Friday, May 15, 2015

Osama Bin Laden, Benghazi, and the KGB

[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Because of the timing of Michael Morell's book, my research shifted gears as my readers know from my last post, Someone is Lying About Benghazi. Therefore, even though I still intend to cover the topics I promised in this new publication, I am going to order it differently so as to fit better with how things happened this week. I am also publishing this in pieces because it is going to be long and I want just as much information public just as quickly as I can get it organized and typed.]

I am reminded of Jim Lovell's book, "Apollo 13". In describing the events leading up to the oxygen tank explosion, he explains that in most aircraft accidents it is usually not one catastrophic event that causes the disaster but rather a sequence of smaller, seemingly benign events that accumulate to create the requisite environment.
Such is the case with Benghazi. One can easily get caught up in the ongoing finger-pointing campaigns and try to find the one person to hang for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, but there is no one person. Rather, Benghazi was the culmination of many different factions converging to doom the compound and its occupants. So, while seemingly conflicting evidence is aggravating, it is understandable.
What I have a problem with is the blatant lies, and they are legion. As any lawyer can attest, when a witness lies it calls all of his/her testimony into question. When lie after lie after lie is told, the situation reaches the point where nothing can be believed. At this point, I am not even certain Kris Paronto was in Libya that night. Does anyone have a time-stamped photo of him at the annex?
As I was beginning my research into Seymour Hersh's article, the following interview came out with Mike Morell:
It just so happened that same day I had just met a man who was a Navy veteran and was in his company while I was listening to the interview. He was trying to talk to me about something, and I asked him to wait a minute because I needed to find out how to fire a mortar (I was going to do a search). After the requisite, "Why? Are you planning on shooting one?" he replied, "Well, I can tell you that". So, I asked him, and he explained mortars are fired pretty much like a sniper rifle. You put in the coordinates, and then fire. I asked how long this process would take, and he said not very long. I asked if it would require days of planning, and he said no. Then he elaborated, "In fact, those people (meaning Middle Eastern terrorists) fire them so much, they have had so much practice, that they can pretty much just point and shoot."
Oh, really?
My friend's explanation fits with what Michael Morell said, and calls other accounts into question. After all, the deadly accuracy of that first mortar proves this was a pre-planned event, right? (NOTE: While I am laying out my case, please do not misconstrue my analysis as being insensitive to the losses of Doherty and Woods. I have always been struck by the irony of their having travelled so far for so long only to be killed within the first minutes of the final attack.)
But, how does this fit with other explanations we have been given? General McInerney did not mince words when he said "we knew about Benghazi two weeks in advance". And Morell himself said CIA had been warning about the situation for months. Then there is the infamous video. Originally released in July, 2012, it was translated into Arabic and re-released in September, with a screening planned by Terry Jones on September 11 of all days. (Remember that Jones is the one who created an uproar after holding a Quran-burning at his church.)
The answer is, frankly, that Benghazi was a compilation of all of the above...coupled with something more nefarious. I have written repeatedly about Trey Gowdy's appearance on "Greta" last December, saying that he lied about Stevens' meeting with the Turk (he said they were likely just "friends"). I wrote an entire post on it, demonstrating how ludicrous that statement is:
However, Morell insists that we were not running guns through Benghazi, and I would love to believe him. In fact, I was impressed by his veracity in the interviews I have seen. He does not have the slick, polished veneer I see in John Brennan. I think Morell is genuine. Yet, there is that ship with arms in a Turkish port. What was going on in Benghazi?
* * * * *
Remember this report from a few months ago?
I have already written that I do not believe everything in it. The idea that Hillary Clinton gave General Ham a direct order is insane...not that she would think she had the authority to do such a thing but rather the idea that he would give such an order a millisecond of his consideration. I also find it to be hilarious that Obama supposedly abdicated his throne to his Secretary of State with a shrug of his shoulders and a “Don't look at me; this is Hillary's war”. Please.
But, the Pentagon warring with the State Department rings true to me. And we have seen of late how Congress will go around other branches of government when it finds a policy to be outlandish (observe their recent outreach to Israel). So, for the Pentagon and Congress to say, “This is crazy! Kill Qaddafi? Does she have any idea what will happen as a result?” sounds perfectly plausible.
Back to that ship. We know that after Libya's revolution the weapons we supplied to the “rebels” fell into the “wrong” hands. (Will we ever learn to stop arming “rebels”? HINT: JOHN MCCAIN?) There is no question that Russia and Iran are playing both sides in Syria and that ISIS is a Russian invention. For readers who find that statement to be outlandish, please see my recent post on KGB incitement of Middle Eastern terrorism:
Hold that thought. Now, why was Hillary so opposed to increasing security at the compound? Every indication is she wanted to make that a permanent outpost; ostensibly the reason Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi that fateful night was to compile the paperwork necessary for her report on September 30th. Clearly, she knew of the repeated security failures, and while I suppose she could make a wild attempt at plausible deniability (in fact, she has) the truth is there is no way she did not know about the repeated security requests and denials that occurred on her watch. Nevertheless, it just does not make good sense for someone to want a permanent diplomatic facility sans the security required to keep that facility safe. What was Hillary's problem?
I have it on good authority that to this day CIA does not trust Russia, so the idea that Benghazi was some sort of CIA operation to funnel guns to terrorists being supported by Russia defies logic. But, what if the State Department was busy trying to conduct another war and CIA was in fact spying upon their operation? Not very far-fetched if we remember what happened with Qaddafi. Had Hillary gone rogue again? Was she conducting an operation that CIA was monitoring, not so much because it was the State Department but because they knew the real agitator within Syria was the Russians? Because, the bottom line is, guns were traveling from Libya through Turkey into Syria. And the fact that CIA was in Syria as early as spring, 2012 was probably the worst-kept secret in CIA history. Why were they there? Were they arming the “rebels” without authorization? Or were they monitoring the movement of those guns? Was Benghazi in fact the culmination of yet another inter-agency war over Libya?
My readers need to learn how to speak Spy. Who is “we”? Mike Morell was adamant when he said to Bret Baier, “We” were not running guns into Syria. He even put his hands to his chest. It was very heart-felt. “We”, who? “We” the United States of America, or “we” CIA? See how this works? I find Morell to be very candid. The listener simply needs to understand the language.
See, I think there are still many good men and women at CIA who love America, although the current director is not one of them. I think that CIA works to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and if that means spying on a “diplomatic outpost”, so be it. As to the rumors that Stevens was CIA, I am not sure where to put that. His love of the Libyan people was no secret. I do not know how far he would have gone to do what he thought would help them. I am aware of the argument he had on September 10, 2012 with a dinner companion about the Muslim Brotherhood, and the side he took in that debate disturbs me. But, I do not have enough information to be able to draw a sound conclusion.
As they say on the streets, “Let's not get it twisted”. My readers know how I feel about Hillary Clinton. But, this is about the truth, not politics, which brings me to the House Intelligence Committee. The display I saw out of the Republicans was ridiculous. The partisan lines were drawn, and because Morell is clearly a Clinton supporter anything he said was interpreted in that light. Note to Congress: This is supposed to be an investigation. Check your party affiliation at the door and investigate. The same goes for the House Select Committee, with specific reference to one congressman on the other side of the aisle, Elijah Cummings. If you cannot be objective, recuse yourself.
One other thing. Hillary Clinton might think she runs this country, but she does not. The reason I resist the calls to hang her for Benghazi is that there is one person who is ultimately responsible for anything that happens regarding America, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama.
Finally, we need to train our ears. Whenever we hear Iran mentioned, we need to think “Russia”. Iran is not acting unilaterally. It has the full support of Russia.
Which brings me to Osama bin Laden.

May 1, 2011
Barack Obama made a special announcement from the White House that sent shock waves around the world. Osama bin Laden had been killed in a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Everyone in America cheered, including myself. It was far past time for the man responsible for September 11th to meet “allah” and his seventy-two virgins. Revenge was sweet.
But, once the elation died, I began having serious questions. The President had made a point of declaring his intention of ending the “War on Terror”, in effect saying there was no war on terror. He campaigned on his desire to close our base at Guantanamo Bay. 2011 was not an election year, and it was a little early in the campaign season to pull a stunt that Americans were supposed to remember a year-and-a-half later. So, why did he suddenly get an irresistible urge to do the one “good” thing he has done in office?
Adding to my consternation was the ambush of Extortion 17, the families' subsequent demands for the “truth” about how those SEALs died, and the emergence of Robert O'Neill, Sniper Extraordinaire. Not only that, but I have long been convinced that several “coincidences” are not coincidences at all. I have addressed Camp Chapman before. Jennifer Matthews' death has always bothered me. She was so close to her goal, and then apparently sloppy so-called security at the base gets her killed. Who at CIA cleared this Jordanian blogger? And, what of the musical CIA Station Chiefs in Pakistan?:
It also has not escaped my notice that, not only was Ayman al-Zawahiri trained by the KGB, but almost before bin Laden was “buried” someone by the name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi began to emerge, a man who is rumored in some circles to be a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliott. (Bear with me; my regular readers should already know why I am bringing that up; the rest of you please do not jump to conclusions before you finish reading this post.) More on this in a moment.
Some of my questions may have been answered by Seymour Hersh. In an article released last week that caused tremendous backlash for five minutes before other news stories shoved it aside, he gives a completely different account of what happened that night from what the Obama Administration has been telling us:
According to the White House narrative, our military crossed over into Pakistani airspace, flew for almost an hour, and just as it was approaching the compound in Abbottabad learned that the Pakistani Air Force had dispatched planes to attack them. We supposedly radioed them with a threat, and they turned tail and ran back to base. Then we completed the mission without further confrontation. An hour is a very long time to fly undetected over enemy territory. Hersh says the Pakistanis knew of the raid in advance, and that bin Laden had been a prisoner of the ISI since 2006. In fact, the last video released by bin Laden was on October 31, 2004, so the timing fits. Hersh further claims that the Pakistanis were holding bin Laden as insurance against the Taliban.
After the Peshawar attack, I had the opportunity to have some lively discussions with Pakistanis on Twitter, many of whom are great fans of the TTP. Why? Because they believe the TTP protects them from the Taliban. The average Pakistani does not view the TTP as being terrorists, despite their being designated as a terrorist organization. I found it to be mind-boggling that the same people who had just slaughtered 132 children were being hailed as heroes. The motive behind the Peshawar attack was revenge against the army for its attack on the TTP several months earlier, and Pakistanis were defending the TTP! So, we are back to “good” terrorists and “bad” terrorists. I guess that warped way of thinking is not exclusive to America.
Nevertheless, if that is the prevalent thinking in Pakistan, it makes sense that the ISI might want to hold bin Laden in order to keep the Taliban at bay. So, while I cannot independently verify Hersh's assertion, it at least has the ring of truth.
As to the courier, I always wondered about that, because the accounts I heard from the bin Laden Task Force were that bin Laden was extremely paranoid. Paranoid to the point that not only were cell phones shut off, but batteries and sim cards were removed to ensure movements could not be tracked. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. Anything is possible, but the idea that Pakistan would cooperate with America in dealing with bin Laden only to have America betray them rings true. We have a long history of doing precisely that (remember bin Laden's doctor)?
The fact that Obama was “cautious” rings 100% true. History has proven our President does not do anything without a guarantee he will not be exposed politically. It also makes sense that, in order to guarantee no casualties in taking out bin Laden, the IC (intelligence community) would try to “get the Pakistanis on board”.
From everything I have read over several decades about intelligence operations in the Middle East, Hersh's account of the political situation involving Saudi Arabia, the subterfuge in our relationship with Pakistan, and the duplicity involved in Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban is spot-on. (I realize many readers went numb attempting to follow Hersh's description; I often tell people that whenever I study the Middle East I first remove my brain. The western mind does not follow the mentality of Middle Easterners naturally. It takes work.)
So, bin Laden is killed, Obama is a hero, and SEAL Team Six is exposed. The Pentagon could not have been very happy about that. I also doubt anyone was thrilled with Obama's, “the longest 45 minutes of my life” remark. Who was shooting at him? Good grief. Anyway, as I stated in a previous post, the SEALs stayed true to their oath and did not take personal credit for who took the kill shot. Until Robert O'Neill. Back to him in a moment.
I cannot speak to the financial situation Hersh describes in his article, although I know money talks in the Middle East just like everywhere else, only more loudly. There, the guy who pays $1 more is the one who wins the payee's “loyalty”, so again I find Hersh to be credible.
But, what of the events that occurred after that night, and the initial glory-seeking on the part of the Obama Administration? What of Extortion 17? What is the deal with Robert O'Neill violating the SEAL creed? Why do the SEALs who are still alive from that mission say he is lying? Why was bin Laden really killed (opportunity and Pakistan's motives aside)? Who was really behind it? And did these events pave the way for the future “Caliph Ibrahim”?
I will address that tomorrow when I publish the KGB portion of this post.
Why would Russia be involved in the Middle East? Most people would immediately reply, “oil”, but that makes no sense. Russia has more than enough oil to last a very long time. Why would Russia support terrorism? Most people would immediately reply that I am crazy, that Putin has made it very clear he will not tolerate terrorism on Russian soil. Yet, the evidence indicates otherwise.
What is happening in Russia while all eyes are focused on ISIS? Does anyone know? Many are vaguely aware of problems in Ukraine, and of the annexation of Crimea. Other than that, what has Vladimir been up to? Here is just a small sample: Russian planes have been running “First Strike” practice maneuvers in Europe and North America, invading American, Canadian, and British airspace on numerous occasions. Putin has threatened Great Britain, Denmark, and the Baltics with a nuclear attack. Russian submarines have been spotted in German waters. And then there is the Russian spy ship that went on “liberty” in Cuba in April, 2014. That ship remains docked at this very moment. Wow. My father joined the wrong Navy. In his entire career, he never had a “liberty” that lasted over a year. Russia must be very kind to her sailors. Or, is something else going on?
Does Russia sponsor terrorism? My readers are probably aware of a book called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. That book is a best seller in the Middle East. Most Arabs are very familiar with it, and many can pull out a copy upon request. “Protocols” purports to be the minutes of a meeting of Zionists where they discussed their plans for world domination, and includes the blood libel that Jews use the blood of Christian boys to make matvot for Passover. That libel has gotten countless Jews massacred. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was written by the KGB:
Also see:
“The Protocols” was designed to blame the Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution (where have we seen this same scapegoating of the Jews in recent history? See “Mein Kampf”), and was responsible for horrible massacres of the Jews. The “success” of this book gave the Russians the idea to expand its influence, so it has since been distributed throughout the Middle East. As I have outlined previously, the KGB was responsible for Yasser Arafat, Ayatollah Khomeini, Mahmoud Abbas, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, among others, and let us not forget that Stalin originally allied himself with Hitler (and thus the Muslim Brotherhood) during World War II until Hitler became too greedy. The KGB's hand in terrorism goes back almost 100 years, so it should come as no surprise that Russia remains in “the game” to this day.
Getting back to my questions from earlier: Why was bin Laden really killed? Who was the “walk-in” Seymour Hersh says gave him up? Obviously, what I am about to assert cannot be proven at this time, but I have formed an educated opinion. Who was the number two in charge of al-Qaeda? Ayman al-Zawahiri. So, with bin Laden dead, who took control of al-Qaeda? The KGB. (I will continue to use this more familiar name although its “official” title is the FSB; my readers are aware of my assertion that the FSB and the KGB are one and the same.) Bin Laden's death also set the stage for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to begin his reign of terror, which he commenced the following month. While we have no information as to whether or not he was ever anywhere near Moscow or had any Russian contact whatsoever, I find the rumor that he is a Mossad agent named Simon Elliott to be fascinating:
So, back to Benghazi. What about the guns that we now know for a fact were being moved from Libya to Syria through Turkey? See, I do not think we were the only ones in Libya arming the “rebels” to overthrow Qaddafi. In fact, given Russia's track record, I would be shocked if they were not running weapons out of Libya into Syria. Which points the finger for Benghazi directly at the same party who was responsible for 9/11 but who no one will name:
There is much more to say on the subject of the KGB. In fact, they will factor in to my next topic: Iraq, and whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.