I'm here in Washington, d.c. To interview.
A man who until very recently was America's top military spy
Chief, the head of the defense intelligence agency, the DIA and
before that a commander with jsoc do you'll eat military unit
which helps run President Obama's Shadow War.
Many people would argue that the u.s.
Actually saw the rise of isil coming and turned a blind eye,
or even encouraged it as a Counterpoint to Assad and a
secret analysis by the agency. You ran, the defense
intelligence agency in August 2012 said, And I quote there is
the possibility of establishing a declared or Undeclared
salafist. If not secret anymore was
released under foia. I that quote is there is a
possibility of establishing a declared or Undeclared salafist
principality in eastern Syria. And this is exactly what the
supporting powers to the opposition.
Want in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The u.s. Saw the isil caliphate coming
and did nothing. Yeah.
I think there were we where we miss the point.
I mean, where we totally blew it?
I think was in the very beginning.
I mean, we're talking for years now and to Suffered in Syria.
Most people won't even remember. It's only been a couple of
years. The free Syrian Army that that
movement. I mean, where are they today?
Al-nusra? Where are they today?
And what, how much have they changed when you don't get in
and help somebody? They're going to find.
Other means to achieve their goals.
And I think right now what we have allowed is beholding, you
will have all these extremists, you know, these extremist
militants to commend. Why did you allow them to do
that? General your room?
In 2012, was this come across your table.
When our yeah, I paid very close attention.
Okay. Also, when you turn all this,
did you not pick up a phone and saying, what on Earth are we
doing? So many Syrian rebels, kind of
information is presented. And what did you guys become
those? Become, I argued about it.
Did you say we shouldn't be supporting these groups?
I did. I mean, we argued about these
the different groups that were there and we said, you know, who
is it? That is involved here.
And I will tell you that, I do believe.
That the the intelligence was very clear.
And now it's a matter of whether or not policy is going to be as
clear and as defining it as precise as it needs to be.
And I don't believe it was just don't understand what you're
saying. Just to clarify here, you're
saying today today. My understanding is you're
saying we should have backed the rebels, you're saying
government. You agreed with this issue, has
done more earlier on, in this effort, you know, then we did we
but in truly 12, In 2012, which was can with three women, met,
three years ago. Let's just be clear drying, the
sake of our viewers in 2012. Your agency was saying, quote,
the salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda in
Iraq. Are the major forces driving the
Insurgency in Syria in 2012. The US was helping coordinate
arms transfers to those same groups.
Why did you not stop that? If you're worried about the rise
of quote unquote, having a dream.
I hate to say, it's not my job that my job was to was to ensure
that the that the accuracy of our intelligence.
Since that was being presented, was, was as good as it could be.
And I will tell you it goes before 2012.
I mean, when we were, when we were in Iraq, and we still had
decisions to be made before, there was a decision to pull out
of Iraq in 2011. I mean, it was very clear what
we, what we were going to face. Well, I'd Mario Frank very clear
that we were going to pay me. Let me just take one before we
move on, just to clarify. Once more, you are basically
saying that even in government at the time, you knew those
groups were around. You saw this analysis and you
were arguing against it, but who I wasn't listening.
I think I think hit ministration.
The administration turned a blind eye to your analysis that
they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision.
I think it was a willful decision the willful decision to
go supported Insurgency that had salafist Al-Qaeda.
It was all Brothers Vision to do what they're doing, which which
you have to really have to really ask the president.
What is it that he actually is doing with the, what the policy
that is in place because it is very, very confusing.
I'm sitting here today Medi and I don't, I can't Tell you
exactly what that is, and I've been at this for a long time.
Mr. President. First of all, thank you for
taking the time with us. When you signed the National
Defense, authorization, act into law, you issued a signing
statement at that time. The said you would not use that
power for indefinite. Detention on Americans.
You understood the concerns that people had a judge earlier.
This year issue that the administration couldn't use
those Powers because it's unconstitutional.
So why are the government's own lawyers fighting that judge's
order the injunction in particular?
Well, look the basic principle here.
Is number 1. My first job is to keep the
American people safe. Number two, we've got to do it
in a way that respects our values and our traditions of
rule of law. That's why I ban torture.
That's why I've argued that we should actually close
Guantanamo. But I've also said that we've
got some bad guys who are down there, who we may not be able to
try in a traditional court, but have pledged to try to hurt
Americans and So that's something that we inherited that
we're dealing with and it's complicated on the other hand.
What I also said was a US citizen can never be subject to
that kind of detention Congress disagree with me and I didn't
want us to not be able to finance our military and pay our
soldiers and our troops. So I signed the bill, but what I
also said was look that I'm never going to use this power.
And what I would suspect is that the courts are going to agree
with us. With long-term that that is not
something that you can use when it comes to US citizen.
Let me ask you then also about the the so-called presidential
kill list that's gotten a lot of attention.
And this this list of folks who have been targeted for
assassination and on that list have been US citizens who have
not been afforded trial, including Anwar al-aulaqi.
How do you as president or any president for that matter of
regardless of party or person utilize that power to
assassinate even US citizens? Well, first of all, you're
basing this on reports in the news that have never been
confirmed. By me and I don't talk about our
national security decisions. In that way, more broadly
though. Our goal has been to focus on Al
Qaeda to focus narrowly on those who would pose an imminent
threat to the United States of America.
And that's why it's not just Ben Laden, but a whole tier of
al-Qaeda leadership has been taken off the field and that's
part of what has allowed us to. Now, begin to transition out of
Afghanistan to begin to bring our troops home.
We're going to have to be vigilant for the foreseeable
future when it comes to terrorists, but we have to do.
So in a way that is consistent with the laws of war with
international law. That's something we've always /
but beyond that I probably can't comment on something as specific
as what you just mentioned. But we can you comment on you
mentioned about Al-Qaeda during your speech going after Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan, certainly going after them and Yemen as well.
And yet, there's some concern about the u.s.
Funding, the Syrian opposition. When there are a lot of reports
that Al-Qaeda is kind of heading up that opposition.
And how do you justify the two? Well, I share that concern and
so what we've done is to say we will provide non-lethal
assistance to Syrian opposition leadership that are committed to
a political transition committed to a an observance of Human
Rights. We're not going to just dive in
and get involved with a civil war that in fact involves some
elements of people who Daniel, we try to get a better life, but
also involve some folks, who would over the long term, do the
United States harm. So, Syria is a tough situation,
but this is an example of a broader foreign policy that I've
tried to implement that is practical.
That applies common sense that says, we can't solve every
problem or throw our troops into Harm's Way.
Every time there's a situation in the Middle East where we have
to do, is selectively say, what is it that Is most important to
protect us, persons, u.s. Property our bases around the
world. And how can we help those forces
that care about human rights? Those forces that are seeking
democracy. We want to encourage them.
In some cases like Libya were able to make a difference
serious, a more complicated situation and we're trying to
work with the International Community to see if we can bring
about Assad leaving. And we can bring about a more
peaceful resolution to the problem.
And you did mention one more about the, you did mention the
speech as well about And yet, what we do, see a drawdown of
troops, we're talking about at least 10 more years of there
being spent in an advisory role and yet we continually see
these, these Afghan soldiers and policemen turn their weapons.
On our soldiers. Is it worth it for us to retain
American lives there. Americans, who were being killed
by these Afghan soldiers are supposed to be training.
Shouldn't we just bring all those troops home or do?
We stay another 10 years? We'll keep in mind.
We're not playing to stay another 10 years.
This war will be over in 2014. What we've said is Will partner
with Afghans just as we partner. With whole bunch of countries
all around the world, the recent Spate of what are called
green-on-blue attacks where folks who are at least an Afghan
police or military uniforms and up attacking us is something
that's deeply troubling. And our Joint Chiefs are
spending a lot of time on. Keep in mind though.
There are 300,000 Afghan soldiers that are partnering
with us. And so even one attack like this
is one to better. But Absolutely, not true.
That what we're seeing is generally antagonism with Afghan
forces. In fact, they welcome and are
very interested in us training them so that they can be
responsible for their own security.
And the sooner, we can accomplish that the better off
we are. But my intention is, we are
going to have our combat troops out of Afghanistan, by the end
of 2014. And this is a contrast among
many that I've got with the other party.
Governor. Romney hasn't been clear about
what exactly is plans are. When it comes to Afghanistan, he
criticized me about ending the war in Iraq, as I did.
I think the American people understand that after a decade
of War, our soldiers, Sailors, Marines.
Airmen Coast Guardsmen and their families have made enormous
sacrifices. They've carried an enormous
burden. We need to focus our attention,
not only on going after, Al Qaeda and terrorists who would
attack us, but we've also got to do some nation-building here at
home. And that's going to be one of
my. Number one priorities is using
some of the money that we're saving.
Hang on war to help rebuild, Ohio help, rebuild the United
States, put people back to work because we're only going to be
as strong militarily as we are economically.
And I think the choice in this election, for a lot of folks is
going to come down to, who's going to be in a better position
to strengthen our economy and our middle class who have been
taking it on the chin for over a decade now.
And I'm confident that the plan I'll present on Thursday is
going to be a better plan. What was the United?
Its role in invading Libya under the Obama Administration.
Okay. So, you know, this is one of the
ones that they call leading from behind and try to say oh no,
it's I saw someone the other day.
Was arguing that America didn't have anything to do with that.
That was the French and the British that did that, but
that's just not true. And the French and the British
were waiting on Obama to give them the okay.
And Obama was the one who gave the okay.
And in fact, just in his speech in while he was traveling in
Brazil. He said okay, we're going to war
everybody and then he relied on a ridiculous lie.
A Preposterous lie that Qaddafi had sworn that he was going to
murder every last. Man woman and child in the city
of Benghazi, if we didn't get in there and stop him.
And that would be the equivalent of letting someone kill every
last man woman and child in the city of Charlotte.
That's, you know, that was a relative size that Obama cited
in Charlotte North Carolina. And so that was why we had to
start to war. And at the beginning of the war,
it was all American planes, air force, and navy planes, that did
all of the original shock and awe attacks.
And it was a combination of American French and British
Special Operations forces on the ground that led the mujahideen
through the war and that is who it was.
And, you know, I'll encourage your audience because it's a
hoot to go and watch Michael Shaw.
Sure that's sche yu-er. Go type in Michael scheuer CNN,
Libya, and you'll see Michael shore, on CNN, and he gets in a
fight with the to Anchor, ladies.
Because he's saying, Look, the fighters in this war against
Qaddafi right now, in any other War, we would call them the
mujahideen. That's who they are.
These are the guys who are the Libyan Veterans of Iraq.
War two. They just got back from Iraq,
where they were fighting with zarqawi.
They were the worst part of part of the worst, part of the Sunni
base Insurgency that the Americans were fighting in Iraq
war two. And now they've come home to
Livia, and they've set their sights on Qaddafi.
And the The CNN lady says, oh, come on.
Mr. CIA officer. You must not know what you're
talking about. Because when the CIA officers be
vetting these guys and sure he says well, yeah.
Sure. The the CIA is vetting.
The guys that come to be vetted by the CIA.
But everybody else isn't talking to the CIA.
They're just going to be taking advantage of the entire
situation and they're going to ultimately be the winners and
the the CNN ladies like well, We just refuse to believe that
because we don't want to because this is an American war and it's
great and shorts like yeah. Well, so what you're just
carrying water for mr. Obama, you don't want to know
the truth that what we're doing is, we're taking the side of our
enemies in this thing. And they're like, oh sure.
Yeah, right. Like we would carry water for
Barack Obama. I think we you've had your say,
mr. Sure.
You have a nice day now and they hang up on them.
And that was probably the last time he was ever on CNN.
And then what happened? Who was it?
It was Al Qaeda in Iraq. It was the Libyan Veterans of
al-Qaeda and Iraq. They had been, you know, the,
the British MI6 and helped create the Libyan Islamic
fighting group in the first place, and a try to use them to
kill, Qaddafi, back in 2000. Then they became the bad guys
again for a little while. And then in Iraq war to then
when they came home from Iraq war two, they decide.
Oh, yeah, it's our old friends in the Libyan, Islamic fighting
group. We're not going to call them aqi
anymore. Now, we're going to call them
LIF. G and ansar al-sharia.
And these are moderate Rebels and everything will be fine.
And then and this included a guy named huh?
CD. Who told the telegraph?
Yeah. I'm a veteran of Iraq.
War to where I killed Americans. What of it?
Okay, I guess nothing, no problem.
Go ahead. And then this guy Abdul Hakim,
El hadj had been abducted by the CIA and the British and tortured
in Thailand for being an associate of Bin Laden and then
had been rendered back to Libya, where Qaddafi had him in prison,
but Qaddafi, let him go because that was one of the demands of
the International Community. Was you got to let all your
mujahideen out of prison. And so he gave in to that demand
and let this guy and There's out.
This guy ended up after Obama put him in power in Tripoli.
He sued. Now.
There's no such thing as anything like the rule of law in
America. So that went nowhere, but in
Britain, he actually sued and won.
At least through like a couple of appellate levels.
He sued to MI6 for kidnapping and torturing him and the
British courts. Let the case go through.
I don't know if he finally won or what but then you know, this
is part of Of the story of what happened to Ambassador Stevens.
In 2012, September 11 2012. The American ambassador to Libya
was killed. Well, first of all, it took nine
months for the mujahideen and American and Allied air power to
win the war, and then Qaddafi was hunted down and raped with a
Bayonet and then shot in the back of the head, on the side of
the road, and then approximately a year after that Ambassador
Stevens and some others at the makeshift Consulate in Benghazi,
work. Old.
Well, first question, why weren't they in Tripoli?
What were they doing in Benghazi?
And of course, the answer is, this was Hillary Clinton's bank
shot, as the New York Times reported it.
Her bank shot to take all the mujahideen and all the weapons
from Libya and start funneling them on to Syria for the next
regime change in favor of al-Qaeda, against another
secular socialist dictator. And so that's why they were in
Benghazi, is They were running guns and terrorists off to Syria
the qataris were, you know, mostly, you know, running the
thing but the CIA was overseeing the whole thing and and
Ambassador was helping to coordinate it.
Well, guess what? Just because you love Al Qaeda.
Don't mean that they love you now and so just because these
guys saw tone. Good.
It's the Reagan years again, and we K or the Bill Clinton years.
We can go back to back in these guys.
Well, they still hate your guts. And what happened was Obama and
the CIA had done a drone strike in in Pakistan, that had killed
a guy named shaykh Yahya Libby. Now, you might recognize the
name. I'll Libby because shaykh Yahya
Libby's brother. I forgot his first name now, off
the top of my head, but his brother had been the guy that
Dick Cheney and the CIA and the Egyptians tortured into Pointing
the finger at Saddam Hussein back in 2002.
Oh, yeah, Saddam Hussein. He taught us Al-Qaeda guys, how
to make chemical weapons, and how to hijack airplanes and all
this. And in fact, the CIA themselves.
We know now the CIA debunked this and so we don't believe him
because we hired the Egyptians to torture, it out of them.
And so this is not really reliable data, but don't worry
colon Powell used it in his UN speech to lie us in a war
anyway, but then in 2012 in July of Thousand twelve CIA killed,
his brother Yaya Libby, in a drone, strike in Pakistan.
And right after that. I'm an Alzheimer or like a month
later, something Ayman. Al-zawahiri, because Bin Laden
was dead by then, Zoe here. He put out a podcast saying,
okay. It's time to avenge our great
Libyan friend. Shaykh.
Yahya al-libi who was murdered by the Americans.
Hey, friendly Libyan mujahideen. I hear that you guys have some
Americans in your midst who think that they're so clever
that they're using you and Syria.
Well, now's your chance and hey, the anniversary of September
11th is coming up. And so then what happened on
September 11th, and sorry, al-sharia attacked and killed
the American ambassador and, you know, some of his handlers and a
couple of CIA guys to who were at the house down the road.
And so then this is a great story because it's the
definition of the modified limited hangout, right?
So first of all, a limited hang out.
And that phrase was, I believe, coined by Richard, Nixon
himself, in discussions with ehrlichman and Haldeman.
His right-hand men. A so a limited hangout is like
when a kid admits that he did something wrong because he's
trying to prevent you from finding out what he really did.
That was really that bad. So he confesses halfway and
government. Does that a lot?
Right? So they said, well, you know,
you know, the problem here was that we didn't have enough
security and so our guy got killed and yeah, okay, but then
here's the modified. Let it hang out.
The modified limited hangout is when you lie about your limited
hangout and so ago. Yeah, you know what it was.
It was a big protest over this video on YouTube that got out of
hand and turn into a riot, and that's what killed the guys.
So, now you're telling a half story and you're lying about the
half a story to. So, everybody gets all caught up
fighting over whether this YouTube video, the innocence of
Muslims had caused the riot or not and they get all caught up
over. How much security should have
been there or not? And then only 1% of people are
asking the question. Why are these guys in Benghazi?
And Tripoli? Yeah, what was even going on
there at all? Know you were working with the
qataris to funnel. A bunch of al-Qaeda.
Terrorists off to Syria and you had station your Ambassador in
the middle of a hornet's nest, and now you're surprised that he
got stunk. Right.
So that's the real truth. But the modified limited hangout
ended up and look, you know, the way they use the word gate after
every Scandal, you know, like Watergate, but now it's like
Lewinsky gate and whatever gate. Right?
Well now Ghazi has become kind of a joke like gate only.
This is when it's a fake Scandal because the Republicans spent
years holding all these hearings.
Remember, Trey Gaudi, and all these guys holding all these
Earrings about well, was it really a riot over the over the
video or not and how much security was there or not?
And the Democrats saw this to be essentially just completely
trumped up Scandal, a fake Scandal meant to just hurt
Obama, even though it was simply a matter of bad things happen
sometimes, or something like that.
So, now whenever there's a fake Scandal, they'll add Ghazi on
the end. And in fact, I've even see like
left Wingers who are good. On Russia gate because they're
not Democrats there to left for the Democrats.
And so they'll call it Russia Ghazi.
Oh, yeah, Russia Ghazi and that's means of fake Scandal
that's built out of nothing. But of course that comes from
how fake the modified limited hangout was not how fake the
real Scandal behind the death of the Ambassador and the entire
operation that was going on in Benghazi.
And by the way, what if they told the truth at that time?
Or what if the truth had come out and they hadn't been able to
suppress it. Well, then maybe just maybe the
the pressure for the intervention in Syria would have
been lessened. And the argument on behalf of
staying out of Syria would have been strengthened that look from
the beginning. These guys aren't moderates if
they're so moderate. How come they killed our
ambassador in Libya. They never were moderates.
Their Al-Qaeda, guys. They always were and there were
Different armed, factions that rose up.
But within the first year of the war in Syria, the entire
opposition was dominated by Al Qaeda in Iraq who had come
across the border from Iraq, they'd been almost entirely
eliminated by the Iraqi sunnis and then Obama came and
resuscitated them right back to life and gave them a whole new
Battle Ground to fight in. And then allied with turkey,
Israel, Saudi and Qatar, billions and billions of dollars
in Cold Hard Cash. And weapons to fight that war
that ended up lasting for five years and grew into the actual
Islamic State. The islamofascist caliphate of
George, Bush's, ridiculous propaganda and Osama.
Bin Laden's. Wildest Dreams actually did come
true because Obama backed them in Syria and to such a degree
that they ended up strong enough that they were able to conquer
all of Western Iraq. And, and Eastern Syria, and
Western Iraq, which Acetate. And then Iraq war three that
Obama launched in August of 2014 and lasted through the end of
2017 there to destroy the Islamic State.
So who was the u.s. Backing in Syria in operation
Timber Sycamore? Well, so it's beyond Timber,
Sycamore Timber. Sycamore was just one part of
it, but overall, they were, I don't know if they ever directly
backed the al-nusra front there, but they didn't.
To all they needed was the slightest deniability, you know,
the so-called moderate Rebel groups, like The al-farouq
Breguet, the hazem Brigade, the newer Al's Inky and these other
groups, the CIA would give the weapons in the money to them and
then they would turn it right over to the al-nusra front.
They would come and train with the Americans in Jordan and in
Turkey, they get their weapons, their training, their money, and
then they turn right around and go and join the ranks of the
al-nusra front and the al-nusra front.
A front is nothing but the Syrian faction the Syrian
dominated faction of al-Qaeda in Iraq from Iraq, war two.
And so, then the split between Isis and al-nusra came in 2013,
when the leader of Isis decided, Well, Bin Laden's dead.
And so he might have done what Bin Laden said but whose Ayman
al-zawahiri anyway, and and you know, why should I listen to
him? And so I hurried was the guy who
said we have to attack the United States first.
We have to get rid of the far enemy first.
Ballgame down, bleed them to bankruptcy like the Soviets,
force them out of the region. Only then can we try to create
our islamofascist caliphate? Because otherwise, the Americans
will come and bomb it off the face of the Earth again.
And so baghdady said, well, nuts to you.
I want my caliphate now and I don't want to wait, you know,
they had renamed al-Qaeda in Iraq.
They had renamed it, the Islamic State of Iraq, back in 2006,
which at the time was kind of a joke because they had no ability
to create. I ate a state anywhere at all,
but it also showed you where their head was at, and what it
was that they wanted out of all of this.
And so, by 2013, essentially, in the spring of 2013, the Iraqi
dominated faction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, split off from the Syrian
dominated faction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is known as Al
nusra, and started going by their old name.
Again, the Islamic State of Iraq.
Now, they added and Syria or, and the Levant and All right
here he sent an emissary to come and negotiate to keep Isis in
the al-Qaeda group and back, Daddy killed the Emissary and
said to Zola, Harry you made your law.
Let's see you enforce it, right? Like Andrew Jackson and the
Supreme Court on a Trail of Tears.
So then he Consolidated power over Eastern Syria.
And then, one year later, in the spring of 2014 rolled right into
Western Iraq, and so, none of this could have happened without
the US. And in fact, that famous photo
of the line of Toyota trucks rolling in from Syria toward
mosul, where'd all those trucks come from?
They came from Hillary Clinton, and the state department.
They were the ones who arranged for all those trucks.
It was Barack Obama's government who had given all those trucks.
There's a great story in Public Radio International all about
it. And you might remember the
story. You can still find memes about
this. Sometimes of there was a guy who
owned a plumbing company in Corpus Christi, Texas who had
his the name of his company in the phone number on the side of
his truck. It was a work truck and he had
sold it to traded it in to a local car dealership for a new
truck. And then like half a year later,
there's footage coming out of Syria of these terrorists.
Firing a machine gun from the back of his old truck, and
people are calling the guy and threatening to kill him and his
kids because he's a traitor on the side of the Terrace and all
this stuff and he's like, come on man.
I'm a plumber from Corpus. I never left the thing.
I'm a proud American Patriot. I don't know what you're talking
about. Well, of course what had
happened was the state department had bought his truck
and had given it to these guys. That's the only explanation for
how that. Gotten their hands on it.
And so, you know, Obama claimed. In fact, there's a hilarious
clip. If you never seen this Keith,
you gotta look up this great clip of Ben's Swan the
libertarian former local news. Anchor interviewing.
Barack Obama and, Barack Obama comes to his town and been swan
has a chance to ask him some questions.
And I love the way he sets it up to, he goes, you know, right
now, this is before we took Al qaeda's side in This is when
we're still fighting against al Qaeda and Yemen, he goes right
now. You're you're hunting and
killing got the CIA hunting and killing these Al-Qaeda guys in
Pakistan and in Yemen, fighting this war against al queda,
right? And Obama's like haha.
Yeah, and he was so how backing out Caden Syria?
No. Bhagavato.
I don't know what you're talking about.
I don't know anything and actually, you know, I'll tell
you been, what we're doing is we're being very careful, like
he concedes. Okay, we're backing the same
side of the war that Al Qaeda is on.
But we're being very careful about vetting who we Supply and
also we're not giving them weapons.
We're just giving them non-lethal material.
Like say a pickup trucks and money that of course could be
used to buy guns and the rest and then I can't leave this out.
There's an article in the Atlantic.
It's an interview of Obama. Bye.
Jeffrey Goldberg who's Israel's commissar of American Media and
Jeffrey Goldberg. Basically.
First of all, the article is called as president.
I don't Bluff and what he's talking about there.
Is he saying to Jeffrey? Goldberg.
Would you please tell the Israelis for me that you believe
me? When I say that I will never let
Iran get nukes. I will nuke Iran before I let
them get nukes. And when I'm making a deal with
them that's to prevent them from getting nukes.
Not that help. I'm get nukes, you believe me.
Don't you join Jeffrey? Goldberg, please tell the
Israelis for me. They listen to you.
That's essentially the point of the interview.
Okay, but they talked about Syria in there.
Again. It's called as president.
I don't Bluff. Okay.
You go through their control, F4, Syria.
And you find Jeffrey. Goldberg says to Obama.
Hey, man, don't you think that if we got rid of Assad in Syria,
this is spring of 2012. So, this is, you know, a year
into the intervention here, don't you think that if We got
rid of Assad, that, that would be a great way to weaken Iran.
And Obama says, absolutely. That's exactly what we're doing.
And that's exactly why we're doing it.
We're targeting us odd, the secular bought, this dictator of
of Syria whose coalition government.
Essentially protects all of the ethnic and religious minorities,
the alawites, the Shiites, the druze, the Assyrian child, Ian
and Mariah night Christians and least a solid plurality of not
the Already of the Sunni Arabs as well.
From these mujahideen terrorists that are being backed by the US
and he said, yeah, but if we got rid of him, wouldn't that help
weaken, Iran and Obama says, yep, that's right.
That's exactly what we're doing. And why were doing it?
And so then Goldberg says, well, but what exactly are we doing?
Can you tell me some more about what we're doing to achieve that
goal? And he says, sorry, I can't tell
you Jeffrey cuz your classified clearance isn't High Enough.
In other words, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill
you, joke, joke ink, that yet. We are arming the terrorists to
fight against Assad, but I can't go into the details on that, but
it ain't just trucks. And by the way, of course, as I
mentioned, the Saudis, the qataris, the Turks, and the
Israelis were all working together on this same plan to,
in fact, type in for your audience, type in Biden, Harvard
Syria, and there's a on YouTube of Biden at Harvard explaining
this Thing. But blaming it on all of our
allies, instead of taking any responsibility for the Obama
Administration himself. He says, oh no, it's just Saudi
and turkey and Qatar who have decided that they want to back
anybody who's opposing Assad, but it turns out that includes
some really dangerous guys and that includes Al-Qaeda
terrorists. And so there's your story
confirmed. In fact, I got another good one,
John Kerry who was Hillary Clinton's replacement at state.
In the second term. John Kerry, and his assistant.
I forgot the guys name. They were secretly recorded.
While meeting with a group of Exile Rebel supporters in Great
Britain, and they explained in there, John Kerry's own words.
He's saying to them. That look, I know you guys want
more guns, but we dumped a ton of guns into Syria.
Okay, and then he says this, I swear you can check me.
He says we saw the rise of Isis, but we thought we could manage.
We thought we'd be able to use the rise of Isis as pressure
against Assad that he'd better resign, but that didn't work
instead. He just called in Iran and
Russia to help him. And so now we're in the position
where we've got the Islamic State and I don't know, he
doesn't say this specifically at that point, but He's longing
State, headed east into Western Iraq.
They didn't go west to Damascus, or they did try for a bit.
And in fact, it was in the November of 2015, that Isis was
finally ready to march on Baghdad, and had cut one of the
major highways. I forgot, which think it was the
M4 Highway they call or something like that, between
Damascus and Aleppo. And they were marching on
Damascus. And it was only then that
finally, the Russians intervene and came in.
And started bombing them. And you'll remember all the
outrage in the liberal media at the time that oh, no, they're
not bombing Isis. They're bombing the rebels.
Meaning the cia's terrorists. They're bombing the al-nusra
front and their allies instead of their old allies, the Islamic
State. And they even came up with all
these lies that Assad was secretly backing Isis.
When it was the Americans and their allies especially turkey,
who had been backing Isis and filter all the, the former CIA
officer. Sir had gone in 2013 had gone to
Turkey. He had formerly been stationed
in Turkey when he was CIA and likes to go back there on
vacation sometimes and things. And I forget if he was in, if he
was in Ankara or Istanbul. I think he said he was in Ankara
and their guys, raising money for Isis, all up and down the
street in downtown anchor or whatever, right?
They're blatantly in front of everybody and everybody in the
world knew that he wanted to go and fight with Isis.
He To go to Turkey and then go across the border from there.
There was even a case where the FBI and the justice department
prosecuted an American who was trying to travel to Turkey, to
go fight with al-nusra over there and his defense, which is
totally believable was but the CIA recruited me.
I was going to fight on the side of the good guys.
What do you mean? Now you're going to put me in
prison for material support for terrorism.
Well, the FBI and the CIA are always fighting.
It just ain't fair. And so, and then, and there were
hundreds of Americans at least thousands of Europeans who went
to Syria to fight on the side of the terrorists.
Who then the f.b.i. Minute.
They weren't even tracking these guys.
They didn't even know which Americans had gone to fight and
might be coming back again. And very much like page 57 of
Fool's errand, where you reference, a conversation
between Wesley, Clark and Amy Goodman, where he refers to a
memo that Donald Rumsfeld drawn up.
By Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld staff listing, seven
countries for regime change, Iraq Syria, Lebanon, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan and Iran were. So we've gotten so much info on.
Welcome to Keith's. And I don't tread on anyone.
Some time ago. I came across these signs with
US, Marines, saying Obama. I will not deploy to fight for
your Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria. Wake up people.
I did not join the Navy to fight for Al-Qaeda in the Syrian Civil
War. I will not fight for Al-Qaeda in
Syria. There were a number of these
protests. So I decided to ask Scott
Horton, what it meant when we had a number.
Of what really appear to be Marines saying, I will not fight
for Al-Qaeda in Syria and Libya. Now, one of the articles that
Scott Horton, mentions is an article from foreign affairs, a
publication of the Council on Foreign Relations titled
accepting Al-Qaeda. The enemy of the United States
is Enemy by Barack Mendelssohn, March 9th, 2015.
The article is actually behind a pay wall.
So I was actually able to find it here in Which part of the
article, says Washington's reluctance to deploy combat
forces. Against Isis has limited its
options to air power, and a Reliance on allies Ground
Forces. There are some merits to this
strategy and signs that it is indeed.
Bearing fruit. Isis is astounding.
Advanced has been rolled back in some locations such as sinjar
Iraq cobby, Syria, but the unwillingness to invest greater
American resources, comes with a price, the United States.
Settling for limited and gradual progress progress, which is not
enough to destroy Isis. So the article goes on more so
than during the bin Laden are al-qaeda's cohesiveness, depends
on the ability of its leadership to hold the various franchises
together and it is unclear. Whether Al-Qaeda can endure
another session since Al qaeda's veteran leaders have dwindled
considerably in recent years, making it more dependent on Old
Guard figures such as as zul Hari to maintain Unity as such
the grounds fate, may depend ons while hari's, personal survival.
It is certainly ironic that at this point when the United
States is, is the closest it has ever been to destroying Al
Qaeda. Its interests would be better
served by keeping the terrorist organization.
Afloat ends while Hari alive Here is the other article Scott
mentions in the Atlantic Obama to Iran and Israel as president
of the United States. I don't Bluff Jeffrey Goldberg
March 2nd 2012. Now if we look at the exchange
we scroll down to here. Goldberg says, can you just talk
about Sharia as a strategic issue talked about it as a
humanitarian issue as well, but it would seem to me that one way
to weaken and further isolate you One is to remove or help
remove Iran's only Arab Ally Obama.
Absolutely Goldberg. And so the question is, well,
what else can this Administration be doing?
He's openly saying, what can the u.s.
Do in favor of Israel Obama? Well, look, there's no doubt
that Iran is much weaker now than it was a year ago.
Two years ago, three years ago the Arab Spring as bumpy as it
has been represents a strategic defeat for Iran.
Because what people in the region have seen is that all the
impulses towards freedom and self-determination and free
speech and freedom of assembly have been constantly violated by
Iran. If you wanted a weaker on, why
would you attack Iraq? Who was their great enemy?
Who they had just had a war with when you supported Iraq during
the Iraq. Iran War under Reagan.
Well, of course, as Vladimir Putin said, to Oliver Stone, the
US presidents, very often changed.
Policies. Never do.
The Iranian leadership is no friend of that movement toward
human rights and political freedom, but more directly.
It is now going golfing Syria. And Syria is basically their
only true Ally in the region. The guardian.
Now the truth emerges how the u.s.
Fueled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq, the sectarian terror
group won't be defeated by western states that incubated it
in the first place. June 3rd, 2015, British state
was itself, providing an extensive support to the armed,
Syrian opposition didn't only include the non-lethal
assistance, boasted by the government including body armor.
In military vehicles, but training logistical support and
the secret supply of arms on a massive scale, reports were
cited that MI6 had cooperated with the Central Intelligence
Agency on a rat line of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles
to the Syrian rebels, in 2012. After the fall of the Gaddafi
regime, the Islamic State formerly known as al-Qaeda in
Iraq, defense intelligence agency.
Document identifies al-Qaeda in Iraq, which became Isis and
fellow salivates as the major forces driving the Insurgency in
Syria and states that Western countries the Gulf States and
Turkey were supporting the opposition's efforts to take
control of Eastern Syria. Operation Timber.
Sycamore was a classified weapon Supply and training program run
by the United States. Central Intelligence Agency and
supported by some Arab intelligence services such as
the security service in Saudi Arabia launched in 2012 or 2013.
It's applied money weaponry and training to Rebel forces
fighting Syrian president Bashar al-assad in the Syrian Civil
War. According to us officials.
The program was run. By the cia's special activities
Division and has trained thousands of rebels President.
Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin.
Arming Syria's in Battlement. Rebels in 2013.
The program's existence was suspected after the US Federal
Business Opportunities website, publicly solicited contract,
bids to ship tons of Weaponry, from Eastern, Europe, to suku,
turkey, and aqua bra. Jordan one consequence of the
program has been to a flood of Us weapons.
Including assault rifles. Don't worry.
I'm sure they had tons of background checks, which they
totally support mortars and rocket, propelled grenades into
the middle east's. Black Market just like they did
in Fast and Furious when they gave a guns to the Mexican drug
cartel because they're so worried about guns getting in
the hands of bad people in July of 2017.
Us officials stated that Timber see More would be phased out
with funds possibly redirecting to fighting the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant isil or two offering Rebel forces defensive
capabilities. This is according to the Los
Angeles Times in Syria militants armed by the Pentagon fight
those armed. By the CIA in Syria militants
armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA,
unintended conflict CIA, armed, Syrian rebels, clash with
Pentagon backed militias along Turkish border.
The fighting has intensified over the last two months as CIA
armed units and Pentagon arm. Pentagon armed ones have
repeatedly shot at each other. While maneuvering through
contested territory on the Northern outskirts of Aleppo, us
officials and rebel leaders, have confirmed a CIA armed
militia called Farson, al-haq or nights of righteousness.
Any faction that attacks us? Regardless of where it gets is
support. We will fight the rebel Fighters
described similar clashes in the town of azaz.
The attacks by one of the u.s. Back groups against another came
amid continued. Heavy fighting.
Ting in Syria and Illustrated the difficulty facing us efforts
to coordinate among dozens of armed groups, that are trying to
overthrow the government of Bashar al-assad.
We can't defeat isil without that part of the question.
So we keep trying to forge those relationships.
Isil is an acronym for the Islamic State.
President Obama this month, authorized a new Pentagon, plan
to train and arm Syrian fighter Rebels.
Last year. The Pentagon helped create a new
military coalition. The Syrian Democratic forces
while the pentagon's actions are part of an overt effort by the
US and its allies against the Islamic State.
The cia's backing of militias is part of a separate covert, u.s.
Effort, aimed at keeping pressure on the Assad government
in hopes of prodding Syrian leader.
To the negotiation table on February 18th.
The Syrian Democratic forces. Attacked a town, u.s.
LED coalition. Fighting Islamic State, new
their group had clashed with Pentagon trained militias.
So that is what's going on. They're arming both sides and
creating a conflict so they could come in as the saviors.
David Petraeus has Bright Idea. Give terrorist weapons to beat
the terrorists from the guardian.
Former CIA director. David.
Petraeus is advocating giving arms to members of al-nusra
front in al-Qaeda, offshoot to beat Isis.
This is madness. Here is the article continuously
ignored in the debate over arming Syrian rebels.
Is that the CIA itself? Produced a study that concluded
that? I mean, any Rebel Force, whether
they are notorious terrorist group are not?
Is generally. A bad idea of the study found
that most of the time such attempts either fail
spectacularly or backfire in the face of the United States, even
if they initially succeed, this study, which is often classified
was apparently disregarded by the Obama Administration and
there's no proof Congress even saw it when voted to arm the
moderate rebels in the First place.
Petraeus is likely not the only one who thinks this plan to work
with with and our members of al-nusra.
A van for Al-Qaeda is a good idea.
Here we have the Washington Post, September 11, 2013.
The CIA begins weapons, delivery to Syrian rebels, alleged use of
chemical weapons in a deadly attack, near Damascus.
Last month from Bashar al-assad was the justification same
justification. They used under Donald.
Trump's regime to send 57 tomahawk missiles.
These arms are being delivered as the United States is also
shipping new. Of non-lethal gear to the
Rebels, the AIDS include Vehicles, sophisticated
Communications equipment and advanced combat medical kits.
The delays prompted, several senior us lawmakers to chide the
Obama Administration, for not moving more quickly to Aid, the
Syrian opposition. After promising, lethal
assistance in June. This doesn't only lead to a more
effective Force but it increasingly it increases its
Bility to hold Coalition groups together said, Mark s Ward.
The state department senior advisor on assistance to Syria
who coordinates non-lethal Aid to the rebels.
From Southern turkey, turkey. Remember turkey, when the Ron
Rand, Paul, Hillary Clinton clip comes up.
They see their leadership is having some impact.
The CIA shipments are to flow through a network of clandestine
bases, in Turkey and Jordan, that were expanded over the
Years as the agency sought to help Middle Eastern allies
including Saudi Arabia and Qatar direct weapons to moderate
Syrian, Rebel forces the CIA declined to comment, which is
weird considering according to CIA dot-gov.
If you go to myth, number 6, it is a myth that the CIA operates
independently and is not an account.
It is not accountable to anyone. The CIA is responsible to the
The American people, we operate in accordance, with oversight
from us, elected representative. So see, you know, you are the
government. You are the CIA when the CIA
does something you do it. You don't have any more
information than the CIA or the FBI or the NSA.
Does, we are the government about 10 days after 9/11.
I went through the Pentagon and I saw secretary Rumsfeld, and
And deputy secretary wolfowitz, I went downstairs, just say
hello to some of the people on The Joint staff, who used to
work for me, and one of the generals called me and he said,
sir, you gotta come in, you got to come in and talk to me a
second. I said, well, you're too busy
said, no. No, he says, we've made the
decision. We're going to war with Iraq.
This was honor about the 20th of September.
I said we're going to war with Iraq.
Why? He said, I don't know.
He said, I guess they don't know what else to do.
So I said, well, did they find some information?
Collect connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda?
He said no, no says there's nothing new that way.
They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.
He said I guess it's like we don't know what to do about
terrorists, but we got a good military and we can take down
governments and he said I guess if the only tool you have is a
hammer. Every problem has to look like a
nail. So I came back to see him a few
weeks later. And by that time we were bombing
in Afghanistan. I said, are we still going to
war with Iraq? And he said, oh, it's worse than
that. He said he reached over on his
desk. He picked up a piece of paper.
He said, I just, he said, I just got this down from upstairs
coming, the secretary of defense office today.
And he said, this is a memo that describes how we're going to
take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and
then Syria. Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
and finishing off Iran. I said is it classified?
He said? Yes, sir.
I said I said, well don't show it to me and I saw him a year or
so ago and I said remember that he said, sorry, I didn't show
you that memo. I didn't show it to you.
Is the United States supporting al-Qaeda in Syria?
The answer is yes, fact. Number one.
There is no question that Al-Qaeda Fighters are part of
the opposition. Forces, attempting to overthrow.
Syria's government. Fag number to the creation of
al-Qaeda, wasn't Islamic fundamentalism.
It was the CIA. The mujahideen was created by
the CIA to cause problems for the Soviets.
And you might say that's crazy talk right here.
Secretary of Hillary Clinton to be, to be fair.
We had helped to create the problem.
We're now fighting how? Because, when the Soviet Union
invaded Afghanistan. We had this brilliant idea that
we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of
mujahideen. Equip them with stinger missiles
and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan,
and we were successful. The Soviets left Afghanistan.
And then we said great. Goodbye leaving these.
And people who were fanatical in Afghanistan and Pakistan leaving
them. Well armed, creating a mess.
Frankly. That the time, we didn't really
recognize we were just so happy to see the Soviet Union fall and
we thought. Okay, fine.
We're okay. Now everything's going to be so
much better. Now.
You look back. The people were fighting today.
We were supporting in the fight against the Soviets.
So it's not a conspiracy theory. Its history and its history,
that's being repeated in Libya and now in Syria, but there is a
bigger problem here. One, that every American should
be questioning were fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but
we're also bombing Al Qaeda Targets in Pakistan and Yemen.
And as we do that something occurs known as collateral
damage, hundreds of civilians in Yemen have been killed in.
Just the first half of 2012 by US air strikes.
Aimed at Al-Qaeda Fighters. We also So, have a history of
kind of moving in and out of Pakistan.
I mean, let's remember here a people.
We are fighting today. We funded 20 years ago and we
did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet
Union. They invaded Afghanistan and we
did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work
and it was President Reagan in partnership with the Congress
led by democrats. He said, you know what, telling
a pretty good idea. Let's deal with the isi and the
Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these mujahideen.
And let's great. Let's get some to come from
Saudi Arabia and other places importing.
Their wahhabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet
Union and will guess what they retreated, they lost billions of
dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
So there's a very strong argument which is wasn't a bad
investment and the Soviet Union. But let's be careful what we?
So, because we will harvest, and we now are making up for a lot
of lost time. So, what you need to know
tonight is heavy. Our government is bombing sites,
around the world, in an ongoing war with al-Qaeda in Iraq, where
Al Qaeda had no presence before the US War.
Al-Qaeda is now thriving. The same Al-Qaeda.
Yes. Created by the US government in
order to harm the Soviets and today at least thirteen thousand
civilians in Afghanistan are And as a result of that war with
Al-Qaeda, so with all respect to miss Fitzgerald from the Irish
Times. This is not propaganda, rather.
It is the question that every American should be demanding
answers on them from Congress. And from this President.
Why are we giving Al-Qaeda Fighters money and weapons to
overthrow yet? Another government in the Middle
East today. Our government claims are
freeing the people of Syria tomorrow.
If history tells us anything, we will be killing and wounding.
Civilians in airstrikes and then referring to them as collateral
damage in a war, with an enemy who we brought to power.
After Iraq, there was Libya where we were, asked to believe
that the invasion of the oil-rich country and rushed to
set up a central bank. By the foreign-backed opposition
was nothing more than an attempt to save the country from a
power-mad dictator who was arming his troops with Viagra to
help them. Rape innocent civilians.
Nikka, you had a chance to speak with the chief prosecutor of the
international criminal court, the the issue being Qaddafi, the
libyans, what they're doing. What do they, what did he tell
you? Well, one of the things he wants
to investigate. Now, he says his priorities to
investigate allegations of rape that may be systematic and
rapers, being assisted. He said, by the distribution of
Viagra or Viagra, light product sexually performance, enhancing
products that are getting in the hands of guitar.
His forces and are being used as part of gang, rape.
And these are allegations that are surfacing that he says he
wants to investigate as a priority.
Until this pretext was overturned by a pesky reporter
asking for actual evidence of these crimes.
How many people helping with being cute and in which should
turn in which aside and what kind of the crimes he has ever
done in your investigations? I advise you to read the
application of the prosecutor office.
Many patients. I think was 77 Pages.
We describe in detail, the facts, most of it is public and
the judges also decided and lightened evidence.
So, Of course, we have prosecutors and judges.
So we rely on facts. So we prove the crimes.
I will we did we present the case with judges and for a month
and ten days, three judges from three different continents,
making independent evaluation and they decided as pointed out
by Luis moreno-ocampo. The document does have 77 pages,
but most of its content is not public Pages 17 to 71 have been
redacted, precisely the ones in closing the summer.
Murray's of evidence and testimonies.
US National Security adviser Brzezinski flew to Pakistan to
set about rallying resistance. He wanted to arm the mujahideen
without revealing America's role on The Afghan border near the
Khyber. Pass the urged, the soldiers of
God to redouble their efforts. We know their deep belief in
God, they are confident that their struggle.
Soft also. Humble Solomon on that land over
there is yours. You'll go back to it one day
because your fight will prevail and you'll have your home's,
your mosques back again because your cause is right and God is
on your side. The purpose of coordinating,
with the pakistanis will be too many Soviets bleed for as much
as long as possible. Question, the former director of
the CIA Robert Gates stated in his Memoirs that the American
intelligence Services began to Aid the mujahideen in
Afghanistan. Six months before, the Soviet
intervention in this period. You were the National Security
adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in
this fear, is that correct? Presents key.
Yes, according to the official version of History CIAA to the
mujahideen began during 1980 that is to say after the Soviet
Army invaded Afghanistan on the 24th of December 1979.
But the reality secretly guarded until now is completely.
Otherwise indeed. It was July 3, 1979 that
President Carter Signed the first directive for secret Aid
to the opponents of the pro-soviet regime in Kabul.
And that very day. I wrote a note to the president
in which I explain to him that in my opinion.
This Aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question. Despite this risk, you were an
advocate of this curve, covid plan, but perhaps you yourself
desired this, Soviet entry into war and look to provoke it.
Brzezinski. It isn't quite like that.
We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly
increase the probability that they would.
Question. When the Soviets Justified their
intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a
secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan?
People didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don't regret anything today.
Presents key recreate what that secret operation was an
excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the
Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to Grim regret
it the day that the Soviets officially crossed the border.
I wrote to President Carter saying we now have the
opportunity of giving the USSR its own Vietnam War.
Indeed for almost 10 years Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about
the demoralisation and finally, the breakup of the Soviet
Empire. Question another, do you regret
having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given
arms and advice to Future terrorists.
Brzezinski, what is more important in world history?
The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire, some agitated
Muslims, or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of
the Cold War. Is that site when I was a Cadet?
What's the first? What's the cadet motto?
At West Point? He will not lie, cheat, or
steal, or tolerate. Those.
Who do, I was a CIA director? We lied.
We cheated, we sequenced all. That's like we had wind entire
entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of
the American experiment and Al-Qaeda.
Here we go. Watch this.
There's a early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton.
So in not so long, after she left Secretary of State, to her
campaign manager, John podesta, that email it states that isil.
Isis is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar the government's I'm
sorry, Arabia and Qatar. Now.
This is a actually, I think this is the most significant email in
the whole collection and perhaps, because Saudi and
Qatari, money is spread all over the place including including
into many media institutions. All serious analysts know even
the US government has mentioned or go agreed with that some
Saudi figures. Have been supporting Isis,
funding Isis, but the Dodgers always been.
That's what it's just, some Rogue princes using their cut of
the oil, money to do whatever they like, but actually the
government disapproves but that email says that.
No, it is the government's of Saudi and the government and
Qatar that have been funding Isis.
The shouted. Okay, that's a little background
information. Just so you know in that crazy.
We're sending troops to guard Saudis oil and their funding
Isis. United States also armed Isis
and will, here's a little bit of it.
Here's an interview with General Flynn. 2012, your agency was
saying, quote, the salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and
al-Qaeda in Iraq. Are the major forces driving the
Insurgency in Syria in 2012. The US was helping coordinate,
arms transfers to those same groups.
Why did you not stop that? Did you hear that?
That's being revealed. Now, I want to make the case for
secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of National
Security Affairs and it possibly for deception where that's
appropriate. No Winston Churchill said during
World War Two. In Wartime truth is so
important. It should be surrounded by a
bodyguard of Lies. You really believe that.
Absolutely. You, you would lie.
In order to preserve the truth. If I had to say something, I
knew was false to protect American National Security.
I would do it. I don't think we're often faced
with that difficulty. But what I lie about where the
D-Day invasion was going to take place to deceive the Germans,
you better believe. Why do people in the government?
Think that the rules of society or the laws don't apply to them.
Because they are not dealing in the Civil Society.
We live in under the Constitution.
They are dealing in an anarchic environment internationally
where different rules apply. But you took an oath to uphold
the Constitution and the Constitution mandates certain
openness and certain fairness you're willing to do away with
that. In order to achieve is a
temporary military goal. And I think is Justice Jackson
said in a famous decision. The Constitution is not a
suicide pact, but you took an oath to it.
That's exactly. And I think defending the United
States from foreign threats does require actions that in a normal
business environment in the United States.
We would find unprofessional. I don't make any apology for it.
I prefer. Russia is invited in by the
legitimate regime. They were invited in and will
not invite. We're flying in air space there
where they can turn on the Air defense and we have very
different scene. They are targeted by the
opposition and we are arming. So at training.
The reason Russia came in is because isil was getting
stronger. Josh was threatening the
possibility of going to Damascus and so forth.
And that's why Russia came in because they didn't want to dash
government. And they supported us.
And we know that this was this was wrong.
We were watching we saw that that Dash was growing in
strength and we thought outside Muslim we thought however, we
could probably manage, you know, that I said might then negotiate
the 7 goes into, you got outside that you go through supportive.
So you think the only solution is for somebody who can And get
rid of us. And the only solution is that
going to be, Three years ago, I would say you but right now, I
don't know what we're trying to do is help syrians provide for
their own country and we've been spending a lot of money.
A lot of effort to try to help do this.
So there's an opposition there. The opposition is doing very
well. Russia came in, that's a
problem. I know because, you know, we, we
don't, they Like Russian, it's just a different standard.
We're trying to empower syrians. To be able to fight against this
guy. Now, the Russians have changed
the equation. Unfortunately, the Russians have
changed the equation. President Obama, reportedly
signing off on this sources. Say CIA, operatives are on the
ground in Libya and in contact with the opposition and joining
us to talk more about the cia's possible role in Olivia from
Washington, former CIA counterterrorism.
Analyst. Michael Showalter Michael.
Thanks for being with us this morning.
You're welcome. So there are reports out again
at the CIA is on the ground in Libya contacting and vetting.
The rebels. Is this setting the stage to arm
them. I don't think there's any other
possible reason for it. And the president clearly has
sent the agency in to find out who he is supporting and to see
what kind of material human material.
We would have to work with. If we decided to, if the
president decided to arm and train these people over the
longer term and you're concerned about this Prospect, you think
it could become another Taliban situation for the u.s.
What in your mind is the worst case scenario here.
Well, Libya has been very strong in sending young men or having
its young men, go overseas to fight.
In Islamic insurgencies in the Balkans in chechnya Afghanistan,
especially Iraq, when the height of the fighting was there those
that don't get killed. Of course, go home.
And I think the core of the resistance, whatever little
military activity, military ability, they have is probably
made up by people. We elsewhere, we would call
mujahideen. And so, it's a dicey proposition
to be getting involved with this.
I'm not sure that the opposition if it takes power, is going to
be much better. Then why is Qaddafi?
That's why you need to have the CIA.
I presume in their wedding, as we said, who are these people
who are the elements that are funding them, or supporting
them? Who are the politically the
most, the most palatable in the least palatable among them.
The White House saying that no decision has been made.
I have a question for you as a CIA veteran, I guess.
I mean, the fact that we even know about this is that is that
unusual? I mean, should we just assume
that the CIA and the sort of a situation would of course, be In
there on the ground. Well, if you have to assume that
the president wants the best information that he can get, and
if he wants to have that information.
He has to have somebody on the ground in.
So, yes, I think you assume wherever there's trouble, you'll
find the agency. The other point I would make
here is that vetting? The people who are in the
opposition, of course is only. You're only able to do that, to
the extent, that they're willing to talk to you.
I think the agency will find a lot of people who are pro
democracy and Western eyes. Happy to talk to them the the
more Islamic oriented people aren't going to talk to them
because that would bring into question our air support for
them. So this is a, this is a mission.
That's a very difficult one. And the chances of success are
really probably not better than 50/50.
What's the alternative? If we don't arm the rebels and
they're clearly outmanned and outgunned by a qaddafi's forces.
What's the better solution here? The better solution was as mr.
Paul said, never It all this was none of our business, but I
think what we're seeing is the string is playing out.
We threatened Qaddafi and that didn't work.
There's an arms embargo and an economic embargo that didn't
work. There was a UN resolution and
that didn't work. Aerial bombing has continued and
has impact, but it hasn't defeated him.
Now. We're at the stage where we're
going to try to are apparently, try to train and arm the
resistance. That takes a long time.
I don't know if we have that time against Qaddafi.
What we're seeing is the president being put in putting
himself into a corner where his only option is ground troops,
but that's something that is not this.
That's something that no one says that they want to do in
this Administration. I mean, they simply don't want
to do that. They want to know they don't.
Well then the choice may come down to admitting that.
It was a mistake and being defeated in the sense that
Qaddafi survives or putting ground troops in nations.
Are a lot like people, they don't like making me admitting
to mistakes and maybe they don't want to put them in.
In. But when it comes down to
looking defeat in the face, I wonder you know, you let cca's
unit the Tractive, some a Bin Laden 1996 to 1999 and you
believe that much like that situation America's involvement
in Libya, could prove to be a recruiting tool for extremists.
Why? Oh, it's absolutely a recruiting
tool. It's the American lead West
attacking a Muslim country that has oil careful to say.
It's not the american-led West that NATO is now fully taken
over the operations. Well, that may Firepower was
used in the Inning, but that this is a coalition that
includes Arab states, that may fool some Americans.
It's not going to fool the people who sympathize with Bin
Laden and other islamists. This is really a u.s.
LED operation and you talk about the Arab states that are
involved. The Arab states are tyrannies
that are hated by their own people.
This is a, this is a piece of theater set up by mrs.
Clinton and mrs. Mr. McCain and the, the
bipartisan group that loves the intervene abroad and the Muslim
world. This is Americans killing
Muslims. And it looks like it's for oil.
I just want Have it both ways and saying that, okay, these are
tyrannies that hate their own people.
Well, that's why we're helping because in Libya, it was the
people that wanted Qaddafi out that they were tired of it.
So, what we then supporting Islamic democracy, I guess you
could say, in these countries, where they're tired of
totalitarian rule, if we were supporting Islamic democracy,
that would be one thing. But if you listen to mrs.
Clinton and especially the grit rather crazed Miss rice.
At the UN, this is all about democracy in a world where
democracy is not going to take hold.
I think it's very clear if I could show her that.
Are no fan of this policy and this Administration.
I think calling Ambassador rice. Crazed is certainly a
significant charge. I don't know.
I've just listened to her. You know, that's only my
impression and I have to say this is not a democratic
problem. This is a republican problem to
both parties. Love to intervene.
In other people's business where there are no us interests at
stake and where we spend enormous amounts of money at a
time when we're nearly bankrupt, that doesn't seem to me to be a
wise practice of American statesmanship.
That's a whole nother story that to call the United States,
bankrupt. You guys is reading humongous.
Deficits. Yes, but the economy, and this
mission in Libya are two separate issues.
They're not separate issues, ma'am.
You're just carrying the water for mr.
Obama. I'm certainly not carrying any
ones water and that and I will assure you of that Michael.
Show your thank you so much for your time.
We you know, we've had a very long.
Exhaustive interview had plenty of time to give your point of
view on that. We're going to be right back at
6:30. Michael my policy from the
beginning has been that That's odd had lost credibility that he
attacked his own. People has killed his own
people, Unleashed a military against innocent civilians and
that the only way to bring stability and peace to Syria is
going to be for Assad to step down and to move forward on a
political transition. Now in its Third Day, operation
Odyssey Dawn, gathered steam as aircraft from more and more
countries, joined American jets in enforcing a no-fly zone over
Libya. Their mission is limited to
stopping Qaddafi from attacking his own people, but the
commander-in-chief monitoring events while on a state visit to
Chile wants to stop, Qaddafi, period.
It is US policy that Gaddafi needs to go Force of Arms alone.
May not be able to give the president what he wants.
Thank you for appearing, secretary Clinton.
And I'm glad to see your health is improving.
One of the things that disappointed me most about the
original 911 was no one was fired.
We spend trillions of dollars, but there were a lot of human
errors. These are judgment errors and
the people who make judgment errors need to be replaced fired
and no longer in a position of making these judgment calls.
So we have a Review Board review board, fine, 64 different things
that we could change a lot of more common sense and should be
done. But the question is, it's a
failure. ER of leadership that they
weren't done in advance and for lives were caused because of
this, I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility.
I think that ultimately with your leaving you accept the
culpability, for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really
mean that had I been president at the time and I found that you
did not read the cables from Benghazi.
You did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens.
I would have relieved you of your post.
I think it's inexcusable. The thing is, is that, you know,
we can understand that you're not reading every cable.
I can understand that maybe you're not aware of the cable
from The Ambassador in Vienna that asked for a hundred
thousand dollars for an electrical charging station.
I can understand that maybe you're not aware that your
department spent a hundred thousand dollars on three
comedians who went to India on a promotional tour called make chi
not war. But I think you might be able to
be understand and might be aware of the 80 million spent on a
consulate in Musharraf Sharif. That will never be built.
I think it's inexcusable that you did not know about this and
that you did not read these. Cables, I would think by
anybody's estimation Libya has to have been one of the hottest
of hot spots around the world, not to know of the request for
Securities. Really.
I think cost these people their lives, their lives could have
been saved. Had someone been more available
at someone been aware of these things more on top of the job.
And the thing is is I don't suspect you of bad motives.
The review board said, well, these people weren't willfully -
negligent. I don't think you were
willfully. I don't suspect.
Your motives of wanting to serve your country but it was a
failure of leadership not to be involved was a failure of
leadership not to know these things.
And so I think it is good that you're accepting responsibility
because no one else is and this is there is a certain amount of
culpability to the worst tragedy since 9/11 and I'm glad you're
accepting this now. My question is is the u.s.
Involved with any procuring of weapons transfer of weapons,
buying selling. Anyhow, Throwing weapons to
turkey out of Libya. To Turkey.
I will have to take that question for the record.
That's nobody's Ever Raised. That with me.
I don't know. It's been in news reports that
ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have
weapons. And what I'd like to know is the
annex that was close by where they involved with procuring
buying selling obtaining weapons.
And where any of these weapons being transferred to other
countries. Any countries, turkey included.
Well Center, you'll have to add wrecked direct that question to
The agency that ran the annex and I will I will see what
information is available and you're saying, you don't know, I
do not know. I don't have any information on
that and you know, with respect to Personnel Senator, you know,
first, that's why we have independent people who review
the situation as we did with the Pickering and Mullen ARB and all
four individuals identified in the ARP have been removed from
their Job. Secondly, they've been placed on
administrative leave while we step through the Personnel
process to determine the next steps.
Third, both Ambassador, Pickering and Admiral.
Mullen specifically highlighted. The reason why this is
complicated because under federal statute and regulations.
Unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding a breach of
Duty. The ARB did not find these four
individuals breached their Duty. So I have submitted legislation
to this. Eight to the Congress to fix
this problem. So future arbs will not face the
situation but here's the problem.
The review board has all these recommendations but there's one
thing they failed to address and I think you failed to address
and it sets us up for another tragedy like this.
They should have never been sent in there without a military
guard. This should have been an embassy
like in Baghdad in a war zone and it should have been under
military guard. Significant military guard,
defense department command. I don't think the state
Department's Bible being in the war zone.
Protecting these people. I still don't think that I think
another tragedy could happen. I think another tragedy could
happen in another war zone around the world.
I think someone needs to make an executive decision.
Someone needs to take leadership.
And with that leadership should be that, you shouldn't send them
in with no Marines. You shouldn't send them in with
Marines, or to guard records. Not people.
You shouldn't send them in with the same kind of Ambassador, or
Embassy staff that you have in Paris.
I think that's inexcusable. Well, Senator, the reason I'm
here today is to answer questions about Style.
And I am the Secretary of State and the are made very clear that
the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined
was set at the assistant, secretary level, and below.
The Administration has sent officials to the hill more than
30 times. We've given as much information.
We've been as transparent as we can.
Obviously, we will continue to breathe.
If you and others to answer any and all questions that you have
about going forward, the reason we put into effect, an
accountability review board is to take it out of the heat of
politics and partisanship and accusations and to put it in the
hands of people who have no stake in the outcome.
The reason I said, make it open, tell the world is because I
believe in transparency. I believe in taking
responsibility. Possibility and I have done so,
and I hope that we're going to be able to see a good working
relationship between the state department and the committee
going forward. If there is a theme that
connects the dots in the Middle East, it is that chaos breeds
terrorism. What much of the foreign policy
Elite failed to grasp though? Is that intervention to topple?
Secular dictators has been the prime source of the chaos
Intervention, when both choices are bad, is a mistake
Intervention. When both sides are evil, is a
mistake intervention that He stabilizes the Middle East is a
mistake. So yes, we must now defend
ourselves from these barbarous jihadist, but let's not
compound. The problem by arming feckless
rebels in Syria who seemed to be.
Merely a pit stop for weapons that are really on their way to
Isis. Intervention is not always the
answer and often leads to unintended consequences, but
some will argue. No, no, it's not.
Invention that led this chaos, we didn't have enough
intervention. They say, if we'd only given the
rebels, more arms Isis wouldn't be a strong.
Now. The only problem is the facts
argue. Otherwise, they say, the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again. Expecting a different result.
We gave 600 tons of weapons to the rebels, and they got weaker
and weaker, and Isis grew stronger, perhaps, by throwing
all of these This into the Civil War.
We actually degraded Assad's ability to counter them.
One of the men with the most knowledge on the ground of this.
Who's been our ambassador, to Iraq and Syria says, we don't
have a clue who the moderates are and who the jihadists are.
And even if they tell you, they are the loudest.
Oh, we love Thomas Jefferson. Give us a shoulder-fired
missile. We love Thomas Jefferson.
Can you trust these people? Listen carefully?
Your representatives are sending 500 billion dollars to people
who will tactically alai with Al Qaeda.
So we asked them, I asked secretary Kerry assassin.
Where do you get the authority to wage this war?
And he says from 2001? Several people fighting weren't
born in 2001. Many of the people who voted in
2001 are no longer living. We voted to go to war in
Afghanistan, and I supported going into that war because we
were attacked, and we had to do something about it.
But the thing is, that vote had nothing to do with this.
Absolutely nothing to do with is, you are a dishonest person.
If you say otherwise that sounds pretty mean-spirited.
Hear it again, you are intellectually.
Dishonest. If you argue that something
passed in 2001 to do with the people who attacked us on 9/11,
has anything to do with sending arms into Syria.
The moderate Rebels are fighting with Al-Qaeda.
We could use the 2001 use of authorization of force as
secretary. Kerry understands it, we could
use that authorization of force to attack the same.
People were given the weapons to think about the insanity of
this. There are valid reasons for war.
They should be few and far between.
They should be very importantly, debated not shuffled into a
2,000 page Bill and shuffled into the rug when we go to war.
It's the most important vote that any Senator will ever take
many on the other side have been better on this issue.
When there was a republican in office.
There were loud voices on the other side.
I see an empty chamber. I'm not sending any broken
soldiers. I'm not sending your son your
daughter or mind over to the middle of that chaos, the people
who live there need to stand up and fight civilized.
Islam needs to say to radical Islam.
This does not represent our religion.
That the beheading of civilians that rape and killing women does
not represent Islam. The voices aren't loud enough.
Mr. Speaker under us law. It is illegal for you or me or
any American to provide any type of assistance to Al Qaeda, Isis,
or other terrorist groups, if we broke, this law would be thrown
in jail. Yet, the US government's been
violating this law for years directly and indirectly
supporting allies and partners of groups like Al Qaeda and Isis
with money weapons intelligence, and other support in their
fight, to overthrow the Syrian government, a recent New York
Times. The article confirm that Rebel
groups supported by the US quote have entered into Battlefield
alliances with the affiliate of Al Qaeda in Syria.
Formerly known as on the Sarah, The Wall Street Journal reports
that Rebel groups are quote doubling down on their alliance
with Al-Qaeda. This Alliance has rendered the
phrase, moderate Rebels, meaningless.
We must stop this madness. We must stop.
Arming terrorists. I'm introducing the stop.
Arming terrorists act today to prohibit taxpayer dollars from
being used to support Terrace Mr. Speaker.
I yield back. Potential.
Downsides. They've consequences of arming
that some of the moderate rebels in Syria.
When we see reports, like what happened just last week that the
free Syrian Army was apparently participating in the Abduction
of 40? Some UN peacekeepers in the
Golan Heights. Are these the people that we
want to threat supplied with weapons?
Well, two different things in the Ukraine and in Syria, Syria,
we backed, I Believe, In some cases, some of the wrong people
and not in the right part of Free Syrian Army.
And that's a little confusing to people.
So I've always maintained go back.
Quite some time that we were backing the wrong types.
I think it's going to turn out maybe this weekend, and a new
special at Red Bears going to have Friday.
It's going to show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up
in the hands of Isis. So we helped build Isis.
Now, there's a danger there and I'm with you but in Ukraine, we
need to show support in Iraq against Syria.
And in Iraq, we need to show support that.
We're going to go and take down. I believe take down ISIS and we
can do that without boosting Bashir al-assad.
If we backed the right groups and we attack those parts of the
Isis element that are doing the attacks into Iraq.
That's what we need to focus on and we need to do it.
Now is that? It'll tell Mac and I always
appreciate your Insight sir. Thank you very much.
Thanks Doug. On the morning of April for
2017. Syrian president Bashar al-assad
on the verge of a military Victory against the terrorist
Insurgency in this country and on the eve of peace talks.
That would secure his position as president decided to use
chemical weapons. He didn't have against the
target of no military significance in front of as many
cameras as possible. To cross the one red line, that
would ensure his own government's downfall soon after
the Emmy award-winning, white helmets.
Noted for their oscar-worthy performance, has persistent
proximity to Al-Qaeda and financial dependence on us Aid
bravely. Risked their lives handling,
certain victims, barehanded against every protocol in the
book without presenting a shred of evidence President, Donald
Trump boldly launched a military strike against Syria, their
field, because National Security interest promising to help the
Beautiful. Babies offer does not apply to
babies and Gaza, Yemen Pakistan or basically anywhere else, that
military strike of all your 59, tomahawk land-attack, missiles
of, which 23 actually made it to the Target failed to take out a
single Runway or even keep the air base from operating for even
24 hours. It was a complete success for
ExxonMobil Raytheon and Donald Trump.
No one could question wisdom of striking Syria, except Donald
Trump. And no one could oppose such
move except Russia, the Trump train still convinced by
candidate Trump. And by listening to guys, like
Lindsey Graham drop bombs here. Drop bombs on a side, drop bombs
on Isis. Oh, but they're fighting each
other. So maybe we should do that and
could you convince Putin to get Assad to step aside?
Well, they've been trying to do that.
Could I don't think it's that important to be honest with you?
I think frankly, let's say you get rid of Assad or you knock
out that government, who's going to take over the people that
were backing. And then you're going to have
like, Libya concluded that this was 7-dimensional backgammon to
make China afraid of the US has willingness to spend 100 million
dollars in a fearsome show of failing to destroy a single are
Old throughout the world. People Rejoice is a horrible
secular regime in the Middle East is replaced by yet.
Another peace-loving band of ragtag human rights campaigners
in child. Be headers motivated by a desire
to subdue. The armies of Rome in an
apocalyptic confrontation in dabiq.
The chemicals for the previous Redline attack in Syria.
Have since been proven to come from Libya with you as approval,
but that's probably not relevant to this case.
The CIA has released Declassified report after
Declassified report showing that the plan to topple, Syria's
government has been in the works for decades.
But this just shows that they were right, all along the
mainstream media. Unquestioningly asserts of the
story is true because the US government says so but that's
okay because we all know the MSM is full of unbiased truth.
Tellers and dig hard to get the raw facts on every story.
We see these beautiful pictures at night.
From the decks of these two US, Navy vessels in the Eastern
Mediterranean. I am tempted to quote, the great
Leonard. And I'm Guided by the beauty of
our weapons. And they are beautiful pictures,
even members of Congress, think the story is a load of hogwash,
but that's okay because they're probably crazy because I don't
frankly I don't think Assad would have done that.
It does not serve his interests. It would tend to draw us into
that Civil War even further, who inside you think?
Who do you think is behind it? You think you, who do you think
is behind it? Meanwhile, the White House has
released a report on its Diligence about the chemical
attack the refutes, his own version of the story, but that's
okay. Because when is the White House
ever. Lied people into war, this man
doesn't exist. And if you think he does, you're
an enemy of humanity. Who should apologize for having
been born, likewise him, her him, and him, and him and her.
This is the 100% true story of the Syria strikes.
And if you support sites, like the corporate report that
question it in any way, you were a Moonbeam fake news Tyrant,
living. Hippy Pinko Russian agent and
should commit ritual suicide immediately.
If you love your country and or Liberty, NASCAR, supermodels TV
water, slides, or your mother, you will not question this story
in any way ever. This message has been brought to
you by the friends of the Brookings Institute, Raytheon
genuine hooded, you know, I see Isis in the New York Times
because ignorance is strength. You have to agree that totally
the impeachment inquiry is underway sparked.
By a complaint from someone within the intelligence
Community needs the president's concern and often use term about
a deep State being there to take it out.
Thank God for the Deep state. Legends officers and White
House. People trooping up to Capitol
Hill right now and saying these are people who are doing their
Duty who were responding to a higher call.
It doesn't surprise, I guess it doesn't say, well, think about
it for a minute with all of the people who knew what was going
on here. It took an intelligence
operative step officer to step forward and say something about
it, which was the the trigger that then Unleashed.
Everything else. Now.
Why does that happen? What I've tell American people,
why that happens is this is the institution in the US government
that with all of its flaws. And it makes mistakes is
institutionally committed to objectivity and to telling the
truth. It is one of the few
institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command.
That makes your implements policy.
It's whole job is to speak the truth.
It's engraved in Marble in the lobby.
This dysfunctional. What my constant cry?
Was that our biggest problem is our allies.
Our allies in the region where our largest problem in Syria,
the Turks were great friends, and I have a great relationship
with our do on which I've just spent a lot of time.
With the Saudis, the emiratis ETC.
What were they doing? They were so determined to take
down Assad and essentially have a proxy sunni-shia war.
What do they do? They poured hundreds of millions
of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons.
In to anyone who would fight against Assad, except that the
people who were being who were being supplied, Worrell nasarah,
and Al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from
other parts of the world. Now, you think I'm exaggerating.
Take a look where did all of this go?
So now, what's happening, all of a sudden everybody's awakened
because this outfit called isil, which was Al Qaeda in Iraq,
which when they were essentially thrown out of Iraq, found open,
space and territory and in Western and screaming Eastern
Syria work with al-nusra who we declared a terrorist group early
on and we could not convince our colleagues.
To stop supplying them. So what happened?
Now? All of a sudden?
I don't want to be too facetious, but they have seen
the Lord. Now we have been at the
president's been able to put together a coalition of our
Sunni neighbors because America can't.
Once again go in to Muslim nation and be the aggressor.
It has to be led by sunnis. To go and attack a Sunni
organization. And so what do we have for the
first time now? Saudi Arabia is stop.
The funding going in. Saudi Arabia is allowing
training on its soil of American forces.
Under title 10, open training, the cutter.
He's have cut off their support for the most extreme elements of
the terrorist organizations and the Turks president.
Erdogan told me, he's an old friend said you were right.
We let To many people through. Now, they're trying to seal
their border. We all remember the lies that
led the u.s. Into the Iraq War.
I don't think we ever said least.
I know I didn't say that. There was a direct connection
between September the 11th and and Saddam.
Saying, Saddam Hussein AIDS and protects terrorists.
Including members of al-Qaeda you have said in the past that
it was quote pretty well confirmed.
No, I never said that. Okay, I've never said that is
absolutely not. What I said was, it's been
pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did
meet with senior official to Iraqi intelligence service.
It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction.
There. You said, you knew where they
were. I did not.
We know where they are. They're in the area around
tikrit and Baghdad and And and east west south and north
someone.