Time for the US to stop Qatar’s support for terror

Donald Trump poses with retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis
Getty Images

New York Post, by Jonathan Schanzer, April 20, 2017:

Secretary of Defense James Mattis is on a Mideast tour to “continue efforts to strengthen regional security architectures.” While his meetings in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel are likely to attract most of the press coverage, his discussions in Qatar Saturday could be the most consequential.

Since August 2014, US-backed coalition aircraft have flown tens of thousands of sorties to bomb ISIS. Almost all of them are commanded out of the sprawling, high-tech al-Udeid air base in Qatar. In other words, the base is crucial to our war efforts.

But it comes with serious baggage. The Treasury Department’s top terrorism-finance official, Adam Szubin, stated last year that Qatar has demonstrated “a lack of political will . . . to effectively enforce their combating terrorist financing laws.” In February, Daniel Glaser, who had only recently stepped down as assistant secretary of the Treasury, stated that “designated terrorist financiers” are “operating openly and notoriously” in the country.

A report by my colleague David Andrew Weinberg at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies confirms this. After scouring available records, Weinberg found it “impossible to identify even a single specific instance of Qatar charging, convicting, and jailing a US- or UN-designated individual.” He further found that terror financiers, primarily those backing al Qaeda’s branch in Syria (now called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), “enjoy legal impunity” in Qatar.

In December 2013, for instance, Treasury added Qatar-based ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Umayr al-Nu’aymi to its terrorist sanctions list, noting he “ordered the transfer of nearly $600,000 to al Qaeda,” with the intent to send more. Meanwhile, multiple reports suggest Qatar pays ransom to al Qaeda and other groups when they kidnap Westerners. Such payments amount to terrorism finance, and also encourage continued abductions.

And it’s not just financing. Qatar harbors the bad guys, too.

In 2015, two senior Taliban officials traveled in and out of Qatar to meet members of the notorious Taliban Five — high-level prisoners from Guantanamo Bay who were traded to Qatari custody by the Obama administration for American prisoner Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. The Qataris facilitated the swap through the Taliban embassy they helped stand up in Doha. Leaked cables show US officials have long worried about how the Taliban and others may “exploit Qatar as a fundraising locale.”

There is also the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which enjoys safe haven in Qatar and also raises plenty of cash. Outgoing leader Khaled Meshal has long operated out of Doha. Hamas military official Saleh Arouri — suspected of masterminding the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens, sparking the 2014 war between Hamas and Israel — is now reportedly in Qatar after being booted from Turkey.

The Qataris don’t even bother to hide this. When I visited Qatar a few years ago, an expat told me that he attended the opening of an Ikea store in Doha and watched dumbfounded as Taliban members tested out the same couch as US servicemen. Another expat told me that locals boast of spotting Khaled Meshal around town the way that New Yorkers compare Woody Allen sightings.

Despite all this, officials in Washington often turn a blind eye. Maybe it’s the value of the al-Udeid air base. Maybe it’s Qatar’s massive foreign-investment portfolio. Or perhaps it’s some other reason.

When the George W. Bush administration launched the war on terror, it overlooked Qatar’s track record, including that 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed had found shelter on Qatari soil.

Neither Bush nor Obama punished the Qataris for terrorism finance. Indeed, Qatar should have been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department. It never was.

When Qatar’s new emir, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, took the helm three years ago, the Obama administration was optimistic the country would change. That never happened.

When he arrives in Doha on Saturday, Mattis should certainly ensure that he has the support of the Qataris for his war plans. But he shouldn’t miss an opportunity to hold Qatar to account. He should invoke President Trump’s campaign promise: Allies must pull their weight if they wish to remain allies.

That previous administrations have tolerated Qatar’s behavior is not an excuse. Qatar must cease supporting terrorists.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former Treasury Department terrorism-finance analyst, is senior vice president at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Qatar behind state-sponsorship of terrorism: Fahmy

Gaza’s Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, center right, and Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, center left, walk together during a welcoming ceremony in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, in 2012. The emir of Qatar became the first head of state to visit the Palestinian territory since Islamist Hamas militants seized control there in 2007. (UNCREDITED / ASSOCIATED PRESS)

The Star, by Mohamed Fahmy, April 11, 2017:

Earlier this year U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis called Iran the world’s “biggest state sponsor of terrorism.” It may be time to include the little oil-rich Arab state of Qatar on the top of the list since it continues to house and protect wanted financiers of Al Qaeda, Daesh, Al Nusra Front, Taliban, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups designated as terrorists by many countries and the United Nations.

In 2013, the U.S. Treasury Department named Qatari citizen Abdul Rahman Bin Umair Al Nuaimi as a “Special Designated Terrorist.”

Based on vetted and declassified information released by the U.S., Al Nuaimi, who once headed the Qatari Soccer Federation, transferred millions of dollars over a decade to Al Qaeda affiliates in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Lebanon. Al Nuaimi at one point ran a charity owned by a member of the Qatari royal family and donated $2 million a month to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Khalifa Al Subaey, an Al Qaeda Qatari financier jailed for only six months in 2008 on terrorism charges and known for funding the mastermind behind 9-11, is once again raising money for terrorists in Syria and Iraq, according to a more recent designation by the U.S.

Those two dangerous men, Al Nuaimi and Al Subaey, are strolling freely in Qatar’s malls and posting photographs of their expensive cars flanked by rare falcons and tigers.

Twitter also has a responsibility in flushing them out as they continue to post from ‎handles @binomeir ‎and@khalifasubaey.

It is not negligence or turning a blind eye. It is blatant state-sponsorship of terrorism.

At one point in 2013 Qatar opened an office for Taliban who had recently rebranded their identity to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Right then and there the Al Thani ruling family of Qatar gave legitimacy to murderers who committed horrific massacres in Afghanistan for decades, staged targeted killings and kidnappings of diplomats and civilians.

In 2012, AdelAziz Bin Khalifa Al Atya, the cousin of Qatar’s former foreign minister and brother of the current political adviser to the Emir of Qatar, was arrested in Lebanon and charged with funding Al Nusra Front. The group is an Al Qaeda’s affiliate operating mostly in Syria and designated as terrorists by Canada, the U.S. and the U.K.

Qatar immediately pressured the Lebanese government and reportedly threatened to expel 30,000 Lebanese citizens working in Qatar if he was not deported before the trial commenced. Two years later he was sentenced to seven years in absentia — time he will never serve.

Meanwhile, the Qatari leadership maintains policies of duplicity, using an unprecedented flaunting of cash to keep the international community from taking a tougher stance against it.

You will not see the United Kingdom, for example, taking a punitive position against Qatar. Why?

The Telegraph newspaper summed it up recently: “Qatari investors own more property in the capital than the Mayor of London’s office and three times more than the Queen.”

“You have to ask, who is arming, who is financing ISIS troops?,” German Development minister Gerd Muller ‎asked during an interview with the German public broadcaster. “The keyword there is Qatar — and how ‎do we deal with these people and states politically?”

‎Indeed, how do you deal with the Al Thani rulers who donate $100 million to the victims of Hurricane Katrina one day, then turn around and donate $31 million to pay the salaries of Hamas, a Palestinian militant group designated as terrorists by Canada, U.S., and the United Kingdom.

How do they justify housing senior leaders of Hamas and the military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group designated as terrorists by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Russia?

The world remains idle even after Hillary Clinton’s recently leaked Podesta emails, where she states Qatar finances Daesh. Qatar also donated $1 million to The Clinton Foundation.

In January, the U.S. designated Hamza Bin Laden, the youngest son of Osama bin Laden, as a terrorist.

Months earlier I had interviewed for my book Zaina Bin Laden, the wife of Omar Bin Laden, Osama’s eldest son. The peace-promoting couple resides in Qatar. She told me Hamza had been detained in Iran until 2010 before he was allowed to go to Pakistan with his mother.

Three exiled prominent Qataris with close ties to the Qatari royal family’s inner circle, who I interviewed recently, including Mona Al Sulaiti, the sister of the current Qatari communication and transportation minister, believe Hamza is safe and sound in Qatar.

If the U.S. is serious about combating terrorism and arresting Hamza, who has released a number of audio recordings from unknown locations calling on his disciples to stage terrorist attacks on Western nations, then maybe they should be looking for him in Qatar — the first Arab country slated to host the FIFA Soccer World Cup in 2022.

Mohamed Fahmy is an award winning journalist and war correspondent. He is the author of The Marriott Cell: An Epic Journey from Cairo’s Scorpion Prison to Freedom.

Schanzer: The careful way to go after Muslim Brotherhood radicals

Getty Images

Getty Images

New York Post, By Jonathan Schanzer, February 12, 2017:

The Trump Administration is mulling an order designed to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. The best approach would be a piecemeal one: Some Brotherhood branches belong on that list, some don’t — and making the distinction will help President Trump more effectively fight the war on terror.

It’s no secret why the Muslim Brotherhood is in the crosshairs. Its hateful and anti-Western worldview has long served as an ideological gateway to jihadi terrorist groups. Famously, Osama bin Laden’s partner in founding al Qaeda was a Muslim Brother named Abdullah Azzam. And while al Qaeda has broken with the Muslim Brotherhood on a range of political issues, Brotherhood thinkers have undeniably shaped al Qaeda’s ideology over the years — and the ideology of other jihadist groups, too.

The Brotherhood has evolved quite a bit since its founding in Egypt in 1928. For one, the group now operates worldwide. Over time, the political and military pressure from host governments in the Middle East also forced the Brotherhood to dial back on its overt extremist positions. Under the threat of annihilation, these groups had little choice to but to lay down their weapons and embrace politics.

By the time officials in the George W. Bush administration considered making a case against designating the Brotherhood, the picture had become blurry. It appeared that many of the disparate groups comprising the global Muslim Brotherhood had soured on the strategic value of prioritizing violence. Of course, this didn’t mean the movement no longer held extremist views. It had simply become difficult to definitively prove that its component parts formed a global terrorist organization.

If anything, there were some branches of the Brotherhood that seemed to meet criteria, while others were a heavier analytical lift. More than a decade later, this is likely still the case. The Brotherhood in Libya, Syria and Yemen (the Islah Party) have apparent ties to jihadis. The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan (Islamic Action Front), which has marketed itself as a political entity, may be more difficult to designate.

In the end, the intelligence will either meet the legal criteria, or it won’t. There’s no fudging it. Of course, we can augment our own intelligence with help from allied countries. We can ask for help from Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which designated the Brotherhood as a terror group.

Jordan and Egypt may also be willing to share intelligence about their local chapters, which have long sought to challenge the regimes. But Washington must vet that intelligence very carefully. These states have a longstanding desire to weaken their Islamist opposition at all costs.

Once some Brotherhood branches are designated, it may become easier to target others. When certain branches or even leaders of the Brotherhood are caught providing financial, technical or material support to listed entities, they immediately become candidates for designation.

Meanwhile, there will be opportunities to take further action at home. According to an official Treasury report submitted in December, “The US has not designated a domestic US-based charity since . . . 2009.” In other words, it appears that the Obama administration placed an unknown number of terrorist financing cases on hold at the Department of Justice over the last eight years.

Trump should instruct the DOJ to reopen them. When these cases meet criteria, they should be prosecuted. And if they involve Muslim Brotherhood activists, that nexus should be made clear.

Finally, the Trump administration has one last crucial point of leverage to undermine the financing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar and Turkey, two countries typically viewed as US allies, are the top financial and logistical supporters of the Brotherhood worldwide. They also serve as financiers and headquarters to the Brotherhood’s most violent branch: Hamas.

The administration should call upon Qatar and Turkey to end support for Hamas. They should also be warned about their support for Brotherhood branches that appear to be engaged in violent activity or even simply spreading extremist rhetoric.

The administration has a number of options at its disposal shy of a blanket terrorist designation. Because going after the “mother ship” may not ultimately hold up under legal scrutiny, an incremental approach may have a higher likelihood of success. That may also ultimately lead to a broader campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood that enjoys the backing of foreign partners and American skeptics alike.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the US Department of the Treasury, is senior vice president at Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

***

CJR: This notion that different “branches” of the Muslim Brotherhood are somehow operating at arms length from each other is wrong headed. That is what the MB wants you to think and that is why we are subverted by them. Evidence abounds of their support for violence. There is no “careful ” way to do  this. Cut them out root and branch!

Analysis: A new crack in the Sunni bloc?

showimage-3The vacuum left by America’s disengagement has thrown the Middle East into a dangerous state of instability, wherein extremist groups thrive and thwart any hopes for peace.

By Zvi Mazel, JPOST, October 16, 2016

There seems to be a growing rift between Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the twin mainstays of the Sunni front against the major threats of Iran’s terrorist operations and nuclear building on the one hand, and against the rogue Sunni Islamic State on the other. The two countries no longer see eye to eye on a number of regional issues, although they deny it and insist that they are still coordinating their actions.

The Egyptian president has stated on a number of occasions that the security of the Gulf is essential to the security of his country, while the Saudi king wrote to Abdel Fattah al-Sisi that any attack on Egyptian security would be seen as an attack on Saudi Arabia.

Simmering tensions came to the boil at a special meeting of the UN Security Council on Syria on October 8.

Egypt not only voted with Russia to defeat the French proposal calling for a stop to bombing on Aleppo, it also voted for the Russian counter-proposal opposed by the West. The Saudi representative strongly condemned the two votes, which led to a spate of acrimonious articles in Egyptian and Saudi media. Sisi had to intervene; he declared that though Egypt remained committed to good relations with Gulf countries, it had its own interests.

The so-called pragmatic Sunni bloc, which included the Gulf states, Jordan and Morocco, emerged during the Mubarak years, and enjoyed the powerful support of the United States. Israel played a significant role behind the scenes, because the Gulf states and Egypt believed that it would be able to pressure Washington into stopping Iran’s nuclear program, while at the same time hoping that Israel might bomb Iran’s nuclear installations and deliver the region from that threat.

Barack Obama’s gradual disengagement from the Middle East, while favoring Shi’ite Iran over Sunni countries, was a game changer. America jettisoned Mubarak, its long-term ally, and welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood; it turned its back on President Sisi and made a deal with Iran on its nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states felt betrayed and lost their trust in the United States, while Egypt, losing political, economic and military American support, turned to Russia and China for sophisticated weaponry and to develop economic projects – including building a nuclear plant to produce energy with the help of Russia. The Russian and Egyptian armies are conducting joint exercises, further testimony to the deepening ties.

In short, deprived of the strong American backing which was the basis of their common policy, Egypt and Saudi Arabia took different paths based on their divergent interests. Egypt, fearing an Islamic takeover, believes Syrian unity must be preserved at all costs, and aligned itself with Russia with regards to Syria, whose goals are similar to those of Iran, which wants President Basher Assad to remain in place in order to ensure its continued access to its Hezbollah ally in Lebanon through Syria.

Riyadh is steadfastly supporting Sunni rebel groups fighting to eliminate Assad and set up a Sunni regime. These groups include Islamic terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and therein lies the crux of the problem. The Brotherhood is still manufacturing terrorism in Egypt, presenting a very real threat and hampering the country’s economic development. As to Saudi Arabia, although it expelled the Brothers following the 9/11 attacks in New York – 15 of 18 perpetrators being Saudi Muslim Brothers – and has declared that the Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, just as Egypt did, it is now in the uneasy position of forbidding its activities in the kingdom while supporting them abroad. In Yemen, it backs al-Islah, a “Reform” party which is an offshoot of the Brotherhood, against the Shi’ite Houthi rebels, in the hopes that they will rule the country after defeating the rebellion.

Egypt emphatically does not want that to happen. It reluctantly joined the Saudi-led coalition again the Houthis, but is not taking part in military operations beyond patrolling the entrance to the Suez Canal, which is in its own interests. The situation regarding Libya is similar. Egypt backs Gen. Khalifa Belqasim Haftar, who is battling extremist groups with great success, while Saudi Arabia helps Brotherhood organizations.

In short, for Egypt, the most pressing threat is that of the Muslim Brothers, which enjoy the support of Turkey and Qatar. Saudi Arabia is more afraid of Iran, and therefore reluctantly allies itself with Sunni terrorist organizations it abhors. It has even grown closer to Turkey, a country at odds with Egypt over the removal of Morsi and the overthrow of the regime of the Brotherhood.

Sometimes logic goes overboard: Sunni Egypt and Sunni Saudi Arabia should have been united in condemnation of the relentless bombing of Aleppo by Russian and Syrian planes, driving the Sunni population out of the town with the intent to replace them with Alawites – but Egypt voted against the French resolution to end the bombing.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has given Egypt $15 billion in outright grants, loans or deposits into Cairo’s central bank, in order to bolster the Egyptian economy and currency, and has supplied Egypt with natural gas and oil. Both countries will try to overcome their differences, but it will not be easy. Riyadh is sending conflicting signals. It suspended regular deliveries of refined oil in spite of the 25 year contract signed in May, estimated at $23b.; it also significantly raised the price of visas for the pilgrimage to Mecca.

On the other hand, it deposited $2b. into Egyptian banks in September to bolster the Egyptian currency. A high-ranking Egyptian delegation is soon expected in Riyadh to “discuss regional issues and the implementation of the cooperation agreements signed in Cairo, during the visit of King Salman in April,” as well as the Syrian issue. The Saudi ambassador to Egypt has been called home to prepare for the visit.

The vacuum left by America’s disengagement has thrown the Middle East into a dangerous state of instability, wherein extremist groups thrive and thwart any hopes for peace. The Sunni bloc is in disarray. It is every country for itself. This has led to a quiet strengthening of security and intelligence cooperation with Israel, and even greater economic exchanges. But this is kept under wraps. Neither President Sisi nor King Abdullah of Jordan dared attend Peres’s funeral, as this newfound collaboration does not bode well for the much-touted “regional solution” of the Palestinian issue.

The writer, a fellow of The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a former ambassador to Romania, Egypt and Sweden.

WikiLeaks: Qatar Gave Clinton Foundation A Million Dollar Check For Bill’s Birth

REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon

REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon

Daily Caller, by Kevin Daley, October 13, 2016

New emails released by WikiLeaks in connection with its dump of John Podesta’s email server indicate that Qatar, an Islamist state in the Persian gulf, gave former President Bill Clinton a check for $1 million for his birthday.

The email indicates foundation officials also met with representatives from Brazil, Peru, Malawi and Rwanda to discuss donations and philanthropic strategies for the Foundation.

“[Qatar] Would like to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011,” Ami Desai, director of foreign policy for the Clinton Foundation, wrote in 2012.

The thread also indicates that Qatar allocated $20 million for development in Haiti, after a massive earthquake devastated the impoverished Caribbean nation and left nearly a quarter million dead. Desai indicated the Qataris “would welcome our suggestions” as regards investment priorities.

The foundation’s activities in Haiti have been the subject of press scrutiny in recent days.

Jake Johnston, analyst at the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy Research, criticized what he describes as a “pay to play” environment in Haiti, allegedly facilitated by officials at the U.S. Deartment of State during Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary.

“I think when you look at both the State Department and the Clinton Foundation in Haiti, that line was pretty faint between the two,” Johnston said. “You had a lot of coordination and connection between the two, obviously. And I think that raises significant questions about how they were both operating.”

The email thread also indicates foundation officials attempted to schedule a meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. “I pitched CGI, again, and will continue to do so,” Desai wrote.

Rouseff has since been impeached for corruption, though the allegations concerning her administration had not surfaced during the time the email was written.

Arms dealer says administration made him scapegoat on Libya operation to ‘protect’ Clinton

hqdefault-2

Fox News, by Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne, October 12, 2016:

EXCLUSIVE: American arms dealer Marc Turi, in his first television interview since criminal charges against him were dropped, told Fox News that the Obama administration — with the cooperation of Hillary Clinton’s State Department — tried and failed to make him the scapegoat for a 2011 covert weapons program to arm Libyan rebels that spun out of control.

“I would say, 100 percent, I was victimized…to somehow discredit me, to throw me under the bus, to do whatever it took to protect their next presidential candidate,” he told Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge.

The 48-year-old Arizona resident has been at the epicenter of a failed federal investigation led by the Justice Department spanning five years and costing the government an estimated $10 million or more, Turi says.

Turi says the Justice Department abruptly dropped the case to avoid public disclosure of the weapons program, that was designed to force the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi during the 2011 Arab Spring.

“Those transcripts from current as well as former CIA officers were classified,” Turi said of the evidence. “If any of these relationships [had] been revealed it would have opened up a can of worms. There wouldn’t have been any good answer for the U.S. government especially in this election year.” The Justice Department faced a deadline last week to produce records to the defense.

Turi says he was specifically “targeted by the Obama administration “and “lost everything–my family, my friends, my business, my reputation.”

As Fox News has reported extensively, in 2011, the Obama administration with support from some Republican and Democratic lawmakers explored options to arm the so-called “Libyan rebels” during the chaotic Arab Spring but United Nations sanctions prohibited direct sales.

Turi’s plan was to have the U.S. government supply conventional weapons to the Gulf nations Qatar and UAE, which would then in turn supply them to Libya. But Turi says he never sold any weapons, and he was cut out of the plan.  Working with CIA, Turi said Clinton’s State Department had the lead and used its own people, with weapons flowing to Libya and Syria.

“Some (weapons) may have went out under control that we had with our personnel over there and the others went to these militia. That’s how they lost control over it,” Turi said. “I can assure you that these operations did take place and those weapons did go in different directions.”

Asked by Fox News who got the weapons — Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, or ISIS — Turi said: “All of them, all of them, all of them.”

Turi exchanged emails in 2011 with then U.S. envoy to the Libyan opposition Chris Stevens. A day after the exchange about Turi’s State Department application to sell weapons, Clinton wrote on April 8, 2011 to aide Jake Sullivan, “fyi. the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”

Asked if the email exchanges are connected or a coincidence, Turi said, “When you look at this timeline, none of it was a coincidence. It was all strategically managed and it had to come from her own internal circle.”

Turi also told Fox News that he believes emails sent about the weapons programs were deleted by Hillary Clinton and her team because that “it would have gone to an organization within the Bureau of Political Military affairs within the State Department known as PM/RSAT (Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers.)  That’s where you would find Jake Sullivan, Andrew Shapiro and a number of political operatives that would have been intimately involved with this foreign policy.”

The four felony counts — which included two of arms dealing in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and two of lying on his State Department weapons application — were dismissed last week against Turi “with prejudice,” meaning the government cannot come after him again on this matter.

The Justice Department decision, weeks before the election, coupled with the now public emails, cast a new light on Clinton’s 2013 Benghazi testimony where she was asked about the movement of weapons by Sen. Rand Paul.

Paul: Were any of these weapons transferred to other countries. Any countries. Turkey included?

Clinton: Well, senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex and I will see what information is available.

Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Clinton: I don’t know.

Turi first told his story to Fox News senior executive producer Pamela Browne in 2014, and since, Turi says he’s lost everything to fight the Justice Department, which had no further comment beyond the publicly available court records.

“With all the resources that they were throwing at me, I knew there would have to be some type of explanation of the operation that was going terribly wrong in Libya,” Turi said. “It is completely un-American…I was a contractor for the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Turi said he is grateful the case is over. “It really is ungodly, and unjust and unconscionable, that the entire force of the United States government came after me for a simple application. I was working for the U.S. government.”

Turi added, “I never shipped anything. I never even received the contract. So all I received was an approval for $534 million to support our interests overseas. And it would have been the United States government that facilitated that operation from Qatar and UAE by way of allowing those countries to land their planes and land their ships in Libya.”

Close friend and Turi adviser Robert Stryk described Turi this way to Fox News in a statement:

“Marc Turi is a true patriot who served his country in the fight against Islamofascist terrorists in the Middle East. His fraudulent prosecution by Hillary Clinton’s associates in the Justice Department is deplorable as is the fate of the American heroes murdered in Benghazi. Our most loyal citizens deserve better.”

And Turi hinted there is more to emerge on the 2012 Benghazi attacks which killed four Americans including Stevens.

“Now there’s a flip side to this. Some of the operations that I was involved in, in another country for the agency has a linkage and there’s a backstory to the actual buy-back program of the surface to air missiles that were shipped and mysteriously disappeared out of Benghazi,” Turi said. “So we can save that for another time, but the reality is a lot of this could have exposed a number of covert operations that I don’t think the American public would really want to know at this point in time.”

Fox News asked the State Department about Turi’s allegations, and whether no weapons reached extremists groups on Clinton’s watch.  A spokesperson said they would check.

Frank Gaffney: Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Policies Put U.S. on ‘Road to a Sharia State’

hillary-clinton-saudi-arabia-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 12, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, president and founder of the Center for Security Policy, joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily to share his observations on the latest WikiLeaks disclosure of Hillary Clinton documents.

Gaffney said his biggest takeaway was that revelations about Hillary Clinton’s “personal involvement in corrupt activities and policy choices that have been disastrous for America” are coming so rapidly that it is difficult to keep up with them all – and the mainstream media have very little interest in keeping up with any of it.

“This stuff is hemorrhaging out now, and I think that especially when, as you say, we’ve got to spend really all of our available time focusing the banter, and the locker room, and so on. We’re not doing justice to a fraction of it,” he lamented.

He zeroed in on a particular disclosure from an email revealed by WikiLeaks, in which Clinton privately said the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar were secretly funding the Islamic State.

“It really puts back into focus – I know Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want that, but we sure need it – it puts back into focus the double game the Saudis have been playing, and for that matter, other Islamic supremacists doing business under other banners, notably the Muslim Brotherhood,” Gaffney said.

“But we’re watching this election play out, and it’s not just the progressive Left – which you’ve made some very important points about, and Andrew Breitbart, of course, was determined to defeat. Andrew was also, as you know so well, Alex, determined to prevent the Islamic supremacists, the jihadists, from accomplishing here what they’ve sought to do in Europe and elsewhere, which is to subvert us from within,” he warned.

Gaffney recommended a “very powerful film” called The Enemies Within by New Zealander Trevor Loudon, which explores “the ties between the Clintons, and for that matter, a whole bunch of other Democratic Party operatives and leaders, in Congress and elsewhere, the labor unions and on and on – both with respect of course to the hard Left, and I’m talking not just the so-called progressives; I’m talking about the socialists, I’m talking about the communists, the radical Left – and the Islamists.”

Gaffney called The Enemies Within a “staggering indictment of what has been happening in our government now for many years.”

“What Trevor does, a scrupulously careful researcher, and he’s showing how you connect the dots between the people who have essentially penetrated our institutions – academia, the labor movement, the government, the media, and on and on, and how they have wrought this subversion from within by essentially grabbing the people who were coming up through the ranks of the Democratic Party over the years, and how they were training them, how they were getting them elected, and how they were now able to essentially direct and dominate the kinds of statutory work that they do in Congress, the kind of administrative policies and orders that the President’s been executing, and so on.”

“It’s that combination of what Trevor, and the rest of us, I think, are increasingly calling the Red-Green Axis that’s so important here,” Gaffney stressed. “It’s not just the Left we’re dealing with, it’s not just the so-called Red. It’s not just the Islamists, the so-called Green. It’s the combination of the two. And oh, by the way, you can throw in the Black, as well, because they are very actively working, as Trevor documents in The Enemy Within, the Black Lives Matter movement, Soros money, and on and on.”

“You can write this down if you want, as some elegant and exhaustive conspiracy theory,” he acknowledged, “but the dots are there to be connected. It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s a conspiracy. We are facing the decades-long legacy that if we don’t stop it now, if we don’t prevent it from having another four years to metastasize further, I’m sorry to say I’m not sure it’s reversible.”

“These are the sort of things that ought to be front and center in this election campaign, and I thank God for the work you’re doing every day, trying to get this back into focus, and make sure that the kind of information that is coming out – not in dribs and drabs but in a fire hose, from WikiLeaks and other sources – about Hillary Clinton’s judgment, policy predilections, associations, and corruption is given the kind of attention that it has to have before we turn over the country to her and her ilk,” Gaffney told Marlow.

Returning to the question of the Saudis and Qataris funding the Islamic State, Gaffney said, “It’s not exactly news, but the fact that they were also funding her, and her husband, and their family foundation, and the library, and on and on, is a big deal.”

“To have it now out in her own words, according to these leaked documents, is a big deal, and the fact that it has allowed the Clintons – and, I’m sorry to say, the Bushes, too – to engage in a policy that has effectively supported people who are trying to take us down, namely the Saudis. They’re supporting both the Islamic State, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and every other Islamic supremacist entity, with the possible exception of the guys that the Iranians, the Shiites, are supporting,” Gaffney charged, adding that “there seems to be a lot of crossover there, too.”

He said this was nothing less than “the betrayal of our country, and it ought to be front-and-center in an evaluation of whether this woman is fit to be our commander-in-chief, let alone what she would do if she were able to exercise the reins of power in that position.”

Gaffney agreed with Marlow that the “connective tissue” between other leaked Clinton emails is that “like those on the hard Left, Hillary Clinton does, in fact, admire central statism, and globalism, and yes, the elimination of our country.”

“They can dress it up with other terms, but fundamentally, as you’ve said, and several of your callers did this morning, that’s what open borders gets you,” he argued. “And, by the way, there was a terrific piece at Breitbart London yesterday about this woman, Dr. Machteld Zee out of the Netherlands, it turns out a former, pretty leftist academic there, who has done a study; she’s published it in a book that talks about what she calls the holy alliance … a powerful new book about the road to a sharia state. That is, in fact, what we’re dealing with when we talk about at least some of the people that are intent on coming across, that Hillary Clinton is intent upon bringing across our open borders, or bringing in as refugees.”

(The book Gaffney referred to is entitled Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State. Breitbart London’s article about Dr. Zee can be read here.)

“When you look at these various leaks, when you look at the documentation that’s coming out, when you look at her record, when you look at Huma Abedin, as we’ve been talking about, and her influence, it couldn’t be more clear that Hillary Clinton’s objective – as is true of so many others like her on the radical Left, and their Islamist allies – is mutating beyond recognition this country,” Gaffney warned. “The President called it ‘fundamentally transforming’ it. And if they can get away with it, over the next four years, we’re done. We’re literally done as a republic, recognizable by anyone who is familiar with our Constitution, at least.”

***

On ‘Hannity,’ ‘Defeating Jihad’ author slams Hillary’s hypocrisy uncovered in the WikiLeaks dump