EXCLUSIVE – Alarm as Thousands of Islamic State Fighters in Syria, Iraq ‘Missing’

TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images

TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein and Ali Waked, Sept. 10, 2016:

Several Arab and Western espionage agencies have set up a joint situation room to trace thousands of Islamic State fighters who have gone missing in Syria, Iraq and Libya, an Arab intelligence official told Breitbart Jerusalem.

Some of the several hundred IS fighters who took part in the battle of Sirte, in Libya, survived the defeat, as well as fighters in the lost battles of Mosul in Iraq and Manbej, Alrai, Jarabulus and other communities near the Syrian-Turkish border, he said.

According to estimates, the number of IS fighters reached several tens of thousands in those areas, “but the battles did not yield thousands of dead or captured fighters.”

“That’s why it’s worrisome – these people are gone. They either integrated into noncombatant communities or, more likely, infiltrated into neighboring countries – to Turkey, and from there to Europe and other Middle Eastern countries, and in Libya’s case, all over North Africa.”

He said that 700 Tunisian fighters are unaccounted for, while thousands more are being sought.

“We exchange wanted lists with Gulf and North African countries, with Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, as well as France, Belgium, Germany and other countries, bearing the names of militants we believe fought for IS,” he said.

“Some of the names were found in captured IS operation rooms along the Syrian-Turkish border. There are still no concrete warnings about attacks that these fugitive fighters may try to carry out, but we have no doubt that some of them will, or at least try to set up terrorist infrastructures in their countries of origin.”

He said that, over the last year, intelligence-sharing practices among Arab and Western countries have improved dramatically, making the chances of foiling their attempts much higher, “but the chance that they’ll carry out an attack where they currently are still exists.”

He added that recent clashes along the Syrian-Jordanian border resulted from attempts by former IS fighters to cross into Jordan.

On Wednesday, the Jordanian media reported that national forces injured and arrested two militants trying to cross into Jordan, while others retreated back into Syria.

The source said that in the near future we are likely to see similar incidents along Syria’s borders.

New ISIS Military Commander Was Trained by State Department as Recently as 2014

new-isis-commander-gulmorad-halimov-trained-by-state-department-sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, SEPTEMBER 6, 2016:

Gulmurod Khalimov, the new ISIS military commander whom the U.S. just days ago announced a $3 million bounty for, was trained by the State Department in an anti-terror program as recently as 2014 while serving in the security service of Tajikistan.

He replaces former ISIS commander Tarkhan Batirashvili, aka Umar al-Shishani, who was also trained by the United States as part of the Georgian army and who ISIS claimed was killed fighting in Iraq this past July.

The State Department confirmed Khalimov’s U.S.-provided training to CNN in May 2015:

“From 2003-2014 Colonel Khalimov participated in five counterterrorism training courses in the United States and in Tajikistan, through the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security/Anti-Terrorism Assistance program,” said spokeswoman Pooja Jhunjhunwala.The program is intended to train candidates from participating countries in the latest counterterrorism tactics, so they can fight the very kind of militants that Khalimov has now joined.

A State Department official said Khalimov was trained in crisis response, tactical management of special events, tactical leadership training and related issues.

Unironically, the State Department spokeswoman said that Khalimov had been appropriately vetted:

“All appropriate Leahy vetting was undertaken in advance of this training,” said spokeswoman Jhunjhunwala.

At that time, Khalimov appeared in a video threatening the United States:

“Listen, you American pigs: I’ve been to America three times. I saw how you train soldiers to kill Muslims,” he says.Then, he threatens, “we will find your towns, we will come to your homes, and we will kill you.”

Khalimov and Batirashvili are hardly the first terrorist leaders operating in Syria to have been trained by the United States.

In August 2014, the Washington Post reported that fighters who had been trained by Western forces, including the U.S., in Libya had found their way to terror groups at the beginning of the Syrian conflict:

Some European and Arab intelligence officials also voiced their worries and frustration about what they call the mistakes the United States has made in handling the uprisings in Arab states. “We had, in the early stages, information that radical groups had used the vacuum of the Arab Spring, and that some of the people the U.S. and their allies had trained to fight for ‘democracy’ in Libya and Syria had a jihadist agenda — already or later, [when they] joined al Nusra or the Islamic State,” a senior Arab intelligence official said in a recent interview. He said that often his U.S. counterparts would say things like, “We know you are right, but our president in Washington and his advisers don’t believe that.” Those groups, say Western security officials, are threats not only in the Middle East, but also in the United States and Europe, where they have members and sympathizers.The official’s account has been corroborated by members of the Islamic State in and outside the Middle East, including Abu Yusaf, the military commander. In several interviews conducted in the last two months, they described how the collapse of security during Arab Spring uprisings helped them recruit, regroup and use the Western strategy — to support and train groups that fight dictators — for their own benefits. “There had [also] been … some British and Americans who had trained us during the Arab Spring times in Libya,” said a man who calls himself Abu Saleh and who only agreed to be interviewed if his real identity remained secret.

Abu Saleh, who is originally from a town close to Benghazi, said he and a group of other Libyans received training and support in their country from French, British, and American military and intelligence personnel — before they joined the Al Nusra Front or the Islamic State. Western and Arab military sources interviewed for this article, confirmed Abu Saleh’s account that “training” and “equipment” were given to rebels in Libya during the fight against the Gadhafi regime.

Abu Saleh left Libya in 2012 for Turkey and then crossed into Syria. “First I fought under what people call the ‘Free Syrian Army’ but then switched to Al Nusra. And I have already decided I will join the Islamic State when my wounds are healed,” the 28-year-old said from a hospital in Turkey, where he is receiving medical treatment. He had been injured during a battle with the Syrian Army, he said, and was brought to Turkey with false documents.  “Some of the Syrian people who they trained have joined the Islamic State and others jabhat al Nusra,” he said, smiling. He added, “Sometimes I joke around and say that I am a fighter made by America.”

This problem of a terror “boomerang” also goes back to the Bush administration, as seen when Islamist rebels took over a large portion of Mali in 2013.

As the Financial Times reported:

To the dismay of the US, junior Malian officers trained as part of $620m pan-Sahelian counter-terrorism initiative launched in 2002 to help four semi-desert states resist Islamic militancy took part in a coup in March last year. Others among them defected to the Tuareg revolt that eventually led to a coalition of Islamist militias, allied with Algerian militants from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, capturing the northern two-thirds of Mali.Potentially, these US-trained officers are now using US counter-insurgency know-how against France’s intervention force.

“It is a great failure,” says Dr Berny Sèbe, an expert in Franco-African relations at the University of Birmingham. “Some of them defected. Others organised a coup.”

In two of the three other Sahelian states involved in the Pentagon’s pan-Sahelian initiative, Mauritania and Niger, armies trained by the US, have also taken power in the past eight years. In the third, Chad, they came close in a 2006 attempt.

And back in Syria, as I’m chronicled repeatedly here at PJ Media, “vetted moderate” forces armed and trained by the U.S. have defected to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

July 7, 2014: U.S. ‘Vetted Moderate’ Free Syrian Army Brigades Surrender Weapons, Pledge Allegiance to Islamic StateNov. 2, 2014: U.S.-Armed ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrian Rebel Groups Surrender, Defect to Al-Qaeda

Nov. 24, 2014: More Defections of ‘Vetted Moderate’ Free Syrian Army Rebels to ISIS

Dec. 2, 2014: US-Backed Syrian Rebels Ally with al-Qaeda in South, Surrender CIA-Supplied Weapons in the North

Sept. 22, 2015: Report: U.S.-Trained, ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrian Rebel Leader Defects to Al-Qaeda, Turns Weapons Over to Terror Group

Given these repeated instances, one might begin to question the quality of the U.S. government’s vetting capabilities.

Islamic State claims more than 700 suicide attacks since beginning of the year

isis-propLong War Journal, BY | September 6, 2016 | tjoscelyn@gmail.com | @thomasjoscelyn

The Islamic State claims to have executed 729 “martyrdom operations” in Iraq, Syria and Libya during the first eight months of 2016. The figure comes from monthly data published by Amaq News Agency, a propaganda arm of the so-called “caliphate” that releases infographics summarizing the group’s suicide attacks.

Amaq’s most recent infographic (seen on the right) [above] was released on Sept. 5. It indicates that the jihadists carried out 81 “martyrdom operations” in the month of August alone.

Most of the Islamic State’s suicide bombings, 431 of the 729 claimed (59 percent) since the beginning of the year, have been launched inside Iraq. Approximately 40 percent of these (174 of 431) have occurred in Anbar province, where the jihadists were engaged in fierce battles with Iraqi government forces and Iranian-backed Shiite militias during much of the year. Salahuddin (101 suicide attacks), Nineveh (71), Baghdad (47), and Kirkuk (18) are the next most frequently targeted areas.

The Islamic State launched 268 suicide attacks in Syria (37 percent of the total) during the first eight months of the year. Aleppo province (106) was hit most frequently, followed by Hasakah (40), Deir Ezzor (34), Homs (27) and Raqqa (25) provinces.

The remaining 29 “martyrdom operations” took place in Libya, with 26 of these occurring in Sirte, the Islamic State’s base of operations in North Africa. The data demonstrate how the battle for Libya has evolved since the beginning of the year. Amaq claimed only one suicide attack in Libya from January through April. But the infographics show that the pace picked up beginning in May, with nine such bombings in Sirte that month. The uptick reflects the fact that Libyan militias loyal to the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) began their offensive on the city that same month. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s loyalists have lost significant ground since then.

The Islamic State’s fighters executed 12 suicide attacks in Sirte in August, according to the most recent infographic. US airstrikes have repeatedly targeted vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) in the city since Aug. 1, meaning the figure would likely be higher if the Americans weren’t providing air support to Libyan fighters.

Iraqi forces are the most frequent target of the Islamic State’s “martyrdom operations,” as they were hit 406 times (56 percent of the total) from January through August. Bashar al Assad’s regime is the second most frequent target, with the Islamic State’s suicide bombers striking the Syrian government’s forces on 116 occasions. The remaining bombings struck the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Peshmerga (136 times combined), the “Syrian opposition” (42), Fajr Libya and militiamen loyal to UN-backed GNA (27) and General Khalifa Haftar’s fighters in Benghazi (2 times).

VBIEDs are used more often than individual bombers strapped with explosives, according to Amaq. The infographics count 492 VBIEDs used in suicide attacks (67 percent of the total) as compared to 224 bombings with explosive belts, jackets and vests. The remaining 13 are listed as “dual operations.”

If Amaq’s figures are accurate, then the Islamic State is launching suicide bombings at a historically high rate.

In June, the State Department reported that there were 726 “suicide attacks” executed by all perpetrators around the globe in 2015. Foggy Bottom relied on figures reported by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), which maintains an “unclassified event database compiled from information in open-source reports of terrorist attacks.”

All terrorist groups, including the Islamic State, carried out an average of 61 suicide bombings per month in 2015.

According to Amaq’s statistics, the Islamic State has surpassed this estimate all by itself in just three countries (Iraq, Syria and Libya) during the first eight months of 2016, tallying 729 suicide attacks for an average of 91 per month. As The Long War Journal reported, 2015 was the previous high-water mark for suicide attacks.

Both July and August were below the monthly average for all of 2016. In July, Amaq reported 59 suicide attacks in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Thus far, the high for the year occurred in May, with a purported 119 suicide bombings.

The fog of war makes it difficult to independently verify Amaq’s statistics. However, the figures are reasonable given the scale of the Islamic State’s fighting. Baghdadi’s men routinely claim credit for simultaneous suicide attacks. While suicide bombings are just one of the types of operations conducted by the Islamic State and other jihadist groups, casualty figures suggest they are an especially effective tactic. For instance, the State Department noted in June that “[o]n average, suicide attacks in 2015 were 4.6 times as lethal as non-suicide attacks.” This makes “martyrdom operations” crucially important for the so-called “caliphate” as it wages war against multiple adversaries in each country where it operates.

[For more on the Islamic State’s claimed suicide operations, see LWJ reports: The Islamic State’s prolific ‘martyrdom’ machine and Islamic State claims nearly 600 suicide attacks in first six months of 2016.]

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for The Long War Journal.

Also see:

Serving Muslim Interests With American Foreign Policy

7c82ae3fcd6d92288c37d6951964be202

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, Sept. 2, 2016:

A Hillary Clinton presidency would likely continue along the pro-Islamist foreign policy arc that both her husband’s administration and the Obama administration have developed.

President Bill Clinton committed U.S. military resources to help Muslims during the so-called “humanitarian” intervention in Bosnia. However, he chose to turn a blind eye to the genocide that swamped Rwanda during his administration. As G. Murphy Donovan wrote in his American Thinker article “How the Clintons Gave American Foreign Policy its Muslim Tilt,” “Muslim lives matter, Black Africans, not so much.” Noting that “it was Muslim unrest that precipitated Serb pushback, civil war, and the eventual collapse of Yugoslavia,” Donovan added, “Bosnians are, for the most part, Muslims with a bloody fascist pedigree.” Nevertheless, with no strategic U.S. national interest at stake, Bill Clinton tilted American foreign policy in favor of the Muslim side in the Bosnia conflict. We are now reaping the lethal consequences of that tilt. Donovan points out in his article that, on a per capita basis, Bosnia Herzegovina is the leading source of ISIS volunteers in all of Europe.

President Obama, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, took the side of Islamist “rebels” against the secular authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Libya and Syria that had managed to keep the lid on jihadist terrorism for many years. These Islamists included members of al Qaeda as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Libya, Hillary Clinton was the leading voice pressing for military intervention against Col. Muammar el- Qaddafi’s regime. She did so, even though, according to sources cited in a State Department memo passed on to Hillary by her deputy at the time, Jake Sullivan, in an e-mail dated April 1, 2011, “we just don’t know enough about the make-up or leadership of the rebel forces.”  In fact, as subsequently reported by the New York Times, the only organized opposition to the Qaddafi regime that had developed underground during Qaddafi’s rule were the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist group, and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The author of the State Department memo had acknowledged the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s terrorist past but said they “express a newfound keenness for peaceful politics.” Was Hillary Clinton relying on such assurances of a reformed “peaceful” Islamic group fighting against Qaddafi, even though it had been on the State Department’s terrorist list since 2004 and one of its leaders, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi,  praised al Qaeda members as “good Muslims” in a March 2011 interview?  If so, that is just another indication of her bad judgment.

As for Egypt, Hillary was informed by her outside adviser and confidante Sid Blumenthal, in an e-mail dated December 16, 2011, that the Muslim Brotherhood’s intention was to create an Islamic state. Moreover, the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and other radical groups was “complicated,” Blumenthal quoted a source “with access to the highest levels of the MB” as saying. Blumenthal also reported, based on a confidential source, that Mohamed Morsi, who was then leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, believed that “it will be difficult for this new, Islamic government to control the rise of al Qa’ida and other radical/terrorist groups.”

Nevertheless, the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood in its bid to seek power in Egypt through a shaky electoral process. After Morsi’s election to the presidency, Hillary visited Egypt where Morsi warmly welcomed her and she expressed strong support for Egypt’s “democratic transition.” However, the only real transition Morsi had in mind was to impose sharia law on the Egyptian people, the very antithesis of true democratic pluralism. Yet the Obama–Clinton gravy train of military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Islamist regime continued without any preconditions. Hillary Clinton herself and her State Department referred to the importance of the U.S.’s “partnership” with the Muslim Brotherhood-backed regime.

When Morsi was removed from power, after millions of Egyptians had taken to the streets to protest the increasingly theocratic regime, the Obama administration decided to suspend aid to the more secular successor military regime. The “partnership” was no more once the Islamists were swept out of office.

While Morsi was still president, the Clinton Foundation, which has taken millions of dollars in donations from Muslim majority governments and affiliated groups and individuals, invited Morsi to deliver a major address at the Clinton Global Initiative. This invitation was extended just a month after an individual named Gehad el-Haddad, who was working simultaneously for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Clinton Foundation in Cairo, left his Clinton Foundation job to work for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood full time. Fortunes changed for this individual, however, when, after Morsi was overthrown, Haddad was arrested for inciting violence and given a life sentence.

The Obama administration, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, also cooperated with the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to pass and implement a United Nations resolution that was intended to curb speech considered Islamophobic. Clinton, in full spin mode, insisted that the new UN resolution was totally consistent with the free speech protections of the First Amendment, as opposed to the “defamation of religions” resolutions that the OIC had sponsored in the past but was willing to have replaced. The truth, however, is that all we were seeing was old wine in new bottles. To make sure that the OIC was comfortable regarding the Obama administration’s intentions, Clinton assured the OIC that she was perfectly on board with using “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She was trying to publicly assure American citizens that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press were safe, while working behind the scenes with her OIC partners to find acceptable ways to stifle speech offensive to Muslims.

The signs of Hillary Clinton’s Islamist tilt as she runs for president include the sweepingly general and demonstrably false assertion in her tweet last November that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”  She has obviously learned nothing from her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. Neither is she willing to acknowledge that the terrorists whom she has called a “determined enemy” are jihadists animated by an ideology rooted in core Muslim teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and actions).  Is there something about the word “Muslim” in the Muslim Brotherhood and “Islamic” in the Islamic State that she is having problems understanding?

Perhaps, it is Hillary’s close association with Huma Abedin, her top campaign aide and confidante, who has had questionable links to Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations, which explains Hillary’s denial of the truth. If someone as close to Hillary as Huma Abedin, whom she apparently trusts with her life, is a Muslim, then how could any Muslim possibly have anything to do with terrorism?

Then again, perhaps Hillary’s willingness to give Islamists the benefit of the doubt is all the money that the Clintons have received over the years from foreign donors in Muslim majority countries, including the Saudi government and affiliated groups and individuals. Hillary Clinton has also reached out for campaign donations from a pro-Iranian lobby group, the National Iranian American Council. Whatever human rights abuses are inflicted on people in these countries, it would be counterproductive to bite the hand that feeds you, in the Clintons’ way of thinking.

Finally, the Democratic Party itself has moved much further to the Left since the days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, which has led to the broadening out of the pro-Islamist bias that began to take shape with Bill Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia. As David Horowitz wrote in a January 8, 2016 article published by National Review:

“Leftists and Democrats have also joined the Islamist propaganda campaign to represent Muslims — whose co-religionists have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents since 9/11 in the name of their religion — as victims of anti-Muslim prejudice, denouncing critics of Islamist terror and proponents of security measures as ‘Islamophobes’ and bigots. Led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats have enabled the Islamist assault on free speech, which is a central component of the Islamist campaign to create a worldwide religious theocracy.”

For a variety of reasons, Hillary Clinton as president can be expected to move the United States towards an even more accommodative stance than her predecessors with Islamists who mean to do us harm.

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Greg Nash

Greg Nash

The Hill, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Aug. 23, 2016:

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.

This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

Obama Only Bombs Libya When the Muslim Brotherhood Lets Him

benghazi_victims (1)

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, August 2, 2016:

Obama is rather belatedly bombing ISIS in Libya after having essentially turned over Libya to Jihadists. That particular course of action cost the lives of four Americans in Benghazi.

Why can Obama bomb Libya now but not to save the Americans who were under siege in Benghazi? The answer is simple and ugly.

In Washington, the Pentagon said the raids were launched in response to a request from the unity government.

“At the request of the Libyan Government of National Accord, the United States military conducted precision air strikes against ISIL targets in Sirte, Libya, to support GNA-affiliated forces seeking to defeat ISIL in its primary stronghold in Libya,” Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said, using another name for IS.

The GNA is significantly Muslim Brotherhood influenced. Obama refused to provide aid until the GNA, which incorporates Islamists, came into being.

A  third deputy is Abdessalam Kajman who aligned with the Justice and Construction Party of which the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest component while Musa al-Kuni represents southern Libya.

Whether it was going after Gaddafi or ISIS, Obama needs to be on the right side of his political Islamists first. And he isn’t about to bomb them merely to save American lives.

US airstrikes target Islamic State stronghold in Libya

Fighters from the Al Bunyan Al Marsoos (“Solid Structure”) operations room in Sirte, Libya.

Fighters from the Al Bunyan Al Marsoos (“Solid Structure”) operations room in Sirte, Libya.

Long War Journal, BY BILL ROGGIO AND THOMAS JOSCELYN | August 1, 2016

The US military acknowledged today that it has targeted the Islamic State’s Libyan arm in the city of Sirte. The air strikes are part of an effort to deal a blow to the jihadist group in its largest base of operations inside Libya.

“Today, at the request of the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), the United States military conducted precision air strikes against ISIL [Islamic State] targets in Sirte, Libya, to support GNA-affiliated forces seeking to defeat ISIL in its primary stronghold in Libya,” the Pentagon stated in a press release.

“These strikes were authorized by the president following a recommendation from Secretary [of Defense] Carter and Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Dunford,” the statement continued. “They are consistent with our approach to combating ISIL by working with capable and motivated local forces. GNA-aligned forces have had success in recapturing territory from ISIL thus far around Sirte, and additional US strikes will continue to target ISIL in Sirte in order to enable the GNA to make a decisive, strategic advance.”

The airstrikes were confirmed by Libya’s prime minister and Al Bunyan Al Marsoos (“Solid Structure”), an operations room that is allied with the UN-backed government and recruits fighters from Islamist militias in Misrata and elsewhere. According to Al Bunyan Al Marsoos, an Islamic State “tank” was targeted and destroyed by US aircraft.

Al Bunyan Al Marsoos launched an offensive to retake Sirte in late May and claimed it would “be liberated within days.” While the Islamic State lost some ground during the initial fighting, the situation in Sirte has largely stalemated. American airpower was likely called in because the offensive has stalled and the US can provide superior targeting against the jihadists, who remain entrenched in the interior of the city. [See LWJ report, Libyan forces seize key points from the Islamic State around Sirte.]

As Al Bunyan Al Marsoos advanced on the city in May, the Islamic State’s Libyan “province” was forced to deploy its “martyrs.” The jihadists launched zero suicide attacks in and around Sirte during the first four months of the year, according to data published by Amaq News Agency, which is part of the the Islamic State’s media machine. But then, in May, the organization dispatched nine suicide bombers in Sirte and on the outskirts of the city. This was a clear indication that the Islamc State’s grip on the area was slipping, as the organization previously did not need to use its “martyrs” to beat back its opponents.

The loss of Sirte would be a major blow to the Islamic State and its efforts to control territory outside of Iraq and Syria. The group seized Sirte in June 2015 and has repeatedly showcased the city as one of its main bases outside of its holdings in Iraq and Syria.

Sirte is so important to the Islamic State that the group’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad al Adnani, mentioned it alongside Raqqa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq in a speech in May. Raqqa and Mosul are the de facto capitals of the self-declared caliphate and, as such, the most important cities under the jihadists’ control.

In his speech, titled “That They Live By Proof,” Adnani implicitly conceded that the Islamic State could lose one or all three of these cities. Adnani argued that neither the loss of individual leaders, nor the “loss of a city or the loss of land,” would mean that the Islamic State has been defeated as long as the jihadists retained the will to fight.

The newly announced operations in Sirte are the first publicly acknowledged airstrikes by the US in Libya since Feb. 2016, when American warplanes attacked an Islamic State training camp near Sabratha. The US targeted Noureddine Chouchane, who was described by the Pentagon as a “senior facilitator” for the so-called caliphate and was “associated with the training camp.” Chouchane is thought to be involved in two high profile terrorist attacks in Tunisia in 2015 and reportedly played a significant role in the Islamic State’s external operations network that plots and executes attacks against the West. [See LWJreport, US airstrike targets Islamic State operative, training camp in Libya.]

On Nov. 13, 2015, the US killed Wissam Najm Abd Zayd al Zubaydi, also known as Abu Nabil al Anbari, in an airstrike. Zubaydi, an Iraqi national, “was a longtime al Qaeda operative and the senior ISIL [Islamic State] leader in Libya,” according to a statement by the US military. Some accounts indicated that Zubaydi served as the lead executioner in the February 2015 massacre of Coptic Christians on the Libyan coast.

The airstrikes in Sirte highlight the expanding war against the Islamic State, which has claimed responsibility for multiple terrorist attacks in the West over the past year.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of The Long War Journal. Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for The Long War Journal.

DNC Speech: Hillary Clinton Deletes Foreign Policy Disasters as Secretary of State

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, July 29, 2016:

PHILADELPHIA – Notoriously missing from Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech here at the Democratic National Convention was a list of any significant accomplishments from her time as Secretary of State.

The words “secretary of state” only appeared twice in her speech.

One of those times she stated, “I have to tell you, as your Secretary of State, I went to 112 countries, and when people hear those words – they hear America.”

Here, she seems to be brandishing her foreign travel as a signature achievement while she was one of the nation’s highest serving diplomats.

The second and final direct mention of her former State position came when she exclaimed, “As you know, I’m not one of those people. I’ve been your First Lady. Served 8 years as a Senator from the great State of New York. Then I represented all of you as Secretary of State.”

When she did briefly mention her record, Clinton mostly spoke in generalities and she seemed to be combining her time as  a Senator and Secretary of State.

She stated:

Look at my record.  I’ve worked across the aisle to pass laws and treaties and to launch new programs that help millions of people.  And if you give me the chance, that’s what I’ll do as President.

I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting Israel’s security.

I’m proud that we shaped a global climate agreement – now we have to hold every country accountable to their commitments, including ourselves.

I’m proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia.

While she didn’t outline her role in the talks with Iran that led to the nuclear agreement with Tehran, Clinton did tangentially mention the Iran deal. “I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting Israel’s security.”

Absent from her DNC speech was Clinton’s central role in the U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, a military campaign that directly resulted in the destabilization of that country and its subsequent descent into chaos. Islamic extremists have since taken over large swaths of Libya, and have used the country as a staging ground to attempt to infiltrate Europe.

Islamic terrorists infamously carried out deadly attacks on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Clinton did not bring up her State Department’s role in denying security requests to the woefully unsecure U.S. facility.

Clinton further failed to mention her strong support for the so-called Arab Spring, including the toppling of the regime of Hosni Mubarak, a staunch U.S. ally, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s resultant rise to power there until a military coup in 2013.

Clinton referenced the threat of the Islamic State without explaining that the global jihadist group has taken up sanctuary in countries that were destabilized during her tenure as Secretary of State.

She stated:

I’ve laid out my strategy for defeating ISIS. We will strike their sanctuaries from the air, and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so that we detect and prevent attacks before they happen. We will disrupt their efforts online to reach and radicalize young people in our country. It won’t be easy or quick, but make no mistake – we will prevail.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

What Hillary Clinton Got Wrong About the World

48981920.cached

As DNC 2016 begins, many of Secretary Clinton’s signature causes are now a problem for candidate Hillary.

Daily Beast, by Nancy A. Youssef, July 24, 2016:

America was supposed to make big changes while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton would spearhead a reset in U.S.-Russia relations. She’d usher in an era of new, internet-enabled democratic activism. And rather than focus on protracted wars in the Middle East, the U.S. would pivot toward Asia.

None of that quite came to be. If there is a connective thread in Clinton’s tenure, it was an overestimation in the U.S. ability to shape events around the world and an underestimation of the unintended consequences of change.

In places like Egypt, rather than democracy, there is a return to an even more aggressive police state, where thousands of opponents are in jail, free speech no longer exists and Islamist jihadists are expanding their grip. Rather than improved relations with Russia, the U.S. is trying to dodge a proxy war with the former Soviet bloc in Syria. Through competing airstrikes, the U.S. is supporting opponents to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Russia has helped prop up the regime. And in Asia, rather than a pivot, the U.S. has only kept one eye on a rapidly changing region. China has increasingly claimed its stake to the South China Sea, and in North Korea Kim Jong-un’s ballistic missile launches have rattled his U.S. allied partner in the south.

In other words: The job that was supposed to best prepare Clinton to be the next president could also be the albatross of her campaign, thanks to the chaotic world that emerged since she left the post in 2013.

Presidential campaigns aren’t known for their foreign policy nuance. But this one is looking to be particularly dense, even though one candidate led U.S diplomacy during one of the most complex periods of U.S. foreign policy. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand the kind of quarter-turns that led to failed strategy; the Clinton campaign can’t afford to rehash them.

Take Trump’s acceptance speech on Thursday. He hit Clinton for allowing Egypt to be “turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control.”

It’s a legitimate target. The U.S. government’s handling of the Arab Spring—particularly in Egypt—during Clinton’s tenure was, in hindsight, a total mess. But the Brotherhood did not take over; it was democratically elected. And the military chose to step in and oust the president.

A year earlier, as iconic images of thousands of Egyptians filled Cairo’s Tahrir Square during a so-called “Twitter Revolution,” U.S. officials initially resisted supporting the uprising against Egypt’s strongman president, Hosni Mubarak. It was not until Mubarak’s fall seemed all but certain that the U.S. backed the military forces that took over. But for those protesting, it came too late. They felt that America’s support was wavering. And for Mubarak’s supporters, some of whom now are back in power in Egypt, it was a betrayal. That is, the U.S. gained few benefits from a seemingly bold move by Clinton’s State Department to walk away from a three-decade-long ally.

When the presidency of a democratically elected Islamist, Mohammed Morsi, appeared in peril, the Egyptian military ousted him. In the process, both sides were angry at the United States. Morsi supporters suspected the U.S. was behind the coup; the military resented the lack of U.S. support. And Egypt-U.S. relations have been frayed ever since, even as the U.S. has continued to provide military equipment and aid.

“The administration believed it was supporting democracy when it engaged elected Islamists after the Arab Spring but when those Islamists behaved like tyrants and governed Egypt into the ground, many Egyptian resented what they saw as U.S. support for Islamists,” Eric Trager,  an expert on Egyptian politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Daily Beast.

In her 2014 book, Hard Choices, which was devoted to her time as Secretary of State, Clinton signaled that she was hesitant about Arab Spring, saying she was not convinced the military likely would do much better than Mubarak.

“There is little reason to believe that restored military rule will be any more sustainable than it was under Mubarak. To do so it will have to be more inclusive, more responsible for the needs of the people, and eventually, more democratic,” Clinton wrote.

She also described current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, who announced Morsi’s ouster, as someone who “appears to be following the classic mold of Middle Eastern strongmen.”

In Libya, while Trump has focused on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a consulate in Benghazi, smarter critics point to a more important issue: Clinton’s calls for intervention in Libya a year earlier.

Obama administration insiders say Clinton’s failing in Libya was twofold and predated the attack in Benghazi. What began as a humanitarian mission to save the residents of Benghazi from a government assault during the 2011 uprising somehow evolved into regime change. Who made the decision? And why? Critics have yet to get a clear answer.

To make matters worse, once the regime change decision was made, there was a lack of planning for how Libya would look once its four-decade-long leader, Muammar Gaddafi, fell from power. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained to The Daily Beast, the post-Gaddafi plan did not exist. “We were playing it by ear,” Gates said.

Libya has devolved into a fractured state battling a burgeoning jihadist threat, where ISIS has set up a hub in the city of Sirte, Gadhafi’s former hometown.

Testifying on Capitol Hill in January 2013, Clinton conceded that events in Libya had unfolded in unexpected ways. But she said that the criticisms directed at her were too often about politics, not improving U.S. strategy.

“We are in a new reality. We are trying to make sense of changes that nobody had predicted but which we’re going to have to live with,” she said. “Let’s be honest with ourselves. Let’s avoid turning everything into a political football.”

Beyond the Middle East, Clinton proposed a reset with Russia, hoping for better relations to reset relations, which had hit a nadir after Russia attacked Georgia in 2008. She even presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with an actual red button supposedly labeled “reset” in Russian. Lavrov would later say the Russian word that appeared actually translated as “overcharge.”

The reset didn’t go much better after that. Early on, Russia agreed to allow the U.S. military to fly over its airspace en route to Afghanistan and both sides agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenal. But since then, Russia has claimed Crimea, contributed to the ongoing unrest in Ukraine and rattled parts of NATO which is fearful that Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks a geographical expansion through member states, like Poland. Most notably, on Sept. 30, 2015, Russia began launching strikes on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who the Obama administration once said had to go. With the help of Russian strikes, Assad resurrected his once moribund grip on power. In some cases, Russia has attacked U.S.-allied forces, including a strike last month in southern Syria.

In an October 2015 interview with PBS, Clinton refused to concede that she may have misread the Russians, telling the NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff: “No, I don’t think so at all.”

In Asia, the Obama administration sought to signal that the United States would no longer be focused on the Middle East but rather would turn its attention to Asia. Clinton’s first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia and reportedly a quarter of her foreign travels after that were dedicated to the region.

But like the Russian reset, while there were initial successes, the pivot eventually faltered. During his confirmation hearing in 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry was ambivalentabout the pivot toward Asia, saying: “I’m not convinced that increased military ramp-up [in the Asia-Pacific] is critical yet.”

Perhaps most notably, candidate Clinton has distanced herself from the work Secretary Clinton did on behalf of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with the 12 Pacific Rim countries, including the U.S., that has since drawn the ire of critics who say it kills American jobs and doesn’t address currency manipulation. The agreement was a keystone in the pivot toward Asia; some see her new position as an example of flip-flopping on the agreement in a bid to win favor with organized labor.

“What I know about it, as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it,” Clinton said during the same PBS interview.

With little specifics from the Trump campaign on how it would tackle the emergence of ISIS, an emboldened Russia and the rise of inspired terrorism, it will be hard for the Clinton campaign to deflect questions about her role in current world affairs. Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an email from The Daily Beast seeking additional comments about her tenure at the State Department.

So far, Trump has suggested a policy of appeasement toward Russia, a potentially reduced U.S. role for NATO and increased U.S. isolationism. But he has never explained how those changes would happen—or addressed the possible consequences of such changes.

“The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017,” Trump said at the Republican National Convention, in perhaps his most specific offering for the way ahead.

Hillary’s Libya Debacle

hillary_clinton_testimony_to_house_select_committee_on_benghazi_1

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, July 13, 2016:

Colin Powell’s famous words, “You break it, you own it,” are coming back to haunt Hillary Clinton. Powell said those words in cautioning President George W. Bush about the harsh unintended consequences that could result from the military action to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which Hillary voted to support while in the Senate. As Secretary of State, Hillary forgot all about Colin Powell’s prescient warning. She became the prime mover within the Obama administration for military action to forcibly remove Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi. In fact, upon learning of his death at the hands of a mob, Hillary Clinton exulted. Paraphrasing Julius Caesar, Hillary proclaimed on Oct. 20, 2011:  “We came, we saw, he died.”

What followed the toppling of Gaddafi’s regime, however, was utter chaos, not the smooth transition to a pluralistic democracy that Hillary had naively envisioned. Indeed, the anarchy that ensued has created a dire strategic threat to the United States and its Western and Arab allies that had not existed during the last years of Gaddafi’s reign. Especially after Gaddafi announced the end of his nuclear weapons program in December 2003 and followed through with allowing the removal of nuclear materials thereafter, his regime posed no strategic threat to U.S. national security.

No doubt Gaddafi was a brutal dictator, who sought to ruthlessly put down the rebellion that threatened his rule. However, his death and the end of his regime, which Hillary celebrated, fixed nothing.

Robert Gates, Obama’s Defense Secretary at the time, along with other senior leaders in the Obama administration such as Vice President Joseph Biden and Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, foresaw the dangers of an ill-planned U.S. military intervention without a realistic plan for a peaceful transition. They warned against it. But Hillary’s call for intervention won out.  She persuaded a reluctant President Obama to enter the fray in support of our European and Arab allies on humanitarian grounds.

Hillary spent countless hours shuttling among foreign capitals to shore up what became a NATO-led coalition against Gaddafi’s regime.  She engineered the passage of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force in Libya to protect the vulnerable civilian population, which she apparently interpreted to authorize outright regime change. Hillary had personally met with the chairman of the Libyan Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil and other Libyans who might become a part of a successor regime. Her top aide Jake Sullivan explained Hillary’s confidence in these leaders’ ability to bring the various factions in the country together to form a relatively stable, democratic and inclusive post-Gaddafi transitional government. He said Hillary had received written pledges to bring about just such a transition from the Transitional National Council.

In a succession of e-mails, Hillary’s senior aides at the State Department, and her informal outside confidante Sidney Blumenthal, sang her praises for leading the implementation of the Libyan strategy she had pushed Obama to accept.

“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’”

Hillary chomped at the bit to take credit for what she initially regarded as a great success in Libya when things seemed to be going well. She sent an e-mail to her top aide at the State Department, Jake Sullivan, forwarding Blumenthal’s recommendation. “Pls read below,” Hillary wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic.”

Sycophant Sullivan wrote back, “it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.”

Sullivan had already written an e-mail to two other high level State Department officials, Cheryl Mills and Victoria Nuland, just a day before the above-mentioned Blumenthal e-mail, effusively praising his boss for her leadership role in steering Obama administration policy on Libya. “HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.”

Sullivan then laid out a detailed chronology of all the actions Hillary had taken to accomplish her mission.

However, Hillary’s mission turned into a strategic disaster.  Weapons in the hands of non-state actors, including jihadists, were spreading from Libya across national borders to help further inflame conflicts in Mali, Syria, and elsewhere. Migrants were using Libya as a disembarkation point to try and reach Europe across the Mediterranean Sea in overwhelming numbers. Armed militias fought each other within Libya, while rival governments were formed. Anti-American jihadists, who benefitted from the outcome of the ‘Clinton Doctrine” in Libya, filled the power vacuum. The tragic result was the terrorist attack in Benghazi that took four Americans’ lives on September 11, 2012, including the life of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Just as Hillary was, in the words of FBI Director James Comey, “extremely careless” in the handling of classified information on her private e-mail system, she was reckless in ignoring clear warning signals leading up to the deadly September 11th Benghazi terrorist attack. Indeed, in addition to threats, there were previous terrorist attacks, including one in June 2012 against the U.S. consulate compound itself and another the same month hitting a convoy carrying the British ambassador. The British decided to evacuate from Benghazi. Yet Hillary pressed on to establish a permanent U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens took his fateful trip to Benghazi in September 2012 in part to advance Hillary’s plan. “At least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and also there because we understood the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks testified to a Congressional committee in 2013.

Multiple requests from people on the ground in Libya for more security, including some from Ambassador Stevens himself, were sent to the State Department prior to the September 11, 2012 attack.  Stevens’ last diary entry was “never ending security threats.”  Somehow the security concerns never reached Hillary’s desk. She told the House Benghazi Committee that “I was not responsible for specific security requests.”  But Hillary’s attempt to wash her hands of any responsibility raises more questions than it answers.

Hillary said that Stevens was a friend. She had, in her words, “hand-picked” Stevens for what she knew was a highly dangerous post even as her so-called Clinton Doctrine unraveled. By her own account, there was “lawlessness” in Benghazi, which she said Stevens had been aware of. Yet she never bothered to reach out to him directly to ask whether there was sufficient security for the mission she had hand-picked her friend to carry out.  She simply said that Stevens knew the risks and “felt comfortable” with conditions on the ground. One phone call or e-mail directly to her personal friend would have informed her of Stevens’ concerns over the “never ending security threats.” Hillary had not even provided Stevens with her cell phone number, fax number or personal e-mail address in case he needed to reach her. Apparently, Hillary had less compunctions about giving out that contact information to Blumenthal.

Through her reckless indifference to the security needs of Stevens and other Americans who became caught in the terrorist attack at the Benghazi facility that she wanted to make permanent, Hillary Clinton for all intents and purposes left them there unprotected to face the deadly consequences. She then lied to the families of the victims of the attack, telling them that an obscure anti-Muslim video was the cause of the attack when she knew at the time that the attack was a coordinated, pre-meditated act of jihadist terrorism. And she doubled down on her reckless indifference – literally – a year later at a Senate hearing with her infamous remark: “What difference at this point does it make?”

As she runs to become the next president and commander-in-chief, Hillary Clinton is trying to disown what she broke in Libya. Her recklessness and indifference to the consequences of her actions, as well as her lies to cover up her mistakes, follow the same pattern as her e-mail debacle and should disqualify her from the presidency.

Also see:

US Africa commander nominee: No ‘grand strategy’ to confront ISIS in Libya

694940094001_4767639608001_4a564451-fa49-46bd-853b-f20a3b171636Fox News, By Lucas Tomlinson, June 21, 2016:

The general tapped to lead U.S. Africa Command told Capitol Hill lawmakers Tuesday he did not know of any “overall grand strategy” to defeat ISIS in Libya.

Marine Lt. Gen. Thomas D. Waldhauser made the comments under questioning from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz.

“I am not aware of any overall grand strategy at this point,” Waldhauser said.

The statement comes a week after CIA Director John Brennan delivered a stark warning to Congress about the growth of ISIS fighters around the world. He estimated the group has 5,000-8,000 fighters inside Libya.

During Tuesday’s Senate committee hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Waldhauser if those ISIS fighters could one day conduct attacks against Europe.

“Eventually they could, yes,” he replied.

Waldhauser is the nominee to be U.S. commander of Africa Command, but has not been confirmed yet.

He also said Tuesday he would not have the authority, as the top U.S. commander in Africa, to go after ISIS targets on his own inside Africa, while suggesting “it would be wise” to hit those targets.

The U.S. military has carried out two airstrikes inside Libya since late last year.

Two U.S. F-15E jet fighters flying out of Lakenheath, England, likely killed the ISIS leader in Libya, Abu Nabil, in mid-November. The Iraqi national was a longtime Al Qaeda operative and the senior ISIS leader in Libya, according to Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook.

In February, U.S. jets also bombed an ISIS training camp in Libya, killing a senior ISIS leader and an estimated 30 ISIS recruits fighters on the ground.

A senior U.S. official told Fox News at the time that the target of the airstrike was Noureddine Chouchane, a senior ISIS figure in Libya who was likely killed.

The airstrike on the ISIS base in Sabratha, Libya, was also carried out by F-15s flying from England. Local reports initially suggested more than 30 people had been killed. However, it was not immediately clear how many ISIS terrorists were among the dead.

Adding to the concern in the West is evidence that the number of ISIS fighters in Libya is increasing, according to America’s top spy.

CIA Director Brennan said last week the estimated 5,000-8,000 ISIS fighters on the ground are up from an estimated 2,000-5,000 in February.

The U.S. military has deployed a small number of U.S. special operations forces there in the past few months, according to Cook.

Waldhauser said no more troops are needed at this moment.

Asked afterward by Fox News if Defense Secretary Ash Carter agreed with Waldhauser’s assessment that there is no “overall grand strategy” in Libya, Cook also declined to answer, saying Libya remains “a very complicated situation.”

Lucas Tomlinson is the Pentagon and State Department producer for Fox News Channel. You can follow him on Twitter: @LucasFoxNews

Also see:

***

SHOCKING: ISIS Fighters Are Disguising Themselves As Refugees [VIDEO]

Constitution, by Bethany Blankley, June 21, 2016:

CNN recently reported on a reality all to familiar with Libyan Immigration Police: ISIS fighters are disguising themselves as refugees to enter other countries to commit terrorist attacks.

Ismail al-Shukri, a police commander, told CNN, “ISIS can be among the illegal immigrants on the boats. They travel with their families, without weapons as normal illegal immigrants. They will wear American dress and have English language papers so they cause no suspicion.”

CNN Senior International Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh, who accompanied police near Tripoli to a warehouse raid, reported:

“But there is a new threat here, smugglers and police telling us that ISIS have hidden fighters among other groups of migrants bound for Europe. This trade in human souls is awful enough until you think that perhaps ISIS are using this passage of human life into Europe to try and infiltrate the continent with sleeper cells. Police tell us off-camera they’ve caught different, other migrants with ISIS links and a top Libyan intelligence officials warns us, the threat is real.”

Walsh spoke to a smuggler who explained that he and other smugglers frequently ferry ISIS members from Libya to European ports.

“Do you and other smugglers feel comfortable moving people who may be ISIS towards Europe?” Walsh asked him. He replied, “Smugglers are only interested in smuggling. Only money matters.”

MEMO RECEIVED BY CLINTON: Obama Admin Aided Group That Became ISIS to Control Area Where ISIS Formed Caliphate

as-Adnani-640x480

Breitbart, by Patick Howley, June 15, 2016:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Obama administration supported the terrorist group that became ISIS as the group struggled to gain control of the Syria-Iraq border where ISIS now claims its caliphate, according to an intelligence report sent to Hillary Clinton.

Breitbart News reported Tuesday on a “Secret” classified intelligence report sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top U.S. officials and agencies in August 2012. The report confirmed that Western and Gulf states were joining with Turkey to “support” the Syrian opposition to dictator Bashar al Assad. The report confirmed that the Syrian opposition was being led by three groups, including Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which later became ISIS. The report confirmed that AQI was communicating through spokesman Muhammad al Adnani, who is now the chief spokesman for ISIS.

Western and Gulf states and Turkey helped these Syrian opposition groups to control the Syria-Iraq border, according to the report. ISIS later violently formed its caliphate in the areas around that border. The report noted the potential for “safe havens under international sheltering” in this region similar to the situation in Libya, where the temporary government that formed after the U.S.-aided overthrow of Muammar Gadaffi established a “command center” at Benghazi.

The intelligence report goes into detail about how the West was actively helping opposition groups including AQI to control the eastern border of Syria near the Iraqi province of Anbar and the city of Mosul, both of which eventually fell in part to al Adnani’s group the Islamic State (ISIS), which continues to fight to hold control of the territory.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: WITH SUPPORT FROM RUSSIA, CHINA, AND IRAN, THE REGIME IS CONTROLLING THE AREAS OF INFLUENCE ALONG COASTAL TERRITORIES (TARTUS AND LATAKIA) AND IS FIERCELY DEFENDING HOMS, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION ROUTE IN SYRIA.

ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR) ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES, AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.

All of the areas cited in the memo have become the sites of ongoing ISIS terror or occupation.

ISIS subsequently conquered vast stretches of the Anbar province in Iraq, with major ISIS gains coming in 2014. Tribal leaders remain reluctant to expel ISIS in totality from the province as fighting continues in the area. The Islamic State conquered Mosul in June 2014 but the current Iraqi government made some incomplete gains earlier this year in re-taking some portions of ISIS territory.

In Syria, ISIS remains committed to conquering Hasaka, where ISIS attacked Syrian outposts in September and took some neighboring areas. ISIS decimated the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Der Zor in September.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump highlighted on Wednesday the 2012 memo sent to Clinton, prompting wide mainstream media coverage of its revelations.

The mainstream media has long confirmed the Obama administration’s sending of weapons to some Syrian opposition groups fighting Assad. The Obama administration publicly rolled out its plan in 2013 following Assad’s use of chemical weapons in the Damascus suburbs.

But President Obama’s secret authorization for U.S. support to Syrian rebels was first reported in 2012, including by Reuters in the same month that Clinton was sent the secret memo. CNN also reported on Obama’s secret authorization on August 1, 2012. Obama had made the order within the previous several months, according to U.S. officials who spoke to CNN.

Erik Prince, founder of the global security firm Blackwater, told Breitbart News that the Obama administration was using its Benghazi, Libya consulate in relation to its sending of weapons to Syrian opposition groups. That consulate was attacked in September 2012, the month after Clinton was sent the above intelligence report.

The State Department named al Adnani a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” in 2014.

The Islamic State’s prolific ‘martyrdom’ machine

isis suicide attacksLONG WAR JOURNAL, BY | June 8, 2016:

The Islamic State claims to have executed 489 “martyrdom operations” in Iraq, Syria and Libya during the first five months of 2016. The figure comes from monthly data published by Amaq News Agency, a propaganda arm of the so-called caliphate that releases infographics summarizing the group’s suicide attacks.

Amaq’s most recent infographic (seen on the right) indicates that the jihadists executed 119 “martyrdom operations” in the month of May alone. If Amaq’s figures are accurate, then the Islamic State is launching suicide attacks at a historically high rate.

Earlier this month, for example, the State Department reported that there were 726 “suicide attacks” executed by all perpetrators around the globe in 2015. Therefore, all terrorist groups, including the Islamic State, carried out an average of 61 suicide bombings per month in 2015. The Islamic State nearly doubled that rate in May and has exceeded it by more than 20 attacks each month this year, according to Amaq’s infographics.

The data referenced by Foggy Bottom is compiled by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), which maintains an “unclassified event database compiled from information in open-source reports of terrorist attacks.”

According to START’s data, 2015 witnessed a record number of suicide bombings. But 2016 is currently on pace to eclipse that high-water mark.

While Amaq’s claims are difficult to independently verify, the statistics are reasonable given the scale of the Islamic State’s fighting. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s men routinely claim credit for simultaneous suicide bombings. The organization is taking on multiple adversaries in every country where it operates, making the use of suicide bombings (one of the jihadists’ most effective tactics) an especially important tool. For instance, the State Department noted that “[o]n average, suicide attacks in 2015 were 4.6 times as lethal as non-suicide attacks.”

A recent video from Al Hayat, another one of the Islamic State’s mouthpieces, trumpeted this “caliphate vs. the world” mentality. In “The Religion of Kufr Is One,” Al Hayat made it clear that Baghdadi’s enterprise is at war with virtually everyone else. The subtitle of the video, “The Islamic State and its methodology dealing with all apostate parties and nations of disbelief,” underscored the degree to which this is the group’s deliberate strategy.

The Islamic State’s prolific use of “martyrs” probably highlights both its strength and weakness. On the one hand, there are likely more people, predominately young men, willing to die for the jihadists’ cause today than ever. (It should also be noted that adolescents and even children have been used in suicide attacks.) On the other hand, most of the organization’s suicide attackers are being dispatched in areas where the “caliphate” is being challenged, including locations that were once under its control.

The Long War Journal assesses that Islamic State is being forced to deploy many of its “martyrs” because its territorial claims are being rolled back in Iraq, Syria and even Libya.

The Long War Journal has tallied the figures provided on Amaq’s infographics from January through May of 2016. The English-language versions of these infographics can be seen below.

The following observations have been culled from Amaq’s statistics.

Most of the Islamic State’s “martyrdom operations,” 303 of the 489 claimed (62 percent), have been carried out inside Iraq. Approximately half of these (152 of 303) have been launched in Anbar province, where the jihadists are engaged in fierce battles with Iraqi government forces and Iranian-backed Shiite militias for months. Salahuddin (52 suicide attacks), Nineveh (40), Baghdad (32), and Kirkuk (17) are the next most frequently targeted areas.

The Islamic State launched 175 suicide attacks in Syria (36 percent of the total) during the first five months of the year. Aleppo province (59) was hit most frequently, followed by Hasakah (33), Deir Ezzor (25), Homs (20) and Raqqa (14) provinces. Raqqa is, of course, the de facto capital of the Islamic State. Amaq’s data indicate that 12 of the 14 suicide attacks there this year were carried out in February.

The remaining 11 “martyrdom operations” took place in Libya. Interestingly, Amaq claimed only one suicide attack in Libya from January through April. But the infographic for May shows 10 such bombings. Nine of the 10 have been executed in and around Sirte, the group’s central base of operations in Libya. The Islamic State’s presence in Sirte has been under assault from multiple directions for weeks, with the jihadists losing their grip on some of the neighboring towns and key facilities. Thus, the group is likely attempting to stymie its rivals’ advances with the deployment of its suicide bombers.

Iraqi forces are the most frequent target of the Islamic State’s “martyrdom operations,” as they were hit 279 times from January through May. Bashar al Assad’s regime is the second most frequent target, with the Islamic State’s suicide bombers striking the Syrian government’s forces on 89 occasions. The remaining bombings struck “Kurdish units” (54), the “Syrian opposition” (31 times), the Peshmerga (25), Fajr Libya (10) and General Khalifa Haftar’s fighters in Libya (1).

Vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) are used more often than individual bombers strapped with explosives, according to Amaq. The infographics count 301 VBIEDs used in suicide attacks (62 percent of the total) as compared to 184 bombings using explosive belts, jackets and vests. The remaining four are listed as “dual operations.”

Assuming Amaq’s data are accurate, then the Islamic State’s “martyrdom” machine is setting a record pace for suicide operations.

See more

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for The Long War Journal.

Also see:

The Benghazi Cover Up

How Obama, Hillary and their media allies won an election by lying to the American people

Front Page Magazine, June 3, 2016:

screen_shot_2016-06-02_at_10.42.32_pm

Editor’s note: The following video was produced by journalist Lee Stranahan and exposes the coordinated campaign between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the media to conceal the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack until after the 2012 presidential election. The video sequence is featured in Stranahan’s film “The Caliphate.” 

April 27, 1805 US Marines Squash Islamic Terrorists in Tripoli

Constitution, by Pamela Adams, April 27, 2016:

In February, 2015, 20 Coptic Christians (People of the Cross) were beheaded on a beach near Tripoli, the capital city of Libya. The Egyptian government responded with at least eight airstrikes in Derna.

The video of their murder went viral. Obama went golfing. Nearly every non-Muslim was clueless about the significance of where they were beheaded: Tripoli.

But U.S. Marines weren’t. Their nickname, “leathernecks,” came from the very reality that they first wore leather strips around their necks to protect themselves from being beheaded by Islamists when America was a fledgling nation. 

Although Bush and Obama have said America is not at war with “radical Islam” after September 11, 2001, America’s war with Islam began well before 2001. It didn’t start during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. America’s self defense from Islam began in 1801, with its first major victory on April 27, 1805.

At the time of the Revolutionary War, four Islamic countries, known as the Barbary Powers, attacked countries throughout the entire Mediterranean region, along trade routes, and against any nation it deemed “Christian.”

1800_map_Afrique_by_Arrowsmith_BPL_15210_detail2

Once America won its independence, American merchant ships became immediate targets and were completely defenseless. The Continental Congress disbanded the military after the war, but in 1784, without a central government, Congress gave John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin negotiating power to ensure safe American passage.

Jefferson and Adams questioned the Ambassador of Tripoli over the motivations behind the unprovoked attacks, which Jefferson expressed in a 1786 letter to John Jay:

“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Peace negotiations continued after George Washington became president. The signed treaties included the U.S. government paying yearly “tributes” of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Barbary Powers.

By the end of Washington’s tenure, 16 percent of the federal budget was earmarked for this Muslim extortion.

As a result, America went into debt, had to obtain a loan from Holland just to pay Islamic terrorists, not unlike Obama’s Iran “deal.”  Washington was so dismayed by these payments, he lamented,

“Would to heaven we had a Navy able to reform those enemies of mankind (Muslims), or crush them into non-existence.”

Even after the years of “tributes,” Islamic terrorists captured several American sailors, and tortured and enslaved them in Tripoli.

Captain_walter_croker_horror_stricken_at_algiers_1815

Immediately upon taking office, President Jefferson stopped paying the Barbary bribes. His presidency was only 2 months old when “Algerian Dey Muhammad declared war on the United States, creating a catalyst for two separate wars America fought against Tripoli (1801-1805) and Algiers (1815-1816).”

Jefferson had opposed expansive military funding. After just taking the oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” he had no choice but to fund the Navy and Marines, which Congress first commissioned on October 13, 1775 (Navy) and November 10, 1775 (Marines). Jefferson sent every available Navy ship to defend Americans from the Barbary Pirates.

It became evident Navy firepower needed land support. William Eaton, a U.S. Navy Agent, devised a plan to attack Tripoli’s radical leader Yususf Karamanli who had dethroned and exiled his brother, Hamet Karamanli, to Egypt. Eaton solicited the help of Hamet, an American ally, for a land expedition.

A similar coup occurred in Libya, in August, 2011, when Muammar Gaddafi was ousted from power. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood quickly seized power. The difference is this political switch was supported and orchestrated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama, and funded by Congress. A dictator cooperative with America, thanks to Ronald Reagan, was removed, in support of a movement focused implementing Shari’a Law and exterminating infidels everywhere.

When Gaddafi bombed a nightclub frequented by American military in West Berlin on April 5, 1986, Reagan did not make excuses for this terrorist act. He sent American airmen to bomb Libya and severely damage its terrorism infrastructure. While Gaddafi escaped death, and still supported terrorism, he quickly learned to tread lightly with Reagan. 

Starting with eight Marines and two Navy midshipmen under the command of First Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, Eaton built a force of 400 men consisting of Greek and Arab mercenaries, Turks, Arab cavalry, and Hamet’s own troops.

Leaving Egypt on March 8, 1805, they began a 500-mile journey– on foot and by camel– through the desert– towards the port city of Derne, the capital of Tripoli, in modern-day Libya. After 50 days in the desert, Eaton immediately sent word to the governor requesting his surrender.

The governor simply responded, “My head or yours.” The fight was on.

Eaton gathered the Americans, Greeks, and Turks to attack the harbor munitions. Karamanli led the Arab mercenaries to the western side, to deflect reinforcements and attack the city.

While American ships bombed the shore, the Marines and midshipman spearheaded the attack on the fortress. Eaton was wounded but after an hour of fighting O’Bannon led his Marines over the city wall, causing the Barbary gunners to flee from their loaded cannons.

After O’Bannon raised the American flag for the first time over a foreign battlefield, they turned the abandoned cannons on the city. As the Tripolitans tried to escape, they ran straight into Karamanli’s men. There was no option but to surrender.

Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon at Derna.

Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon at Derna.

Following two hours of intense fighting, only two Marines were killed, and three were wounded. The Tripolitans suffered an estimated 800 casualties with roughly 1,200 wounded.

This is how ISIS should be handled, not hand-tying the military with “political correctness.”

Yusuf quickly began negotiations for a peace treaty, ending the war in June, 1805. Known as the First Barbary War, this conflict was over, but the battle still continues today.

The Marines’ overwhelming success and flag raising inspired the lyrics, “…to the shores of Tripoli…” in the Marine Corps Hymn. Hamet was so impressed with ’s heroic actions that he presented O’Bannon with an elaborate Mamaluke sword after the war. It served as the template for the Marine officer’s sword worn with his dress uniform.

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, should have been Obama’s “Jefferson moment.” Instead, he and Clinton sided with the Barbary Pirates, insisting an American video was responsible.

Jefferson stepped up to the president’s oath. Obama rolled over and neglect it. After playing golf.

Many try to portray Jefferson as a Muslim sympathizer because he owned a Qur’an. He was anything but. He wanted every American to read it to understand America’s enemy. Obama, on the other hand, quotes it as an example of a beautiful religion while condemning the Bible.

History is repeating itself. It was no coincidence the Egyptian Christians were beheaded on the shores near Tripoli at Derma.

Obama is still paying “tributes” to Islamists as Washington did, without a military. As we have learned from history, you don’t win, without a show of military force. You win with U.S. Marines who cross a desert on foot covering 500 miles in 50 days and still destroy the enemy. Hoorah!

But that’s just my 2 cents.

Pamela J. Adams maintains TheFactsPaper.com which includes her blog Liberty Letters. She is a stay-at-home mom who began researching history, science, religion, and current events to prepare for home schooling. She started Liberty Letters as short lessons for her daughter and publishes them for everyone’s benefit. Pamela has a Degree in Mathematics and was in the workforce for 20 years as a teacher, Marketing Director, Manager and Administrative Assistant. You can contact her through her website or follow her Liberty Letters accounts at Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr.