Posted by: Debby Durkee | March 28, 2011

Obama arming Al Qaeda?

Debby's Web Finds
Obama arming Al Qaeda?

Apparently, Obama will be on television tonight to discuss the mess in Libya. What will he say about the news trickling out that we are arming Al Qaeda in Libya because that’s who many of the rebels appear to be? Did you know that the largest quantity of terrorists that infiltrated into Iraq to fight our soldiers came from Libya? What are we doing there? This is from The Prowler at The American Spectator.

early last week it appeared that in the days running up to the announced NATO air strikes, White House national security briefers had initially informed ranking Republicans on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees that U.S. military personnel would have no active role in enforcing a “no fly zone” unless Congress was given advanced word, even though at that time U.S. military personnel were already engaged in the “no fly zone” effort.

“It was pretty fluid from hour to hour what role we’d be playing,” says a White House communications staff source. “It may be that some Republicans and some Democrats up on the Hill weren’t getting the proper information out of those briefings.”

Further, and perhaps more troubling for the Obama Administration, White House sources confirm that in the run up to the decision to involve U.S. military personnel, President Obama was fully briefed that a large portion of the Libyan rebel forces most active in areas around such critical cities as Benghazi had ties to al Qaeda, particularly Al Qaeda in Iraq, the wing of the terrorist group that killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq.

“He was warned that should we reach a point where NATO needs to re-arm the rebels — it appears that time is coming now — we will be arming the very enemy that we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says a career employee at the State Department. “Secretary Clinton knows it, the White House knows it, but we’re working with these thugs anyway because the President thinks it’s the moral thing to do in the face of Gaddafi.”

Of course, the administration says the re-arming will not come directly from the United States – but our NATO allies. Now, that is just a political evasion of the outcome of such re-arming. As the writer states, it is clear that U.S. resources will be used to supply them. If you can keep the steam from escaping from your ears, you can read it all here:

How do we know that the largest group of terrorists who infiltrated into Iraq to kill our brave American soldiers came from Libya? We have actual documented proof. This is from David Wood at the Huffington Post.

According to a cache of al Qaeda documents captured in 2007 by U.S. special operations commandos in Sinjar, Iraq, hundreds of foreign fighters, many of them untrained young Islamic volunteers, poured into Iraq in 2006 and 2007. The documents, called the Sinjar documents, were collected, translated and analyzed at the West Point Counter Terrorism Center. Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, many from the city of Darnah. Others came from Surt and Misurata to the west.

On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans.

In the Spectator article above, it was noted that the Democrats will equate what Obama is doing in re-arming the Libyan “rebels,” who are actually Al Qaeda, with what Reagan did in supporting the mujahedeen during his administration, but as one of the commenters said – it is different. The mujahedeen weren’t sworn enemies of the United States back then. We know who are enemies are now. There is no excuse for this. Read it all here:

You think there’s nothing more this administration could possibly do to tick off normal Americans, but then they always find a way. They are so clueless to what is right and wrong. They are so focused on their attempts to smack down our country that they truly don’t see anything wrong with this other than it might not look good so we must throw Reagan’s name in there to make it smell better. There are just no words to describe my contempt for this group of know-it-all/know-nothings running the country…into the ground. The arming of the mujahedeen began during the Carter administration anyway, after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. You can read that here:

What are we doing in Libya?

Mark Steyn looks at how the United States is not able to win wars any longer. We continue to pay with our blood and treasure for outcomes in war that increasingly look like chaos. It looks to me that our military is being used by everyone else for their benefit, but when do we use it for our country’s? Liberals use our military to intervene where we have no interests and it seems no real idea of what we’re fighting for. This is from National Review Online.

…certainly every attempt the president makes to explain his Libyan adventure is either cringe-makingly stupid (“I’m accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also somebody who aspires to peace”) or alarmingly revealing of a very peculiar worldview:

“That’s why building this international coalition has been so important,” (Obama) said the other day. “It is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.”

That’s great news. Who doesn’t enjoy volunteering other people? The Arab League, for reasons best known to itself, decided that Colonel Qaddafi had outlived his sell-by date

Likewise, the French and the British. Libya’s special forces are trained by Britain’s SAS. Four years ago, President Sarkozy hosted a state visit for Colonel Qaddafi, his personal security detail of 30 virgins, his favorite camel, and a 400-strong entourage that helped pitch his tent in the heart of Paris. Given that London and Paris have the third – and fourth-biggest military budgets on the planet and that between them they know everything about Qaddafi’s elite troops, sleeping arrangements, guard-babes, and dromedaries, why couldn’t they take him out? But no: They too decided to volunteer the U.S. military.

…American forces have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for a decade: Doesn’t that seem like a long time for a non-colonial power to be spending hacking its way through the worthless terrain of a Third World dump? If the object is to kill terrorists, might there not be some slicker way of doing it? And, if the object is something else entirely, mightn’t it be nice to know what it is?

…There are arguments to be made for being on the other side of the world for decades on end if you’re claiming it as sovereign territory and rebuilding it in your image, as the British did in India, Belize, Mauritius, the Solomon Islands, you name it. Likewise, there are arguments to be made for saying sorry, we’re a constitutional republic, we don’t do empire. But there’s not a lot to be said for forswearing imperialism and even modest cultural assertiveness, and still spending ten years getting shot up in Afghanistan helping to create, bankroll, and protect a so-called justice system that puts a man on death row for converting to Christianity.

Libya, in that sense, is a classic post-nationalist, post-modern military intervention: As in Kosovo, we’re do-gooders in a land with no good guys…

…Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.  Snip –

suppose Qaddafi winds up hanging from a lamppost in his favorite party dress. If you’re a Third World dictator, what lessons would you draw? Qaddafi was the thug who came in from the cold, the one who (in the wake of Saddam’s fall) renounced his nuclear program and was supposedly rehabilitated in the chancelleries of the West. He was “a strong partner in the war on terrorism,” according to U.S. diplomats. And what did Washington do? They overthrew him anyway.

The blood-soaked butcher next door in Sudan is the first head of state to be charged by the International Criminal Court with genocide, but nobody’s planning on toppling him. Iran’s going nuclear with impunity, but Obama sends fraternal greetings to the “Supreme Leader” of the “Islamic Republic.” North Korea is more or less openly trading as the one-stop bargain-basement for all your nuke needs, and we’re standing idly by. But the one cooperative dictator’s getting million-dollar-a-pop cruise missiles lobbed in his tent all night long. If you were the average Third World loon, which role model makes most sense? Colonel Cooperative in Tripoli? Or Ayatollah Death-to-the-Great-Satan in Tehran? America is teaching the lesson that the best way to avoid the attentions of whimsical “liberal interventionists” is to get yourself an easily affordable nuclear program from Pyongyang or anywhere else as soon as possible.

If we keep fighting politically correct wars with politically correct methods, our country will lose not only its best and brightest, but its soul and its standing in the world, and we will just create more enemies along the way. Read all of Steyn here:


Bookmark and Share



  1. The only people we don’t seem to want to arm are American citizens.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: