A Year Of Benghazi Myths

A Year Of Benghazi Myths


MapOn the evening of September 11, 2012, a heavily armed group of terrorists allegedly led by members of the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia attacked a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith were killed in the assault. The remaining members of the mission were evacuated to a nearby CIA facility, which came under artillery fire early the next morning. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both CIA contractors who had served as U.S. Navy Seals, were killed in that attack. 
Just after midnight on the east coast, Mitt Romney's campaign released a statement accusing President Obama of "sympathizing" with the attackers; this politicization was immediately echoed by the right-wing noise machine.
Over the past year, conservative media figures and activists, led by Fox News, have repeatedly created and promoted lies, smears, and conspiracies related to the Benghazi attack. While the attack raised meaningful questions about how we can best protect U.S. diplomats in dangerous environments, the right has instead sought to use what happened in Benghazi and in the days that followed to bring down President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other members of the administration.
Much of the criticism has revolved around two lines of attack: That the Obama administration downplayed the role that terrorists played in the attack, and that the administration held back additional U.S. military forces that could have been used to save lives. In reality, President Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" during his September 12 Rose Garden speech, and U.S. officials have made clear that all available and appropriate forces were sent as quickly as possible. As former diplomatic security agent Fred Burton and journalist Samuel M. Katz wrote in their book Under Fire:
There was never a question concerning U.S. resolve or the overall capabilities of the U.S. military to respond to Benghazi. There was, however, nothing immediate about an immediate response. There were logistics and host-nation approvals to consider. An immediate response was hampered by the equation of geography and logistics.
In this report, Media Matters chronicles:

The Attack And The Conservative "Blame Game" Response

Image
Shortly after reports that at least one diplomat had died during the Benghazi attacks, Mitt Romney's campaign issued a statement politicizing that tragedy by attacking President Obama. Even as much of the media condemned Romney's action, Fox News and other right-wing outlets rallied around him, either falsifying the timeline to claim that Romney had issued his statement before it was clear an American had been killed or promoting the notion that the administration was at fault for the attacks.
Conservative media claimed that Obama and Clinton had ignored warnings the embassy could be attacked; that the attacks were the result of Obama repeatedly apologizing for America; and that Obama did not attend daily intelligence briefings and thus was negligent. In fact, even the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee acknowledged that he had seen no indication that the administration had information that could have prevented the attacks; the claim that Obama apologizes for America is a myth; and Obama prefers to read a written daily intelligence briefing.

Calling Benghazi "Terror," Part 1: The Rice Interviews

Image
After U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday political talk shows on September 16 to discuss Benghazi, the Obama administration came under fire for not calling the attack a planned act of "terrorism," and for engaging in a politically motivated "cover-up." But Rice made clear during her appearances that her comments were based on "our current best assessment" that the Libya attack was not premeditated, acknowledged that the perpetrators were "extremists," and said that future investigations and analyses by intelligence services "will tell us with certainty what transpired." It would later be revealed that her suggestion that the attack was linked to an anti-Islam video that had embroiled the Middle East came from talking points generated by the CIA.

The Blame Game Continues

Image
Throughout late September and early October, as Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz, one of Romney's top campaign surrogates, led the first hearing into the security situation in Benghazi prior to the attack, conservative media figures continued to claim that Obama had allowed the attacks to happen through negligence and a failed foreign policy. Critics pushing this claim ignored the multiple terror attacks that occurred during the Bush administration.

Hillary Clinton Takes Responsibility And Right-Wing Media Freak Out

Image
In a series of mid-October interviews, Clinton took responsibility for the Benghazi attacks, saying: "Listen, this is my State Department. I take responsibility. Security for the U.S. diplomatic posts is a State Department function." The right-wing media responded by misrepresenting her comments, falsely portraying her as trying to deflect blame, and lobbing sexist attacks.

Calling Benghazi "Terror," Part 2: The Debate

Image
During the October 16 presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley corrected Romney's false claim that Obama did not refer to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" during a speech from White House Rose Garden the day after the attack. Conservatives quickly moved to rewrite the timeline in order to deny what Obama had said, attack Crowley, and defend Romney. In fact, Obama had clearly called the attack an "act of terror" in his September 12 Rose Garden address on the attacks and during two September 13 campaign events.

Obama Left Them To Die, Part 1: The CIA "Stand Down" Order

Image
In late October, Fox News reported that CIA operators in Benghazi had been told by their superiors to "stand down" rather than rush to the aid of their colleagues in the diplomatic compound. The right-wing media used the report to allege that President Obama and his administration had decided to willingly "sacrifice Americans" in Benghazi. But the CIA denied that any stand-down orders had ever been given, no additional evidence has ever emerged suggesting such orders were given, and reinforcements actually arrived from Tripoli in time for the second attack on the CIA facility.

The Petraeus Conspiracy

Image
Following the early November revelation of Gen. David Petraeus' affair with his biographer and his subsequent resignation as CIA director, right-wing media claimed that Obama had been blackmailing Petraeus to keep him from "spilling the beans" about Benghazi. There was no evidence that this claim was true and the charge was widely condemned by more credible outlets.

Calling Benghazi "Terror," Part 3: Rice For SecState?

Image
In November, Susan Rice's name was floated in the press as a potential nominee for Secretary of State. The right-wing media quickly joined an effort led by Sens. John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Kelly Ayotte to prevent that nomination from coming to pass by attacking Rice for her comments about Benghazi during her September 16 Sunday show appearances.
Rice was criticized for using a set of administration talking points characterizing the attacks as stemming from a spontaneous demonstration. A draft version of those talking points had included language suggesting the perpetrators had been affiliated with Al Qaeda, and the right-wing media said the removal of that language was part of a political cover-up. In reality, as Petraeus had previously testified, changes were made to the talking points in order to protect the criminal investigation and our intelligence-gathering process.

Hillary Clinton's Fake Concussion

Image
In late December, shortly before she was scheduled to testify before Congress regarding Benghazi, Hillary Clinton fainted and suffered a concussion, and was subsequently hospitalized with a potentially life-threatening blood clot in her head. The right-wing media accused her of faking the concussion to avoid testifying on Benghazi.

Hillary Clinton's Testimony, According To The Right: Fake Anger, Tears

Image
When Hillary Clinton expressed sorrow for the Benghazi victims and anger at members of Congress who offered spurious criticisms during her January 23 congressional testimony, she was accused of faking emotion. Her testimony was attacked with falsehoods and innuendo -- such as the claim that Clinton "made no mention" of the real time video her office allegedly had during the attack -- aimed at pushing the baseless conspiracy that the administration had covered up what happened in Benghazi. In fact, Clinton made clear during her testimony that the State Department did not have access to real time video.

Secretary Panetta's Testimony

Image
After Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sat for an interview and testified before Congress about Benghazi in early February, the right-wing media selectively edited his remarks to portray President Obama as "virtually absent" from the response to the attack. In fact, Panetta testified that White House officials were kept informed of events throughout the incident.

Hillary Clinton And The Politicized Congressional Report

Image
In April, Republicans on five congressional committees released a report asserting that Clinton had lied when she told Congress she was unaware of requests for additional security at the Benghazi compound. According to the report, Clinton had personally read and signed off on a cable responding to one such missive. Right-wing media subsequently pushed this claim in attacking Clinton as a liar. In fact, there is nothing to indicate Clinton had reviewed the document -- all messages from the State Department to diplomatic facilities abroad are sent out over the secretary's signature according to tradition.

Obama Left Them To Die, Part 2: Fox's Unnamed Source

Image
In late April, Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier hosted a confidential "Benghazi source" for a three-part interview to express his opinion that the Obama administration could have saved the staff that were killed during the attacks. That opinion had been refuted by military experts and nonpartisan analysis that had already made clear that no additional forces could have reached Benghazi in time, and the source's claims were swiftly debunked by experts who pointed out that the claims were "pure speculation and not based on any real facts."

Calling Benghazi "Terror," Part 4: The Talking Points Draft

Image
In early May, The Weekly Standard published the CIA's original draft of the talking points that were used by Susan Rice during her Sunday show interviews. The right-wing media claimed the document proved the Obama administration had concocted the link between the attack and an anti-Islam video cited by Susan Rice and other administration officials. In fact, that document made clear that the CIA itself believed there was a link between the two. The draft said that the attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" -- protests that came in response to the video.

Obama Left Them To Die, Part 3: The Benghazi "Whistleblowers"

Image
Conservative media coverage of congressional leaks leading up to a May 8 Benghazi "whistleblower" House hearing and the hearing itself featured falsehoods, conspiracies, and hysterics, including attempts to compare Benghazi to Watergate. Much of the coverage revolved around claims that Libya's deputy chief of mission Gregory Hicks believed that a "stand down" order had been given to Special Forces in Tripoli to prevent them from aiding the diplomats in Benghazi. In fact, the Special Forces unit stayed in Tripoli in case it was needed to respond to an attack there, if the unit had tried to reach Benghazi it would have arrived hours after the attack concluded, and the head of Special Forces in Tripoli subsequently testified that no "stand down" order was given.

The Incredible Shrinking Whistleblower Intimidation Claim

Image
Basing their claims in part on the allegations of Victoria Toensing, a partisan lawyer who was involved in attempts to drum up scandals during the Clinton era, right-wing media (as well as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd) claimed that Hicks had been "muzzled" and then demoted by his State Department superiors, including Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, for giving information about Benghazi to Congress. In fact, Hicks spoke to Congressional investigators, the FBI, and twice with the State Department's investigators. In his testimony he acknowledged receiving no direct criticism from Mills. And he was not "demoted" but rather testified that he asked not to go back to Libya and was placed in a temporary position. He retained his rank and salary, and is waiting for a suitable position to come open.

Calling Benghazi "Terror," Part 5: The Administration Emails

Image
On May 10, ABC News' Jonathan Karl published an "exclusive" report based on 14 versions of the Benghazi talking points, as well as summaries of emails between the aides who edited them. According to Karl, the emails showed that the talking points were "scrubbed of terror reference[s]" at the behest of the State Department and White House. In reality, the documents provided little new information, as Petraeus had testified months ago that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups. The report nonetheless generated a media firestorm with commentators claiming the changes had been made for political purposes and highlighting Petraeus's ambivalence with the final set of talking points.
The subsequent release of the actual emails showed that the email summaries ABC had reviewed were misleading, making it appear that the White House was more interested in removing mentions of specific terrorist groups for political reasons than was actually the case. They also showed that Petraeus was actually unhappy with the talking points because they downplayed the role of the anti-Islam video in the attack, undermining the right-wing narrative. ABC News later published an extensive editor's note on their initial story, and Karl apologized for getting the story wrong.

Special Prosecutor Versus Independent Investigators

Image
Right-wing media panned the independent report of the State Department's Accountability Review Board while demanding the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Benghazi. The ARB's report was a credible, non-partisan account from Thomas Pickering, a career diplomat, and retired Adm. Mike Mullen that sought to establish what went wrong in Benghazi and how to better protect U.S. diplomats in the future. The appointment of a special prosecutor would likely result in a permanent, partisan attempt to damage the Obama administration.

Calling Benghazi "Terror," Part 6: The Obama Presser

After Obama recalled during a May 13 press conference how he had previously described the attacks in the context of terrorism, both right-wing media and mainstream outlets pretended that he had not. In fact, as he mentioned, Obama called the attacks an "act of terror" on September 12 and September 13.

Things Fall Apart

From mid-May through June, with mainstream outlets having caught on to the lack of evidence behind the right-wing's Benghazi smears, Fox began throwing out whatever allegations it could and hoping that something would stick. These included pretending that President Obama and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon were absent during the attack (in fact, a photo shows them discussing the situation in the Oval Office); pretending that Ambassador Pickering is reluctant to testify on Benghazi (in fact, he had asked to testify publicly); and smearing former State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland for misleading the American people about the Benghazi attacks through her role in editing the draft talking points (in fact, she expressed concern that revealing in the talking points the names of terrorist organizations suspected of being involved would jeopardize a criminal investigation).

Obama Left Them To Die, Part 4: "Sources"

With their scandal faltering, in late June Fox put together a Benghazi special highlighting a series of false claims and misinformation that they had hyped for month, including the exclusive report that "sources" say that stand down orders were given. The previous week, Republican-led House Armed Services Committee acknowledged no such order had been given, citing testimony from the commander of the Special Forces team in Tripoli.

The Futile Call For A Benghazi Select Committee

In July, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) circulated a discharge petition for House Resolution 36, which called for a select committee to investigate the attacks in Benghazi. (A discharge petition is a parliamentary procedure that takes a resolution out of committee and brings it directly to the floor for a vote.) Stockman's discharge petition was opposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and HR 36's sponsor Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and thus had no chance of passing. But Fox heavily promoted the effort, and Fox contributor Allen West was a featured speaker at an anti-Obama group's rally calling for the petition's passage.

The Fringe Valerie Jarrett Theory

In early August, a fringe conservative website reported based on anonymous sources that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett was the decision-maker during the Benghazi attacks and issued a stand down order to American armed forces that night. This was not a credible claim -- its author had a history of making absurd, hyperbolic claims about Obama, his sources were unnamed, and numerous military figures have publicly testified no stand down order was ever given. But Rush Limbaugh, and later Fox News' Steve Doocy, nevertheless floated the conspiracy.

As Benghazi Anniversary Approaches, Fox Goes Into Overdrive

In the week leading up to the anniversary of the Benghazi attacks, Fox continued to push a variety of false claims about the story. Notably, the network hyped a misleading ABC interview with Hicks in which he defied his own sworn testimony to claim he had been "punished" for speaking out about Benghazi. Fox's campaign went so far as to equate the Benghazi attacks, in which four Americans were killed, with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in which nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. 
All sources and links Mediamatters.org
No comments:

Text Of Presidents Syria Speech

THE PRESIDENT:  My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.
 
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war.  Over 100,000 people have been killed.  Millions have fled the country.  In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement.  But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children.  The images from this massacre are sickening:  Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas.  Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath.  A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.  On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.
 
This was not always the case.  In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe.  In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust.  Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them.  And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.
 
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity.  No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria.  The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
 
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible.  In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas.  They distributed gasmasks to their troops.  Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.  Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded.  We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed.  We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
 
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.  But these things happened.  The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it.  Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.
 
Let me explain why.  If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.  As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.  Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.  And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. 
 
If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.  And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
 
This is not a world we should accept.  This is what’s at stake.  And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.  The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. 
 
That's my judgment as Commander-in-Chief.  But I’m also the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.  So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.  I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress.  And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. 
 
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
 
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular.  After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them.  Our troops are out of Iraq.  Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan.  And I know Americans want all of us in Washington
-- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home:  putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class.
 
It’s no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions.  So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress, and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me.
 
First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war?  One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.”  A veteran put it more bluntly:  “This nation is sick and tired of war.”
 
My answer is simple:  I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.  I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan.  I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.  This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective:  deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.
 
Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don’t take out Assad.  As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.
 
Let me make something clear:  The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.  Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.  I don't think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next.  But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
 
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation.  We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.  Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day.  Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise.  And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America.
 
Many of you have asked a broader question:  Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated, and where  -- as one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?”
 
It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists.  But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.  The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom.  And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.
 
Finally, many of you have asked:  Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force?  As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”
 
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions.  Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
 
However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs.  In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.  The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. 
 
It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments.  But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.
 
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path.  I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin.  I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.  We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st.  And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action. 
 
Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.  And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.
 
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security.  This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them.  The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them. 
 
And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.  To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor.  For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.
 
Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask:  What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?
 
Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”  Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.
 
America is not the world’s policeman.  Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong.  But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.  That’s what makes America different.  That’s what makes us exceptional.  With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth. 
 
Thank you.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.
 
No comments:

Saudi Arabia has sent death-row inmates fight against the Syrian government

Saudi Arabia has sent death-row inmates from several nations to fight against the Syrian government in exchange for commuting their sentences, the Assyrian International News Agencyreports.
Citing what it calls a "top secret memo" in April from the Ministry of Interior, AINA says the Saudi offered 1,239 inmates a pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, which were were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom. Syrian President Bashar Assad is an Alawite, a minority Shiite sect.
According to an English translation of the memo, besides Saudis, the prisoners included Afghans, Egyptians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Somalis, Sudanese, Syrians and Yemenis. All faced "execution by sword" for murder, rape or drug smuggling. 
Russia, which has backed Assad, objected to the bargain and allegedly threatened to bring the issue to the United Nations, said an unidentified former Iraqi member of Parliament who confirmed the memo's authenticity, says AINA, an independent outlet.
"Initially Saudi Arabia denied the existence of this program. But the testimony of the released prisoners forced the Saudi government to admit, in private circles, its existence," AINA writes. "The Saudis agreed to stop their clandestine activities and work towards finding a political solution on condition that knowledge of this program would not be made public."
AINA also published the original Arabic memo.
The report mentions that most of the 23 Iraqi prisoners returned home, as did an unspecified number of Yemenis. But AINA does not indicate the fates of the remaining inmates or how many may have been killed, wounded or captured.
Assyrians, the builders of Mesopotamian civilizations, are a semitic people indigenous to northern Iraq. They are ethnically distinct from Arabs and Jews, and are generally Christians. Assyria dominated the Middle East in the first millennium BCE.
No comments:

What About The Syrian Refugees

There's been a lot happening in the debate over the response to Syria's horrific chemical weapons attack, and before President Obama addresses the nation in primetime tonight, I wanted to make sure you knew the latest: 

In an encouraging step today, President Obama said he will back an effort in the UN to secure and ultimately destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. 

Right now, a UN Security Council resolution is being drafted to order Syria to transfer control of its chemical weapons to the international community for safe storage and destruction. 

All this will not solve Syria's two-year civil war, but diplomacy remains one of the best tools in our foreign policy tool box. And while there are many negotiations and discussions that will need to take place before a viable deal could come together, this is exactly what the UN is for, and it's why we need it so much. 

It's also important to remember that the UN has been on the ground in Syria, and in neighboring refugee communities, from the very beginning of this devastating conflict. Regardless of what happens next, the tragic reality is more than 100,000 people have already lost their lives, and millions have been forced to flee their homes, over these past two very long years. 

From the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), from the World Health Organization to the World Food Program, the UN has and will continue to provide shelter, food, water, education, and health care to the more than 2 million Syrian refugees – half of them children.

So while the critical debate around the international response continues, let's not forget about the millions of people who are still depending on the UN's life-saving humanitarian work in Syria.
No comments:

Syria: We Will Stop Producing Chemical Weapons, Declare Contents Of Arsenal

 Syria’s foreign minister says President Bashar Assad’s regime will declare its chemical weapons arsenal and sign the chemical weapons convention.  
Walid al-Moallem also says Syria is ready to cooperate fully to implement a Russian proposal to put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control and it will stop producing chemical weapons.
He adds that Syria will also place chemical weapons locations in the hands of representatives of Russia, “other countries” and the United Nations.
He spoke Tuesday exclusively to the Al-Mayadeen TV station.
No comments:

U.N inspectors removing Chemical Weapons From Syria has been in the works for weeks

The prospect of Syria giving up its chemical weapons seemingly came out of the blue yesterday. Secretary of State John Kerry made a comment in response to a reporter's question in London yesterday morning, which apparently touched off a series of diplomatic dominoes that offered new hope that U.S. military strikes can be avoided.
But did the idea really come about accidentally? Did Kerry stumble into a solution with an off-hand remark?
President Obama sat down for six interviews yesterday with major broadcast networks, but there was an exchange with PBS's Gwen Ifill that struck me as especially interesting.
IFILL: John Kerry talked today about a limited, targeted, unbelievably small effort. And now we're hearing news that Russia has a plan, a solution, perhaps, which would allow Syria to take all of its weapons and put it under international control. Is that something that you've had any conversations at all with President Putin about when you were in St. Petersburg last week?
OBAMA: I did have those conversations. And this is a continuation of conversations I've had with President Putin for quite some time. As I said to you the last time we spoke, this chemical weapons ban matters to us, to the United States.
It may be a long while until we know for sure whether the possible solution that seemingly emerged yesterday was serendipity or whether the idea landed on fertile soil after extensive diplomatic legwork. The president's comments to Ifill seem to suggest the latter -- Obama and Putin met privately at the G-20 summit, and the two discussed international control of Syria's chemical weapons. When Kerry spoke, he articulated a goal Russia recognized as a key U.S. priority.
Now, it's almost certainly a stretch to think we're watching 11-dimensional chess play out on the global stage, as entertaining as that may seem.
Please don't send me an email that reads, "Don't you see? Kerry pretended to stumble into a solution, when in fact he was secretly instructed by Obama to make those comments in London, knowing that Russians would hear them and respond favorably because of an arrangement the president struck with Putin in St. Petersburg! It's so obvious!"
As a rule, this just isn't how international diplomacy works outside the movies.
But if this does become the basis for a diplomatic solution -- for now, let's not brush past the "if" too quickly -- I imagine quite a few folks will be eager to share in the credit.
Update: A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Putin did discuss this plan with Obama at last week's summit.
No comments:

Syria Says It Accepted Russian Weapons Proposal

Syria says it has acknowledged Russia's proposal to place its Chemical weapons under U.N. control for resulting disassembling.

Syria President Bashar al-Assad addresses reporters following his meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace in Paris, Thursday Dec. 9, 2010.Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday in the wake of gathering with Russian parliament speaker that his legislature rapidly consented to the Russian activity to "Stop the U.S. bombing."

Then, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia is currently working with Syria to get ready an itemized arrange of movement, which will be exhibited in no time.

Lavrov said that Russia will then be prepared to settle the arrangement together with U.N.

President Barack Obama said Monday the Russian proposal could be "conceivably a huge achievement," yet he remained suspicious that Syria might follow through
No comments:

MSNBC's Toure Dumps On Donald Trump On Twitter

The famously touchy Donald Trump was, for reasons unknown, set off by somebody assaulting him on Twitter once more. This time, it was MSNBC host Touré, who incited Trump with a couple of tweets taunting Trump's history of documenting chapter 11. This headed Trump to begin lashing out against Touré, calling him everything from an "imbecilic supremacist blockhead" to "moronic as a rock" to "a dumb bigot."

In the wake of getting into it over the chapter 11 filings, Touré additionally poked Trump ever-so-somewhat on his long history of birtherism, the later debate over the Trump University "trick," and his consistent dunking of toes into the presidential waters.

Touré initially incited Trump with these tweets:




Trump finally responded, calling Touré a “dumb racist moron,” and that’s when they really got into it.






T






And even after Trump moved on to tweeting about Syria again, Touré refused to let up.

[photo via Twitter, screengrab]
No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)