The original question was specifically about the directing financing of Al Qaeda. Yes, the US Government has been sponsoring and encouraging various groups for political change in other countries going back to the mercenaries it employed in the Revolutionary War. I am not disputing that one whit. What I was only cautioning against without specific proof is the claim that the US has been DIRECTLY giving money and aid to Al Qaeda - a group that has only been around about 20 years. If one could prove that it would be proof of treason.

Am I opposed to the US giving money for foreign aid? Yes - and most especially when such is going to directly finance our enemies! Am I opposed to covert means of arming militant groups for the intent of causing political unrest in other nations? Yes, because way too many of those have turned out to be bad ideas (Afghanistan, Iran, Nicaragua, anyone ?). Am I trying to excuse the government for any of this - known or not? Absolutely not. All I'm doing is cautioning against the explicit accusation of treason without concrete proof. It is a capital offense - just ask Alger Hiss.

True, it began decades ago. It has been part of the fabric of our dealings with the Middle East and is getting aired now because Benghazi has blown the lid off of the bs that's been heaped on the shaky lies that've been spoon fed to the American public. Too many lies that couldn't hold up under close scrutiny.

I'm confused about your opinion on this. You posted the Bengazi article today, with Allan West stating it ties into CIA weapons deals which armed Al Qaeda and Islamic groups. But your contention is that the earlier incidents of the same thing under other presidents are completely unrelated? I think the CIA has been involved in shady deals like this all along. Creating a boogeyman is a good excuse for lots of military spending, and spying on the populace in the name of protecting them.

Yeah, but that one is REALLY nuanced, as the mujahedin were originally financed back in the 60's and 70's by the CIA in order to fight the Russians and steal intelligence about their aircraft and weapons, so that one goes way too far back to really draw conclusively from, as Al Qaeda didn't really exist until Bin Laden financed and organized them in the early 90's.

No. Because that would be speaking the truth, and that is something he's incapable of.

Right, but did you see the clip of Hilary Clinton acknowledging it began with CIA funding of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan? It didn't begin with this president, but it surely continues.

Yes, I've seen this.

Does the President know where the funds are ending up? Assuredly. Is it political obfuscation? Absolutely. In the end it is all semantics - US money is getting to and supporting our enemies.

But then, this Administration won't even label them as enemies!

Done. :)

Blarman, this needs to have its own post so that it gets a wider audience within the Gulch.

Here's more just out today from Allen West:
http://allenbwest.com/2014/05/exclusive-...

Please see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...

I don't think it's that much of a stretch. See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Al Qaeda (as are other terrorist groups) is funded indirectly through through US government grants and food aid to foreign nations such as Qatar, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, and many others. Then there are the political sponsors like CAIR and other groups that bundle money and send it home to these groups via "charitable" organizations.

It's a little bit of a stretch to say that Al Qaeda is directly funded by the US Government, but not a bit of a stretch to say that the US Government knows where much of the aid they give out ends up.

never could stand to watch Silence ... but it's valid; the nation is now feeding its face to the dogs after having a toxic daydream about fairness and about the end of the racial discrimination era. -- j

Ewww, yet oddly appropriate 😬

....and on.
I know this analogy sucks, but I keep getting the image of Hannibal Lecter getting a drugged patient to cut off pieces of his face and feed it to the dogs. (Sorry).

we could add:
Huge Food Stamp Increase
Huge Unemployment Payment Increase
Huge Disability SS Increase
AP and James Rosen Scandals
Denial of Photography Scandal
Revisionist Language Scandal
Flight Over New York City Scandal
Separate Vacations Scandal
No Questions Press Briefings
South Africa Security Lapse
and on and on and on. -- j

Ideas are inportant. Some very bad ideas affect millions

I did not vote your post down, but I don't think Al Qaeda is a US conspiracy. We want to find meaning in random things. It's hard to accept that there are losely-connected groups of criminals bent on committing horrible crimes for no good reason. We rather it be a conspiracy or a powerful existential threat to the US. It's hard to accept that the world has random bad guys, rare diseases, and freak accidents (40k auto-related deaths in the US) for no clear reason, just random chance.

The family of someone with a rare disease that kills a few thousand Americans over a 10-year period might think that disease is the greatest threat the the US, if they're understandably operating on emotion rather than reason.

I remember Glenn Beck's speculation at the time. I hadn't heard the more recent developments. This is what I suspected, but I had never heard the hard evidence. Thanks, Blarman.

Yes. It came out about a month ago. Originally, Glenn Beck postulated it only a few days after the attacks, and even brought on some ex-CIA guys that said it was entirely plausible even though at that time there was no proof.

Now we know proof positive that the State Department was running guns to rebel forces in Syria and elsewhere in the attempt to overthrow dictators, but the involved militants were in many cases Al Queda or affiliates. What was more egregious was that the weapons weren't just submachine and machine guns, but also included heavy weapons - even missiles. Ambassador Stevens was ostensibly trying to buy the weapons back to prevent a scandal and became a convenient target.

The other thing to consider was this: the consulate that was attacked was barely more than a safehouse. It wasn't protected by the standard forces one would find at an embassy (Marines), so why was the Ambassador there at all? Why were there only two SEAL's - and even those weren't with the Ambassador, but rather responded to the call for help (disobeying orders as they did so)?

Too many things about this reek.

That was my thinking, too, but was there any evidence ever published to that effect?

USSR part II