Fausta's Blog

American and Latin American Politics, Society, and Culture

By

The mysterious Bolivian ship and its tons of weapons UPDATED

Headlines:
Greek coast guard raids Bolivia-flagged freighter after Turkey stop, finds arms bound for Libya

Greece: Seized tanker Haddad 1 concealed 5,000 shotguns ‘for Libya Islamists’

Greek authorities have discovered a gargantuan cache of weapons aboard a cargo ship headed to an Islamist controlled area of Libya.The coastguard said a search of only the first two of the 14 containers carried by the Bolivian vessel Haddad 1 had revealed almost 500,000 rounds of ammunition and 5,000 shotguns, of a type similar to that used by police, with no accompanying documentation.

And now the WTF moment (emphasis added),

The Haddad 1, a rusty 65-metre vessel built in 1976 and registered in the port of La Paz, was intercepted off Ierapetra, southeast of Crete, earlier this week, as it was heading to the Libyan city of Misrata.

Excuse me! “Registered in the port of La Paz”? What the hell?? La Paz is 12,000 feet above sea level (3,650 meters to be accurate), and is the de facto capital of a friggin’ landlocked country:

Greek media however suggested the Islamic State (Isis) local offshoot, a rival of Libya Dawn, based in nearby Sirte was to be the final recipient.

More on the ship’s owner:

Equasis data shows IMS Hellenic operates another 14 vessels, all flying an array of flags from the following countries: Moldovia, Bolivia, Tanzania, Comoros and Togo. The ships collected a total of nine detentions between them from European authorities in the last three years. IBTimes UK was unable to contact IMS Hellenic for comment.

Likewise, Moldova is landlocked. I guess there’s a demand among arms smugglers for ships sailing under the flags of landlocked countries to deliver weapons to terrorists.

Exit question to my readers who know about guns: Does this look like a shotgun to you? If so, what kind?

UPDATE:
Re: the shotgun, Jazz Shaw referred me to Torun Arms, from Turkey.

Update 2:
Jazz also pointed to the port of La Paz, Mexico, but all reports specify that the ship sailed under a Bolivian flag. This report states that the Bolivian government authorized it:

El Registro Internacional Boliviano de Buques (RIBB), que depende del Ministerio de Defensa, confirmó hoy que el barco mercante Haddad 1, detenido esta semana en Grecia por presunto tráfico de armas a Libia, operaba con bandera boliviana porque había sido registrado legalmente en el país desde enero pasado.

[My translation: The International Bolivian Ship Registry (RIBB) under the Ministry of Defense, confirmed today that the merchant vessel Haddad 1, detained in Greece this week for alleged arms trafficking to Libya, operated under the Bolivian flag because it was legally registered in the country since last January.]

Update 3:
Linked to by Jazz at Hot Air, who asks,

It’s not the best quality picture in the world but I recognized the brand logo. Those are from Torun Arms, based in Turkey. (I should clarify at this point that when I say “Turkish arms” I don’t mean they were supplied by the government of Turkey… just that they were manufactured there as near as I can tell.) The model is hard to determine, but it clearly seems to be similar to their vertical magazine M-12. These aren’t duck hunting shotguns. I’ve run across Torun a few times in other stories over the years and as I recall they have some military contracts, so this may be a version they don’t offer for public consumption. They’re not cheap, either, so whoever financed this little party had plenty of cash on hand.

So who was shipping this much firepower to Libya, presumably to the Islamic forces controlling the area? And who paid for it?

Trending on BadBlue!

Share

By

‘Dude, this was like two years ago’

My latest at Da Tech Guy Blog, ‘Dude, this was like two years ago’ is about the former van driver, former National Security Advisor Tommy Vietor dude.

More on the appalling Obama foreign policy team and the tangled web of media-Obama administration ties from Thomas Lifson, and a chart (click to enlarge):

And yes, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser, is the brother of David Rhodes, the President of CBS News the man who fired Sharon Attkisson. Attkisson was the only mainstream reporter to pursue Benghazi, asserting there was a coverup (h/t Monica Showalter).

Share

By

Benghazi roundup

Hicks’s Full Account of Night of Benghazi Attacks
Full testimony at yesterday’s House of Representative’s subcommittee by Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in the U.S. embassy in Libya:

At Drudge:
Hillary Clinton Accepts Public Service Award In Beverly Hills On Day of Benghazi Hearings…

Susan Rice Honored With ‘Great American’ Award…

White House struggles to respond to new revelations…

Marco Rips Hillary…

MORRIS: Beginning Of End…

KRAUTHAMMER: ‘Where Was Commander in Chief?’

REPORT: CBSNEWS BOSSES IRKED BY CORRESPONDENT’S REPORTING; ‘DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ADVOCACY’…

At Memeorandum:

Official Offers Account From Libya of Benghazi Attack  —  WASHINGTON — A State Department official presented a minute-by-minute account on Wednesday of what happened during the seige of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi last Sept. 11, offering the first public testimony from an American official …
RELATED:

 Michael Hirsh / NationalJournal.com:

Benghazi: Incompetence, But No Cover-up  —  The hearings deepen the tragedy, but not the scandal.  —  There was tragic incompetence, plainly, in the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks, and even possibly some political calculation.  It is a record that may well come …

 John Podhoretz / New York Post:10 minutes ago

Failings of Bam & Hill laid bare  —  After a remarkable House hearing yesterday, we can say this with almost complete certainty: The Obama administration knew perfectly well that last year’s Sept. 11 attack on Americans and American facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist act …
Discussion: PJ Media and Politico

 Tom Bevan / Real Clear Politics:NEW!

A Coverup Laid Bare  —  Thanks to House Republicans, Americans finally got to hear from the State Department officials the Obama administration never wanted to testify.  They are now called “whistleblowers,” but that’s only because their accounts of what really happened in Libya on Sept. 11 …

Share

By

Obama didn’t answer the 3AM call

Remember Hillary’s old campaign ad?

Well, it rang on 9/11/12.

Obama never called back to check on Benghazi, and Panetta can’t explain why:

SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’
SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –
SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –
SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –
SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?
SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.
SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then.
SEC. PANETTA: As a former chief of staff to the president of the United States, the purpose of staff is to be able to get that kind of information, and those staff were working with us.
SEN. GRAHAM: So you think it’s a typical response of the president of the United States to make one phone call, do what you can and never call you back again and ask you, how’s it going, by the way, showing your frustration we don’t have any assets in there to help these people for over seven hours?
SEC. PANETTA: The president is well-informed about what is going on. Make no mistake about it.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, that is interesting to hear.

In fact, Panetta says he had no communication with anyone from the White House, and Hillary wasn’t answering, either:

While some thought it a joke and some thought it a farce the true meaning of the empty chair was never clearer than it was at the Benghazi hearings.

Dereliction of duty? Malfeasance? The Immaculate Massacre? You decide.


Share

By

“What difference does it make?”

The histrionic, hysterical Secretary of State, wearing men’s eyeglass frames yesterday:

What a disgrace:

Hillary Clinton is ending her tenure as secretary of state in fiery fashion. “You really get the sense that [Mrs.] Clinton barely managed to restrain herself from dropping an F-bomb there,” remarks New York magazine’s Dan Amira. He refers to an exchange between the secretary and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing this morning.

Johnson pressed her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” said the secretary snappishly to the senator. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

So it’s “our job to figure out what happened” but it doesn’t make a difference what happened? Huh? What would we do without rhetorical questions? We suppose we’d answer them, as Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin does:

The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been “decimated” and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.

“What difference does it make?” if there were no protests in Benghazi,

Well, gosh, I can think of a few reasons why it matters. First, it mattered enough for the Obama administration to send Susan Rice to five different Sunday talk shows to insist that the sacking was a spontaneous demonstration of anger over a months-old YouTube video, while saying that there was “no evidence” that it was a terrorist attack. On one of those appearances, the president of Libya told US audiences the exact opposite — that it was the work of terrorists and that they had a pretty good idea of who they were. If it didn’t matter, what was Susan Rice doing when she tried pushing that meme, which the White House had to abandon within days as leaks within State and CIA made plain that there was no demonstration?

It also matters because Barack Obama at the time had been bragging about crippling al-Qaeda while on the campaign trail. That false narrative made it seem as though State and our intel community couldn’t have possibly known that the sacking would have occurred, and got blindsided by a grassroots reaction to the video. Instead, it turned out to be a planned terrorist action about which the US embassy in Libya had warned State for months, repeatedly requesting more security.

There’s also the matter of Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya and his undeclared war against Moammar Qaddafi. His actions, and that of NATO in following his initial lead, decapitated the ruthless regime that at least was keeping a lid on terrorist networks in eastern Libya. The rise of those networks in the Benghazi region should have been a predictable outcome from the power vacuum the US/NATO campaign left in the region, which resulted in the ability to conduct this attack. That also reflects on the decision to remove the military security at the consulate even with the deteriorating environment very clear to anyone paying attention. That also matters because of how the transfer of weapons to the militias in that US/NATO effort and the resultant power vacuum has destabilized Mali and potentially a wide swath of North Africa.

So it matters because of credibility.

And yes, “What difference does it make?” is the attitude of someone who feels entitled to their high place.

“If it weren’t for low integrity they’d have no integrity at all.”

And,
Let the 2016 campaign begin,

Do you think there’s any coincidence in the fact that her campaign debt was paid off and her appearance before the joint committee today to talk about the guy in Benghazi?


Share

By

#Benghazi: CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson asks the right questions

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 9 a.m. and the House Foreign Affairs Committee at 2 p.m. today. That is, if her gallbladder doesn’t act up.

Boom: CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson tears into Obama Admin over Benghazigate.

Attkisson asks,

More at the link.

Share

By

Benghazi: Hillary should still testify once she recovers

Hillary Clinton hospitalized after doctors discover blood clot

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was hospitalized Sunday after doctors discovered a blood clot during a follow-up exam related to a concussion she suffered this month, her spokesman said.

She is expected to remain at New York Presbyterian Hospital for the next 48 hours so doctors can monitor her condition and treat her with anti-coagulants, said Philippe Reines, deputy assistant secretary of state.

I wish her a prompt and full recovery. This can be a most serious condition.

There are a number of questions, though,

“Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion,” Reines said.

Head concussions do not cause leg or lung clots.

Was she ever evaluated in an Emergency Department? Did she even go to the hospital? Did she undergo head CT scanning? This is standard of care for head trauma patients.

As I understand it, a complication such as a blood clot is only found in polytrauma patients, in which case the question of did she ever go to a hospital for the concussion is more important. Particularly since it prevented her from testifying on Benghazi.

What’s Happening to Hillary? Only a clod would say the clot is a plot!

We weren’t told the site of said blood clot. Was it her brain (recently concussed)? Was it her leg (where she had a blood clot back in 1998)? The former is a big deal, the latter, not so much. Why not specify the site, since it make such a big difference, medically? Oh, but we’re told we must not display any skepticism, any hint of suspicion that the SOS is trying to avoid having to testify about Benghazi. The woman is ill. Only a clod would say a clot was a plot.

How serious is Hillary’s condition?

We are left with a story that is not easy to connect up with sparse information from the inside crowd, who could easily deflate speculation with two or three more measly facts.

Back to Althouse:

The suppression of information — the site of the clot — suggests 2 radically different theories: 1. fakery/exaggeration to evade testimony, or 2. something horribly serious.

Let’s pray that she will soon recover in full; after which, she should testify on Benghazi.

Cross-posted at Liberty Unyielding.

UPDATE,

Question:

are you saying that Hillary (who has a history of DVT’s) suffered an intracranial hemorrhage 3 weeks ago that went unnoticed by herself and her crackerjack team and did not so much as require a visit to the ER or a simple CT head scan?

Share

By

Benghazi “sloppiness”

Yesterday on Meet the Press,

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Some individuals have been held accountable inside of the State Department and what I’ve said is that we are going to fix this to make sure that this does not happen again, because these are folks that I send into the field. We understand that there are dangers involved but, you know, when you read the report and it confirms what we had already seen, you know, based on some of our internal reviews; there was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies. So we’re doing a thorough-going review. Not only will we implement all the recommendations that were made, but we’ll try to do more than that. You know, with respect to who carried it out, that’s an ongoing investigation. The FBI has sent individuals to Libya repeatedly. We have some very good leads, but this is not something that, you know, I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.

Plweez.

The murders of four Americans during a seven-hour long attack, due to “sloppiness”?

Twitter users are rightfully outraged by President Obama’s callous dismissal of the incompetence that caused the tragic deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.

Wizbang:

Again, Mr. President — you’re trying to install an unsupported narrative here. This embassy was vulnerable for at least the 6 months prior to the attack on September 11th; it had been attacks twiceprior.  The security of this consulate was already at a dangerously low level.  There were warningsthree days before the attack, which were ignored. Even the Ambassador himself asked multiple times for more security. Instead of granting those requests, his security was actually cut back. (Related: State Department withdrew 16-member special forces team from Benghazi one month before 9/11/12 terrorist attack)

This is not about sloppiness. Sloppiness implies security was implemented, but did it in a manner leaving things in a state disarray. Mr. President, you didn’t implement anything, you removed it and in doing so, thereby leaving your Ambassador Stevens and his staff wide open to attacks. Attacks this administration was warned about from several sources. What transpired wasn’t sloppiness, it was criminal.

In other news, Al-Qaida’s branch in Yemen has offered to pay tens of thousands of dollars to anyone who kills the U.S. ambassador in Sanaa or an American soldier in the country.

UPDATE:
Linked by Hot Air (thank you!),

Ahem. Obama conducted an unauthorized war against Moammar Qaddafi that decapitated the regime the previous year, which gave free reign to networks of Islamist terrorists in eastern Libya. That was no secret; in fact, it was pretty well known that those “militias” participated in the uprising we enabled. There had been a series of attacks on Western interests by these networks in 2012 before the September 11th attack that killed four Americans, including a few attempts on Americans before that. Despite all this data, State deliberately dismissed military security for the consulate and insisted it could rely on local militias for security.

And this is “just some sloppiness, not intentional”?

Share