Obama arming ISIS...Transfer of arms through Benghazi

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy. The document showed, the adviser said, ‘that what was started as a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.
---
In July 2013, the Joint Chiefs found a more direct way of demonstrating to Assad how serious they were about helping him. By then the CIA-sponsored secret flow of arms from Libya to the Syrian opposition, via Turkey, had been underway for more than a year (it started sometime after Gaddafi’s death on 20 October 2011).​* The operation was largely run out of a covert CIA annex in Benghazi, with State Department acquiescence. On 11 September 2012 the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed during an anti-American demonstration that led to the burning down of the US consulate in Benghazi; reporters for the Washington Post found copies of the ambassador’s schedule in the building’s ruins. It showed that on 10 September Stevens had met with the chief of the CIA’s annex operation. The next day, shortly before he died, he met a representative from Al-Marfa Shipping and Maritime Services, a Tripoli-based company which, the JCS adviser said, was known by the Joint Staff to be handling the weapons shipments.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Why the sensational title?

This is why it's hard to take this kind of stuff seriously, this probably an in-depth look at some things that have gone wrong in the Syria policy but to imply in the title that Obama is secretly arming Isis or that he ok arming Isis loses all meaning.

And you so know that most Republican candidates have been clamoring for arming the moderate Syrians all through the current debates.

But hey Obama is nefarious and stuff.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
yeah the title of the article is a little dramatic, it's not like a sitting president would knowingly sell weapons to an enemy of the U.S. Y'know, besides Reagan.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
yeah the title of the article is a little dramatic, it's not like a sitting president would knowingly sell weapons to an enemy of the U.S. Y'know, besides Reagan.
I don't remember Democrats being as cool with Iran Contra as they are with Benghazi, Fast & Furious, etc.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I don't remember Democrats being as cool with Iran Contra as they are with Benghazi, Fast & Furious, etc.
Well because none of those were high treason.

Not sure what point your making, that one party plays down its own mistakes. Yeah, obviously. Who do you think has benefitted most from their party covering their failures. The treasonist, the guy whose administration let September 11th happen, or the president and Secretary of State whose disregard for good intelligence led to the death of like 3 people.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Well because none of those were high treason.

Not sure what point your making, that one party plays down its own mistakes. Yeah, obviously. Who do you think has benefitted most from their party covering their failures. The treasonist, the guy whose administration let September 11th happen, or the president and Secretary of State whose disregard for good intelligence led to the death of like 3 people.
Iran Contra wasn't treason any more than the other things were treason, also Bill Clinton has a lot of "Bin Laden" on his hands as well, skipping a chance to take him out in the 90s. My point is both parties are hypocritical as fuck when it comes to brushing their people's actions under the rug.
 
Top Bottom