Hillary Clinton takes the blame on Benghazi in dramatic appearance before Congress

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 23, 2013

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on took full responsibility on Wednesday for the attack that killed 11 people, including the U.S. Ambassador in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last September 11.

Clinton appeared at a hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and asked its members to work with her successor in office to respond to new threats in North Africa.

Clinton responded to several questions about security problems detected in the consulate in Benghazi, the measures taken to protect the U.S. response to terrorist threats in North Africa, and the reaction from the State Department to prevent similar attacks occur in the future.

“I take full responsibility and no one is more committed than me to learn the lessons of this attack,” said the secretary. Clinton said the State Department created an internal commission to determine the different measures that can prevent a similar attack and repeat all of them, a set of 65 strategic changes will be implemented by March.

“It is absolutely essential that this committee work with the new secretary of state to understand the challenges, that are increasingly complex,” said Clinton.

“You can not say we agree on everything, but let’s focus on what really matters.” Clinton has asked the committee to abandon confrontations such as those surrounding the statements of the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, that ended with her refusal to be considered as his replacement at the head of U.S. diplomacy.

The secretary strongly defended the role of Rice and her remarks four days after the attack on the consulate and asked the Senate Republicans to put aside their doubts about the time that that took the Administration to recognize that it was a terrorist attack.

“What difference does that make in a time when the government was still trying to determine the cause of the deaths of four U.S. citizens?” Clinton responded with great anger, and stroke the table with her left hand. “It took several days to get a clear picture of what had happened.”

The head of U.S. diplomacy answered several questions about the security measures taken by the Department to protect its representatives abroad, especially after the instability created by the Arab Spring in various countries in the region, which incidentally was sponsored by the United States government, among other Western nations. The U.S. actually armed much of the opposition that apparently took down Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya and that is now trying to take down Assad in Syria.

Several Republican politicians have argued since then that the secretary rejected requests from various embassies to increase security, something she has rejected by saying that she was “shocked” by such assumptions.

Clinton said at the beginning of her appearance, that the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens “is a personal matter, not just professional” and that she feels responsible for the lives of the 70,000 employees who work for the State Department.

Hillary Clinton had initially refused to appear before Congress alleging she was ill when the request was issued, but she later agreed to appear given growing political and popular demands to have an official explanation of the facts.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Mitt Romney will continue Obama’s Plan to destroy the Middle East and North Africa

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 10, 2012

The Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency, Mitt Romney said Tuesday  that if he wins the election next November, the United States will continue to arm the opposition in Syria to fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. This statement may be surprising for many who see Romney as an alternative to Obama’s failed ‘hope and change’ hoax. But the truth is that neither candidate seems to deviate significantly from the travesty administration of George W. Bush, who democrats blame for everything that Obama inherited; or from Bill Clinton who built carried out the same policies that Bush Sr., Bush Jr. and Obama support.

The thought that a Romney presidency will further help set up the Middle East and North Africa ablaze is not so strange. Mitt Romney himself has said it clearly in his speech at the  Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. He assured the audience that if elected on November 6, he will work with U.S. allies to “identify and organize the Syrian opposition members” who share their values “and to ensure they get the weapons they need to defeat tanks, helicopters and planes from the Assad government”. This statement is revealing indeed. Mr. Romney has confessed that his administration shares the same values of the Syrian opposition groups.

The Syrian fighters are admittedly, US and NATO supported members of Al-Qaeda and its affiliate terrorist groups, so in a sense, Romney has admitted to supporting the use of terrorism to bring about change in Syria. As The Real Agenda has reported before, the terrorist militias that attack innocent people in Syria are the same groups that operate from across right across the border on Turkish territory. These are also the same groups that launched a false-flag attack against Turkey — the weapons used belonged to NATO — to blame Syria for it, so Turkey would have an excuse to fire its weapons against Syria. The government of Turkey has officially approved legislation to attack Syria and it has been doing so for the past 7 days. The move has been praised by NATO, the UN the United States government and of course Mr. Romney himself.

During his speech in Virginia, the former governor of Massachusetts criticized the “passive policy” of President Barack Obama in the Middle East conflict, and the absence of a strong reaction to the attack on an American consulate in Libya last month that killed U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. officials. So for Romney the killing of hundreds of people by US allies and guerrilla groups that operate clandestinely in Libya and Syria, and which are funded with American taxpayer dollars is way too passive. As it has now been revealed, the attack on the American consulate was at the very least overlooked by the Obama administration after receiving multiple requests and warnings that the attack was coming.

According to Romney, Obama has failed both Israel and the Palestinians, as “what should be a negotiation process has become a series of heated disputes in the United Nations,” said Romney. “In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new president will bring the opportunity to start over. There is a yearning for American leadership,” said the candidate, who gave no details of his plan for the region.

Romney said that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, which incidentally happened on September 11, was probably the work of “the same forces” who bombed the US in 2001. “You can not blame this attack on a video that insulted Islam even though the government has tried to convince us of it for so long,” he added.

Regarding the Iranian threat, the Republican to occupy the White House said it would take in “new sanctions and tighten” existing ones to bring Iran to its knees. “I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the eastern Mediterranean and in the Gulf region, and work with Israel to increase military assistance and coordination,” he added. In other words, Romney intends not only to sustain the current murderous campaign being carried out by Barack Obama, but also to increase the level of aggression against non aligned nations.

Obama is credited — wrongfully many argue — with the death of the leader of the terrorist network Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the end of the war in Iraq, a limited military intervention that ended the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya with intensified air attacks with drones against suspected terrorists, and the gradual reduction of troops in Afghanistan.

As a political candidate, Romney has adopted the concept of many conservatives in the United States according to which political systems of Europe, especially the French, are socialists and contrary to the “free market” American style. This is true, just as it is true what Romney said about self-entitled, government-dependent people who can never get enough welfare and who knowingly choose to support the bribery system sponsored by the central government.

But the similarities between Obama and Romney do not stop at speeches given to brainwashed supporters. Both the US president and the Republican candidate believe that government can and should Bailouts, ‘too big to fail’ entities, provide free money to banks and corporations in the form of stimulus packages, use quantitative easing and deficit spending as development policies, send troops to protect others borders and sending taxpayer money to foreign dictators, intervene in the affairs of other nations, restrict gun ownership, surveil and oppress citizens with tools such as the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps and so on.

Both presidential candidates also support the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial or legal counsel. They both support the assassinations of American citizens or anyone else without due process and socialized healthcare, among others.

Choosing the least dangerous option this time around is just not a viable way to go this time for the American people, because Romney and Obama as equally dangerous.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Conquest of North Africa, Middle East Planned 20 Years Ago

Washington’s Blog
November 28, 2011

I’ve repeatedly documented that the Neocons planned regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria and a host of other countries right after 9/11 … if not before.

And that Obama is implementing these same plans – just with a “kindler, gentler” face.

Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11:

General Wesley Clark … said the aim of this plot [to “destroy the governments in …Iraq, … Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran”] was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”

[I]n the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya … with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active and escalating proxy fighting in Somalia, with a modest military deployment to South Sudan, and the active use of drones in six — count ‘em: six — different Muslim countries, it is worth asking whether the neocon dream as laid out by Clark is dead or is being actively pursued and fulfilled, albeit with means more subtle and multilateral than full-on military invasions (it’s worth remembering that neocons specialized in dressing up their wars in humanitarian packaging: Saddam’s rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz … put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:

As far as I can tell, there’s barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the [Democrats] just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.

***

The neocon end as Clark reported them — regime change in those seven countries — seems as vibrant as ever. It’s just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.

Note: The so-called “war on terror” has also weakened our national security and created many more terrorists than it has killed, imprisoned or otherwise stopped.  It is also destroying our economy.

 

International ‘Court of Criminals’ calls for the arrest of Qaddafi

Associated Press
June 27, 2011

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, his son and his intelligence chief for crimes against humanity in the early days of their struggle to cling to power.

Judges announced Monday that Gadhafi is wanted for orchestrating the killing, injuring, arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of civilians during the first 12 days of an uprising to topple him from power after more than four decades, and for trying to cover up the alleged crimes.

The warrants turn Gadhafi, his son Seif al-Islam Gadhafi and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi into internationally wanted suspects, potentially complicating any efforts to mediate an end to more than four months of intense fighting in the North African nation.

The Secret Wars of the Saudi-Israeli Alliance

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research
May 29, 2011

As an old Chinese proverb says, crisis can be used as an opportunity by some.

Tel Aviv, Washington and NATO are taking advantage of the upheavals in the Arab World. Not only are they fighting against the legitimate aspirations of the Arab people, they are manipulating  the Arab geo-political landscape as part of their strategy to control Eurasia.

Sectarian Conflicts in Egypt: A Means to Weaken the Egyptian State

Egypt is ruled by a counter-revolutionary military junta. Despite the increasing assertiveness of the Egyptian people, the old regime is still in place. Yet, its foundations are becoming shakier as the Egyptian people become more radical in their demands.

Like in the Mubarak era, the military regime in Cairo is also allowing sectarianism to spread in Egypt in an effort to create divisions within Egyptian society. In early-2011 when Egyptians stormed government buildings they discovered secret papers that showed that the regime was behind the attacks on Egypt’s Christian community.

Recently, so-called  Salafist extremists have attacked Egyptian minorities including Christians but also Shiite Muslims. Egyptian activists and leaders in the Coptic and Shia community are pointing their fingers at the military junta in Cairo, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

The Egyptian military junta, Tel Aviv, and the Al-Sauds are all part of an ominous alliance. This grouping is the backbone of the U.S. imperial structure in the Arab World. They are dependent on Washington. They prevail inasmuch as the U.S. remains dominant in Southwest Asia and North Africa.

The Al-Sauds are now working with Washington in Egypt to establish a supposedly Islamic government. This is being done through political parties that the Al-Sauds have funded and helped organize. The new so-called Salafist movements are primary examples of this. It also appears that the Muslim Brotherhood or at least branches of it have been co-opted.

The Saudi-Israeli Alliance and the Politics of Division

The ties of the Al-Sauds to Tel Aviv have in recent years become increasingly visible and pervasive. This secret Israeli-Saudi alliance exists within the context of a broader Khaliji-Israeli alliance. The alliance with Israel is formed through strategic cooperation between the ruling families of Saudi Arabia and the Arab sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf.

Together Israel and the Khaliji ruling families form a frontline for Washington and NATO against Iran and its regional allies. The alliance also acts on behalf of Washington to destabilize the region. The roots of chaos in Southwest Asia and North Africa are this Khaliji-Israeli alliance.

In line with the U.S. and the E.U., it is the alliance formed by Israel and the Khaliji rulers that has worked to create ethnic divisions between Arabs and Iranians, religious divisions between Muslims and Christians, and confessional divisions between Sunnis and Shiites. It is the “politics of division” or “fitna” that has also served to keep the Khaliji ruling families in power and Israel in its place. Israel and the Khaliji ruling families would not survive without the regional fitna.

The Al-Sauds and Tel Aviv are the authors of the Hama-Fatah split and the estrangement of Gaza from the West Bank. They have worked together in the 2006 war against Lebanon with a view to crushing Hezbollah and its political allies. Saudi Arabia and Israel have also cooperated in spreading sectarianism and sectarian violence in Lebanon, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and now Egypt.

Israel and the Khaliji monarchies serve Washington in its objective to ultimately neutralize Iran and its allies, as well as any form of resistance against the U.S. in Southwest Asia and North Africa. This is why the Pentagon has been heavily arming Tel Aviv and the Khaliji sheikhdoms. Washington has also been setting up missile shields aimed at Iran and Syria in Israel and the Arab sheikhdoms.

Iranophobia

The alliance between the Khaliji sheikhdoms and Israel has been instrumental in creating a wave of Iranophobia in the Arab World. The ultimate objective of Iranophobia is to transform Iran in the eyes of Arab public opinion, into an enemy of the Arab people, thereby distracting attention from the real enemies of the Arab World, namely the neo-colonial powers which occupy and control Arab lands.

Iranophobia is a PsyOp, an instrument of propaganda. The strategic objective is to isolate Iran and reconfigure the geo-political landscape of Southwest Asia and North Africa. Moreover, Iranophobia has been used by the Khaliji ruling families, from the U.A.E. to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, as a pretext for the repression of their own people, who are demanding basic freedoms and democratic rights in the sheikhdoms.

The March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which is a collection of Khaliji-U.S. clients and Israeli allies, has also used Iranophobia and the “politics of division” to try to attack Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon The objective is to weaken and undermine Lebanese-Iranian and Lebanese-Syrian ties. The March 14 Alliance, specifically the Hariri-controlled Future Movement, has imported into Lebanon the so-called Salafist fighters of Fatah Al-Islam with the objective of getting them to attack Hezbollah. The Future Movement has also had a role in the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. project to destabilize Syria and remove it from the Resistance Bloc.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).