Wednesday)
     Canonical ID: 06DAMASCUS5399_a   (raw cable)
     https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

     
     S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 DAMASCUS 005399

     SIPDIS

     SIPDIS

     NEA/ELA
     NSC FOR MARCHESE
     TREASURY FOR GLASER/LEBENSON

     E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/30/2016
     TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PTER, SY
     SUBJECT: INFLUENCING THE SARG IN THE END OF 2006

     Classified By: CDA William Roebuck, for reasons 1.5 b/d
   
     1. (S) Summary. The SARG ends 2006 in a much stronger
     position domestically and internationally than it did 2005.
     While there may be additional bilateral or multilateral
     pressure that can impact Syria, the regime is based on a
     small clique that is largely immune to such pressure.
     However, Bashar Asad's growing self-confidence )- and
     reliance on this small clique -- could lead him to make
     mistakes and ill-judged policy decisions through trademark
     emotional reactions to challenges, providing us with new
     opportunities. For example, Bashar,s reaction to the
     prospect of Hariri tribunal and to publicity for Khaddam
     and the National Salvation Front borders on the irrational.
     Additionally, Bashar,s reported preoccupation with his image
     and how he is perceived internationally is a potential
     liability in his decision making process. We believe
     Bashar,s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to
     looming issues, both perceived and real, such as a the
     conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and
     entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the
     potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence
     of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our
     assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there
     may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send
     that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities
     arising. These proposals will need to be fleshed out and
     converted into real actions and we need to be ready to move
     quickly to take advantage of such opportunities. Many of our
     suggestions underline using Public Diplomacy and more
     indirect means to send messages that influence the inner
     circle. End Summary.
     
     2.  (S) As the end of 2006 approaches, Bashar appears in some
     ways stronger than he has in two years. The country is
     economically stable (at least for the short term), internal
     opposition the regime faces is weak and intimidated, and
     regional issues seem to be going Syria,s way, from
     Damascus, perspective. Nonetheless, there are some
     long-standing vulnerabilities and looming issues that may
     provide opportunities to up the pressure on Bashar and his
     inner circle. Regime decision-making is limited to Bashar
     and an inner circle that often produces poorly thought-out
     tactical decisions and sometimes emotional approaches, such
     as Bashar,s universally derided August 15 speech. Some of
     these vulnerabilities, such as the regime,s near-irrational
     views on Lebanon, can be exploited to put pressure on the
     regime. Actions that cause Bashar to lose balance and
     increase his insecurity are in our interest because his
     inexperience and his regime,s extremely small
     decision-making circle make him prone to diplomatic stumbles
     that can weaken him domestically and regionally. While the
     consequences of his mistakes are hard to predict and the
     benefits may vary, if we are prepared to move quickly to take
     advantage of the opportunities that may open up, we may
     directly impact regime behavior where it matters--Bashar and
     his inner circle.
     
     3.   (S) The following provides our summary of potential
     vulnerabilities and possible means to exploit them:
     
     -- Vulnerability:
     
     -- THE HARIRI INVESTIGATION AND THE TRIBUNAL: The Hariri
     investigation ) and the prospect of a Lebanon Tribunal --
     has provoked powerful SARG reactions, primarily because of
     the embarrassment the investigation causes. Rationally, the
     regime should calculate that it can deal with any summons of
     Syrian officials by refusing to turn any suspects over, or,
     in extreme cases by engineering "suicides.8 But it seems
     the real issue for Bashar is that Syria,s dignity and its
     international reputation are put in question. Fiercely-held
     sentiments that Syria should continue to exercise dominant
     control in Lebanon play into these sensitivities. We should
     seek to exploit this raw nerve, without waiting for formation
     of the tribunal.
     
     
     -- Possible action:
     
     -- PUBLICITY: Publicly highlighting the consequences of the
     ongoing investigation a la Mehlis causes Bashar personal
     
     
     DAMASCUS 00005399 002 OF 004
     
     
     angst and may lead him to act irrationally. The regime has
     deep-seated fears about the international scrutiny that a
     tribunal -- or Brammertz accusations even against
     lower-echelon figures -- would prompt. The Mehlis
     accusations of October 2005 caused the most serious strains
     in Bashar's inner circle. While the family got back
     together, these splits may lie just below the surface.
     
     -- Vulnerability:
     
     -- THE ALLIANCE WITH TEHRAN: Bashar is walking a fine line in
     his increasingly strong relations with Iran, seeking
     necessary support while not completely alienating Syria,s
     moderate Sunni Arab neighbors by being perceived as aiding
     Persian and fundamentalist Shia interests. Bashar's decision
     to not attend the Talabani ) Ahmadinejad summit in Tehran
     following FM Moallem,s trip to Iraq can be seen as a
     manifestation of Bashar's sensitivity to the Arab optic on
     his Iranian alliance.
     
     -- Possible action:
     
     -- PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears
     in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia
     proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though
     often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni
     community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused
     on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through
     activities ranging from mosque construction to business.
     Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here, (as well as
     prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders), are giving
     increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate
     more closely with their governments on ways to better
     publicize and focus regional attention on the issue.
     
     -- Vulnerability:
     
     -- THE INNER CIRCLE: At the end of the day, the regime is
     dominated by the Asad family and to a lesser degree by Bashar
     Asad,s maternal family, the Makhlufs, with many family
     members believe to be increasingly corrupt. The family, and
     hangers on, as well as the larger Alawite sect, are not
     immune to feuds and anti-regime conspiracies, as was evident
     last year when intimates of various regime pillars (including
     the Makhloufs) approached us about post-Bashar possibilities.
     Corruption is a great divider and Bashar's inner circle is
     subject to the usual feuds and squabbles related to graft and
     corruption. For example, it is generally known that Maher
     Asad is particularly corrupt and incorrigible. He has no
     scruples in his feuds with family members or others. There
     is also tremendous fear in the Alawite community about
     retribution if the Sunni majority ever regains power.
     
     -- Possible Action:
     
     -- ADDITIONAL DESIGNATIONS: Targeted sanctions against regime
     members and their intimates are generally welcomed by most
     elements of Syrian society. But the way designations are
     applied must exploit fissures and render the inner circle
     weaker rather than drive its members closer together. The
     designation of Shawkat caused him some personal irritation
     and was the subject of considerable discussion in the
     business community here. While the public reaction to
     corruption tends to be muted, continued reminders of
     corruption in the inner circle have resonance. We should
     look for ways to remind the public of our previous
     designations.
     
     -- Vulnerability:
     
     -- THE KHADDAM FACTOR: Khaddam knows where the regime
     skeletons are hidden, which provokes enormous irritation from
     Bashar, vastly disproportionate to any support Khaddam has
     within Syria. Bashar Asad personally, and his regime in
     general, follow every news item involving Khaddam with
     tremendous emotional interest. The regime reacts with
     self-defeating anger whenever another Arab country hosts
     Khaddam or allows him to make a public statement through any
     of its media outlets.
     
     -- Possible Action:
     
     DAMASCUS 00005399 003 OF 004
     
     
     -- We should continue to encourage the Saudis and others
     to allow Khaddam access to their media outlets, providing him
     with venues for airing the SARG,s dirty laundry. We should
     anticipate an overreaction by the regime that will add to its
     isolation and alienation from its Arab neighbors.
     
     Vulnerability:
     
       -- DIVISIONS IN THE MILITARY-SECURITY SERVICES: Bashar
     constantly guards against challenges from those with ties
     inside the military and security services. He is also
     nervous about any loyalties senior officers (or former senior
     officers) feel toward disaffected former regime elements like
     Rif,at Asad and Khaddam. The inner circle focuses
     continuously on who gets what piece of the corruption action.
      Some moves by Bashar in narrowing the circle of those who
     benefit from high-level graft has increased those with ties
     to the security services who have axes to grind.
     
     -- Possible Action:
     
     -- ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING:
     The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about
     coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services
     and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should
     be encouraged to meet with figures like Khaddam and Rif,at
     Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate
     leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on
     this insular regime,s paranoia and increases the possibility
     of a self-defeating over-reaction.
     
     Vulnerability:
     
     -- REFORM FORCES VERSUS BAATHISTS-OTHER CORRUPT ELITES:
     Bashar keeps unveiling a steady stream of initiatives on
     economic reform and it is certainly possible he believes this
     issue is his legacy to Syria. While limited and ineffectual,
     these steps have brought back Syrian expats to invest and
     have created at least the illusion of increasing openness.
     Finding ways to publicly call into question Bashar,s reform
     efforts )- pointing, for example to the use of reform to
     disguise cronyism -- would embarrass Bashar and undercut
     these efforts to shore up his legitimacy. Revealing Asad
     family/inner circle corruption would have a similar effect.
     
     -- Possible Action:
     
     -- HIGHLIGHTING FAILURES OF REFORM: Highlighting failures of
     reform, especially in the run-up to the 2007 Presidential
     elections, is a move that Bashar would find highly
     embarrassing and de-legitimizing. Comparing and contrasting
     puny Syrian reform efforts with the rest of the Middle East
     would also embarrass and irritate Bashar.
     
     -- Vulnerability:
     
     -- THE ECONOMY: Perpetually under-performing, the Syrian
     economy creates jobs for less than 50 percent of the
     country,s university graduates. Oil accounts for 70 percent
     of exports and 30 percent of government revenue, but
     production is in steady decline. By 2010 Syria is expected
     to become a net importer of oil. Few experts believe
     the SARG is capable of managing successfully the expected
     economic dislocations.
     
     -- DISCOURAGE FDI, ESPECIALLY FROM THE GULF: Syria has
     enjoyed a considerable up-tick in foreign direct investment
     (FDI) in the last two years that appears to be picking up
     steam. The most important new FDI is undoubtedly from the
     Gulf.
     
     -- Vulnerability:
     
     -- THE KURDS: The most organized and daring political
     opposition and civil society groups are among the ethnic
     minority Kurds, concentrated in Syria,s northeast, as well
     as in communities in Damascus and Aleppo. This group has
     been willing to protest violently in its home territory when
     others would dare not. There are few threats that loom
     larger in Bashar,s mind than unrest with the Kurds. In what
     
     
     DAMASCUS 00005399 004 OF 004
     
     
     
     is a rare occurrence, our DATT was convoked by Syrian
     Military Intelligence in May of 2006 to protest what the
     Syrians believed were US efforts to provide military training
     and equipment to the Kurds in Syria.
     
     -- Possible Action:
     
     -- HIGHLIGHT KURDISH COMPLAINTS: Highlighting Kurdish
     complaints in public statements, including publicizing human
     rights abuses will exacerbate regime,s concerns about
     the Kurdish population. Focus on economic hardship in Kurdish
     areas and the SARG,s long-standing refusal to offer
     citizenship to some 200,000 stateless Kurds. This issue
     would need to be handled carefully, since giving the wrong
     kind of prominence to Kurdish issues in Syria could be a
     liability for our efforts at uniting the opposition, given
     Syrian (mostly Arab) civil society,s skepticism of Kurdish
     objectives.
     
     -- Vulnerability:
     
     -- Extremist elements increasingly use Syria as a base, while
     the SARG has taken some actions against groups stating links
     to Al-Qaeda. With the killing of the al-Qaida leader on the
     border with Lebanon in early December and the increasing
     terrorist attacks inside Syria culminating in the September
     12 attack against the US embassy, the SARG,s policies in
     Iraq and support for terrorists elsewhere as well can be seen
     to be coming home to roost.
     
     -- Possible Actions:
     
     -- Publicize presence of transiting (or externally focused)
     extremist groups in Syria, not limited to mention of Hamas
     and PIJ. Publicize Syrian efforts against extremist groups
     in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and
     uncontrolled blowback. The SARG,s argument (usually used
     after terror attacks in Syria) that it too is a victim of
     terrorism should be used against it to give greater
     prominence to increasing signs of instability within Syria.
     
     4.  (S) CONCLUSION: This analysis leaves out the anti-regime
     Syrian Islamists because it is difficult to get an accurate
     picture of the threat within Syria that such groups pose.
     They are certainly a long-term threat. While it alludes to
     the vulnerabilities that Syria faces because of its alliance
     with Iran, it does not elaborate fully on this topic.  The
     bottom line is that Bashar is entering the new year in a
     stronger position than he has been in several years, but
     those strengths also carry with them -- or sometimes mask )
     vulnerabilities. If we are ready to capitalize, they will
     offer us opportunities to disrupt his decision-making, keep
     him off-balance, and make him pay a premium for his mistakes.
     
     ROEBUCK

What a nice foreign policy to Middle East neighbor countries like Syria.
I have never seen such a sickening approach, it mentions staged suicide
and blames it on the Assad Government, one wonders ...

[rmstock]

Forget about ISIS... US doesn't give a fuck about ISIS. Priority has always been removing Assad.

Now why would the removal of Bashar Assad be so important ? Once this
family is dead they can finally start publishing books how Bashar Assad
organized the JFK style assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister
Rafiq Hariri ?

[rmstock]

The Opinion Pages | Editorial
Shut Down the Benghazi Committee
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD  OCT. 7, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/shut-down-the-benghazi-committee.html

  "House Republicans may be disinclined to disband the Select Committee on
   Benghazi with the presidential race heating up. But at the very least
   they should rename their laughable crusade, which has cost taxpayers
   $4.6 million, "the Inquisition of Hillary Rodham Clinton."   
   Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, a leading candidate to
   become the next speaker of the House, acknowledged last week that was
   the point of burrowing into the details of the 2012 attacks on
   government facilities in eastern Libya that killed the American
   ambassador and three colleagues.   
   "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" Mr. McCarthy
   said in an astonishing moment of candor that was clearly a gaffe,
   rather than a principled admission. "But we put together a Benghazi
   special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?"   
   Lawmakers have long abused their investigative authority for political
   purposes. But the effort to find Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of
   state at the time of the Libya attacks, was personally responsible for
   the deaths has lost any semblance of credibility. It's become an insult
   to the memory of four slain Americans.
   
   
   Representative Kevin McCarthy Credit
    Andrew Harnik/Associated Press
   
   The deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and his colleagues have
   been exhaustively investigated by several other congressional
   committees and an independent panel of experts commissioned by the
   Department of State. The reviews found systemic failings at the State
   Department. But they found no evidence that Mrs. Clinton was directly
   responsible for the security lapses, which, of course, is the goal of
   the Republicans who want to derail her presidential bid. The
   possibility that all those investigators have somehow missed a crucial,
   damning piece of evidence seems negligible.   
   Led by Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a former federal
   prosecutor, the Benghazi committee has trudged on, summoning a
   seemingly endless list of witnesses who have offered little new
   substantive information about the attacks. Since it was impaneled in
   May 2014, the committee has spent more than critical congressional
   committees, including the House Intelligence and Veterans' Affairs
   Committees, which have oversight over bureaucracies with
   multibillion-dollar budgets.   
   "There's nothing to justify the committee's long duration or expense,"
   said Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California who sits on
   the committee and has called for it to be disbanded. "We have nothing
   to tell the families and nothing to tell the American people."   
   Mrs. Clinton is scheduled to testify before the committee on Oct. 22.
   The hearing will give Republicans another chance to attack the
   credibility and trustworthiness of the leading Democratic presidential
   candidate. It will do nothing to make American embassies abroad safer
   or help the relatives of the four killed in Libya.   
   The hearing should be the last salvo for a committee that has
   accomplished nothing. If the Republicans insist on keeping the process
   alive, the Democrats should stop participating in this charade.
   
   A version of this editorial appears in print on October 7, 2015, on
   page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Shut Down the
   Benghazi Committee. Today's Paper|Subscribe "

[MikeWB]

rmstock, good stuff! Also, remember this video? Schedule has slipped by few years but the plan is still in action.

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

[rmstock]

Select Committee on Benghazi Holds First Hearing
by Roll Call, Streamed live on Sep 17, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asx7AvzBJ3k
  "The House Select Committee on Benghazi holds its inaugural hearing,
   titled "Implementation of the Accountability Review Board
   recommendations." The hearing begins at 10 a.m.

   Read more: http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/isis-spotlight-benghazi-hearing-gowdy/?pos=eam&
   "

Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Second Hearing
by Roll Call , Streamed live on Dec 10, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu_3kOZQtuc
"The House Select Committee on Benghazi holds its second hearing, titled
   "Reviewing Efforts to Secure U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel."
   The hearing begins at 10 a.m.
   Read more: http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/benghazi-committee-to-hold-second-public-hearing-dec-10/?dcz=

   December 10, 2014
   Benghazi Consulate Attack and Diplomatic Security
   Greg Starr, assistant secretary of State for diplomatic security, and
   Steve Linick, inspector general with the State Department, testified
   before the House Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012
   Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. This was the committee's second public
   hearing on diplomatic security and the September 11, 2012, attack at
   the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Assistant Secretary of State for
   Diplomatic Security Greg Starr said the department had implemented 25
   of 29 recommendations made by the Accountability Review Board, but
   although the U.S. was safer because of recommendations security risks
   could not be eliminated. State Department Inspector General Steve
   Linick who provided an overview of previous and current audits of the
   State Department. 
   http://www.c-span.org/video/?323116-1/hearing-2012-benghazi-consulate-attack
   "

Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Third Hearing
by rmstock, Published on Oct 11, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwPP6g8bUQY
  "January 27, 2015
   Benghazi Consulate Attack and Diplomatic Security
   Representatives from the State Department and CIA provided updates on
   pending committee requests for documents and interviews at the third
   public hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. The committee
   was formed to examine the events surrounding the September 11, 2012,
   terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya,
   which left four people dead, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher
   Stevens.
   http://www.c-span.org/video/?323989-1/hearing-2012-benghazi-consulate-attack
   "

[rmstock]

At the Valdai International Discussion Club XI session on 24 October 2014 in Sochi city.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdai_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin  ) Putin held a speech
and answered many questions from the International audience, including Americans.
RT has the entire 3 hours still online on Youtube here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9pQcqPdKo
instead of subtitles, there is a english narrator voice-over for non-English parts.

Putin at Valdai - World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules (FULL VIDEO)
by RT , Streamed live on Oct 24, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9pQcqPdKo
"Its been called the most important speech Vladimir Putin has EVER
   delivered. Putin targets American exceptionalism, revolution building
   and asks if it is the US that has abandoned the global rule book? Putin
   was addressing a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion
   Club, Sochi, Oct 2014, a forum for leading intl analysts focused on
   Russia.
   [ ... ]"

Inside https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9pQcqPdKo ( length 2:58:33)
the 7:11 minutes video below starts as the response to a question from
an American woman, a Diplomat i assume. The woman asks her question
at 01:57:24, the answer of Putin which is then english narrated follows.

[rmstock]

Tuesday, Oct 13, 2015 08:45 PM +0200
The GOP's Benghazi scam is exploding in its face: Why the latest stunning revelations will only make Republicans more extreme
Trey Gowdy's witch hunt has been revealed for the travesty it is, yet conservatives are doubling down on crazy
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/the_gops_benghazi_scam_is_exploding_in_its_face_why_the_latest_stunning_revelations_will_only_make_republicans_more_extreme/
HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

Topics: Benghazi, Congress, House of Representatives, trey gowdy, Paul Ryan, Senate, Mitch McConnell, The Tea Party, aol_on, News, Politics News


FILE - In this Jan. 27, 2015, file photo, House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., demands answers
of witnesses from the State Department and the CIA, as it holds its third public hearing to investigate the 2012 attacks on the
U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where a violent mob killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, on
Capitol Hill in Washington. Sidney Blumenthal will testify in closed session June 16, 2015, about frequent emails he sent about
Libya when Hillary Rodham Clinton served as secretary of state. Blumenthal worked in the White House under President Bill
Clinton and is a longtime friend and adviser to the Clinton family. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)(Credit: AP)

  "Another day, another revelation about the conservative crack-up. Over
   the weekend a whistleblower, Major Todd Podliska, came forward to
   reveal that the Benghazi Committee is a sham. Stop the presses. Then
   yesterday, the New York Times reported that since the staffers on the
   committee are chasing non-existent Hillary Clinton scandals to the
   exclusion of everything else they have a whole lot of time on their
   hands:
   
      With the slow progress, members have engaged in social activities like
      a wine club nicknamed 'Wine Wednesdays,' drinking from glasses
      imprinted with the words "Glacial Pace," a dig at Representative Elijah
      E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland and the committee's ranking member,
      Major Podliska said. Mr. Cummings used the term to question the speed
      of the committee's work.
   
      At one point, several Republican staff members formed a gun-buying club
      and discussed in the committee's conference room the 9-millimeter Glock
      handguns they intended to buy and what type of monograms they would
      inscribe on them, Major Podliska said.
   
   This is to be expected, of course. After all, there have been eight
   previous Benghazi investigations so there can't be much left to
   uncover. And Clinton's emails haven't had anything particularly sexy in
   them yet, so what's the point?
   
   Benghazi committee chairman Trey Gowdy shot back at the accusations,
   call them a "damned lie," thus proving that he isn't any more mature
   and statesmanlike than the average Tea Partier. It's an unpropitious
   time for these unsavory details of committee malfeasance to emerge,
   what with the House imploding as it is.
   
   Yesterday the right began to seriously flex its muscle on the "Paul
   Ryan: Boy Savior" question, and it's not looking great:
   
      In 2012 when Mitt Romney picked Mr. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, as
      his running mate, the concern among some in their party was that Mr.
      Ryan was too conservative, particularly when it came to overhauling
      social programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
   
      Now, as he agonizes over whether to answer the appeal of his colleagues
      to become their next speaker, the far right is trotting out a fresh
      concern: Mr. Ryan is too far left.
   
   That pretty much says it all.  The man who just two years ago was known
   as a hard-core Ayn Rand-worshipping conservative is now considered a
   liberal squish.
   
   But we knew Ryan was suspect when conservative thought leader Laura
   Ingraham immediately tweeted "three young guns and you're out " as the
   beltway turned it's lonely eyes to him last week. Only total loyalty to
   the Freedom Caucus will suffice, and not even the one true Scotsman
   could deliver on that promise. It's possible Ryan could eke out a vote,
   but it won't change the current congressional dynamic in which a rump
   group of fanatics hold the institution hostage to their delusions of
   grandeur.  It's hard to imagine what would. The sickness that pervades
   the House Republican caucus will not be cured by any medicine currently
   available.
   
   And now it appears that the disease has metastasized to the Senate. On
   Monday, MSNBC's Luke Russert tweeted out a "citizen censure" from the
   right wing PAC The Madison Project against Senate majority leader Mitch
   McConnell. Why, you ask? Well, it seems he too has deviated from the
   program:
   
      For years, establishment Republicans in Washington have gotten away
      with giving lip service to our principles while supporting policies
      that betrayed those same principles. NEVER AGAIN! Since the Republicans
      took the majority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell has cut deal after
      deal with the Democrats. His record of betraying conservatives before
      the election has only increased after the election.
   
      Consider that, in this year alone, he:
   
      Forcefully defeated the valiant efforts of Senators Mike Lee and Ted
      Cruz to defund Obamacare.
   
      Failed to support Senator Mike Lee's effort to defund Planned
      Parenthood in the wake of their body parts trafficking scandal.
   
      Helped Harry Reid block a vote on an amendment offered by Ted Cruz that
      would have prevented lifting sanctions on Iran unless and until Iran
      recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and unless and
      until Iran releases American hostages.
   
      Allowed Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats to pass an amendment that
      reauthorized the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) – as a reward the lobbyists
      on K Street and undeniable corporate welfare. This action was so
      egregious that Ted Cruz boldly took to the Senate floor and called out
      Senator McConnell for lying.
   
      Was referred to by George Stephanopoulos as President Obama's "point
      man" in the Senate; and
   
      Received a hand-written note of thanks from Barack Obama for his role
      in the confirmation of Attorney General Loretta Lynch – the number one
      cheerleader for unbridled Presidential power.
   
      We MUST let Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell know that his
      scheming and backhanded tactics will NOT go unchecked.
   
   They are working themselves into quite a frenzy. Now, the Senate is a
   different animal than the House and there are fewer opportunities for
   the kind of mischief we see from the Freedom Caucus. But the outside
   groups have their sights set on Mitch McConnell and they're going to
   make their presence known. And he's responding:
   
      McConnell has appointed a special task force to explore changes to the
      filibuster rule and other procedural hurdles — including whether to
      eliminate filibusters on motions to proceed to legislation. That's a
      tactic the minority often uses to shut down a bill before amendments
      can be considered...
   
      McConnell, a Senate traditionalist, doesn't want to do away with the
      filibuster. He and other Republicans fear a decision to gut the
      filibuster further would boomerang on the party — especially if
      Democrats retake the Senate in next year's elections.
   
      But McConnell and his allies have taken note of the growing pressure,
      especially after Republicans were unable to block funding for Planned
      Parenthood or stop President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran...
     
      Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday the difficulty of passing
      bills in the Senate has caused frustration to boil over in the House.
     
      "That's the primary cause of the division in the House is the
      filibuster in the Senate," he said...
     
      One senior senator said freshmen are pushing to get rid of the
      filibuster on the motion to proceed, which Democrats have deployed to
      block spending bills this year.
   
      The chamber's old bulls pushed back by warning that Republicans would
      regret curbing or eliminating the filibuster once Democrats regained
      the majority.
   
   That sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? Could the chaos we are seeing
   happen in the House infect the Senate? Stay tuned.
   
   The fundamental problem is that young conservative turks in both houses
   do not like the fact that our constitution requires that they hold both
   the White House and the Congress if they wish to enact their agenda
   without any changes or compromises. (And even then it's hardly a
   given.) They want to change the processes by which legislation is moved
   anyway and they are willing to make that happen by any means necessary.
   One might even say that they don't think our constitution provides for
   a very good system, and neither do the traditions and rules which have
   been developed over time to facilitate the give and take between the
   two parties, which is kind of surprising considering that their most
   precious conceit is that they are, above all, protectors of the
   constitution.
   
   They believe, as the Freedom Caucus' Giant Slayer, David Brat, said
   last Sunday that they are doing the bidding of "the American people"
   whom they seem to be under the illusion are in total agreement with
   everything they say. They seem not to understand that all those
   Republicans and Democrats who oppose them also have constituents and
   the president is elected by a majority of the whole country. Someone
   should explain it to them.
   
   

   Heather Digby Parton, also known as "Digby," is a contributing writer
   to Salon. She was the winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and
   Analysis Journalism.
   "

[rmstock]

'It's a damn lie:' Gowdy goes on record about fired staffer - Part 1
by rmstock, Published on Oct 14, 2015
"'It's a damn lie:' Gowdy goes on record about fired staffer - Part 1
   Congressman also opens up about McCarthy comments, Hillary emails
   UPDATED 5:18 PM EDT Oct 12, 2015
   http://www.wyff4.com/news/its-a-damn-lie-gowdy-goes-on-record-about-fired-staffer-part-1/35801996
   U.S.  Rep. Trey Gowdy answers many direct questions from an NBC
   producer about several hot topics, and Gowdy's answers are equally direct."

[rmstock]

Politics
Obama's Comments on Clinton Emails Collide With F.B.I. Inquiry
By MATT APUZZO and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT OCT. 16, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html


Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking during a campaign rally in Las Vegas on Wednesday. President Obama's comments on "60
Minutes" about the email controversy surrounding Mrs. Clinton have raised the ire of some in the F.B.I.
Credit Isaac Brekken for The New York Times

  "WASHINGTON — Federal agents were still cataloging the classified
   information from Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal email server last
   week when President Obama went on television and played down the matter.
   "I don't think it posed a national security problem," Mr. Obama said
   Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes." He said it was a mistake for Mrs. Clinton
   to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his
   conclusion was unmistakable: "This is not a situation in which
   America's national security was endangered."
   Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months
   to determine whether Ms. Clinton's email setup had in fact put any of
   the nation's secrets at risk, according to current and former law
   enforcement officials.
   Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the
   information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend
   charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to
   investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the
   answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.
   The White House quickly backed off the president's remarks and said Mr.
   Obama was not trying to influence the investigation. But his comments
   spread quickly, raising the ire of officials who saw an instance of the
   president trying to influence the outcome of a continuing investigation
   — and not for the first time.
   A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. But Ron Hosko, a former
   senior F.B.I. official who retired in 2014 and is now the president of
   the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, said it was inappropriate for
   the president to "suggest what side of the investigation he is on" when
   the F.B.I. is still investigating.
   "Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry
   leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.'s mouth and makes them fear that no
   matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president's
   signal and not bring a case," said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close
   contact with current agents.
   Several current and former law enforcement officials, including those
   close to the investigation, expressed similar sentiments in separate
   interviews over several days. Most, however, did so only on condition
   of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about
   the case.
   The White House said Thursday that Mr. Obama was not commenting on the
   merits of the investigation, but rather was explaining why he believes
   the controversy over Mrs. Clinton's emails has been overblown. The
   president, officials said, was merely noting that the emails that have
   been publicly released so far have not imperiled national security.
   "There's a debate among national security experts, as part of their
   ongoing, independent review, about how or even whether to classify
   sections of those emails," said Josh Earnest, the White House press
   secretary. "But, as the president said, there is no evidence to
   indicate that the information in those emails endangered our national
   security."
   Whether Mr. Obama's remarks have a lasting effect beyond upsetting some
   F.B.I. officials depends on the investigation's outcome. Since the
   email inquiry began this past summer, investigators have been
   scrutinizing everyone who came in contact with her server and trying to
   determine whether anyone sent or received classified information,
   whether that information was compromised and whether any of this
   amounted to a crime.
   Tensions among career F.B.I. agents, the political appointees who run
   the Justice Department and the White House are commonplace. In deciding
   whether to bring charges in a case, F.B.I. agents are often more
   bullish. Prosecutors, with an eye toward trying to win at trial, tend
   to be more cautious and have the final say. As such, no administration,
   Democratic or Republican, is immune from the suspicion that politics
   has influenced case decisions.
   But Mr. Obama's remarks in the Clinton email case were met with
   particular anger at the F.B.I. because they echoed comments he made in
   2012, shortly after it was revealed that a former C.I.A. director,
   David H. Petraeus, was under investigation, accused of providing
   classified information to a mistress who was writing a book about him.
   "I have no evidence at this point, from what I've seen, that classified
   information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative
   impact on our national security," the president said at a 2012 news
   conference, as the F.B.I. was trying to answer that very question about
   Mr. Petraeus.
   At the time, the Obama administration was leading a historic crackdown
   on government officials who discussed national security matters with
   reporters, even when that information was never disclosed publicly. But
   Mr. Petraeus was a four-star general, a White House adviser and the
   most celebrated military leader of his generation. F.B.I. officials
   were concerned that he would receive preferential treatment.
   The F.B.I. ultimately concluded that Mr. Petraeus should face felony
   charges and a possible prison sentence. Not only had he provided highly
   classified information to his biographer — including notes about war
   strategy and the identity of covert officials — but he also lied to
   agents about it. James B. Comey, the F.B.I director, made the case to
   the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., that Mr. Petraeus deserved to
   face strenuous charges.
   But the Justice Department overruled the F.B.I., and earlier this year
   the department allowed Mr. Petraeus to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.
   He was spared jail time and remained an informal White House adviser.
   Although current and former senior officials at the Justice Department
   who were involved in the case said the decision was not influenced by
   the White House, F.B.I. agents came to view Mr. Obama's remarks about
   Mr. Petraeus as a harbinger of the ultimate outcome.
   Presidents typically decline to comment on cases under investigation or
   in the courts, citing the need to avoid prejudicing legal proceedings.
   Often that tradition is politically convenient, offering them an easy
   excuse when they would rather not answer questions about the behavior
   of allies and aides.
   Mr. Obama has skirted across that line on a few occasions. In 2013, he
   proclaimed that troops who commit sexual assault should be
   "court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged," which provided
   ammunition to defense lawyers who argued that the commander in chief
   had prejudiced proceedings.
   Mr. Obama is not the first president to generate criticism for weighing
   in on cases. George W. Bush was criticized when he told an interviewer
   that he believed Representative Tom DeLay of Texas was innocent of
   illegal fund-raising charges. Mr. DeLay's conviction was overturned
   last year.
   The federal law used against Mr. Petraeus prohibits officials from
   knowingly taking classified information "with the intent to retain" it
   at "an unauthorized location." A second, more serious charge makes it a
   felony to remove classified information through gross negligence.
   Officials at both the F.B.I. and the Justice Department acknowledge
   that those laws set a high bar for criminal charges in the email case.
   Mr. Obama said he had no impression that Mrs. Clinton had purposely
   tried "to hide something or to squirrel away information." In doing so,
   Mr. Obama spoke directly to a core component of the law used against
   Mr. Petraeus, intent, and said he did not think it applied in Mrs.
   Clinton's case.
   Since the existence of Mrs. Clinton's account was revealed in March,
   she has provided a series of different explanations about whether she
   sent or received classified information from the account.
   Mrs. Clinton is to testify next week before the Republican-controlled
   House committee investigating the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. The
   committee, which has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks after
   two Republican lawmakers said it was created to harm the political
   fortunes of Mrs. Clinton, is expected to ask her about her unorthodox
   email arrangement.
   Mr. Comey, the F.B.I. director, earlier this month acknowledged the
   difficulties posed by the investigation. He said one reason he has a
   10-year term is "to make sure this organization stays outside of
   politics."
   "If you know my folks," he said, "you know they don't give a rip about
   politics."
   ---
   Peter Baker and Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed reporting.
   
   Follow the New York Times's politics and Washington coverage on
   Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics
   newsletter."

[rmstock]

Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Fourth Hearing Part 1
by rmstock , Published on Oct 23, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m86EhAX3NUk
  "October 22, 2015
   Hillary Clinton Testimony at House Select Committee on Benghazi, Part 1

   Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House
   Select Committee on Benghazi, which was investigating the events
   surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S.
   consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens
   and three others died.
   http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-1/hillary-clinton-testimony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-1
   "

Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Fourth Hearing Part 2
by rmstock , Published on Oct 23, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diVn0Rt3_QQ
  "October 22, 2015
   Hillary Clinton Testimony at House Select Committee on Benghazi, Part 2

   Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House
   Select Committee on Benghazi, which was investigating the events
   surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S.
   consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens
   and three others died.
   http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-2/hillary-clinton-testimony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-2
   "

Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Fourth Hearing Part 3
by rmstock , Published on Oct 23, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHV43gr1wK0
  "October 22, 2015
   Hillary Clinton Testimony at House Select Committee on Benghazi, Part 3

   Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House
   Select Committee on Benghazi, which was investigating the events
   surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S.
   consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens
   and three others died.
   http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-3/hillary-clinton-testimony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-3
   "

Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Fourth Hearing Part 4
by rmstock , Published on Oct 23, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvVjDIjl7M0
  "October 22, 2015
   Hillary Clinton Testimony at House Select Committee on Benghazi, Part 4

   Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House
   Select Committee on Benghazi, which was investigating the events
   surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S.
   consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens
   and three others died.
   http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699-4/hillary-clinton-testimony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-4
   "

Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Fourth Hearing Stakeout
by rmstock , Published on Oct 23, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjSI9URhaTI
  "October 22, 2015
   Benghazi Hearing Stakeout

   Members of the House Benghazi Committee spoke to reporters during a
   break in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony before
   the committee.
   http://www.c-span.org/video/?328899-1/house-benghazi-committee-stakeout
   "

[rmstock]

Seems c-span did not complete the recording of the 11+ hour hearing
(part 4 is abruptly cut off), luckily the select committee's website has a full recording :

Public Hearing 4 – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Date:  Thursday, October 22, 2015 - 10:00am
Location: 1100 Longworth House Office Building
Public Hearing 4 – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
http://benghazi.house.gov/hearings/hearing-4

[rmstock]

Pulitzer-Prize Winning Reporter Sy Hersh: Benghazi Is a HUGE Scandal
... But Not For the Reason You Think
Posted on April 15, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/real-benghazi-story.html

  "Beyond Partisan Politics: What Benghazi Is Really About

   Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke
   the stories of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison
   torture scandals, which rightfully disgraced the Nixon and Bush
   administrations' war-fighting tactics – reported last week:
   
       In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on
       the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American
       consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which
       resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and
       three others. The report's criticism of the State Department for not
       providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence
       community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA
       outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived
       animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary
       Clinton of a cover-up.
   
   That's the part you've heard about: failure to protect the personnel at
   the embassy.
   
   But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open:
   
       A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described
       a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan
       administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the
       agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
       the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from
       Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up
       in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American
       soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were
       hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by
       David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became
       known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for
       Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)
   
       The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to
       the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional
       leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6
       enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a
       liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for
       years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the
       CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise
       be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be
       described in a written document, known as a 'finding', submitted to the
       senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex
       was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight
       ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of
       the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the
       House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a
       genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather
       together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they
       receive.
   
       The annex didn't tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi
       before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was
       attacked. 'The consulate's only mission was to provide cover for the
       moving of arms,' the former intelligence official, who has read the
       annex, said. 'It had no real political role.'
   
   Hersh isn't the first to report on this major scandal.
   
   We've extensively documented that the bigger story behind the murder of
   ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi embassy in Libya is that the
   embassy was the center of U.S. efforts to arm jihadis in Syria who are
   trying to topple the Syrian government.
   
   We've also noted that this is not a partisan issue ... both parties
   greenlighted regime change in Syria years ago, and both parties have
   tried to cover up what was really going on in Benghazi.
   
   Last August, CNN touched on the weapons smuggling aspect of Benghazi.
   
   The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the
   US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA
   operation.
   
   They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided
   diplomatic cover" for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges
   that it was not a real consulate.  And former CIA officer Philip
   Giraldi confirms:
   
       Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It
       was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a
       small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local
       translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate
       building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable
       local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the
       ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its
       own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA's
       operating directive would have been focused on two objectives:
       monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and
       tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi's arsenal. Staff
       consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with
       the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational
       details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When
       the ambassador's party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base
       came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound,
       where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.
   
   Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing
   heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.
   
   Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in
   Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:
   
       More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel
       forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was
       that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?
   
   Boykin said Stevens was "given a directive to support the Syrian
   rebels" and the State Department's Special Mission Compound in Benghazi
   "would be the hub of that activity."
   
   Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian
   terrorists:
   
       There's growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered
       ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving
       from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.
   
       In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the
       al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim
       Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now
       disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack
       that took Stevens' life.
   
       In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as
       head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA]
       leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the
       new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing
       insurgency in Syria.
   
       Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship
       "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria ... has docked in
       Turkey." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7
       surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.
   
       ***
   
       Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy
       weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
   
       The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an
       organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and
       Support," which was presumably established by the new government.
   
       That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one
       person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy
       weapons to Syria.
   
       Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the
       Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?
   
       Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them
       "Libyans" when he explained that the FSA doesn't "want these extremist
       people here."
   
       And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic
       fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in
       southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact
       during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the
       U.S. surely knew about it.
   
       Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles
       from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things,
       collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from
       Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and
       that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented
       villa where Stevens died."
   
       And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels
       in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved
       in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.
   
   In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in
   deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.
   
   Other sources also discuss that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as
   mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.
   
   Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren't taken
   to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it
   was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to
   protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.
   
   That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.

   Was CIA Chief David Petraeus' Firing Due to Benghazi?
   
   CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But
   Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power
   House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many
   speculate that it wasn't an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying
   on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus' sudden
   resignation.  And see this."

[rmstock]

   But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open:
   
       A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described
       a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan
       administrations.
       [ ... ]
       Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the
       report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic
       and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and
       Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees.
       This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight
       leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss
       the secret information they receive.
       [ ...]"

Besides these eight individuals in congress, there's in general two
types of men/women in DC : The Democratic Jew (sometimes dual passport
holder, either Mossad or Muslim Brotherhood security detail) and
the Republican (sometimes born again) Christian. Who would not know
about "da annex" ? It could very well be that the Republican House
Representatives in the Select Committee on Benghazi are somehow amongst
the last remaining few left who know nothing about a such Benghazi annex
report.