If there are two nations the U.S. continues to align with for seemingly very inexplicable reasons, they are Turkey and Qatar. Both of these nations support Hamas. Yet, when asked about concerns over Qatar's support for terrorism in the context of the U.S. partnering with that nation, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby deferred to what he called a "solid military to military relationship with Qatar" and that the Pentagon wants to "broaden" that relationship.
Confusingly, Kirby also acknowledged that he's seen the reports showing Qatar's support for terrorism but came close to wishing them away or dismissing them because of the need for that "military to military relationship" to grow (h/t WFB):
A tiny peninsula on the eastern coast of Saudi Arabia, Qatar is a hotbed for Muslim Brotherhood terrorism, terror funding, and terror propaganda (Al-Jazeera is headquartered there). Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been based in Qatar for years, even getting his own program on Al-Jazeera.
So aside from Barack Obama's pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies throughout the Middle East, why would the U.S. look to "broaden" a "military to military relationship" with Qatar, despite it being such a source of terrorism?
Consider the short clip of former CIA Director James Woolsey in 2006 below, published earlier by Shoebat.com. It was recently introduced into evidence in the trial of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In it, Woolsey implies that the U.S. will back movements that "will make the Saudi Royal family nervous." While the Saudis have funded Brotherhood groups all over the world for years, they do in fact get "nervous" whenever the Brotherhood fills power vacuums too close to home. This can be seen in reports that the Saudis funded the overthrow of Mohammed Mursi in Egypt and support for Gen. Abdel Fatah el-Sisi over the Muslim Brotherhood there.
As you watch this clip from Woolsey, ask yourself how the Saudis feel about Qatar being one of the most recognized nation states that supports terrorism:
When put in those terms, Kirby's admission that the U.S. is growing its "military to military relationship" with Qatar would be as much about sending a message to Saudi Arabia as anything else.
But at what expense?
One of the consequences of all this covert political brinksmanship has been the slaughter of an untold number of Christians throughout the Middle East. These Christians almost unanimously support the leaders the U.S. has opposed. This reality should supersede any inclination Americans might have about supporting these too-cute-by-half policies.
Those involved in said policies must instinctively know this. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is a prime example. Earlier this year, as Shoebat.com relayed, McCain exploded at a delegation of Syrian Christians in a closed door meeting. The Christian leaders wanted to explain what was happening to their brethren in Syria as a result of policies McCain was supporting.
As Shoebat.com has reported, former Reagan National Security Adviser and 2008 John McCain Presidential Campaign adviser Robert McFarlane inked a $1.3 million deal with Qatar in 2009. Ostensibly, one of the main objectives of this deal was to work with Sudan and help ease tensions between the U.S. and that country. The reason McFarlane could not sign a deal directly with Sudan had to do with the fact that country was on the U.S. State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.
According to the Washington Post, the negotiations involved "two of the Obama administration top policymakers on Sudan." It is believed that one of the reasons Obama seeks eased relations with Sudan has to do with his brother Malik's involvement with the leadership of that country, as Shoebat.com has reported on extensively.
As the old expression goes, the enemy always has a say.
In the geopolitical dueling between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, the one enemy with a say that has been successfully leveraging that relationship has been the Muslim Brotherhood. As the U.S. seeks to make the Saudis "nervous" by "broadening" the "military to military relationship" with countries like Qatar and Turkey, the Brotherhood's influence in the U.S. has been growing exponentially.
What's more important: using the Muslim Brotherhood to go after the Saudis abroad, or going after the Muslim Brotherhood at home in the U.S.?
American political leaders are either consciously in league with the Brotherhood or have been played by the group. At this point, the beltway cesspool is a mixture of both.
Both the Saudis and Egypt – under the current leadership of el-Sisi – have been expressing tacit support for Israel wiping out Hamas. That would be the same Hamas that Qatar – an ally of the U.S. – supports.
It was the Obama administration that attempted to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas that included Turkey and Qatar; this infuriated Israel.
In short, American foreign policy right now is forcing Saudi Arabia and Egypt to support Israel more than the U.S. does.
If this is not a canary in the coal mine for dysfunctional U.S. politicians, nothing is.
America Blew it after 9/11
The George W. Bush administration blew it after 9/11. Instead of going after the Saudis with a 90% approval rating, the administration chose to protect them. Ditto the 9/11 Commission. It is documented extensively how this was done in Appendix B of The Case FOR Islamophobia.
As a consequence of not confronting the Saudis head-on, the U.S. simply decided to make the Saudis "nervous" if Woolsey's claims were part of the DC zeitgeist.
The U.S. now has a president whose policies indicate he's more interested in seeing the Muslim Brotherhood succeed than he is in making anyone 'nervous'.
Those who subscribed to Woolsey's plan and may have had the best interests of the U.S. at heart must admit they were wrong and collectively come clean to prevent things from getting worse.
*Article by Ben BarrackDon't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.