An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Do you wonder about how Islamic State sympathizers and recruited fighters get to Syria, Iraq or even Yemen, Lebanon or Sinai and then return to their home country? Boats have become the easiest method of late. Some have even booked passage on cruise ships under the guise of a tourist. Do intelligence professionals know this? Yes… Does our own government understand this traveling dynamic? Yes… Do these people have passports? Yes….Real Passports? Not so much. Do they apply for refugee status upon returning to their home countries under assumed names? Yes… Disturbed on these facts?
A small vessel loaded with 353 refugees fleeing Syria off Cyprus’ coast in 2014 Cypriot Defence Ministry / Via AP
ANTAKYA, Turkey — An ISIS operative traveled across the Syrian border late last year, settled in a Turkish port city, and began work on a mission to sneak jihadis into Europe. It has been successful, he said, in an interview near the Turkey-Syria border: “Just wait.”
The operative, a Syrian in his thirties with a close-cropped black beard, said ISIS is sending covert fighters to Europe — as did two smugglers who said they have helped. He smuggles them from Turkey in small groups, he said, hidden in cargo ships filled with hundreds of refugees. He said the fighters intend to fulfill ISIS’s threat to stage attacks in the West. He views this as retaliation for U.S.-led airstrikes against the group that began in Iraq last summer and Syria last fall. “If someone attacks me,” he said, speaking with BuzzFeed News on condition of anonymity, “then for sure I will attack them back.”
Western governments worried even before the airstrikes that ISIS would find ways to get its battle-hardened fighters across their borders. The operative is the first ISIS member involved in these plans to discuss them with the press. He detailed a scheme that takes advantage of the worst humanitarian crisis in a generation, which has sent 3.8 million refugees fleeing Syria’s civil war, pouring more than 1.5 million into Turkey alone.
From Turkish port cities like Izmir and Mersin, many thousands of these refugees have ventured across the sea, aiming mainly for Italy. Then they often make for more welcoming countries like Sweden and Germany, turning themselves over to authorities and appealing for asylum. The operative said he worked with smugglers to slip fighters into this chaotic human tide. “They are going like refugees,” he said.
Two refugee-smugglers in Turkey said they helped ISIS send fighters to Europe in this way. One put more than 10 of them on his ships, then got cold feet when asked to send more, he told BuzzFeed News last fall. Another said he’d been sending ISIS fighters for months and continues to do so. “I’m sending some fighters who want to go and visit their families,” he said in an interview in southern Turkey, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Others just go to Europe to be ready.”
Among his colleagues in the port city where he works, the smuggler has a reputation for transporting fighters. BuzzFeed News contacted him after meeting the ISIS operative, seeking to investigate the operative’s claims. At first he denied that he smuggled fighters at all; then he said he needed “permission” to discuss the issue with a journalist. Soon after he revealed that he worked for the ISIS operative, who confirmed this and allowed the interview.
The smuggler said some fighters were Syrian. He could tell from their accents that others hailed from elsewhere in the Middle East, while still others spoke Arabic poorly, or not at all. Some told him they were from European countries, he said, and a few claimed to be from the U.S.
Despite crackdowns from Turkish authorities, ISIS continues to move its fighters across a porous, 565-mile border that has long been a transit point for jihadis traveling to and from Syria’s war. Those who need them are given fake Syrian passports, the smuggler said, which can be relatively easy to obtain. After he receives the fighters, the smuggler said, he puts them up in a hotel, waiting for the passenger list for the refugee ship to fill and the weather to be right. They leave Turkey like any refugees: on small boats that steal them away to cargo ships anchored in international waters. The smuggler said he had 10 fighters waiting in one port city, “and we will send them on the next ship.”
The ISIS operative said this method of moving fighters was important to the group because Western governments, along with Turkish authorities, have stepped up efforts to track jihadis returning from Syria, which makes plane travel from Turkey risky. The scrutiny promises to increase as Western capitals work to prevent terrorist attacks like those that struck France this month, leaving 17 dead. ISIS has more than 20,000 foreigners in its ranks, according to one recent estimate, with more than one-fifth of them citizens or residents of Western European countries. If these jihadis return to Europe in refugee ships, they can travel home via open land borders that receive far less scrutiny than airport security. The ships could also land Syrian or other Middle Eastern fighters in Europe amid the confusion of a refugee crisis that worsens by the day.
Two senior members of the U.S. Senate told BuzzFeed News they had knowledge that ISIS is smuggling fighters to Europe on refugee ships — the first confirmation from U.S. Congressmen that this scenario is underway. “I think it’s safe to say that that goes on. To what degree, I’m not sure we know,” Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr said in an interview on Tuesday.
“We’ve heard that,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, adding that as the war in Syria grinds on, refugees and ISIS fighters alike will continue to use Turkey to transit in and out of the region.
“If you don’t stabilize Syria, you’ll never get a handle on this,” Graham said. “You’re going to have this dilemma of how do you tell a legitimate refugee versus a jihadist going someplace else.”
The ISIS operative, a former member of the Syrian security forces, joined the opposition early in the civil war and led a rebel battalion under the banner of the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA). He pledged himself and his men to ISIS a year ago, compelled by its vision of building a hardline caliphate. He continued to work as a commander, battling both rebels and the regime, before moving to a role he described as “security,” which involved assassinations. In Turkey, he said, he monitors rival rebel groups along the border in addition to his work sending fighters overseas. “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, God willing,” he said.
He is a wanted man among his former rebel allies. One FSA commander said he had been hunting for the operative, echoing the details of his defection to ISIS and providing photos of the operative to confirm his identity. “He has killed a lot of FSA leaders,” the commander said.
The operative agreed to be interviewed at the urging of a former rebel who fought alongside him early in the war. Sitting at a restaurant in southern Turkey, he had two associates monitor the entrance from a car outside and received calls on his cell phone at 30-minute intervals to confirm that he was safe. He said he had received permission for the meeting from his superior in ISIS — an official referred to internally as an “emir.” “There are some things I’m allowed to tell you and some things I’m not,” the operative said.
Reached later by an intermediary with established connections to ISIS officials, the emir declined to speak with BuzzFeed News but confirmed that he had approved the meeting with the operative.
At the restaurant, the operative claimed that ISIS had sent some 4,000 fighters to Europe. Given international efforts to clamp down on the group, the number seemed improbably high, and he may have cited it as an attempt to boost the group’s stature and spread fear. His other comments suggested a more modest effort in which ISIS struggled to keep ahead of Turkish and Western authorities. “We need to smuggle them quickly,” he said of the fighters. But smugglers insisted on waiting until their ships filled well past capacity, the operative said, sometimes with as many as 700 people. “We can’t pay for all the refugees just to have enough to send the ship,” he said.
The operative said he was forced to move his work from city to city in response to Turkish efforts to crack down on refugee-smuggling. And he worried about being caught. He said he had been advised by his emir to pose as a refugee while in Turkey and to consider finding a regular job as a front.
He said several times that “the whole world” is fighting ISIS, in reference to the international coalition involved in the airstrikes, and said he hoped ISIS attacks in the West would break the coalition’s resolve, getting the strikes to stop. He also said he believed any attacks would target Western governments, not civilians — though even if he was sincere, it’s something over which he would have no control.
An official with the Turkish foreign ministry said in an emailed statement that authorities were working to combat refugee-smuggling generally. He pointed out that Europe accepts relatively few refugees through legal channels — a fact that likely increases the demand for smuggling. “Illegal migration has been an important issue and Turkey is effectively fighting against it,” said the official, who declined to be named. “Of course the most effective way to put an end to all these problems would be immediate action by the international community to solve the Syrian conflict.”
The official said Turkey’s government was unaware of ISIS smuggling fighters to Europe in refugee ships. “We do not have that particular intelligence,” he said.
He added: “Turkey has been taking very tight measures against [ISIS] with all the capabilities the government has.”
A prominent refugee-smuggler based in the coastal city of Antalya, who said he did not deal with jihadis, told BuzzFeed News that Turkish authorities had recently questioned him on the subject.
The same smuggler who said he works with ISIS fighters now said authorities grilled him about it too. “I told them no,” he said. “All the intelligence agencies around the world are following us and trying to catch us. But if someone asks me if I send fighters, I will say no, I only send refugees to help them find a better life.”
With additional reporting by John Stanton in Washington, D.C.
The White House just this week claimed that the Taliban was not a terror organization but rather an armed insurgency. However even during the prisoner swap for Bergdahl they claimed Taliban was a terror organization.
Yet….Back in 2012,
A summary report, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said that 27.9 percent of the 599 former detainees released from Guantanamo were either confirmed or suspected of later engaging in militant activity.
The figures represent a 2.9 percent rise over a 25 percent aggregate recidivism rate reported by the intelligence czar’s office in December 2010.
The increase in the apparent recidivism rate, while not large, comes at a delicate time for President Barack Obama, and could further complicate his attempts to negotiate a peace deal with Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.
As a “confidence building” measure, the Taliban have insisted on the release of five specific Taliban leaders currently held at Guantanamo. The Obama administration has been working on a plan under which the detainees could be transferred to the Persian Gulf state of Qatar but still held in detention.
*** Subj: CNN Breaking News One of the five Taliban detainees released from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has attempted to return to militant activity, several U.S. officials tell CNN’s Barbara Starr. They were released to Qatar, which had said it would monitor the former detainees’ activities. Shortly after their release in May for Bergdahl, President Barack Obama said, “I wouldn’t be doing it if I thought that it was contrary to American national security.”
*** More breaking today: Three American contractors and an Afghan national were shot to death in the North Kabul International Airport Thursday, a U.S. official confirmed. It was not immediately clear who did the shooting or whether the shooter was a member of the Afghan security forces. The incident occurred about 6:40 p.m., the official said, adding, “this incident is under investigation.”
There has been a recent rise in so-called “insider attacks” in Afghanistan. The U.S. combat mission there ended last year. *** Who is asking about the countless Green on Blue attacks? Are you?
Last March, KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban assailants apparently thought they were attacking an unprotected Christian-run day care center. But they mistakenly burst into the compound next door, where an American government contractor’s employees were heavily armed and ready, according to accounts that the contractor and the Afghan police gave on Friday of a wild four-hour shootout here.
Then just last month, December, the Taliban attacked a Pakistan school killing 145. The Taliban has attacked more than 1000 schools.
The Taliban took their war on education to a ruthless new low with an assault on a crowded school in Peshawar that killed 145 people — 132 of them uniformed schoolchildren — in the deadliest single attack in the group’s history. During an eight-hour rampage at the Army Public School and Degree College, a team of nine Taliban gunmen stormed through the corridors and assembly hall, firing at random and throwing grenades. Some of the 1,100 students at the school were lined up and slaughtered with shots to the head. Others were gunned down as they cowered under their desks, or forced to watch as their teachers were riddled with bullets.
There is no denying, Obama has declared diplomatic war on Israel. Today, Senator Ted Cruz called for a full investigation.
Obama Administration Unloads On Israeli Ambassador Dermer The recent rift between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu has become more contentious lately and by all appearances, will only grow wider. Netanyahu seems determined defy Obama and speak in front of congress. Standing alongside Netanyahu is the Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, and he is drawing as much fire from the White House and Bibi’s critics as his boss.
For perhaps the first time, Israel has become a strongly partisan issue in Washington. An axiom that has rung true in American politics since the Liberty Bell cracked is that Jews vote Democrat. In the 2012 election, the Republicans tried to wrest the Jewish vote away from Obama by claiming that his administration did not support Israel. Those efforts failed, but Congress is strongly divided and with his State of the Union Address, the president set out his battle lines on the issue of sanctions against Iran.
The Israeli ambassador has been walking through this minefield since he was appointed in July 2013. This speech will place Bibi firmly in the crossfire between Democrats and Republicans, on Capitol Hill. There are many who are angered by a foreign leader pushing his way into the middle of what most consider to be a strictly Washington affair. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, normally a strong advocate of Israel and Netanyahu, said that he was offended by the way the Israeli prime minister inserted himself into a domestic debate between the White House and Congress over America’s Iran policy and called it “wicked”. Netanyahu’s speech could be construed as foreign meddling, with Bibi taking the side of Obama’s opponents. Given Bibi’s blatant support of Mitt Romney in the last US election, it could hardly be the first time that Bibi could be accused of this.
The White House is blaming the Israeli Ambassador for the recent blowout with Israel, according to the NY Times. John Boehner extended the invitation to Netanyahu via Dermer, so he is certainly involved and if blame is to be allocated, he deserves a share. An unnamed White House official blamed Dermer for putting Netanyahu’s personal political fortunes above the relationship between the United States and Israel. This claim sounds convincing since Dermer is considered to be one of Netanyahu’s closest advisers. At the very least, he has been accused of a breach of protocol, by facilitating his Prime Minister’s visit without going through or even informing the White house.
When Mr. Boehner extended the invitation, Mr. Dermer relayed the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. He did not contact the White House. In a subsequent meeting with John Kerry, Dermer still did not raise the issue of Netanyahu’s speech in front of congress.
White House has called the invitation a breach of diplomatic protocol and announced that Mr. Obama would not meet with Mr. Netanyahu when he visits. In addition, they maintain that the decision not to meet with Netanyahu was due to a policy of not meeting with world leaders close to their elections. This is to avoid the appearance of influence. That policy has been ignored in the past, including one meeting between Clinton and Shimon Peres just before he ran against Netanyahu during which an anti-terror agreement was signed, to much fanfare.
Dermer responded to these issues:
“I have no regrets whatsoever that I have acted in a way to advance my country’s interests. My understanding was that it was the speaker’s prerogative to do, and that he would be the one to inform the administration. The prime minister feels very strongly that he has to speak on this issue. That’s why he accepted the invitation, not to wade into your political debate or make this a partisan issue, and not to be disrespectful to the president.”
This conflict brings into question Mr. Dermer’s performance of his duties.
“He’s a political operative, he’s not really an ambassador,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former United States ambassador to Israel. “What he did was totally unacceptable from a standpoint of diplomacy. To think about going behind the back of a friendly country’s administration and working out this kind of arrangement with the parliament or the Congress — it’s unheard-of.”
Mr. Kurtzer said while it was unlikely the Obama administration would take the extraordinary step of declaring Mr. Dermer “persona non grata” — the official method for a foreign diplomat to be ousted from a country — it could request that Mr. Dermer by reprimanded or removed.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of J Street, a Democratic-aligned pro-Israel group agrees with that assessment. “To be an ambassador, you need to be a representative of your country to the entirety of the other country, and that has not been his role to date.”
There are those who disagree and feel that ron Dermer has performed his duties well.
“He’s more direct than they are, he’s less judicious with his words, but he makes it up with principle,” said Mr. Luntz, who taught Mr. Dermer at the University of Pennsylvania before hiring him in 1993. “He’s got tremendous courage and he’s prepared to take a principled risk. I don’t know anyone who is as focused on a specific goal and is prepared to walk through brick walls to get there.”
Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, agrees. “He’s been extremely strong and successful at his most important tasks, which are to represent Israel’s interests and defend Mr. Netanyahu’s prerogatives at a critical time for Israel’s security. This administration has repeatedly sought to both undermine and embarrass this prime minister, and the same Democrats who now profess to be so outraged by this have been notably silent. When the dust settles on this — and the dust will settle — I think that he’ll continue to be effective”
The Obama Administration, through the state Department, is funding a group that is helping an Israeli leftist group to oust Israeli Prime Minister N=Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Washington Free Beacon. One Voice international, which garnered two grants from the State Department last year, and writes on its website that it is a “partner” with the state Department, is teaming with V15, a leftist Israeli group which coyly avoided naming Netanyahu, but stated, “We say ‘replace the government,’ it’s not directed at specific individuals. There have been many years of right-wing governments during which little happened, it’s time to change course and give people hope.”Jeremy Bird, the national field director for Obama’s 2012 campaign and a co-founder of 270 Strategies, is now working with V15, according to the Daily Caller, which interviewed Lynda Tran, co-founder of 270 Strategies She acknowledged that her organization and Bird are indeed working with One Voice. Bird is virulently anti-Netanyahu; after Netanyahu was invited by Speaker John Boehner to speak before Congress, Bird tweeted that the invitation was a suck-up to Jewish Republicans, writing, “What do you think Adelson promised GOP in exchange for this insane BiBi House visit?” Bird wrote on Twitter. “Blatant attempt to bolster Israeli PM before elections.”
OneVoice development and grants officer Christina Taler would only admit that her organization would help V15 with voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, claiming that the efforts would be non-partisan. She told the Beacon, “We’ve formed a partnership with [V15], but it’s important to know we’re absolutely nonpartisan. Our biggest emphasis and focus right now is just getting people out to vote.”
Taler protested that One Voice used the State Department funding for other activities, not the Israeli election. She said that the funding was used to “build public campaign support for the [Israeli-Palestinian] negotiations” that Secretary of State John Kerry attempted in 2014.
Yasser Mahmoud Abbas, the son of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, sits on the advisory board of One Voice.
Remember the Fast and Furious Case? The DoJ’s collusion and obstruction has been identified by a Judge in the case of ATF whistleblower Jay Dobyn’s case.
On August 25, 2014, the court issued an opinion in the above case. On August 28, 2014, a judgment was rendered under RCFC 58. On October 24, 2014, defendant filed a notice of appeal. On October 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of cross-appeal. On October 29, 2014, the court, invoking RCFC 60(b) and other provisions,1
issued an order voiding the prior judgment based upon indications that defendant, through its counsel, had committed fraud on the court. On November 6, 2014, defendant filed a motion seeking to vacate this order. On November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s motion. On November 13, 2014, the court granted defendant’s motion to vacate the order voiding the judgment in this case.
A federal judge angrily accused Justice Department attorneys in newly unsealed documents of “fraud upon the court” by intimidating a witness in a case involving a former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent who alleges the agency trashed his reputation.
Judge Francis Allegra, who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 1998 by President Bill Clinton, is presiding over a suit brought by former ATF agent Jay Dobyns against the government agency, which he claims retaliated against him and damaged his reputation. Dobyns infiltrated Hell’s Angels and worked on cases involving the Aryan Brotherhood and MS-13 during his law enforcement career.
In a newly unsealed, Dec. 1, 2014, court ruling that legal experts said was highly unusual, Allegra accused seven Justice Department lawyers of “fraud upon the court, banned them from making any further filings in the case and took the unusual step of directly notifying Attorney General Eric Holder.
“In 40 years of legal practice, government and private, I’ve never seen that done,” said David Hardy, a constitutional law expert who formerly worked in the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office.
” … a federal judge is basically questioning your candor with your court — it’s exceedingly serious.”- Thomas Dupree, former DOJ official
Allegra said the government attorneys may have intimidated a witness and charged that seven of them may have kept illegal behavior secret from the court.
The controversy began after someone burned down the home of Dobyns. Dobyns claimed the ATF failed to protect his family, but the agency claimed Dobyns burned down his own home, a charge he denied. Dobyns then sued the ATF in U.S. Federal Claims Court for damaging his reputation and retaliation.
That’s when Justice Department lawyers got involved. In the ruling from last month, Allegra found a key witness in the trial said he was threatened by another ATF agent – and that ATF lawyers told the threatened agent not to tell the judge about it.
“[ATF lawyers] ordered the agent in question not to communicate the threat to the court and stated that there would be repercussions if the agent did not follow counsel’s instructions,” Judge Allegra said in his ruling.
The judge also noted that a tape recording indicates that multiple DOJ lawyers knew about misconduct and did not inform the judge.
“It’s a huge issue. Look, a lawyer’s stock and trade is his or her integrity, and to have a situation where a federal judge is basically questioning your candor with your court — it’s exceedingly serious,” Thomas Dupree, a partner at the prestigious law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and a former DOJ official from 2007 to 2009, told FoxNews.com.
Allegra’s ruling also documents other alleged wrongdoing. When Tom Atteberry, new ATF Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office, tried to reopen Dobyns’ arson case, Justice Department attorney Valerie Baker told him not to because it would damage her defense against Dobyns. Atteberry was a witnesses in the case, but the judge didn’t hear about the DOJ effort to silence him until trial. Allegra ruled that the DOJ action may amount to ‘fraud upon the court.”
“It’s very, very serious,” said Dupree. “Judges don’t make allegations like this cavalierly. It’s only after they have looked at the evidence and they have deep concerns that something that is not quite right. This is not by any means a run-of-the-mill, routine order.”
Last summer, Judge Allegra awarded Dobyns $173,000 in damages and rebuked the ATF for failing to adequately protect Dobyns and his family. The Justice Department appealed that ruling, but in another highly unusual move, Allegra successfully had the case remanded to his court, so he can pursue the seven government lawyers for concealing evidence. Recently unsealed documents obtained by FoxNews.com show that the DOJ disagrees with Allegra’s decision to keep the lawyers out of his court.
“[The order] limits the attorney general’s authority to select counsel to represent the United States,” a legal filing by Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda from Jan. 5 reads.
She added: “We are prepared to move forward with the… proceedings at the Court’s convenience.”
The judge also sent evidence of the alleged malpractice to the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which initially opened an investigation. However, legal filings show that the agency soon suspended its investigation, saying it would wait to hear what Judge Allegra finds.
Dobyns’ lawyer said that seemed odd given that Judge Allegra had specifically asked DOJ to investigate.
“He asked OPR to investigate these matters,” James Reed, Dobyns’ attorney, told FoxNews.com. “In nearly a quarter-century practicing law I’ve never come close to seeing anything like this,” he said.
Others, such as former ATF agents, said they were not surprised given their experience with the agency.
“It is atrocious. If they can do this to a highly decorated federal agent, imagine what they can do to the average Joe,” said Vince Cefalu, a former agent who helped expose the Operation Fast and Furious scandal and who successfully sued the ATF for retaliating against him.
The ATF declined to comment on the case. Fox News also asked Attorney General Eric Holder if the lawyers involved had been disciplined. The Department of Justice declined to comment.
Blogger David Codrea, one of the first to discover the unsealed documents, said it shows “a pattern of institutional corruption and arrogance that gets its tone set from the top.”
Hillary lied and Qaddafi died along with his sons. Hillary colluded with Susan Rice and Samantha Power and manufactured a crisis in Libya. This was Hillary’s show to make Libya her crown jewel of success as SecState. It must be note that war action must still be signed off by POTUS. He owns just the same amount of guilt if not more. Sadly and mostly so, the military was just a pawn for their political success….
Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.
The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.
“You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,” an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.
At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton argued that Gadhafi might engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded President Obama, NATO allies and the United Nations to authorize military intervention.
Losing control: Col. Moammar Gadhafi ruled Libya with an iron fist, but … more >
Gadhafi’s son and heir apparent, Seif Gadhafi, told American officials in the secret conversations that he was worried Mrs. Clinton was using false pretenses to justify unseating his father and insisted that the regime had no intention of harming a mass of civilians. He compared Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for war to that of the George W. Bush administration’s now debunked weapons of mass destruction accusations, which were used to lobby Congress to invade Iraq, the tapes show.
“It was like the WMDs in Iraq. It was based on a false report,” Gadhafi said in a May 2011 phone call to Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat serving at the time. “Libyan airplanes bombing demonstrators, Libyan airplanes bombing districts in Tripoli, Libyan army killed thousands, etc., etc., and now the whole world found there is no single evidence that such things happened in Libya.”
Seif Gadhafi also warned that many of the U.S.-supported armed rebels were “not freedom fighters” but rather jihadists whom he described as “gangsters and terrorists.”
“And now you have NATO supporting them with ships, with airplanes, helicopters, arms, training, communication,” he said in one recorded conversation with U.S. officials. “We ask the American government send a fact-finding mission to Libya. I want you to see everything with your own eyes.”
The surreptitiously taped conversations reveal an extraordinary departure from traditional policy, in which the U.S. government speaks to foreign governments with one voice coordinated by the State Department.
Instead, the tapes show that the Pentagon’s senior uniformed leadership and a congressman from Mrs. Clinton’s own party conveyed sentiments to the Libyan regime that undercut or conflicted with the secretary of state’s own message at the time.
“If this story is true, it would be highly unusual for the Pentagon to conduct a separate set of diplomatic negotiations, given the way we operated when I was secretary of state,” James A. Baker III, who served under President George H.W. Bush, told The Times. “In our administration, the president made sure that we all sang from the same hymnal.”
Mr. Kucinich, who challenged Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, acknowledged that he undertook his own conversations with the Gadhafi regime. He said he feared Mrs. Clinton was using emotion to sell a war against Libya that wasn’t warranted, and he wanted to get all the information he could to share with his congressional colleagues.
“I had facts that indicated America was headed once again into an intervention that was going to be disastrous,” Mr. Kucinich told The Times. “What was being said at the State Department — if you look at the charge at the time — it wasn’t so much about what happened as it was about what would happen. So there was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal.”
Mr. Kucinich wrote a letter to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton in August explaining his communications in a last-ditch effort to stop the war.
“I have been contacted by an intermediary in
Libya who has indicated that President Muammar Gadhafi is willing to negotiate an end to the conflict under conditions which would seem to favor Administration policy,” Mr. Kucinich wrote on Aug. 24.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton declined to provide any comment about the recordings.
The State Department also declined to answer questions about separate contacts from the Pentagon and Mr. Kucinich with the Gadhafi regime, but said the goal of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama was regime change in Libya.
“U.S. policy during the revolution supported regime change through peaceful means, in line with UNSCR 1973 policy and NATO mission goals,” the State Department said. “We consistently emphasized at the time that Moammar Gadhafi had to step down and leave Libya as an essential component of the transition.”
‘President is not getting accurate information’
Both inside and outside the Obama administration, Mrs. Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Gadhafi. Joining her in making the case were French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and her successor as secretary of state, John F. Kerry.
Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.
If Mrs. Clinton runs for president next year, her style of leadership as it relates to foreign policy will be viewed through the one war that she personally championed as secretary of state. Among the key questions every candidate faces is how they will assess U.S. intelligence and solicit the advice of the military leadership.
Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Times confirmed that Mrs. Clinton, and not Mr. Obama, led the charge to use NATO military force to unseat Gadhafi as Libya’s leader and that she repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials.
In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya “is all Secretary Clinton’s matter” and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.
The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”
In one conversation to the Libyans, the American intelligence asset said, “I can tell you that the president is not getting accurate information, so at some point someone has to get accurate information to him. I think about a way through former Secretary Gates or maybe to Adm. Mullen to get him information”
The recordings are consistent with what many high-ranking intelligence, military and academic sources told The Times:
Mrs. Clinton was headstrong to enter the Libyan crisis, ignoring the Pentagon’s warnings that no U.S. interests were at stake and regional stability could be threatened. Instead, she relied heavily on the assurances of the Libyan rebels and her own memory of Rwanda, where U.S. inaction may have led to the genocide of at least 500,000 people.
“Neither the intervention decision nor the regime change decision was an intelligence-heavy decision,” said one senior intelligence official directly involved with the administration’s decision-making, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “People weren’t on the edge of their seats, intelligence wasn’t driving the decision one way or another.”
Instead of relying on the Defense Department or the intelligence community for analysis, officials told The Times, the White House trusted Mrs. Clinton’s charge, which was then supported by Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power, as reason enough for war.
“Susan Rice was involved in the Rwanda crisis in 1994, Samantha Power wrote very moving books about what happened in Rwanda, and Hillary Clinton was also in the background of that crisis as well,” said Allen Lynch, a professor of international relations at the University of Virginia. “I think they have all carried this with them as a kind of guilt complex.”
Humanitarian crisis was not imminent
In 2003, Gadhafi agreed to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and denounce terrorism to re-establish relations with the West. He later made reparations to the families of those who died in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
News media frequently described the apparent transformation as Libya “coming in from the cold.”
Still, he ruled Libya with an iron grip, and by February 2011 civil war raged throughout the country. Loyalist forces mobilized tanks and troops toward Benghazi, creating a panicked mass exodus of civilians toward Egypt.
Mrs. Clinton met with Libyan rebel spokesman Mahmoud Jibril in the Paris Westin hotel in mid-March so she could vet the rebel cause to unseat Gadhafi. Forty-five minutes after speaking with Mr. Jibril, Mrs. Clinton was convinced that a military intervention was needed.
“I talked extensively about the dreams of a democratic civil state where all Libyans are equal a political participatory system with no exclusions of any Libyans, even the followers of Gadhafi who did not commit crimes against the Libyan people, and how the international community should protect civilians from a possible genocide like the one [that] took place in Rwanda,” Mr. Jibril told The Times. “I felt by the end of the meeting, I passed the test. Benghazi was saved.”
So on March 17, 2011, the U.S. supported U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 for military intervention in Libya to help protect its people from Gadhafi’s forthcoming march on Benghazi, where he threatened he would “show no mercy” to resisters.
“In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale,” Mr. Obama declared in an address to the nation on March 28. “We had a unique ability to stop that violence: An international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.”
Yet Human Rights Watch did not see the humanitarian crisis as imminent.
“At that point, we did not see the imminence of massacres that would rise to genocidelike levels,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division for Human Rights Watch. “Gadhafi’s forces killed hundreds of overwhelmingly unarmed protesters. There were threats of Libyan forces approaching Benghazi, but we didn’t feel that rose to the level of imminent genocidelike atrocities.”
Instead, she said, the U.S. government was trying to be at the forefront of the Arab Spring, when many dictator-led countries were turning to democracy.
“I think the dynamic for the U.S. government was: Things are changing fast, Tunisia has fallen, Egypt has fallen, and we’d better be on the front of this, supporting a new government and not being seen as supporting the old government,” Ms. Whitson said.
On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the
Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal.
A day later, on March 18, Gadhafi called for a cease-fire, another action the administration dismissed.
Soon, a call was set up between the former U.S. ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, and Gadhafi confidant Mohammed Ismael during which Mr. Ismael confirmed that the regime’s highest-ranking generals were under orders not to fire upon protesters.
“I told him we were not targeting civilians and Seif told him that,” Mr. Ismael told The Times in an telephone interview this month, recounting the fateful conversation.
While Mrs. Clinton urged the Pentagon to cease its communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward.
“Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this. Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all,” the Pentagon intelligence asset told Seif Gadhafi and his adviser on the recordings.
Communication was so torn between the Libyan regime and the State Department that they had no point of contact within the department to even communicate whether they were willing to accept the U.N.’s mandates, former Libyan officials said.
Mrs. Clinton eventually named Mr. Cretz as the official U.S. point of contact for the Gadhafi regime. Mr. Cretz, the former ambassador to Libya, was removed from the country in 2010 amid Libyan anger over derogatory comments he made regarding Gadhafi released by Wikileaks. As a result, Mr. Cretz was not trusted or liked by the family.
Shutting the Gadhafis out of the conversation allowed Mrs. Clinton to pursue a solitary point of view, said a senior Pentagon official directly involved with the intervention.
“The decision to invade [Libya] had already been made, so everything coming out of the State Department at that time was to reinforce that decision,” the official explained, speaking only on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
As a result, the Pentagon went its own way and established communications with Seif Gadhafi through one of his friends, a U.S. businessman, who acted as an intermediary. The goal was to identify a clear path and strategy forward in Libya — something that wasn’t articulated by the White House or State Department at the time, officials said.
“Our big thing was: ‘What’s a good way out of this, what’s a bridge to post-Gadhafi conflict once the military stops and the civilians take over, what’s it going to look like?’” said a senior military official involved in the planning, who requested anonymity. “We had a hard time coming up with that because once again nobody knew what the lay of the clans and stuff was going to be.
“The impression we got from both the businessman and from Seif was that the situation is bad, but this [NATO intervention] is even worse,” the official said, confirming the sentiments expressed on the audio recordings. “All of these things don’t have to happen this way, and it will be better for Libya in the long run both economically and politically if they didn’t.”
The Pentagon wasn’t alone in questioning the intervention.
The week the U.N. resolution authorizing military force was passed, Sen. Jim Webb, Virginia Democrat, expressed his own concerns.
“We have a military operation that’s been put to play, but we do not have a clear diplomatic policy or clear statement of foreign policy. We know we don’t like the Gadhafi regime, but we do not have a picture of who the opposition movement really is. We got a vote from the Security Council but we had five key abstentions in that vote.”
Five of the 15 countries on the U.N. Security Council abstained from voting on the decision in Libya because they had concerns that the NATO intervention would make things worse. Mrs. Clinton worked to avoid having them exercise their veto by personally calling representatives from Security Council member states.
Germany and Brazil published statements on March 18, 2011, explaining their reasons for abstention.
“We weighed the risks of a military operation as a whole, not just for Libya but, of course, also with respect to the consequences for the entire region and that is why we abstained,” Germany said.
Brazil wrote, “We are not convinced that the use of force as contemplated in the present resolution will lead to the realization of our most important objective — the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians.
We are also concerned that such measures may have the unintended effect of exacerbating tensions on the ground and causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting.”
Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., told The Times that history has proved those concerns correct.
“The U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya was meant to create a no-fly zone to prevent bombing of civilians,” said Mr. Kislyak. “NATO countries that participated in this intervention were supposed to patrol the area. However, in a short amount of time the NATO flights — initially meant to stop violence on the ground — went far beyond the scope of the Security Council-mandated task and created even more violence in Libya.”
On March 19, the U.S. military, supported by France and Britain, fired off more than 110 Tomahawk missiles, hitting about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets. Within weeks, a NATO airstrike killed one of Gaddafi’s sons and three grandsons at their the family’s Tripoli compound, sparking debate about whether the colonel and his family were legitimate targets under the U.N. resolution.
Mr. Gates, the defense secretary, said the compound was targeted because it included command-and-control facilities.
Even after the conflict began, U.S. military leaders kept looking for a way out and a way to avoid the power vacuum that would be left in the region if Gadhafi fell.
As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times with officials directly familiar with the overture. Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to help.
Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business consultant in
Libya at the time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for Libya. Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.
“The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored,” Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.
“[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions,” Mr. Kubic said. “First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable.”
Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.
“If their goal was to get Gadhafi out of power, then why not give a 72-hour truce a try?” Mr. Kubic asked. “It wasn’t enough to get him out of power; they wanted him dead.”
Libyan officials were willing to negotiate a departure from power but felt the continued NATO bombings were forcing the regime into combat to defend itself, the recordings indicated.
“If they put us in a corner, we have no choice but to fight until the end,” Mr. Ismael said on one of the recordings. “What more can they do? Bomb us with a nuclear bomb? They have done everything.”
Under immense foreign firepower, the Gadhafi regime’s grip on Libya began to slip in early April and the rebels’ resolve was strengthened. Gadhafi pleaded with the U.S. to stop the NATO airstrikes.
Regime change real agenda
Indeed, the U.S. position in Libya had changed. First, it was presented to the public as way to stop an impending humanitarian crisis but evolved into expelling the Gadhafis.
CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book “Worthy Fights” that the goal of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq and Afghanistan “for both substance and symbolism.”
“In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we’d be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn’t officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya was regime change.”
But that wasn’t the official war cry. Instead: “It was ‘We’re worried a humanitarian crisis might occur,’” said a senior military official, reflecting on the conflict. “Once you’ve got everybody nodding up and down on that, watch out because you can justify almost anything under the auspices of working to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Gadhafi had enough craziness about him, the rest of the world nodded on.”
But they might not be so quick to approve again, officials say.
“It may be impossible to get the same kind of resolution in similar circumstances, and we already saw that in Syria where the Russians were very suspicious when Western powers went to the U.N.,” said Richard Northern, who served as the British ambassador to Libya during part of the conflict. “Anything the Western powers did in the Middle East is now viewed by the Russians with suspicion, and it will probably reduce the level of authority they’re willing to give in connection to humanitarian crises.”
Mr. Kucinich, who took several steps to end the war in Libya, said he is sickened about what transpired.
He sponsored a June 3 resolution in the House of Representatives to end the Libyan war, but Republican support for the bill was diluted after Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, proposed a softer alternative resolution demanding that the president justify his case for war within 14 days.
“There was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal because [the administration] gained the support of the U.N. Security Council through misrepresentation,” said Mr. Kucinich. “The die was cast there for the overthrow of the Gadhafi government. The die was cast. They weren’t looking for any information.
“What’s interesting about all this is, if you listen to Seif Gaddafi’s account, even as they were being bombed they still trusted America, which really says a lot,” said Mr. Kucinich. “It says a lot about how people who are being bombed through the covert involvement or backdoor involvement of the U.S. will still trust the U.S. It’s heart-breaking, really. It really breaks your heart when you see trust that is so cynically manipulated.”
In August, Gadhafi’s compound in Tripoli was overrun, signaling the end of his 42-year reign and forcing him into hiding. Two months later, Gadhafi, 69, was killed in his hometown of Sirte. His son Seif was captured by the Zintan tribe and remains in solitary confinement in a Zintan prison cell.
Since Gadhafi was removed from power, Libya has been in a constant state of chaos, with factional infighting and no uniting leader. On Tuesday, an attack on a luxury hotel in Tripoli killed nine people, including one American. A group calling itself the Islamic State-Tripoli Province took responsibility for the attack, indicating a growing presence of anti-American terrorist groups within the country.
