MUST SEE: How the U.S. Government Funds Terrorism (READ DESCRIPTION)

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.