You will probably not see or hear about this — even in the conservative media (I post the full article because it is that important that you are at least aware of the evidence against Obama and his administration):
The Benghazi scandal just keeps getting worse. Clearly Obama wanted to protect the illusion that the U.S. had supported a democratic uprising in Libya, but even Obama keeps saying the al-Qaeda is the enemy — and now this. “Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli,” by Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, October 31:
A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.
It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.
The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it):
Translated, the document reads:
National Transitional Council – Libya
Mr. Abdel Hakim Al-Khowailidi Belhaj
We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.
Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil
President, National Transitional Council – Libya
Official Seal of National Transitional Council
Copy for file.
As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:
“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was founded by Belhaj.
In a BBC report from one month earlier – on July 4, 2011 – a man named Al-Amin Belhaj was identified as an NTC spokesman and said the following:
“Everyone knows who Abdel Hakim Belhadj is. He is a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect.”
Abdel Hakim Belhaj had been identified in a video report embedded in the the BBC article as…
“…about the most powerful man in Tripoli.”
Abdel Hakim Belhaj is many things but moderate is not one of them.
Interestingly, according to a report by the Jamestown Foundation in 2005, the man who attributed the ‘moderate’ label to Abdel Hakim Belhaj was actually a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood:
This last week Al-Amin Belhadj, head of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, issued a press release on the Arabic language section of Libya-Watch, (Mu’assasat al-Raqib li-Huqquq al-Insan) calling for urgent action on behalf of 86 Brotherhood members imprisoned since 1998 at Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison and on hunger strike since October 7.
Now, before you dismiss Libyan sources on this story, I would remind you that they were much more accurate early on than our media, even more accurate than our own President and State Department. Given their accuracy compared to the now proven lies and cover-ups coming from our government, prudence would appear to dictate that we at least grant a benefit of the doubt to these sources at this time.