AP misstates Papadopoulos timeline

Once again the left wing news media is reporting fake news, in this case the time line of Papadopoulos learning about Russia having Clinton emails. The AP article (05.04-2019 misstates the surveillance started when  Papadopoulos telling an Australian diplomat about the emails, followed by Professor Sefan Halper offering  Papadopoulos a speaking engagement in London.. In reality it started with the offer of the speaking engagement in London, where Professor Halper (an FBI informant) subsequently told Papadopoulos about Russia having the Clinton emails. Then, Papadopoulos met with the Australian diplomat (a supposed chance meeting in a bar) in a planned intelligence operation, where Papadopoulos told the Australian diplomat, the Russian/ Clinton email information  given to him by Professor Halper. The Australian diplomat then informed the FBI, Papadopoulos had told him about the Russians/ Clinton emails as planned. The entire episode was designed by the FBI, to manufacture false information to be used to spy on the Trump administration.

All of this is about to come out as a part of current DOJ and GSO investigations into the rogue FBI actions that tired to setup a silent coup of President Trump. The new media has been complicit with the Russia collusion witch hunt from the beginning, so they are continuing their disinformation campaign to try and coverup the corruption and treasonous activities of a handful of US intelligence administrators. One wonders why the news media felt it was so important to remove President Trump from office, that they abdicated their place in the American experiment in self rule, and joined forces with the tyrants.     

Accusations and Investigations Looking for an Undefinable Crime

 Prior to Trump becoming President, he like many Presidents before him reached out to other countries and their leaders so they could understand what positions and policies they would have to contend with. This is not any attempt to usurp the authority of the President, it is simply taking advantage of the 2 months between the election and swearing in of a new President.  These so called back channel network are very common (what to you think the Russian "red phone" is?), it's very likely Obama had one to Russia, the UN, Germany, Saudi Arabia (and quite probably Iran for his secret treaty negotiations) as Obama was probably the most secretive and leak paranoid President the US has ever had). There is no ethical or criminal violation of the law, as there only purpose is to screen out Intelligence players to prevent the leaks that have become so prevalent. It is the speculated nefarious purposes of such a network (even though it appears it was never followed through with) from the secretive informants, that is the fake news. Obviously there has been an avalanche of  fake news, many of which have been debunked, including the Russian (golden shower) dossier, that Comey asked for more resources for his investigation from DOJ before we has fired by Trump, which was debunked by then Deputy Secretary of the FBI, Andrew McCabe; and it is “Totally false,” from DOJ spokesman Ian Prior and from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "I want to address the media claims that the FBI asked for additional resources for the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. I'm not aware of any such request. (Comey would have needed to go to Congress for more resources, not DOJ). Speaking of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, unnamed sources said he wanted to resign as a result of Trump saying he based the firing of Comey based on his uncomplimentary report; something Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also denied.

There is also fake news from again "unidentified sources" that the FBI investigation  into Russian interference was zeroing in on Trump; again a named source, Andrew McCabe told Trump the media coverage of the FBI investigation was very overstated or a fabrication; Trump also said then FBI head Comey told him he was not a subject of their investigation, something Comey has not denied.

The media is now directing an attempted coup to to try and remove President Trump, using the same tactics and have the same goals they accused the Russians of; the goals are to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, and denigrate Trump. Not to be burdened down with responsible reporting (during the Nixon investigation, the Washington demanded that all the information be verified by at least three people, who where both named and quoted; today it is any information from unnamed sources or not, that is designed to show collusion between Trump and Russia. The media then reports this unverified information as factual (accept for a disclaimer buried in the article that that  no evidence has been found the shows any collusion between Trump and Russia).  Not only that, the media can not even even describe what is was the Russians needed from Trump, to aid them with their so called "interference" in the 2016 election; it's not as if Trump could supply the Russians with intelligence they didn't already have or help with hacking computers or even increase access to social media; nothing that the media has claimed led to the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. In other words we are dealing with the media claiming nefarious actions by Trump, but they still can't explain what Trump brought to the table with his so called collusion (or example of what Trump could have possibly done to aid the Russians in hacking the election), nor can they even define how the collusion would have resulted in the loss of the election. The result is accusations and investigations looking for an undefinable crime. 

It's the leak Stupid

The question comes up again and again, what is more important, the leak (or hack) or the damaging information. Well that depends on the leak and who it's likely to damage. The press will always ignore the leak if it's damaging to Republicans and ignore the information if it's harmful to the Democrats. Such was the hack of the DNC supposedly by the Russians. The only thing that mattered was the leak advantaged the Republicans, proof enough that the Republicans were colluding with the Russians, never mind the Democrats has been much more friendly in it's business deals with Russia than the Republicans. First Russia has been the darling of the left, since WW ll and Stalin (this certainly includes Hillary Clinton when Secretary of State under President Obama).Never a word that former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, John Pedesta (of the Pedesta Group) successfully lobbied on behalf of the Russians when they were petitioning the US and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State for oil drilling and Uranium mining rights...."The Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom, purchased in January 2005 a Canadian company — UrAsia — with uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to Western America, reports the New York Times. This purchase made the Russian agency one of the largest uranium producers in the world....Leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have donated in excess of $25 million according to the Clinton Foundation’s website, built and eventually sold the Russians the aformentioned company that is today known as Uranium One. These Are The Two Companies That Might Land Clinton’s Foundation In Big Legal Trouble

The FBI has been investigating Trump and his campaign staff since July 2016 and they have found absolutely no evidence that they had colluded with the Russians (none, nada); this is the only information that is germane to this argument. Yet if this point is brought up in a discussion, those leaning left has turned theses accusations backwards with the illegitimate question, "Well what proof do you have that Trump and/or his campaign staff didn't collude with the Russians?"  Of course the idea that the one needs to prove a negative, is a pointless and intellectually dishonest demand. One of the first leaks the Democrats glommed onto showed that Gen Mike Flynn (then Trumps appointed national security advisor prior to being sworn in as President ) had been less than honest, when he told the future Vice President, Mike Pence, about phone conversation he had with the Russian Ambassador. General Flynn told Mike Pence that the subject of President Obama's sanctions of Russia (the result of the DNC hack), never came up. In what appears to be an illegally released of "unmasked" surveillance information, in the conversation between Gen Flynn and the Russian Ambassador, was leaked to the media, showing the subject was briefly discussed; the FBI said Gen Flynn broke no laws during the phone conversation, meaning the Ambassador most likely brought up the subject and Gen Flynn simply told the Ambassador he would have to discuss the subject with Trump. The leak led to Gem Flynn being fired becasue he was not truthful with Mike Pence, but the leak was downplayed by the media.

In this case, the leak itself was one of the most egregious violations in the history of US Intelligence. The government (NSA/FBI) is forbidden to listen in on phone conversations of Americans without specifically authorized in a VISA warrant; this is to protect American citizens from the intelligence agencies in the US from violation their Constitutional rights of privacy. However, there are sometimes when incidentally American citizen conversations are heard as the intelligence agencies routinely listen to foreign entities, such as the Russian Ambassador. In those cases the American's identity is kept secret (masked) by the intelligence agent(s) that are listening to the conversation, so the American's identity is not released, even within the intelligence agency itself. The guaranteeing of masking incidental surveillance of American citizens is the corner stone of the VISA ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) court  allowing for the "requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies" To date, this may be the first time such an unmasking violation has been leaked to the media and the public at large; in essence since it involved the future President of the United states, it is not only flagrant violation of the VISA warrant and the Constitutional rights of the citizenry by the government, but it becomes a serious case of espionage by a person (or persons) inside the government.

So yes, it is the leak that takes president, especially since the unmasked information is at best embarrassing, without showing any illegal activity by any of the parties involved, except the leaking itself. These intelligence agencies have a serious problem on their hands, and unless it is addressed,  their ability to keep Americans safe will be seriously compromised.

Obama and Hillary Clinton; Conman/ Con- Woman, Incompetent and Fascists

The following is a response to pair of liberal letters to the editor, this one from the elitists;
 The first;  A revelation from the current election campaign has been generally overlooked. For a democracy to succeed, its citizens have to be well educated, and in particular develop the ability of critical thinking, distinguishing facts from fiction. The fact that millions of our citizens can be deceived by a presidential candidate who is a con artist underscores the failure of our educational system.

The definition of a conman is someone that promises one thing and delivers either something else, something inferior or nothing. Considering Obama failed to follow through with any of his campaign promises and knowingly lied to the American People about his now failing government control of medical care in the US, Obama is certainly one of the biggest conman that has ever been. With Hillary being a congenital liar and ready to continue the Obama juggernaut, in she wins the presidency we will be replacing a conman for a con-woman. While Trump has tweeted some questionable facts, if he did not live up to his agreements, he would not have been so successful; this is what happens in the real world. If you are not dependable you will fail. In politics, being undependable to the people is sometimes a prerequisite, where lies are called having misspoke, or as Hillary said when called on not being a victim of sniper fire, "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement". WHAT? Being undependable is especially important when you are a Democrat promising more than one can ever deliver. With all his faults, Trump is not a politician and actually knows that the people want, rather than the likes of the Democrats telling the people they are too stupid for self government, so the government must ignore the will of the people, as Americans need to be coerced to give up their indivual rights, their culture, their love of country, their borders, their sovereignty and their right to self government, all in the name of globalism, as we bow to world governance. To paraphrase Harry Truman, Trump may be a son of a bit@h, but he's the peoples son of a bit@h, and not part of the political elite that wants to put an end to American exceptionalism.

The second is a liberal ignoring his own progressive embrace fascism, while falsely accusing him of the same, as he also demonizes Trump for his lack of political correctness;  If Trump represents anything it is Fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world. If that is what half of the US voters support then we are like Germany in the early 1930's and will suffer the consequences of our ignorance.

If any politician represents, "fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world", it is the Obama, the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. By all measures Hillary is an elitist, who not only "lack(s) of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US", the evidence is she really doesn't care. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 8 years ago, the result of Obama's incompetence. But his incompetence is a globalist agenda driven, while Hillary's incompetence continues to be driven corruption, with her seemingly unending need for wealth and power. It's interesting to note that Hillary rarely runs on her record as a senator and Sec. Of State, but rather demonizes Trump lack of political correctness, calling out his supposed xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and Islamophobia.

Most toss the word "fascism" around without really knowing what it means; it is not Nazism. Fascism is a close relationship between the government and the means of production. Benito Mussolini, considered one of the great socialist writers, saw fascism as a method to give an economic generator to socialism (nationalization of the means of production usually failed to produce national wealth, becasue the government had taken over as was trying to run the means of production ie manufacturing, even though they had no expertise or experience in production. Fascism allows the original non-government entities with expertise to remain running the means of production, but maintains control through regulations). We already see that Hillary has accepted millions from the corporate America, and there is little doubt their "donations" will be returned 10 fold.

Fascism also needs a strike force to respond to those that threaten the government and/or their control of the means of production. Prior to Obama the US did not have a civilian national security force, but now we do with the huge expanse of Homeland Security; "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama So Obama has laid down the framework with back office deals and numerous regulations, both designed to remove impediments to production while maintaining control of the economy.

The question is not will US voters vote to support an oppressive government, instead the question is will US voters continue to allow the growth of oppression that has been but in overdrive by Obama and will no doubt be continued by Hillary Clinton.

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know." Donald Trump

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton are obviously scared. Expect more firestorms based on throw away lines by Trump. Trump was talking about Clinton picking judges that will infringe on the 2nd Amendment (something prohibited). Then he says the 2nd Amendment people (which is really the citizenry of the US) may be able to do something about it.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So who exactly are the 2nd Amendment people? I would say they are those that believe the right of the people to bear arms are necessary for a free state.

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat; as a matter of fact, unless you believe that a call for 2nd Amendment advocates to vote against Hillary Clinton is a threat, what Trump said was not a threat at all) Below is the Corpus of CA 422 PC criminal threats.

"Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made 
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety".

BTW the Secret Service has pretty much ignored Trumps remarks, assuming it is just political rhetoric (contrary to CNN's reporting Trump has not been contacted by the Secret Service). As this former Secret Service explains to Hillary supporter Don Lemon of CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So here you have CNN trumping up an off the cuff remark by lying this issue is so important the Secret Service has contacted Trump, then Lemon of CNN completely losing his mind when someone with experience in such matters, calls the idea that Trump had made a threat of violence against Hillary, laughable (which it is).

Obama; "(Gun Violence) is something we should politicize."

Before we delve into the left politicizing gun violence, lets look at the facts behind violent crime itself. Over the last 20 years, the American people have certainly showed a great deal of responsibility as violent crime has been reduced by nearly 50% while ownership has and continues to explode.

Any poll, data, study or graph by the anti-gun zealots must be consistent with this fact, and pretty much always fail in this respect; polls can be rigged, studies depend on the data used and graph's are  dependent on the data used. The only independent and reliable data available for violent crimes and homicide rates comes from the FBI UCR totals and end result tells us the 1) Violent crimes and homicide rates have been falling for over 20 years  2)  The number of guns owned by the citizenry have no relationship to violent crime. Mythbusting Gun Ownership Decline in US

What is interesting about fact #2 is there does seem to be a disconnect between guns bought and guns owned. As you see below, gun manufacturers show guns sold have increased every year; the NCIC background checks for gun sales have increased every year, yet the gun ownership graph shows ownership decreasing (and it's not like guns are a commensurable product). The reason is the elephant in the room. While data for gun sales and NCIC are from verifiable sources, gun ownership data  come from telephone polls; these polls have become notoriously inaccurate, add to that the widely accepted fact most people are hesitant to talk about their gun ownership, any result would be guaranteed inaccurate; most likely exceedingly low. The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

 The other facts are those cities with the most strict gun laws tend to have the highest rate of violent crime; especially gun crimes. The whole anti-gun movement is propaganda by liberals and Democrats that have created a strawman to use politically; in this case the Democrats want the citizenry to believe gun crime crimes are approaching an epidemic, when they actually maxed out on the 70's and have been steadily falling ever since. The truth is Democrats have a horrible record with crimes in the cities they run, a fact that is consistently ignored by the main street media; black on black crime in these Democrat run cities are the only instances where violent crime is on the rise.

 


po·lit·i·cize 1. to give a political character or bias to: to politicize a religious debate.

There was a time when to politicize a tragedy was considered almost a morale sin; the idea that one would take human pain and give it a political spin or bias in order to further a political agenda, without regard for the victim(s), was an anathema. Well no more, not since President Obama. The first indication that politicizing human tragedy was now blatantly acceptable to President Obama, started when his former White House Chief of Staff (and currently mayor of Chicago) Rahm Emanuel stated publicly the White House world view,"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."  Then President then confirmed that blatantly politicizing human tragedy would be his standard course, when he spoke on limiting gun ownership , “Of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere, will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”  Obama; Gun Control Politicizing Not Politics


What the President is saying,  when he says mass murder should be politicized, is to infer that the victims are a faceless collective and the Democrats have the right to declare mass murder as a for and against issue; in other words one can declare ownership of the high ground saying we are the only party that is against mass shootings. One way this is done to is insinuate that their policies will stop mass shootings, while other parties either do nothing or make it worse.  Unfortunately the Democrats, and liberals are on the wrong side of the Gun Safety argument, considering violent crime has decreased near 50% in the last 20 years while gun possession has significantly increased; US Gun Homocide Study However the Democrats have pushed a lie on the American people that violent crime is an epidemic, so if you want this to stop, they need to votes for Democrats. However when one has only to look at cities they have their gun-control policies, and one sees rampant and out of control crime,  the same cities (Chicago being the most obvious) have the strictest gun laws in the country. Harvard Study; Gun Control is Counterproductive


Then you have Hillary Clinton harping on the less guns less crimes myth saying she is for Australian style gun confiscation;  leading the NRA to rightfully exclaim, "This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement Friday. "Hillary Clinton's extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people." Hillary Clinton Calls for Gun Confiscation ; The Democrats are so sure of themselves, that they have politisized this myth of a gun violence epidemic, that you have the likes of California  Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom pushing  a anti-gun initiative for background checks for ammunition, to try and up his popularity to win the upcoming Governors election. (As an prime example of the politicizing of gun violence, it's worth noting that a similar bill "SB-53" was co-sponsored by California State Senator Leland Yee; the bill died in the Assembly about the time Yee was indited for gun smuggling. You can't make this stuff up).  This  pushed by Newsom, would cost tens of millions of dollars and generate reams of useless data, as once in the hands of the purchaser there is no way to traceit, even if it was used for illegal purposes.. But more important, it politicizes recent mass shootings and continues to push the myth of a gun violence epidemic; when the real culprits are a handful of sociopathic terrorists, that plan these monstrous acts for months or even years.  These terrorists that came before all passed the background checks the Democrats are pushing and waited the appropriate waiting periods to buy guns and ammo.

"Those policies, from background checks to “assault weapon” bans, to magazine restrictions, are the abstract ideas and concepts...Where these ideas/concepts continually fail in the real world is when they are forced to go beyond fuzzy “feel good” concepts into actual language in legislation, and people get to see the details… and the concrete liberties that would be lost for vague promises of “safety” that have never materialized when a gun control bill passes." Gun Control Supporters Losing Culture War

In regards to large capacity their is no evidence that they are any deadlier simply changing a larger number of low capacity magazines (something that can be easily be done in less than 5 seconds). In a recent press conference the Washington DC Chief of Police Cathy Lanier, blamed high-capacity magazines for DC's high murder rate, “Multiple of our cases have high-capacity magazines and multiple rounds fired making the shots more lethal,” However, COP Lanier was stymied when it was revealed that the Washington DC Police Dept does not keep records on the capacity of the magazines with the firearms that are seized. Scapegoat Alert! D.C. Murders Increase, Police Chief Blames Large Capacity Magazines It's just more smoke coming from liberals trying to divert responsibility from their failed leadership.


So, as we look at the anti-gun zealots, we see a manufactured crisis, egged on by the left, politicizing the rise in  a very narrowly defined type of mass shootings, (ignoring the slaughter of black on black crime in many urban cities) that involved a sociopath usually targeting schools and churches. However these mass shootings were so limited in number, that even an increase does not rise to anything close to an epidemic. As I quoted in my last posting US Enjoying Lowest Crime Rate in Decades ; "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000 So the so called sharp rise in Mass shootings is 10 more shootings a year than before 16.4 vs 6.4 previously; hardly enough to call for wholesale gun restrictions that regardless, would have no affect on these extremely limited type of shootings.

As a final caveat it would be dishonest to presume that all those calling out for more gun restrictions are politically motivated. While this may be the case with most politicians, the majority honestly feel that more guns equals more violent crimes, and this seems to be the totality of their world view.  Gun control advocates are utopians. Their perspective is that, if guns are no longer readily available, violence will evaporate. But there are so many guns in circulation that it would take decades to reduce their availability — unless legislators adopt the police-state policy of sending cops door-to-door to confiscate firearms. California Lawmakers Train Sights on Gun Ownership

FOIA Docs Show CIA Stood by as Arms Shipments from Benghazi Enabled the Rise of ISIS

 Note: most this information comes from the ultra-left Salon.com

If the Middle East explodes into full scale war, the fact that Iran has been delayed creating their nuclear weapon will be lost on the 100,000's that will be wounded or killed. Thanks to Obama, the Middle East is devolving into a quagmire. First Hillary Clinton took out Gaddafi (much like Bush took out Hussien) with no apparent long range strategy. Today Libya is a quagmire of rebel factions fighting for control as ISIS is making their own inroads into the country. It has now been confirmed through FOIA documents that show "how the CIA stood by as arms shipments from Libya enabled the rise of ISIS...weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria...

The Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the State Department and CIA facilities in Benghazi at the same time that the flow of weapons stopped." This dispersal of weapons is what led to the birth of ISIS. “[w]estern countries, the Gulf states, and Turkey are supporting rebel efforts against the Assad regime in a proxy war, putting them on the same side as, if not working together with, the terrorists now overrunning Iraq".

The conclusion of the final House report is clear: “From the Annex in Benghazi, the CIA was collecting intelligence about foreign entities that were themselves collecting weapons in Libya and facilitating their passage to Syria.” Long story short: The CIA was watching closely as our allies transferred weapons to Syrian rebels. Then after the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi 9.11.2012, Hillary Clinton and her US State Department launched into damage control, using the YouTube video as a red herring to cover the CIA program in Benghazi. Another interesting fact is the US State Department publicly apologized to Egypt on Egyptian radio and TV, for the YouTube anti-Islam video prior to the demonstration in Cairo; it's almost as though the State Department meant to draw attention to the video, which would make sense if they received advanced notice of the attack and needed to spark a demonstration that could be used as a subterfuge to divert attention from the Benghazi gun running operation by the CIA..

AQI was pushed out of Iraq as a result of Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007 (While AQI formed as a result of the US invasion of Iraq, they remained a Sunni insurgency in Iraq, until western forces contracted and trained them to join Syrian rebels fighting against Syria). AQI at this point was in disarray with few military bases in Iraq. When the US pulled out of Iraq (2011) a civil war ensued in Iraq resulting in AQI reforming and made significant head way in Iraq. It was at this point that AQI was armed and trained by western forces to fight along side the Syrian rebels. When the US stopped it's military assault on Syria (a truce brokered by Putin to rid Syria of it's chemical weapons) , AQI, along with other Sunni insurgency fighters became ISIL; (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham) or simply IS (for Islamic State). This was something that was completely overlooked and underestimated by the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton (remember a “JV” Terrorist Group?) until they discovered they had created a monster..

So the primary causes of ISIS was western countries arming Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) to fight along with Syrian rebels; The Intelligence Community (IC) knew that AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) had ties to the rebels in Syria; they knew our Gulf and Turkish allies were happy to strengthen Islamic extremists in a bid to oust Assad; and CIA officers in Benghazi (at a minimum) watched as our allies armed rebels using weapons from Libya. And the IC knew that a surging AQI might lead to the collapse of Iraq.
Salon.com

So NATO inadvertently creates ISIS while trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. And now Iran will be pumping money and arms to Syria and those ISIS forces moving against Saudi Arabia (while some ISIS forces are attacking Syria, like Syria ISIS is Sunni, and their primary enemy is Shia; ie Saudi Arabia). It's just the continuing proxy wars between the US/NATO and Russia/Syria using the Sunnis and Shias. But Iran may not have it's nuclear bomb yet, so all is good. Right?

Benghazi; Obama's Iran Contra

The issues about what happened in Benghazi appear to be somewhat complicated, but it still boils down to Hillary Clinton and the cover up. Benghazi appears to be a page stolen from the Reagan Administration and Iran Contra. While Reagan funded Nicaraguan rebels with arms sales to Iran, the Obama Administration was stockpiling weapons in the Benghazi consultant annex, left over from overthrowing the government of Libya and smuggling them into Syria to arm and train anti-Assad forces, many with ties to al Qaeda; all contrary to promises the President made to Congress and the American people. The reason responding forces where told to stand down was because this was a secret operation that needed to stay that way and the Ambassador Christopher Stevens(who was certainly involved if not leading the operation Slain US Ambassador Recruited Jihadists . was to be collateral damage. The big problem now is the cover-up, which like Watergate involves all the lies told by Obama and Secretary Clinton. He have to be able to trust our elected officials or we no longer have a representative government; that's why past Presidential crisis and Benghazi are important (and why, Secretary Clinton, it still matters why the attack happened and why Americans died in Benghazi).

First we now have evidence that some 35 CIA operatives were using the annex near the Benghazi consulate, working on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armories to Syrian rebels; an operation that  Ambassador Chris Stevens was spear heading . CIA Running Arms In Benghazi The attack was from a local militia group and Islamic extremist group in Libya, Ahmed Abu Khattala; that apparently wanted the missiles for themselves. Benghazi Attack Then as credible intelligence information started to emerge that a terrorist attack was likely, the FBI released the anti-Muslim video* in Egypt, in the event they needed a cover story for an attack on the embassy.

 As some of these details started to emerge, the CIA initiated a full court press,  subjecting Agency employees, involved or having knowledge of the operation monthly polygraph tests, among other measures that many have claimed has put a chill on any of the agents willing to testify in any of the Congressional investigations. Dozens fo CIA Operatives on Ground in Benghazi If this information becomes main stream, it could be devastating to the Obama Administration. First and foremost Obama was facing re-election and had based his foreign policy success on end of al Qaeda resulting from the American Special Forces taking out Osama Bin Laden; an obsurb premise by any measure. It also would have showed how that President Obama lied (again) and did an end around Congress and the Constitution as he would have  been arming Syrian rebels, many with ties to al Qaeda, contrary to promises made to congress and the American people. Further, and possibly the most important, it would have been a death knell for Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton's President hopes in 2016, as the entire operation would have the very least needed here approval as it involved a US embassy and Ambassador Chris Stevens. This is also a fight (in Syria) were the US has no dog, but Saudi Arabia does. It should be noted that President Obama's failure to oust the President Assad from Syria has resulted in serious diplomatic rift between the US and Saudi Arabia.

*There is ample evidence that Mark Youssef, the maker of the infamous Benghazi video was release from Federal Prison in 2010, after serving 6 month of a 21 month sentence to make the video for the FBI. The movie had only one showing, in a ridiculous plan to smoke out al Qaeda. The FBI then retained the film as an asset (sometimes called a honey pot) that could be used at a later date. Anti-Islam Film Producer on Federal Probation. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula