The drama playing out in Tulsi Gabbard’s Senate Confirmation Hearing is bringing eyes-on the unhealed wound of Benghazi.

Once confirmed as Director National Intelligence, she is going to expose everyone in the Obama Administration involved, and Americans (normies) will be shocked and supportive of their trials and punishment.

Please read all 3 links for clarity.

People in Our Government Supported Al-Qaeda’: Gabbard in Heated Exchange With Sen. Kelly

During Thursday’s Senate committee session, Sen. Kelly brought up Gabbard’s frequent criticism of US policy in Syria. He claimed that Gabbard was repeating Russian and Iranian talking points by discussing the US support for terror groups in Syria. 

Gabbard fired back at Kelly, explaining why she viewed the policies of  supporting terrorists as a personal affront, “as someone who enlisted in the military specifically because of Al Qaeda’s terrorist attack on 9/11 and committing myself and my life to doing what I could to defeat these terrorists.”

“It was shocking and a betrayal to me and every person who was killed on 9/11, their families, and my brothers and sisters in uniform.” She continued, “When as a member of Congress, I learned about President Obama’s, dual programs that he had begun, really to overthrow the regime of Syria and being willing to, through the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program that has now been made public, of working with and arming and equipping Al Qaeda in an effort to overthrow that regime, starting yet another regime change war in the Middle East.”

“Senator, every American deserves to know that people in our own government were providing support to our sworn enemy, Al Qaeda. That should not be acceptable by anyone. Thank you.”

While Kelly may argue that Gabbard was repeating Russian and Iranian statements on the matter, legendary American journalist Seymour Hersh reported on the CIA program in 2014. “The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line,’ a back channel highway into Syria,” he wrote in the London Review of Books. “The rat line, authorized in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida.”

The CIA program to fund and arm opposition groups began in 2012 and culminated in the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December. Assad was removed from power by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. 

At the time the Timber Sycamore program started, it was well known to the Obama administration that the opposition was mainly comprised of jihadist fighters. At the time, Jake Sullivan sent an email to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining, “AQ is on our side in Syria,” he wrote referring to al-Qaeda. 

https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/people-in-our-government-supported-al-qaeda-gabbard-has-heated-exchange-with-sen-kelly/

1 of 3

>>22483274

How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria

Michael B KelleyOct 19, 2012, 8:45 AM EDT

The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.

But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. 

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between him and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that an FSA commander called them "Libyans" when he explained that the FSA doesn't "want these extremist people here."

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" … and that its security features "were more advanced than those at [the] rented villa where Stevens died." 

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.

In any case, the connection between Benghazi and Syrian rebels is stronger than has been officially acknowledged.

SEE ALSO: There's A Reason Why All Of The Reports About Benghazi Are So Confusing >

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10?op=1

>>22483277

>>22483274

It was one of Hillary Clinton's most infamous utterances during her tenure as secretary of state: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" The comment came at a Senate committee hearing on the attack in Benghazi, and it encapsulated the attitude that Barack Obama's self-described "most transparent administration in history" has taken to actual transparency.

At issue was who knew what and when about the nature of the Benghazi incident. Was it a preplanned attack by terrorists or a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube? The question didn't seem to matter to Clinton, who pushed the YouTube narrative, leading the way in placing blame for the violence on an American's exercise of free speech. A little later in the same answer, she offered these thoughts about accountablity: "it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we'll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

When the attack was fresh, the story of a mob killing on a whim was embraced both by officials and their boosters in the media. ("It's all about the video," Chris Matthews told a Romney supporter last October. "Read a newspaper.") Yet just three days after the assault, a report in The Independent suggested senior officials were becoming "increasingly convinced" the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi had been "planned." Last week's hearings helped drive home the fact that the YouTube video had nothing to do with the violence. A New York Times editorial published just last week managed to miss the point, denouncing the "Republican obsession" over Benghazi while neglecting to mention the deliberately misleading statements government officials had made about the nature of the attack.

The Sunday after the Benghazi assault, UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on the political talk-show circuit to push the narrative of a spontaneous protest. It's now been revealed that the talking points she relied on had been edited several times to excise all reference to any terrorist connection. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney deflected concern about that by pointing out that Republicans knew about the process. But that's not relevant. The issue is that the government decided to mislead the American people. Whether the revisions came from the CIA or the State Department, they sought to conceal facts from the public. And government officials didn't lean on any supposed national security concern for that deception, merely the understanding that what the American people were informed of is what they ought to know.

This "move along, nothing to see" attitude is hardly new to the Obama administration. But this president and his apologists have wrapped themselves in "the truth" in a way few of his predecessors have, even while acting in a relentlessly untransparent manner. Obama promised his would be "the most transparent administration in history," yet his administration has brought up more cases against leakers (six) than all his predecessors combined, a fact that came up in reporting on the government seizing two months' worth of phone records from the Associated Press.

The phone record seizures are part of the Department of Justice's efforts to identify who leaked information about a foiled terrorist plot in May 2012 involving an IED and a CIA operation in Yemen. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession," CIA Director John Brennan explained, "it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot." Days before the AP found out about the foiled terrorist plot, the administration was busy insisting there was no terrorist threat around what was the one-year anniversary of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The leak forced the administration to acknowledge there was something where it insisted there was nothing—but Brennan's comment suggests he doesn't think the government should have had to tell the American people anything about it if it hadn't been leaked. The most transparent administration in history doesn't like to tell us all that much. 

And so it is with Benghazi. When the government said it was a spontaneous reaction to unfettered online speech, the media, by and large, believed what officials said. Now the president would like us to believe it's all just a sideshow, even as important questions remain unanswered. And the most transparent administration in history becomes just a little more transparently not so.

Related video: 3 Reasons Benghazi Still Matters (original release date: May 10, 2013)

https://reason.com/2013/05/14/benghazi-what-difference-at-this-point-d/

>>22483192

> And drive around like tards in mini cars..

>Fucking weirdos

Little child mini cars. Red ones to boot. Wonder what they had to earn one of those?

Maybe those red child cars are their version of ‘The Red Shoe Club’.

>>22483135

That old map of Kansas City looks like a Kraken.

Release the Kraken

Trust Kansas