On Monday, Nasrallah spoke for about 15 minutes before tens of thousands of cheering supporters, many of them with green and yellow headbands around their foreheads — the colors of Hezbollah — and the words “at your service God’s prophet” written on them.Police officials estimated the crowd at around 500,000 — an exceptionally large turnout even by standards of the Hezbollah group whose rallies normally draw huge numbers.
As the liberal American press and ultra-liberal bloggers inundate the Internet and newsprints with criticisms of what Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential challenger to President Barack Obama, said about Obama during the Libyan attacks and murders, throngs of foreign press and few American outlets tell the real story involved with the White House’s role in the incidents that we now know could have been preventedAfter the American media grabbed and held the pro-Obama headlines against Romney’s comments and took Obama’s “Romney shoots first and aims second” quote to iconic proportions, the rest of the world is reporting that the Obama administration knew about the planned-attack on the Benghazi, Libya Embassy where four Americans, including United States Ambassador Christopher Steven was murdered.While the movie trailer of “Innocence of Muslims” may have added fuel to the venom’s fire regarding the protests throughout the Middle East, the murderous attack on the U.S. Embassy and its American occupants in Benghazi, Libya was no accidentReports from a number of knowledgeable sources are being widely-circulated regarding the United States State Department’s having received knowledge of the attack in Benghazi as early as September 9 – two days before the four Americans were killed. That’s “the story”. There were also similar reports that the attack in Cairo was revealed prior to its occurrence.
Jim Hoft, new media blogger at The Gateway Pundit, posted last Saturday that on Sept. 12, bloggerSpeak With Authority discovered that five days before 9/11, the U.S. State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9/11.
Earlier Monday, the State Department renewed its warning to US citizens to “avoid all travel to Lebanon because of current safety and security concerns. ” It said US citizens “living and working in Lebanon should understand that they accept risks in remaining and should carefully consider those risks.”The new alert, which superseded a May 8 warning, said the potential for a “spontaneous upsurge in violence remains” in Lebanon and that Lebanese authorities are not able to guarantee protection if violence erupts quickly.
In August, a Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, said the Damascus government would never use chemical arms against its people, but he warned that it would unleash the weapons against what he called foreign invaders. He said the military was guarding the stockpile.Syria’s weapons, predominantly deadly nerve agents that can be delivered by artillery rockets, shells and aircraft munitions, were developed for use in a war against Israel.The Syrian regime transferred chemical weapons from a storage base near Damascus to the port city of Tartus last month, sparking American and European concerns that the weapons could fall into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon or other extremist organizations inside Syria, against Israel. Nasrallah’s reference to chemical weapons may have followed pressure from Syria’s ally, Russia. Lebanese daily Al-Nahar reported Sunday that a Russian envoy recently arrived in Beirut and warned Nasrallah against accepting chemical weapons from Syria.Iraq’s Baath Party had a ready ally in Syria’s Baath Party to shift its stockpiles to. Syria has fewer options. There are no other Baath parties and no ruling Alawites. That leaves it with no other choice but to go with Shiite ties.Hezbollah would not be the smartest choice, but it may be the only practical one. No one is about to let Syria ship chemical weapons to Iran. But Syria has other options. A port city would allow it to move weapons almost anywhere as cargo. And networks of Shiite businessmen around the world play a major role in international trade. Shipping the weapons to somewhere in Africa where there is little law enforcement and a high degree of corruptibility might be one scenario.The problem with turning over the weapons to Iran or Hezbollah is that getting them back would become difficult. The Assads have learned enough from Saddam not to repeat his mistakes. That means they would be more likely to leave the country and run the resistance from a safe haven and the weapons would be a trump card or a cash source. Moving them to a port may be one of the steps before the rats leave the sinking Syria.