Sen. Joe Donnelly Supports Arming Al Qaeda Terrorists

Sen. Joe Donnelly tells the Star's Maureen Groppe that he doesn't support sending troops to fight in Syria, but he thinks we should arm the radical extremist rebels, a/k/a Al Qaeda, in their quest to topple the Assad regime. Uh, the CIA has been arming these terrorists for over a year and using those weapons to kill tens of thousands of Syrians but don't confuse Sen. Donnelly with the facts. That's why the Obama administration is going to such lengths to cover up what was happening in Benghazi, which was another CIA arms-running deal run amok. Donnelly thinks you're too to stupid to figure out that the arms these terrorists are using to fight the Assad regime are being provided to them by the CIA. The lamestream media used to report such matters as scandal. Now it's just a passing comment.

"We are trying to work through right now the best response as to moving forward in Syria, whether that includes no-fly zones, whether that includes arming the rebels," said the Indiana Democrat who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Syria is critical because it is in almost a crossroads of the whole Middle East region. What happens there could spill over on a regional basis."

Donnelly declined to say how the United States should respond if al-Qaeda-linked insurgents get their hands on weapons of mass destruction.

"That cannot be allowed to happened," Donnelly said. "I don't want to speculate as to the steps, but I can assure you that we will do everything necessary to make sure that does not occur."

I hate to burst Donnelly's bubble, but who runs Syria's government is none of our business and it certainly is not critical to our country's national security. If he cared about our national security, why doesn't he support securing our nation's borders, which leak like a sieve?

These people sitting in Congress stopped taking an oath to the U.S. Constitution decades ago. Notice he doesn't even mention the words "declaration of war." During the Vietnam War, the battle raged over how the U.S. could commit U.S. troops to a war that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers without Congress declaring a war as provided in the U.S. Constitution. Now they simply defer all these questions to presidents who allow rogue elements of the government to carry out assassinations, run drug cartels, bribe foreign leaders, engage in money laundering schemes and break virtually every other criminal law. As long as the defense contractors stuffing money in their pockets have a market for their products, that's all Congress cares about.

UPDATE: It's official. President Obama ordered the U.S. military to stand down when real Americans, including our U.S. Ambassador was under attack in Benghazi, Libya by terrorists funded and armed by our own CIA.

As the weakly protected U.S. diplomatic compound in eastern Libya came under attack the night of Sept. 11, 2012, the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi, but Republicans on Capitol Hill have questioned whether the Obama administration could have saved lives with a nimbler, more assertive response. They say that the reluctance to send the Special Operations troops may have, at the very least, deprived wounded Americans in Benghazi of first aid.

Congressional investigators released a partial transcript of Hicks’s testimony Monday ahead of a hearing Wednesday at which he is scheduled to appear. His remarks are the first public account from a U.S. official who was in Libya at the time of the attacks about the options that were weighed as militants mobbed the American diplomatic outpost and CIA station in Ben­ghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other government employees.

The new details are certain to reignite a debate over whether the Obama administration has been sufficiently forthcoming in its public accounting of the events and missteps that resulted in the first death of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty in a generation. If Republicans in Congress succeed in portraying the administration’s response as feckless, the episode could dog any future political aspirations of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state when the attacks happened.

After the attacks ended without planes being scrambled or special forces dispatched, the lieutenant colonel in Tripoli who commanded the Special Operations team told Hicks he was sorry that his men had been held back.

“I’ve never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than someone in the military,” the officer told Hicks, according to the diplomat’s account. Hicks called that “a nice compliment.”

Hicks may have been the last American official to speak with Stevens. After an embassy security official ran into his residence to tell him about the initial attack, Hicks managed to get Stevens on the phone. “Greg, we’re under attack,” Stevens blurted out, according to Hicks. “My response is ‘Okay,’ and I’m about to say something else and the line clicks.” . . .

Notice how the Washington Post reporter casually refers to the "nearby CIA complex." The mainstream media ignores the fact that the Benghazi CIA post was operating as an arms-running operation for these terrorists the CIA is arming in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. There was no U.S. consular post in Benghazi. It was strictly a CIA post. How many acts of treason will this President be allowed to commit before someone in Congress has the balls to call for his impeachment?

This is an entirely different subject, but has anyone else noticed how there is always some big news distraction every time something very bad comes out about the Obama and his administration. The focus today is all on this three girls found being held captive in Cleveland, Ohio for nearly a decade. Why do these stories always surface as a distraction when Obama is facing very bad news?