By Ben Barrack
A Turkish connection to the U.S. presence in Benghazi prior to the 9/11/12 attacks is not in dispute. A Turkish diplomat was at the Special Mission Compound approximately one hour before it was attacked. Days earlier, a Libyan ship reportedly carrying weapons bound for Syria docked in a Turkish port. When it comes to the Arab Spring, the U.S. position has been all but inseparable from the Turkish position. State Department spokesman Marie Harf recently referred to Turkey as a ‘close NATO ally’.
The Benghazi attacks are one of the consequences of this alliance.
Another consequence of allying with modern day Turkey is being part of an agenda that sanctions the slaughter of Christians in the Middle East. These atrocities in Syria have been chronicled at great length by Shoebat.com. At the end of a recent report by CBN, Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense and Democracies (FDD) provides a glimpse into why the U.S. is aiding Turkey, despite the latter’s role in human slaughter:
“We’ve got early warning radar systems in Turkey, we’ve got Patriot missile batteries, we’ve got massive airbases, we’ve got investments… the Turks have served as an important ally for us. If we lose that, I think it would be very detrimental to American foreign policy.”
There is of course, the issue of NATO. The U.S. is obligated to stand with Turkey per the NATO charter. As Shoebat.com published last month, this agreement should never come at the expense of looking the other way when it comes to genocide.
In Syria, sides have been chosen. Christians have chosen the side of Bashar al-Assad, not because he’s a good guy but because the Jihadists are so much worse; Christians are being slaughtered by rebels and protected by Assad. It is indisputable that the U.S. has chosen to side against Christians there by having Turkey as its ally. Earlier this year, Shoebat.com reported on how Senator John McCain berated Syrian Christian leaders who were simply attempting to draw attention to their plight at the hands of the jihadists McCain has been supporting.
Last August, several foreign policy experts signed a letter addressed to President Barack Obama urging him to take military action against the Assad regime in response to what they insisted was a chemical weapons attack launched at the regime’s hand. One of the signatories of the letter was Clifford May, the President of FDD, the organization Schanzer works for.
Mark Dubowitz, listed as FDD’s Executive Director whose focus ironically includes human rights in Syria, was also a signatory to the letter.
These ‘experts’ advocated such a position despite mounting evidence at the time that the attack was the result of the rebels, not the regime.
These otherwise inexplicable positions are explained by one primary alliance – the one mandated by NATO and necessary strategically based on Schanzer’s analysis.
The U.S. alliance with Turkey.
The U.S. and Turkey in Benghazi
Earlier this month, Shoebat.com brought you a short video of what appears to be a Syrian rebel. In the video, the rebel explains how the U.S. and Turkey work together to provide the rebels with weapons:
Approximately six weeks after the 2012 Benghazi attack, Catherine Herridge of Fox News reported on a Libyan ship “reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebles” that was docked at a Turkish port less than 50 miles from the Syrian border, just days before the September 11th attack. It had also been confirmed by then that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens met with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin shortly before the attack.
Herridge went on to report that her source revealed Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a deal that would get weapons out of the hands of Libyan rebels and presumably into the hands of Syrian rebels, via Turkey. This would have been an objective of parties (U.S. and Turkey) that had already helped Libyan rebels remove Muammar Gadhafi. Perhaps the U.S. and Turkey wanted to move weapons out of Libyan jihadists’ hands and into the hands of Syrian jihadists but it’s quite possible the Libyan jihadists weren’t ok with that deal.
Hell hath no fury like jihadists scorned.
Competing and conflicting agendas can certainly converge and often clash. At Shoebat.com, we have posted the results (ongoing) of our investigation of Egypt’s connection to the Benghazi attack, to include a cell phone video and a Libyan intelligence document that implicate the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi, who was president of Egypt at the time. Mursi had made it very clear that he wanted to secure the release of the “Blind Sheikh”. This leaves open the possibility that competing agendas and interests between Mursi’s jihadists and Libyan jihadists clashed in Benghazi.
The former would have had motive to kidnap Stevens while the latter may have felt betrayed enough to assassinate him. The Muslim Brotherhood is a common denominator between both groups and the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda is Turkey’s agenda.
Turkey’s influence in Egypt has been significant as well. Last November, Shoebat.com reported on the post-Mursi government’s decision to expel Turkey’s ambassador for “interference in Egyptian affairs”. At least one source reported that the ambassador was funneling Muslim Brotherhood funds outside of Egypt while using his diplomatic immunity to do it.
Ex-CIA Deputy Director’s Testimony
Last week, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee about his role in altering the talking points about Benghazi that were used by then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in the days after the attack. Based on that testimony, we know the following:
- Morell chose to side with CIA analysts in Virginia over his CIA personnel on the ground in Libya.
- Morell did not want to implicate the State Department, headed at the time by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and watered down the talking points to help do that.
- Morell did not want to “enflame” the “passions” of jihadists by identifying them accurately in the talking points.
It is also known that Ambassador Stevens met with the House Intelligence committee just days prior to the attack. In an interview with Fox News hostess Megyn Kelly last November, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), who chairs the committee, appeared to give an account of what transpired in a closed session with CIA personnel who witnessed the attacks, that conflicted with that of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), who sits on the committee.
One week prior to Morell’s testimony, Rogers announced plans to retire from Congress after his current term ends later this year. This unexpected announcement came just a few days after another report from Herridge revealed a suspicious – and possibly illegal – timeline both for the departure of J. Michael Allen from his job as majority staff director for the House Intelligence Committee, as well as his destination – Beacon Global Strategies.
At Beacon, Allen works with Morell and a host of other Hillary Clinton loyalists, to include an extremely close aid named Philippe Reines.
It was reported by the Washington Free Beacon that a CIA official died in an apparent suicide in the same week that Morell testified before the House Intelligence Committee. There is currently no evidence of defenestration.