BENGHAZI COVER-UP; Did Clinton Lie? More Reports Indicate Benghazi was Conduit to Arm Syria’s Al-Qaeda-Loving “Rebels”
Posted April 25th, 2013
By Anthony Melé, RCT Contributor
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony: “What difference does it make now?”
As reported earlier this month by the Rockland County Times, it’s now been confirmed that Jabal-Al Nusra [JAN], the main fighting branch of the so-called rebel Syrian Free Army, has in fact merged with Al-Qaeda. They have openly pledged their allegiance to Osama Bin-Laden’s former number two, Zayman Al-Zawahiri in a statement delivered to Arab media on April 15, 2013.
Analyst Rajeeh Saeed AL-SORFA, London reports: “The indisputable truth, however, is that JAN has officially become an al-Qaeda affiliate.” http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/features/2013/04/15/feature-01
So over the course of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy, headed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in providing money, arms, and material to the public relations titled; “Syrian Rebels,” have in reality supported Al-Qaeda by another name. The difference between reporting and repeating, may be subtle but distinct. Repeating what the White House Press Secretary says they are doing in Syria, is not always accurately portraying what is actually transpiring.
Months after her long-delayed testimony to the US Congress, former Secretary of State Clinton’s words have come under sudden scrutiny. South Carolina Senator Graham is recorded having said that Benghazi was the Obama Administration’s base of operations for recruiting jihadists to fight in Syria, and where caches of weapons were stored; all with the foreknowledge of Secretary Clinton, since Ambassador Stevens role in the scheme was finally outlined by the New York Times and WND reports.
WND reported Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. stated in interview with Fox News that murdered U.S Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi to keep weapons caches from falling into the hands of terrorists. Until that point, no official explanation for Stevens deployment to Libya has acknowledged any such activity.” (WND http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/hillary-clinton-snagged-in-benghazi-cover-up/#mp03XkvgviqM24tr.99)
Former Secretary of State Clinton was asked a direct question under oath by Senator Rand Paul, if she had any knowledge of arms trafficking out of Benghazi to Syria. As we look back at her responses and what has come to light, she may have opened herself up to several counts of perjury. “Speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, Paul reacted to Clinton’s testimony in light of a New York Times report last month that claimed that since early 2012, the CIA has been helping Arab governments and Turkey obtains and ship weapons to the Syrian rebels.
The plan mirrors one the Times reported in February as being proposed by Clinton herself. The Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming the Syrian rebels via Turkish and Arab cut outs. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html?_r=0
Add to these facts, the recent reports that President Putin has directed President Obama to convene a meeting between the Russian Foreign Minister and Secretary of State Kerry to craft a political solution that would end the U.S. military support of the Syrian Free Army. The Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra merger, validated by Zayman Al-Zawahiri is no small international embarrassment to the Obama Administration, who just found itself, arming, funding and fighting side by side, in effect with the man who perpetrated the attacks on the USA on Sept. 11th, 2001, and orchestrated the attacks on US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This configuration presents the Obama Administration with a political escape hatch out of Syria, so as not to be seen as acknowledging their long standing relationship with the Al-Qaeda affiliate. Since the foreign press and US press are openly reporting this alliance, and coupled with the testimony provided by former Secretary of State Clinton denying her role in the Benghazi arms trafficking scheme with Ambassador Stevens; her now infamous, cackling testimony; “what difference does it make” response highlights more than ever the question begs an answer.
In order to accept former Secretary of State Clinton’s denials of having any knowledge, we would have to conclude that she was so detached from what was an extremely reckless policy, that neither she nor President Obama were aware of it. All they knew was some obscure YouTube video angered some locals, who then took it upon themselves to murder American diplomats.
As her narrative goes; when she was made aware of the sustained attack that was occurring in real time, neither she nor the president, directed nor demanded US military resources to mount a rescue operation or deploy to the scene. Secretary of Defense Panetta testified he would not send heavily armed, and well-trained American troops to relieve the two American, beleaguered defenders, who fought valiantly, alone for eight hours, to Benghazi because it was too dangerous for them to engage angry YouTube demonstrators.
In the face of mounting evidence to the contrary and intense scrutiny of the official White House narrative, UN Ambassador Rice continued for days with the You-Tube story, while the normally vociferous Secretary of State was dead, silent, mum. Her last words on the matter still resonate; “what difference does it make now?” The answer may never come in the form of an indictment for perjury. But if it did, the RCT headline would be; “When two men are left alone to fight hundreds of Jihadist terrorists, a few hundred American soldiers make all the difference, Madam Secretary.”