Day’s Events Prove Peace Process is Auschwitz 2
Benghazi Leads to Iran, Not Al Qaeda
Why should it matter to Obama if US weapons that were going to Syrian rebels via Benghazi fell into al Qaeda's hands? After all, the Syrian rebels are al Qaeda themselves.
Obama’s all-out attempt to stone-wall the Benghazi truth may hide skeletons much worse than Obama’s arming al Qaeda, it may hide Obama’s protecting Iran.
Republican Congressman Frank Wolf reported on Breitbart last Thursday:
“We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they were moving guns. So where are the guns? . . . Are they in a warehouse somewhere? Some people say they moved on to Turkey and then from Turkey to Syria,. . . Did they fall into the hands of some of the Jihadis? . . . Nobody knows, so I think there are so many questions from the failure to respond to where the guns went.”
Why is Obama doing everything in the world to cover-up the truth in Benghazi? Why is Obama administering lie detector exams every few days to all the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi? Share on XIs it to cover-up the fact that Obama was running guns to the Syrian rebels? Why do that? Both the then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and then-CIA Director Petraeus were openly advocating arming the Syrian rebels.
Is it such a big deal that the United States was secretly arming enemies of Iran’s puppet Assad through our NATO-ally, Turkey? No it isn’t.
Is the the fact that some of the US weapons may have accidentally fallen into al Qaeda’s hands that terrible? No. Not at all.
The reason Obama doesn’t want the truth of the Benghazi-to-Syrian Rebels gun-running operation to come out is that all of a sudden the “al Qaeda attacked Benghazi” narrative doesn’t make any sense. For, why on earth would al Qaeda attack a gun-running operation to the Syria rebels when the Syria rebels themselves are al Qaeda? Al Qaeda wouldn’t be attacking their own al Qaeda weapons pipeline.
So, Obama’s real fear is not that he ran guns to al Qaeda, but that if this were known, al Qaeda would be removed as the possible suspect in the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three Americans.
That is the real problem, because if al Qaeda is removed as a possible suspect because it was benefitting from the gun-running, who’s left as a suspect? Who would want an American weapons pipeline to the Syrian rebels shut down? Once al Qaeda is removed from contention, and that question is posed, there is only one answer: the Hizbullah/Iranian axis.
This may be why Obama is doing everything in the universe to shut the Benghazi investigation down. Because the truth of the Benghazi gun-running operation immediately leads to the likely conclusion that Iran, and only Iran, had the motive to attack our Benghazi consulate and murder Ambassador Stevens.
In that case, Obama’s “unprecedented” lie detector exams tazing CIA Benghazi operatives into silence is really an attempt to protect Iran from being exposed as the likely murderer of an American Ambassador and 3 of his valiant protectors.
And that begs an even bigger questions.
Why would Obama protect Iran from being exposed as a possible suspect? Share on XIf Benghazi was a live CIA operation center, then Obama had to have known when it was being attacked that it was a live CIA operation center. Why, then, did Obama fail to take any particular interest in its immediate defense? In fact, if it was a live CIA operation, extraordinary measures should have been taken in its defense.
Is Benghazi another Watergate?
US and EU: Bad Cop, Worse Cop
It does not surprise the writer that the US did not protest the EU boycotts.
Some Israeli ministers are in shock at the European Union (EU) diktat attempting to impose the 1949 ceasefire line, also known as the pre-1967 lines, as the proposed Israeli/Palestinian Authority border. The ministers, including Prime Minister Netanyau, protest that the EU is “undermining” the Kerry Mission.
I posit that these complaining ministers are deluded; I believe Obama co-planned the EU diktat. The EU diktat and the Kerry mission are the right and left hand of Obama and the EU’s strategy announced by Obama on 19 May 2011:”The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.”
The Israelis are too naive to understand that they have been double-crossed by “no better friend than” President Obama.
The acid proof of the US double-cross is that the only people who are claiming the EU diktat is “undermining” Kerry’s mission are the Israelis. No US official is saying anything of the sort. In fact, they are pronouncing the exact opposite.
The Americans are actively using the EU diktat as a taser to electrocute Israel into the 1949 “Auschwitz borders” before talks even start. US officials even admitted they were coordinating with the EU when they were reported as saying, “’The Europeans are giving us the time and allowing us to try and get the talks going,’ the official said. ‘But if we don’t succeed, they would want to go in other directions and take steps. The Israelis know it very well.’”
On the 17th of July, the US State Department spokesperson “declined” to issue rebuke of the EU diktat, adding “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”
It’s a coordinated, concerted US-EU ‘bad cop-worse cop’ strategy to force Israel to at least the 1949 lines, vis a vis both the Palestinians and the Syrians, before the real negotiations to the “partition” begin.
The US-EU double-crossers are really the least of Israel’s problems. They make up part of Israel’s external enemy. Israel’s real problem is its Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is the “inside-man” double-crosser. Instead of rejecting the EU diktat, Livni is using it to bludgeon Israel into her “two-state” pipe-dream. That’s why she has been promising the EU diktat for weeks.
On 1 July, a headline read, “In wake of Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy, Livni warns of EU boycott if peace with Palestinians isn’t reached.” Livni’s exact reported quote – in a speech to an Accountants’ Convention – was as follows:
“Livni also urged young activists to rally in favor of a peace agreement with the same fervor that they devoted to protesting against plans to export Israel’s gas. ‘We must ask what kind of state will be the benefactor of these gas reservoirs,’ she said. ‘A democratic, Jewish State of Israel? A binational Arab state? Or perhaps an apartheid state? We can’t deal with the economic issues while ignoring the diplomatic issue and the importance of the two-state solution.’”
So, the sitting Justice Minister of Israel, and minister of Palestinian Negotiations, Livni, practically called Israel an “Apartheid state” if it doesn’t satisfy the Palestinian’s demand for a pre-1967 border state. Livni’s quote makes her the ultimate friend of BDS movement.
On 17 July, Livni further empowered the EU’s diktat, saying that “the decision is a jolting wakeup call. It saddens me that we have reached this point, but I hope that it will motivate all those who think we can live with the current stalemate.”
The clear implication of ‘Justice’ Minister Livni’s statements is that without the two-state solution, Israel is a bi-national, apartheid illegal undemocratic state. So, accept it now no matter what the security risk, or else!” Hence, compared with the EU and the US, Israel’s Livni is really the “Worst Cop.”
Which brings us to the real question: Is Prime Minister Netanyahu any different from Livni? In a recent 20 June 2013 Washington Post interview, Prime Minister Netanyahu laid the foundation for Livni’s “peace-at-any-price” due to “bi-national state” logic analysis by answering the following:
WashPost Question: So what do you think is the reason you need to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
PM Netanyahu answer: The reason we need to solve the Palestinian conflict is not because it would substantially improve our standing in the world. The reason we have to resolve it is that we don’t want a bi-national state. I don’t want a bi-national state…
Objectively, the Netanyahu quote can clearly be taken to mean that to Netanyahu, the threat of a bi-national state trumps everything, including security and the threat of Palestinian rockets into Tel Aviv. If this is truly Netanyahu’s theory then there really is no Israeli security “red line” he would not be willing to cross to avoid a “bi-national state.”
With rumors of Netanyahu having “caved” on many of the Palestinian track issues, the situation looks bleak.