As more information comes to the fore, the multiple lies the “Obama” administration has told in its attempt at cover-up is coming back to haunt them. We have already mentioned how “Obama” skipped all of his “daily” intelligence briefings the entire week leading up to the 11th anniversary of 9/11—even after both Libyan and Egyptian intelligence sources gave us three and two days respectively warning that something ugly was brewing. And, after he was told that our Ambassador to Libya had been murdered, he just rolled over and went back to sleep—making mockery of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign slogan of “who do you want in the White House taking that 3:00 A.M. phone call (not that Hillary would have been any better based on what we now know).
But now, we learn that there is more, much, much more.
THE ISSUE IS WHY WAS SECURITY AT OUR EMBASSIES NOT BEEFED UP?
Not that we didn’t have ample warning. Below I will list some of the advance warnings the “Obama” Administration had.
WARNINGS RECEIVED BY THE “OBAMA” ADMINISTRATION
ONE. Over the winter, Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT for America warned that America’s and Europe’s waning interest in Libya would have dangerous consequences.
TWO. In the spring the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence had become increasingly worried about radical militias still active in eastern Libya which the new Libyan Government had not yet been able to reign in.
THREE. On 10 April 2012, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin.
FOUR. U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, a close friend of a close friend of mine, wrote in his diary that he was concerned that he had become a major target of al-Qaeda and warned about the “never ending threats in Benghazi." These concerns were passed on to State HQ at foggy bottom. Yet, still, there were no instructions or efforts from Washington to beef up security at our Embassy in Tripoli, and especially not at our consulate in Benghazi.
FIVE. On 06 June 2012, Libyan security discovered an explosive device just outside the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
SIX. In August, the State Department warned American citizens planning to travel to Libya that the threats of assassinations and car-bombings were real.
WHAT, ME WORRY?
Yet, in spite of all of this, the Obama Administration, starting at the top with with “Obama” himself and Hillary Clinton, remained brain dead in their Alfred E. Neuman world of “what, me worry?” These amateurish, and dangerous, attitudes can be attributed to the influences of “Obama’s” and “Clinton’s” primary advisors: the communist Valerie Jarrett and the Muslim Brotherhood member Huma Abadin respectively.
NOT EVEN A SINGLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER
As a result, and even after the above-mentioned warnings from Libyan and Egyptian Intelligence that something bad and dangerous was about to happen, the night of the Benghazi attack there were only four lightly armed local hired Libyan security personnel guarding the Consulate. Some early accounts said that there were also five American Security officers who had been ordered to not have any live rounds in their firearms also “guarding” the Consulate, but that account has since been discredited. Neither the Embassy in Tripoli, nor the Consulate in Benghazi were guarded by U.S. marines (as most Embassies have traditionally been)—since Washington had determined that they were not necessary. (Subsequent reports coming out in mid-October have revealed that even the "lightly-armed" Libyans were "armed" only with flashlights and batons.)
Furthermore, the Consulate building did not even have a single fire extinguisher, nor did they have smoke-protection masks (Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation, not from gunshot wounds).
OBAMA DENIED REQUESTS FOR BEEFED-UP SECURITY
It is also recently come to light that the “Obama” administration repeatedly denied repeated requests to beef-up security at Benghazi.
WHY SUCH GRAVE, CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE?
The core of the problem lies in “Obama’s” personality, educational background, and theology. His basic theology was formed by his numerous anti-American mentors who all taught him that Amercia was the cause of all problems in the world. Therefore, based on this ideology that “Obama” lives by, all he needs to do as President is to smile at the bad guys and even give them aid and arms, and they will suddenly decide to be nice to us. Add to that the fact that “Obama” is narcissistic enough and arrogant enough to seriously believe that his smile and the force of his personality will somehow all by themselves cause everybody in the Middle East to behave themselves.
ARMING THE TERRORIST
It is from this standpoint that “Obama” has armed opposition groups throughout the Middle East that contained known al-Qaeda elements. It has now also become clear that the “Obama” administration began making overtures to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood BEFORE the Arab Spring broke out. Does one see a cause and effect here?
After all, if we show them that we’re on their side, they’ll be nice to us for ever and ever afterward—or so “Obama” seems to think.
WHY IS “OBAMA” LYING SO MUCH ABOUT THE LIBYAN TRAGEDY?
“Obama’s” denying the repeated requests to beef up security at our Middle East Embassies and Consulates, especially Benghazi, may or may not be an impeachable offense, but the real mystery is why did “Obama” lie so much about what he knew and when? If we can recall Watergate (which was nothing but a boy scout prank compared to this) the thing that forced Nixon out of office was not the break in, it was the cover up and the lying about it afterwards.
Everyone in the world knew that these attacks on our Embassies and our Consulates were pre-planned for the 9/11 anniversary and had nothing to do with the stupid U-tube clip that “Obama” tried to use as the excuse—as did many Islamic radicals in an attempt to stir up even more anti-American hate and keep the riots spreading to other countries.
In addition to all of the above, consider the following:
ONE. Top Pentagon officials declared the assault a terrorist attack on day one.
TWO. U.S. Intelligence and counter-terrorism officials knew “right away” that the attacks were planned for the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
THREE. Within 24 hours U.S. intelligence had strong indications al-Qaeda operatives were behind the Libyan operations, and had even pinpointed the location that group.
FOUR. Shortly after the event, NSA intercepted a number of phone calls involving members of a group called Ansar ash-Shari’a (Supporters of Shari’a) where they bragged about their successful attack against the American Consulate and the U.S. Ambassador.
FIVE. As soon as “Obama” and his stooges began lying about the causes of the attack, the President of Libya corrected him/them by asserting that there was no legitimate protest, and that this was a pre-planned attack by a terrorist group. Pure and simple.
SIX. The Libyan people didn’t believe “Obama’s” lies either and they took matters into their own hands. Pro-Democracy Libyans stormed the HQ of the Ansar ash-Shari’a, confiscated many of their weapons, and forced them to leave town.
OBAMA KNEW FROM DAY ONE THAT THE ATTACKS WERE PRE-PLANNED
From all of the above, we know that “Obama” had to have known from day one that the attacks had been pre-planned. If he didn’t, then he should be removed from office for stupidity—a stupidity so mind-boggling that it renders him non-functional, incapable of performing even the simplest of duties the job of President requires.
And, yet, “Obama” and his stooges continued to lie about the causes of the riots in the Middle East—even two weeks after the truth had come out. Why? Why the cover-up?
ALWAYS BLAME OTHERS
The first thing that comes to mind is “Obama’s” penchant for never being able to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong, and to always blame others—even when the mistakes are clearly his. For example, the horrid economy that his stimulus plans, Obamacare, and bailouts have given us always (even after six years of Democrat rule), for some reason, is “Bush’s” fault (Even though Bush’s tax cuts gave us a record 5 years of growth from 2002 to 2007 until the Democrats seized control of both houses of Congress). Therefore, in this scandal, "Obama," his peons like Jay Carney, and his surrogates in the Mainstream Media, are trying to lay all the blame on the stupid U-Tube video that no one actually saw.
Conservatives like to say that “Obama” is simply trying to cover up the fact that his Middle East policy of encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood, arming al-Qaeda types, and then just smiling at them and apologizing to them hasn’t worked. But now, we can see that it goes even deeper than that. What “Obama” and his stooges are really trying to cover up is the fact that the Administration had ample warning this was going to occur, and did nothing, and the fact that the Administration repeatedly denied requests to beef-up security. And, it is precisely this dereliction of duty that requires Congress to remove this President from office before he does any more damage and gets more people killed.
THE REAL TRAGEDY
The real tragedy though, is, once again, the U.S. Media (MSM). While a few reporters at CNN and ABC have attempted to report the truth, for the most part the MSM has been trying to cooperate with the White House in protecting “Obama” and trying to sweep this scandal under the rug and bury it as quickly as possible least it influence the elections in Romney’s favor. The U.S. MSM wants to bury this scandal just as they've done their best to bury and/or ignore all of "Obama's" other scandals: "Fast and Furious," his homosexual infidelity during his pre-Senate days in Chicago, his Identity fraud (phony "birth certificate," multiple Social Security cards, phony Selective Service registration, and passport fraud), the Intelligence leaks, his shafting of our closest allies, England, Poland, and Israel--but especially England), Obamacare lies, tax policy lies, etc., etc., etc.
This is in spite of the fact that some of the foreign media have reported the truth about “Obama’s” failures in this (Libyan incident) regard (as well as some of his other failures). For example, the German Der Spiegal reported immediately after the Libya event that “Obama’s Foreign policy lay in ruins.”
What we desperately need is more help like that from all the foreign media regarding all of "Obama's" scandals and lies. If all the media in Germany, Britain, France, Israel, etc., were to continually drive this point home, combined with a concerted effort by the families of those four U.S. persons killed in the Libyan Embassy, perhaps, just perhaps, our MSM here in the U.S. would no longer be able to ignore the issue. Perhaps then they might actually do their jobs and act like professional journalists. But the U.S. MSM will not lift a finger to expose "Obama" unless the allied foreign media forces them into it. Our allies need to seriously consider what another four years of "Obama" will mean for them. If they want the U.S. to remain as a force for stability in the world--and a military shield for them vis-a-vis Russia, Iran, the soon-to-be Islamic Caliphate, China, or what ever new entity emerges over the horizon, then they need to help us expose Obama so we can throw off the growing yoke of this debilitating dictator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE ON LATEST INFORMATION RELATED TO THE LIBYAN CRISIS, AND A TIME-LINE (posted 19 Oct. 2012)
At this point, I would like to remind my readers that there are two key issues in this Libyan scandal that the MSM is NOt reporting: ONE: The total lack of proper defense for the Consulate in Benghazi, the Embassy in Tripoli, and most of our other embassies in the Middle East. TWO: The attempts by the "Obama" administration to mis-inform (i.e. lie) to the American public about how and why these attacks--particularly the one in Benghazi--happened. The fact that four Americans, including an Ambassador, were killed in the Benghazi attack makes this scandal and cover-up ten times worse than Watergate.
HILLARY CLINTON DID IN FACT REQUEST ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR BENGHAZI PRIOR TO 11 SEPTEMBER 2012
By now, everyone knows that Hillary Clinton publicly accepted full blame for the tragedy in Benghazi--and she did this a few days ago while on a Diplomatic trip to Peru. However, information has just come out on 18 October that Hillary did in fact request additional security. When Hillary fell on the sword for "Obama," Bill Clinton was reportedly rather upset and he got his lawyers to get busy on this case. Somehow Clinton's team was able to get a hold of State Department cables and they claimed to have proof that Hillary had in fact given specific instructions to beef up security in Libya. Had these instructions been carried out, the tragedy may have been avoided.
As Secretary of State there is only ONE person that Hillary answers to, and that is the disaster who currently sits in the oval office. In other words, if Hillary did in fact make a request for additional security specifically for Benghazi, there is only one person that request could have been made. And, even if Hillary did not make this request directly to "Obama," but, instead issued the order to beef-up security on her own initiative, there is only one person who could have over-ruled that request whether that order, or request, had originally been forwarded to him or not. Either way you look at it, the "buck" stops with "Obama."
OBAMA IGNORES ADDITIONAL INTELLIGENCE
It is also rather obvious that NSA had been following the events in Libya in real-time. It can sometimes take a day or two for intelligence to be processed (translated, checked, and then a report being written and sent through channels). However, a report on a crisis like this would be given priority and processed in hours, rather than days. NSA reports of this caliber are then sent directly to the President and the head of the CIA, and in this case to the Secretary of State and/or directly to the concerned Consulate or Embassy. The CIA also had its own avenues for reporting on the crisis. There is no way they would not have had people on the ground in both Tripoli and Benghazi. There is no way that the head of the CIA would have not passed on this information, as well as the NSA information, directly to the President.
And, yet, for 14 days the President continued to claim that the attack was the result of a spontaneous reaction to the stupid video, rather than admit that it was a pre-plannned and coordinated terrorist attack executed by an arm of al-Qaeda, which would expose the larger lie that the Administration is selling that al-Qaeda is on its last legs and the "war on terror" is over.
SEVERAL PARTS TO THE DERELICTION OF DUTY ISSUE
First, "Obama" chose to either ignore the Secretary of State's request for additional security, or he chose to over-ruled it.
Second, "Obama" ignored all of the prior warnings mentioned above about the deteriorating situation in Libya, particularly Benghazi. Why? Because either his ideology would not allow him to "antagonize" the Arabs by beefing-up security at our Embassies and Consulates, his ego would not let him admit that his Foreign Policy, particularly in the Middle East, had failed, or he simply did not to spend the time doing the job that being the President of the United States requires.
Third, "Obama" ignored all of the post-9/11 intelligence proving without a doubt that Benghazi was a terrorist attack by an arm of al-Qaeda. Why? For the same reasons as #2: His ideology, his ego, his basic laziness and dis-interest in anything that does not advance the image of Barack Obama in the Public's eye.
WHY DID HILLARY FALL ON THE SWORD FOR "OBAMA"?
The first question we have to ask is given all the intelligence information the Hillary obviously had from within her own department, from the CIA, from NSA, as well as from the Libyans themselves, that this was an al-qaeda-related terrorist attack, why did she go along with the "Obama" administration's efforts at cover-up for over a month? Then the second question is why did she so suddenly reverse herself and fall on the sword for "Obama" while in the midst of a diplomatic trip to Peru?
The answer, of course, is politics. Hillary knows that if Romney wins this election, her chances of ever becoming President are virtually nil. All intelligent democrats know that Romney will restore the U.S. economy, and do such a good job at making things run more efficiently, that there is no way he could be defeated for re-election in 2016. An 8-year Romney presidency would be so successful that no Democrat would likely have a chance in 2020, and besides Hillary might well be too old by then. For Hillary, it's 2016 or never. Her initial thoughts were to simply ride on the coattails of "Obama" no matter how distasteful that was for her, and no matter how badly he screwed things up. What ever it took to keep the Republicans from having a shot at fixing things. Knowing that the MSM would be on her side, there was a better than 50-50 chance that no matter how badly "Obama" screwed up, the media would find a way to cast the blame elsewhere and/or demonize whom ever the Republicans would put up in 2016--as they've tried to demonize Romney this time around. However, as more information as bubbled to the surface, and the magnitude of the Libyan scandal is becoming more apparent to the public, The Clintons decided that a different tactic was needed in order to best position Hillary for 2016. So, Hillary fell on the sword, and assumed full responsibility (while "Obama" continued to dither, ignore, lie, blame others, etc.). In this way Hillary made herself look more "Presidential" than Obama, who should have had the courage to do that from the very beginning--even if the fault was not his.
At the same time, her husband Bill, back in the states, got busy digging up the proof in the state cables that Hillary, in fact, was NOT responsible. In other words, the Clintons have come to realize that "Obama" is so bad, and this Libyan scandal will likely bring his presidency down, whether before or after the elections, so they have decided to have Hillary rise above the cess pool that the rest of the Administration is and let "Obama" sink or swim on his own--even if it means letting Romney win the election. In other words, the Clintons now believe that Hillary's chances of winning in 2016 would actually be better after 4-years of Romney successes (hey, they could still garner most of the female vote as well as the usual clients of the Democrat party), than she would have remaining connected to "Obama's" failures--particularly on Libya.
TIMELINE
AUGUST--The Library of Congress, in cooperation with DOD, issued a report highlighting the growing threat in Libya noting that al-Qaeda's senior leadership in Pakistan has dispatched agents to Libya. Al-Qaeda-linked militias in Libya have acquired extensive weaponry and established training camps.
September 8--Libyan intelligence warns the U.S. that something is brewing for the 9/11 anniversary.
September 8--A radical Islamic cleric in Egypt posted on his website a call for a massive protest to demand the return of the "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd ar-Raham who is serving prison time in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
September 9--Clips of the above-mentioned video are shown in Egypt allowing the clerics to recruit a larger mob for the 9/11 protests
September 10--Aiman az-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's top dog, released a video on several jihadist websites eulogizing the slain al-Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi, who is from Libya, and saying that Libi's "blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders." This, an obvious call for violent action in Libya.
September 11--early morning. The U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement denouncing the video that had been shown on Egyptian TV in an attempt to dampen the huge protest movement that everyone by this time knew was coming.
September 11--later in the morning. Protesters storm the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, raise the al-Qaeda flag, and shout "Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!" Muhammad az-Zwahiri, the brother of the al-Qaeda leader takes part. CNN allegedly interviewed him and he allegedly claimed that he helped to "stage" the protest (i.e. it wasn't spontaneous).
September 11--Early evening. Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens walked some guests out to the street. There was no sign of a protest, or any mob gathering, at that time.
September 11--At night. The al-Qaeda-sponsored terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate begins. It lasts for hours. The terrorists use AK-47s and Rocket Propelled Grenades. After seizing control of the Consulate, they use diesel fuel to set the buildings ablaze. Four Americans are killed during the attack.
September 11--Late night. Hillary Clinton attributes the Benghazi attack to the video (even though she knew by this time that it was an organized, pre-planned, terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest rally to a video)
September 12--Morning. "Obama" first apologizes for the video, then says that "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." However, this stops short of calling the Benghazi action "terrorism" per se. In fact, the gist of his "Rose Garden" speech is that what ever happened, this was a "spontaneous" protest.
September 12--CNN's Wolf Blitzer opins that based on what he has seen, the attacks against the "U.S. Ambassador and other Americans on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 was not necessarily simply a coincidence." (Translation: If Wolf Blitzer can figure that out, why can't the Administration?)
September 12--The President of Libya said that there was no spontaneous protest. There was no protest at all, it was an organized act of terrorism.
September 12--Washington. Undersecretary of State for management Patrick F. Kennedy described the events in benghazi as a terrorist attack during a private briefing for House and Senate staffers, according to Fox news.
September 13--Sanaa, Yemen. al-Qaeda loyalist Shaykh Abdul-Majid az-Zindani calls for protests, and the U.S. Embassy there was stormed.
September 13--Washington. Hillary Clinton stood beside the Libyan Ambassador to the U.S. who denounced the "terrorist attack" in Libya.
September 14--Tunis, Tunisia. The U.S. embassy is assaulted by a group called the Ansar=al-Shari'a Tunisia ("Supporters of Shari'a Islamic Law in Tunisia), headed by an al-Qaeda terrorist named Sayf Allah ben Hassine.
September 14--Andrews Air Force base. Hillary Clinton repeats the Administration cover-up line that rage and violence directed against American embassies was "over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."
September 14--Washington. Senator John McCain of the Senate armed services committee said "It was a terrorist attack, organized and carried out by terrorists."
September 16--Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the UN was ordered by "Obama" to appear on 5 talk shows to say that Benghazi was a protest reaction to the video that got out of hand.
September 16--Libyan President Muhammad Yousef Al-Magariaf appeared on "Face the Nation" to contradict the U.S. Administration saying that the attack was "planned--definitely."
September 17--State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland repeated the Administration line during a press briefing.
September 18--"Obama" appeared on "The Late Show with David Letterman," to repeat the line that it was the video that caused the Benghazi thing."
September 19--Washington. National Counter-Terrorism director Matthew Olsen called the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack."
September 20-- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney calls the attack in benghazi "terrorism" for the first time.
September 20--CBS news reports that "there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate." Instead, quoting witnesses, the consulate "came under planned attack." CBS then added that this is "in direct contradition to the administration's account of the incident."
September 20--In an appearance on Univision, "Obaba" reverts back to the cover-up lie that it was the video that caused it.
September 21--Hillary Clinton called it "a terrorist attack."
September 24--"Obama" appears on "The View." Here he tries to back peddle a bit admitting that because of the types of weapons used, it was more than just a mob action. But still does not want to come forward and call it a pre-planned terrorist operation.
September 25--New York. "Obama" gives a speech before the UN General Assembly, referring to the video six times as the cause of the attack.
September 26--New York. Hillary Clinton publicly connects a branch of al-Qaeda with the Benghazi attack. (First time the Administration has admitted what everyone else knew all along).
September 28--The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement taking responsibility for attributing the attack in Benghazi to a spontaneous protest.
October 9--Washington. Two Senior State Department officials briefed the press saying that there was "no protest." (i.e. it was a planned terrorist operation).
October 18--Lima, Peru. Hillary Clinton falls on the sword for "Obama" claiming that she assumes for responsibility for what occurred in Benghazi.
SUMMARY
There's a couple of things that we can see from the above. One, is that the Administration seemed to contradict itself from time to time. There are occasional hints that some elements of the Administration wanted to tell the truth about the Benghazi attacks, but then they'd turn right around and circle the wagons and resume claiming that the video was the cause. In the end, no less than two members of the Administration decided to fall on the sword in order to save "Obama's" job. The first one was the "Office" of the Director of National Intelligence claiming on 28 September that he was the one who attributed the Benghazi attack to a "spontaneous protest." Then, on 18 October, Hillary Clinton also fell on the sword.
Problem is, that neither of these self-sacrifices are credible. There is absolutely no way that the Director of National Intelligence could have NOT known that Benghazi was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack. Every Intelligence agency in the world, including our own NSA and CIA were reporting it live, and within 24 hours issued follow up reports confirming that it was a "terrorist" attack. The State Department was also monitoring live feeds of the attack taking place in real time. All of these reports went directly to the Director of National Intelligence, and to the President. Therefore we must concluded that the decision to attempt to "spin" this story as if it were a "spontaneous protest" in response to the video that got out of hand, had to have been made by no less than "Obama" himself, and/or his handlers (i.e. Valerrie Jarrett and David Axelrod).
The reason "Obama" and his handlers decided to go into "cover-up" mode was two fold: One, They were afraid that telling the truth would undermine the narrative they were selling that "Obama's" foreign policy was succeeding, and that he had "won" the war on terror by killing Usama bin Laden and a few other top honchos from al-Qaeda. Two, they also felt it necessary to lie in order to cover their tracks pertaining to their failure to provide sufficient security at our Middle East Diplomatic missions. That's why Joe Biden lied during the VP debate saying "We didn't know that the Benghazi mission had asked for additional security." The facts of the case, as outlined above, show that there is no way that the Administration, starting with "Obama" himself, could have NOT known that the Benghazi mission was pleading for additional security many, many times. In fact, as shown above, Hillary Clinton did in fact order additional security, but was over ruled, and the only person who could have over-ruled her is "Obama" himself.
And, as stated above, the reason "Obama" over ruled Clinton on the issue of providing more security, is that "Obama" believed that to do so would "antagonize" the Arabs.
And, finally, as a side note, not only were our people in Libya pleading for more help, but ALL other dip missions pulled out of Benghazi prior to September--including the British--because the situation was getting too dangerous. The only thing the "Obama" administration pulled out of Benghazi was two security divisions as a show of "normality" which they did during the month of August.
NEW TWISTS ON OBAMA’S
LIBYAGATE (posted 27 October)
The Weekly Standard for 29 October 2012 has reported that Ambassador Chris Stevens had gone to Benghazi from the relatively safe Embassy at Tripoli in order to engage in certain “meetings” in Benghazi (which was well-known to be totally lawless and dangerous with numerous al-Qaeda types running around). These meetings wrapped up on 10 September 2012. One would expect him to return to the safer environs of the Embassy at Tripoli at that time. Instead Stevens was ordered to remain in the Benghazi Consulate compound on 11 September 2012.
Why?
But first, we must answer the question: Who?
Only the President or the Secretary of State can “order” an Ambassador to remain, or move.
WAS AMBASSADOR STEVENS SET UP?
So why? Did they have foreknowledge that a riot was to take place and thought he’d be safer in the compound? (If there were specific threats one would think it would have been safer to get him out of there as quickly as possible once the 10 September meetings were over). Or, were there other, more sinister, reasons for “ordering” the ambassador to remain in the undefended compound where he would be easily located. And, this brings us to the reasons why Stevens was in Benghazi in the first place.
IRAN-CONTRA PART II
In March of 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition to the Dictator Qadhafi. The person he worked with was Abdul-Hakim Belhajj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. This group later disbanded and its members dispersed to other groups. Some of them were reportedly among those who participated in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
THE SYRIAN CONNECTION
In November 2011 the “Telegraph” of London reported that Belhajj met with Free Syrian Army (FSA) leaders in Turkey for the purpose of providing money and weapons to the insurgency in Syria.
This came to fruition as represented by a recent report in the “London Times” that a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of heavy weapons (RPGs, anti-aircraft missiles, etc.) had docked in Turkey. Most of these weapons were among those captured from the forces and stockpiles of deposed Dictator Qadhafi. Michael Kelly, writing in “The Business Insider” on 19 Oct. 2012 commented that it was Stevens who coordinated with Belhajj and Turkish authorities in arranging these weapons transfers. The arrival on 06 September 2012, of this Libyan arms-bearing ship, called “al-Intisar,” was also documented by Fox news.
Kelley also reported that it is well-known that a number of Libyan Jihadists, and veterans of the fight against Qadhafi, are now in Syria fighting against Assad—though the FSA, the legitimate Syrian opposition has said that they don’t want them (the Libyan Jihadists) there. According to sources in Egyptian security, Ambassador Stevens was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION LIE
What is important about these weapons transfers is that the “Obama” administration has repeatedly denied that it is sending any heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition. Okay, so they aren’t doing that openly because they don’t want to piss-off the Russians, but secretly the Obama Administration is involved in gun running—and Stevens was the point man. And, in addition to the weapons, it also appears that al-Qaeda types are also moving from Libya to Syria—with the knowledge and possible approval (and possible help) of the “Obama” administration. Now, bringing down Assad is something that I heartily agree with because it would weaken Iran and Hezbollah, but using al-Qaeda elements to do it is the wrong way to go about it. Now then, all of this takes us back to the question posed above:
WHY WAS AMBASSADOR STEVENS HOLDING MEETINGS IN BENGHAZI?
It has been learned that at the same time that Stevens went to Benghazi, a Turkish official also went. The assumption here is that Stevens and the Turk met to discuss additional arms transfers to the Syrian opposition. Benghazi was chosen as the meeting place possibly because of its danger—meaning that the meetings could be held in total secrecy without any press attention (too dangerous for the media to be hanging out there). Whereas, if they met in Tripoli, it would have been plastered across every newspaper in the Middle East, and al-Jazeera would have broadcast it to the world. Also, Benghazi is where Belhajj, the middle man, hangs out.
Okay, so far? The U.S. has been cooperating with Turkey to funnel heavy weapons (and possibly al-Qaeda type fighters) into Syria. Chris Stevens was the point man for the U.S. and coordinated between Belhajj and Turkish officials, and Belhajj was the middle man between Stevens and the unsavory characters doing the actual gun-running (and possible people smuggling).
HERE IS WHERE THINGS GET REALLY SINISTER
Terry A. Hurlbut of “Conservative News and Views” has reported (along with a number of other internet outlets) on rumors that “Barack Obama set up the kidnap of Ambassador Chris Stevens to stage an “October Surprise.” At least one of these rumors stems from a report posted by C.O. Jones at the Western Journalism Center which went like this, quoting Jones now:
“I received a phone call from an old friend that has been in Washington D.C. for years and is fairly well-connected politically. What she told me was ugly and sinister, yet very compelling. She said she had received information from someone high up in the White House circles, and wanted my thoughts . . . According to her, Barack Obama, wanting an “October surprise,” had secretly arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood for a kidnapping of our ambassador.”
Now, according to this scenario, Arab “terrorists” were to kidnap Ambassador Stevens on the 11th anniversary of September 11. Then in October, a U.S. special-ops team performs a daring “rescue” using script from one of the Hollywood blockbusters. And, Obama then can spike the football and bask in the adulation of the media and cruse to an election victory in November.
WHAT THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD GETS OUT OF THIS
Why would the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) go along with such a scheme? Obviously they would prefer “Obama” in the White House over Romney. Not only did “Obama” help the Muslim Brotherhood gain control of Egypt, but in America itself they find the welcome mat always out for them anytime they want to visit the White House. “Obama” is aiding their cause both in the Middle East, and in the States as well. The MB also wants to obtain the release of the “Blind Shaykh” (mentioned in a previous posting on this page) currently being held for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OUTSOURCES THE GIG
The MB then outsourced the job (to do the actually shooting up, and kidnapping) to unsavory characters in Benghazi who just happened to be members of the Ansar ash-Shari'a, an off-shoot of al-Qaeda. Problem is, al-Qaeda decided that it didn’t want to play that game. Instead of just kidnapping the ambassador, it saw this as an opportunity to exact some revenge for the U.S. killing of Usama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda officials. So they killed Stevens and three other Americans.
While there is no hard evidence for this scenario, it does answer a lot of questions. In science, a theory has to explain known and suspected facts—and has to do so better than any competing theory in order to be accepted by the general community.
This theory would explain why the “Obama” administration not only ignored repeated warnings from world intelligence and pleas from our Embassy people in Libya that more security was needed (prompting one Embassy official to say that he felt like the Taliban had taken over the State Department).
This theory would explain why the “Obama” Administration not only ignored those pleas for more security in Libya—but actually pulled two units out shortly before 9/11.
This theory would explain why Ambassador Stevens was ordered to remain in Benghazi for the anniversary of 9/11.
This theory would explain why “Obama” calmly went to bed and went to sleep AFTER he had heard that the consulate in Libya was under attack—he thought it was all part of his secretly laid plan.
This theory would explain why Fighter jets, one hour away in Sicily, and a Marine contingent, two hours away in Sicily, were not deployed to protect the consulate during an attack that lasted all night (i.e. the two ex-Navy Seals were killed seven hours after the attack had begun).
This theory would explain why “Obama” was so confused when he got up the next morning and learned that everything had gone wrong and that Ambassador Stevens had been killed—so confused that all he could do was blame Mitt Romney, blame a stupid video that had nothing to do with the attack, and fly off to Las Vegas to forget about it.
This theory would also explain why the “Obama” Administration took two weeks to finally admit that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and why they changed their story several times.
REVENGE
Associated with the kidnap theory, is the fact that it has just been learned by “Newsmax” that “Obama” has moved special-ops forces and drones to key places in northern Africa in retaliation for the death of the ambassador. (i.e. since he can no longer “rescue” the ambassador, exacting revenge on those who went rogue and foiled the plan might enable him to salvage at least a portion of the political karma he had hoped to gain from the supposed rescue operation).
YET ANOTHER THEORY
Another variant on the kidnap theory is that “Obama” had actually wanted Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans (who were reportedly also involved in the gun-running deal) killed—so they would not be able to talk about the transfer of heavy weapons scheme prior to the elections. This would save “Obama” the embarrassment of having an “Iran-Contra” type of scandal blow up in his face right before the elections.
While having people “eliminated” or “silenced” to prevent people from “talking” (i.e. saying something that might interfere with “Obama’s” election prospects) is nothing new for “Obama” (as documented elsewhere on this site, www.americadeathwatch.com, and other sites), I personally discount that version here. I discount it because it does not answer as many questions, or fit all the known facts, as well as does the “kidnap” theory.
OBAMA’S LIMP FISH HANDSHAKE
Mr. Woods, the father of one of the slain Navy Seals said that when “Obama” attended the funeral for his son, and offered his condolences, he didn’t sound, or act, very sincere. He only mumbled is “I’m sorry,” while unable to look the father in the eye. And when he shook hands with the father, it felt like a “cold fish.”
Mr. Woods said that he also felt that Hillary Clinton seemed like she was lying, and that Joe Biden made an obscene remark about his son: “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” (Oh well, Joe will be Joe.)
SUMARY OF ALL POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR THE LIBYA TRAGEDY
Here then, is a quick list of all the possible reasons for the Libyan debacle, including the lack of security, the armed attack, the deaths of the four Americans, “Obama’s” seeming lack of interest in the attack when it was happening, and the total confusion and piss-poor attempts at playing “cover-up” afterwards:
A. Incompetence. “Obama” is so incompetent that he has no idea what is going on in his administration, was totally unaware of the gun-running scheme, and was totally unaware that our people in Libya had begged for more security. Different parts of his administration don’t talk with other parts, etc. (i.e. Joe Biden said “we just didn’t know” that more security had been requested).
B. Stupidity. “Obama” is such a blubbering idiot and imbecile that even when told that our people in Libya needed more security, he did not know what that meant. When told that our consulate was under attack he was too moronic to be able grasp that the lives of Americans might be under threat and/or too imbecilic to realize that such an event might negatively impact his political campaign. Thus, he simply rolled over and went back to sleep.
C. Lack of Empathy. “Obama” understood the ramifications of the Attacks but simply did not care. He didn’t think it involved him personally. He didn’t care that our Ambassador to Libya was under threat, and later that the ambassador and three other Americans had been killed. Thus, he had no problem sleeping through it, and then jetting off to Las Vegas in the morning.
D. He planned it. He had planned the kidnapping scenario and thus when it appeared that it was under way, he had no problems in going to sleep thinking that the subsequent events (i.e. the subsequent rescue of our Ambassador) would seal his re-election bid.
E. All of the above.
Lets’ run that by once again, real quickly in the form of a simple multiple choice question, and let the reader make up his/her mind:
A. Incompetence
B. Stupidity
C. Lack of Empathy
D. He planned it
E. All of the above
So, what do you think? Which of these answers is the more probable given the facts that we do know? My own view, is that what ever the answer turns out to be, each and every one of those answers demands that he (“Obama”) be impeached and then forced out of office—should he by some cruel twist of fortune (or voter fraud, of which there are already numerous examples) manage to eek out a victory on 06 November.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LATEST LIBYA NEWS (Posted 31 October 2012)
"Obama" now tells us that as soon as the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi began, he ordered the military to do whatever is necessary to secure the place. At the same time Leon Panetta is telling us that he and two of the top generals "unanimously" agreed to NOT send aid to the Benghazi installation--even as people were dying there, saying that it would not be feasible. This is in spite of the fact that we had air power one hour away in Italy, and a 100 or so Marines on standby two hours away--this in a fight that lasted for 7 hours. So, either Panetta and the generals defied President "Obama's" orders, or, Leon Panetta is lying. If so, why is he lying? Who is he trying to cover up for?
Of course, a third possibility is that "Obama" is lying, and that he never did issue an order to the military to do whatever is necessary. And, here, Leon Panetta is just trying to fall on the sword himself like Hillary did, in order to "clear" his boss. Pretty lame attempt though, because the disconnect between what he said and what "Obama" said is so obvious that even elements of the MainStream Media should catch it. Or will they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekly Standard for 29 October 2012 has reported that Ambassador Chris Stevens had gone to Benghazi from the relatively safe Embassy at Tripoli in order to engage in certain “meetings” in Benghazi (which was well-known to be totally lawless and dangerous with numerous al-Qaeda types running around). These meetings wrapped up on 10 September 2012. One would expect him to return to the safer environs of the Embassy at Tripoli at that time. Instead Stevens was ordered to remain in the Benghazi Consulate compound on 11 September 2012.
Why?
But first, we must answer the question: Who?
Only the President or the Secretary of State can “order” an Ambassador to remain, or move.
WAS AMBASSADOR STEVENS SET UP?
So why? Did they have foreknowledge that a riot was to take place and thought he’d be safer in the compound? (If there were specific threats one would think it would have been safer to get him out of there as quickly as possible once the 10 September meetings were over). Or, were there other, more sinister, reasons for “ordering” the ambassador to remain in the undefended compound where he would be easily located. And, this brings us to the reasons why Stevens was in Benghazi in the first place.
IRAN-CONTRA PART II
In March of 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition to the Dictator Qadhafi. The person he worked with was Abdul-Hakim Belhajj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. This group later disbanded and its members dispersed to other groups. Some of them were reportedly among those who participated in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
THE SYRIAN CONNECTION
In November 2011 the “Telegraph” of London reported that Belhajj met with Free Syrian Army (FSA) leaders in Turkey for the purpose of providing money and weapons to the insurgency in Syria.
This came to fruition as represented by a recent report in the “London Times” that a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of heavy weapons (RPGs, anti-aircraft missiles, etc.) had docked in Turkey. Most of these weapons were among those captured from the forces and stockpiles of deposed Dictator Qadhafi. Michael Kelly, writing in “The Business Insider” on 19 Oct. 2012 commented that it was Stevens who coordinated with Belhajj and Turkish authorities in arranging these weapons transfers. The arrival on 06 September 2012, of this Libyan arms-bearing ship, called “al-Intisar,” was also documented by Fox news.
Kelley also reported that it is well-known that a number of Libyan Jihadists, and veterans of the fight against Qadhafi, are now in Syria fighting against Assad—though the FSA, the legitimate Syrian opposition has said that they don’t want them (the Libyan Jihadists) there. According to sources in Egyptian security, Ambassador Stevens was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION LIE
What is important about these weapons transfers is that the “Obama” administration has repeatedly denied that it is sending any heavy weapons to the Syrian opposition. Okay, so they aren’t doing that openly because they don’t want to piss-off the Russians, but secretly the Obama Administration is involved in gun running—and Stevens was the point man. And, in addition to the weapons, it also appears that al-Qaeda types are also moving from Libya to Syria—with the knowledge and possible approval (and possible help) of the “Obama” administration. Now, bringing down Assad is something that I heartily agree with because it would weaken Iran and Hezbollah, but using al-Qaeda elements to do it is the wrong way to go about it. Now then, all of this takes us back to the question posed above:
WHY WAS AMBASSADOR STEVENS HOLDING MEETINGS IN BENGHAZI?
It has been learned that at the same time that Stevens went to Benghazi, a Turkish official also went. The assumption here is that Stevens and the Turk met to discuss additional arms transfers to the Syrian opposition. Benghazi was chosen as the meeting place possibly because of its danger—meaning that the meetings could be held in total secrecy without any press attention (too dangerous for the media to be hanging out there). Whereas, if they met in Tripoli, it would have been plastered across every newspaper in the Middle East, and al-Jazeera would have broadcast it to the world. Also, Benghazi is where Belhajj, the middle man, hangs out.
Okay, so far? The U.S. has been cooperating with Turkey to funnel heavy weapons (and possibly al-Qaeda type fighters) into Syria. Chris Stevens was the point man for the U.S. and coordinated between Belhajj and Turkish officials, and Belhajj was the middle man between Stevens and the unsavory characters doing the actual gun-running (and possible people smuggling).
HERE IS WHERE THINGS GET REALLY SINISTER
Terry A. Hurlbut of “Conservative News and Views” has reported (along with a number of other internet outlets) on rumors that “Barack Obama set up the kidnap of Ambassador Chris Stevens to stage an “October Surprise.” At least one of these rumors stems from a report posted by C.O. Jones at the Western Journalism Center which went like this, quoting Jones now:
“I received a phone call from an old friend that has been in Washington D.C. for years and is fairly well-connected politically. What she told me was ugly and sinister, yet very compelling. She said she had received information from someone high up in the White House circles, and wanted my thoughts . . . According to her, Barack Obama, wanting an “October surprise,” had secretly arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood for a kidnapping of our ambassador.”
Now, according to this scenario, Arab “terrorists” were to kidnap Ambassador Stevens on the 11th anniversary of September 11. Then in October, a U.S. special-ops team performs a daring “rescue” using script from one of the Hollywood blockbusters. And, Obama then can spike the football and bask in the adulation of the media and cruse to an election victory in November.
WHAT THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD GETS OUT OF THIS
Why would the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) go along with such a scheme? Obviously they would prefer “Obama” in the White House over Romney. Not only did “Obama” help the Muslim Brotherhood gain control of Egypt, but in America itself they find the welcome mat always out for them anytime they want to visit the White House. “Obama” is aiding their cause both in the Middle East, and in the States as well. The MB also wants to obtain the release of the “Blind Shaykh” (mentioned in a previous posting on this page) currently being held for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OUTSOURCES THE GIG
The MB then outsourced the job (to do the actually shooting up, and kidnapping) to unsavory characters in Benghazi who just happened to be members of the Ansar ash-Shari'a, an off-shoot of al-Qaeda. Problem is, al-Qaeda decided that it didn’t want to play that game. Instead of just kidnapping the ambassador, it saw this as an opportunity to exact some revenge for the U.S. killing of Usama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda officials. So they killed Stevens and three other Americans.
While there is no hard evidence for this scenario, it does answer a lot of questions. In science, a theory has to explain known and suspected facts—and has to do so better than any competing theory in order to be accepted by the general community.
This theory would explain why the “Obama” administration not only ignored repeated warnings from world intelligence and pleas from our Embassy people in Libya that more security was needed (prompting one Embassy official to say that he felt like the Taliban had taken over the State Department).
This theory would explain why the “Obama” Administration not only ignored those pleas for more security in Libya—but actually pulled two units out shortly before 9/11.
This theory would explain why Ambassador Stevens was ordered to remain in Benghazi for the anniversary of 9/11.
This theory would explain why “Obama” calmly went to bed and went to sleep AFTER he had heard that the consulate in Libya was under attack—he thought it was all part of his secretly laid plan.
This theory would explain why Fighter jets, one hour away in Sicily, and a Marine contingent, two hours away in Sicily, were not deployed to protect the consulate during an attack that lasted all night (i.e. the two ex-Navy Seals were killed seven hours after the attack had begun).
This theory would explain why “Obama” was so confused when he got up the next morning and learned that everything had gone wrong and that Ambassador Stevens had been killed—so confused that all he could do was blame Mitt Romney, blame a stupid video that had nothing to do with the attack, and fly off to Las Vegas to forget about it.
This theory would also explain why the “Obama” Administration took two weeks to finally admit that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and why they changed their story several times.
REVENGE
Associated with the kidnap theory, is the fact that it has just been learned by “Newsmax” that “Obama” has moved special-ops forces and drones to key places in northern Africa in retaliation for the death of the ambassador. (i.e. since he can no longer “rescue” the ambassador, exacting revenge on those who went rogue and foiled the plan might enable him to salvage at least a portion of the political karma he had hoped to gain from the supposed rescue operation).
YET ANOTHER THEORY
Another variant on the kidnap theory is that “Obama” had actually wanted Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans (who were reportedly also involved in the gun-running deal) killed—so they would not be able to talk about the transfer of heavy weapons scheme prior to the elections. This would save “Obama” the embarrassment of having an “Iran-Contra” type of scandal blow up in his face right before the elections.
While having people “eliminated” or “silenced” to prevent people from “talking” (i.e. saying something that might interfere with “Obama’s” election prospects) is nothing new for “Obama” (as documented elsewhere on this site, www.americadeathwatch.com, and other sites), I personally discount that version here. I discount it because it does not answer as many questions, or fit all the known facts, as well as does the “kidnap” theory.
OBAMA’S LIMP FISH HANDSHAKE
Mr. Woods, the father of one of the slain Navy Seals said that when “Obama” attended the funeral for his son, and offered his condolences, he didn’t sound, or act, very sincere. He only mumbled is “I’m sorry,” while unable to look the father in the eye. And when he shook hands with the father, it felt like a “cold fish.”
Mr. Woods said that he also felt that Hillary Clinton seemed like she was lying, and that Joe Biden made an obscene remark about his son: “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” (Oh well, Joe will be Joe.)
SUMARY OF ALL POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR THE LIBYA TRAGEDY
Here then, is a quick list of all the possible reasons for the Libyan debacle, including the lack of security, the armed attack, the deaths of the four Americans, “Obama’s” seeming lack of interest in the attack when it was happening, and the total confusion and piss-poor attempts at playing “cover-up” afterwards:
A. Incompetence. “Obama” is so incompetent that he has no idea what is going on in his administration, was totally unaware of the gun-running scheme, and was totally unaware that our people in Libya had begged for more security. Different parts of his administration don’t talk with other parts, etc. (i.e. Joe Biden said “we just didn’t know” that more security had been requested).
B. Stupidity. “Obama” is such a blubbering idiot and imbecile that even when told that our people in Libya needed more security, he did not know what that meant. When told that our consulate was under attack he was too moronic to be able grasp that the lives of Americans might be under threat and/or too imbecilic to realize that such an event might negatively impact his political campaign. Thus, he simply rolled over and went back to sleep.
C. Lack of Empathy. “Obama” understood the ramifications of the Attacks but simply did not care. He didn’t think it involved him personally. He didn’t care that our Ambassador to Libya was under threat, and later that the ambassador and three other Americans had been killed. Thus, he had no problem sleeping through it, and then jetting off to Las Vegas in the morning.
D. He planned it. He had planned the kidnapping scenario and thus when it appeared that it was under way, he had no problems in going to sleep thinking that the subsequent events (i.e. the subsequent rescue of our Ambassador) would seal his re-election bid.
E. All of the above.
Lets’ run that by once again, real quickly in the form of a simple multiple choice question, and let the reader make up his/her mind:
A. Incompetence
B. Stupidity
C. Lack of Empathy
D. He planned it
E. All of the above
So, what do you think? Which of these answers is the more probable given the facts that we do know? My own view, is that what ever the answer turns out to be, each and every one of those answers demands that he (“Obama”) be impeached and then forced out of office—should he by some cruel twist of fortune (or voter fraud, of which there are already numerous examples) manage to eek out a victory on 06 November.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LATEST LIBYA NEWS (Posted 31 October 2012)
"Obama" now tells us that as soon as the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi began, he ordered the military to do whatever is necessary to secure the place. At the same time Leon Panetta is telling us that he and two of the top generals "unanimously" agreed to NOT send aid to the Benghazi installation--even as people were dying there, saying that it would not be feasible. This is in spite of the fact that we had air power one hour away in Italy, and a 100 or so Marines on standby two hours away--this in a fight that lasted for 7 hours. So, either Panetta and the generals defied President "Obama's" orders, or, Leon Panetta is lying. If so, why is he lying? Who is he trying to cover up for?
Of course, a third possibility is that "Obama" is lying, and that he never did issue an order to the military to do whatever is necessary. And, here, Leon Panetta is just trying to fall on the sword himself like Hillary did, in order to "clear" his boss. Pretty lame attempt though, because the disconnect between what he said and what "Obama" said is so obvious that even elements of the MainStream Media should catch it. Or will they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YET MORE LIBYA NEWS
Clare Lopez who served for 25 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and is currently a senior fellow at www.radicalislam.com, has reported on her site several new pieces of information that help to fill in some of the gaps in the Benghazigate scandal. These new bits of information seem to support the scenario I mentioned in a previous section on this page concerning “Obama’s” culpability in a plot to kidnap U.S. ambassador Stevens so “Obama” could (“bravely” and “wisely”) arrange his release in the run-up to the U.S. elections in November. The following essay makes use of the information provided by Clare Lopez, along with information from other sources, and includes the connecting of more dots by myself.
SEAN SMITH’S PREMONITION
On 15 September 2012, CNN reported that Sean Smith, the murdered State Department information management officer, was an avid internet gamer and the morning of the day he died he posted on a gaming site that he had seen a member of the Libyan police force taking photos of the U.S. Benghazi consulate. This is what is called a “pre-attack casing’ by those of us who have worked at installations overseas. All embassy and consulate employees receive regular briefings (both before and after being sent overseas) on the symptoms, or “finger-prints,” of when an attack is being planned. Consequently Mr. Smith wrote on his posting his feeling that those in the consulate might die that night.
KEY DOCUMENTS FOUND ON FLOOR OF CONSULATE
On 01 November 2012 the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) posted a new report that they gleaned from the United Arab Emirate (UAE) based Alaan TV, in which one of their young reporters showed how she found pages of documents strewn about the U.S.’s Benghazi Tactical Operations Center (consulate) in the wake of the 11 September 2012 attack. She is the one who found the two documents that show the observations of Sean Smith and others the morning before they were attacked. These are the two reports that the FBI “investigators” failed to find, and that were reported by “Foreign Policy” magazine and Fox news.
THE LIBYAN CONNECTION
A copy of one of these reports was sent to Mohammad Obedi, head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs office in Benghazi. A copy of the other report was sent to the Chief of the Benghazi Police. Both of these reports stated that at 6:30 that morning one of the Libyans hired to guard the Consulate reported that he’d seen someone he identified as a member of the local police force in the upper level of a building across from the American compound taking photos of the interior of the compound (corroborating Smith’s observation). The Libyan guard further identified the police car parked on the street as car “322.”
The letters found by the Alaan reporter also stated that the Consulate had repeatedly asked the Libyan authorities on that very day not only to investigate the incident involving car “322,” but to provide additional emergency security especially for that day stating that “many hours pass when we have no police support at all.”
STATE DEPARTMENT NEGLIGENCE AND/OR CULPABILITY
There is no doubt that Sean Smith would have sent a cable to the State Department in D.C. conveying the same information, most likely exact copies of those sent to the Libyan authorities. It is impossible for any U.S. Embassy or Consulate to have NOT sent the same info to Washington.
State Department spokesperson in Washington Mark Toner brushed off inquiries about the documents found at the Consulate by repeating the “Obama” mantra that “it is still being investigated.” Libyan officials also tried to dodge the issue by failing to answer questions.
THE TURKISH CONNECTION
But here is the real stinger: ‘Ali Sait Akin, the Turkish Consul General to Benghazi was in a position to warn Ambassador Stevens about the attack, but failed to do so. The Turkish Consul had met with Stevens at the U.S. Consulate on the day of the attack, and departed the Consulate late in the day only hours before the attack. Prior to his departure, large numbers of bearded jihadis in machine-gun mounted pick-up trucks bearing the logo of the Ansar ash-Shari’a (the local al-Qaeda franchise) had blockaded all the streets around the U.S. compound.
In order to reach his own Consulate and/or place of residence, the Turkish Consul would have had to pass through these road blocks. Yet he passed through unmolested and there is no evidence he made any attempt to contact the U.S. mission to warn them of what he saw. That indicates that the Turkish counsel knew an attack of some sort against the U.S. consulate was on the verge of taking place. Needless to say, Turkish authorities are not talking at all one way or another about what happened to the U.S. mission, or what they may or may not have known ahead of time.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Let’s review what we have here:
ONE: Starting in April of 2011 there had been a series of attacks in Benghazi against foreign personal and institutions indicating that security throughout the city was deteriorating. The worst of these was a rocket attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in June that tore a hole in the outside wall large enough to drive a truck through. In this environment all other Foreign representatives except the Turks and the U.S. pulled all of their people out of Benghazi. Even the British pulled out completely in the weeks prior to 9/11. Yet the U.S. not only failed to pull its personnel out, and not only failed to respond to the Consulate’s repeated requests to beef-up security, but actually PULLED OUT two security units as if they desired to have the Consulate to become even more vulnerable.
TWO: The Libyan authorities failed to respond to the Consulate’s request for more local security.
THREE: The Turkish Consul failed to warn the U.S. Ambassador after he had personally witnessed the jihadis blockading the streets with their machine-gun mounted vehicles.
FOUR: The authorities of all three countries, the U.S., Turkey, and Libya, are refusing to talk about this issue and/or answer questions and/or provide information.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
The only logical conclusion is that The Turkish government, including their Consul in Benghazi, and at least some elements within the Libyan government, are not only cooperating with “Obama” and Hillary Clinton in trying to cover up this incident, but also had cooperated with “Obama” and Clinton in terms of setting up the U.S. Consulate to be vulnerable to be over-run by any sort of coordinated attack.
TRI-PARTITE COOPERATION
What is significant about the involvement of the Turkish and Libyan authorities is that the “Obama” administration was cooperating with the Libyans and the Turks in funneling weapons and jihadi fighters from Libya into Syria via Turkey. Ambassador Stevens was involved in the negotiations for and coordination of these gun-running deals. This has led many to speculate that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans were set-up for assassination in order to prevent them from “talking” about these deals. My personal belief is that that scenario has no validity at all. The entire world already knew that the U.S., and other countries, was funneling weapons and other aid into Syria via Turkey. And, since most of the world, including the vast majority of the U.S. voting public, favor sending aid to the Syrian rebels and doing what we can to bring down the murderous Assad regime, there is no reason what-so-ever for “Obama” to want to keep that secret, or cover it up. Revealing that information would only help him in the elections, not hurt him.
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD CONNECTION
All of this new news reported in this section pertaining to the Turkish and Libyan involvement only reinforces what I’ve stated above on this page that the U.S. Ambassador Stevens was set up NOT for assassination, but for a kidnapping. What the evidence indicates is that “Obama” made a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) whereby he would virtually eliminate all security around the embassy and get the Libyans and the Turks to cooperate in that, thus insuring that the MB, or their surrogates, would meet little or no resistance when they stormed the compound to kidnap the Ambassador.
“OBAMA” THE “HERO”
Then, once the U.S. Ambassador was safely in the hands of the MB, “Obama” could negotiate with them for his release. According to this scenario “Obama” would gain the ambassador’s release in October prior to the elections by offering them the release of the above-mentioned Blind Shaykh (Umar ‘Abd ar-Raham, currently serving time for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). Such a move would not only serve Turkish interests because they have turned much more pro-Islamic than they ever were in previous decades. For that reason they would obviously prefer an “Obama” presidency to a Romney presidency. The Libyans, for their part, probably feel a certain degree of gratitude for U.S. (i.e. “Obama’s”) aid in bringing down Qadhafi, and like all Arabs, fear that a Romney Presidency would be much less pro-Arab, and more pro-Israeli, than an “Obama” presidency. That is why the Turks and the Libyans would have no qualms in doing whatever they could to aid “Obama’s” re-election.
ORIGINAL INTENT
So, what “Obama,” the Turks, and the Libyans, are trying to cover-up, is the original intent of the attack on the U.S. Consulate. It was supposed to be just a kidnapping that somehow went wrong and resulted in a fire-fight and deaths. And now everybody is scrambling, and fumbling around, in their attempts to find ways to cover-up the whole thing.
Need more proof?
“OBAMA’S” AID TO THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
There is one more thing that “Obama” and Hillary Clinton would like to cover-up, and this is their 18-month-long alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. As stated elsewhere on this site, the “Obama” administration has directly interfered in Egyptian Domestic politics so as to aid the MB’s ascension to power. They have also rolled out the red carpet for more MB influence within the United States itself—including at the highest levels of the “Obama” administration. In this context, according to Clare Lopez, the “Obama” administration has deliberately and knowingly backed MB and al-Qaeda type jihadis in country after country of the Middle East and North Africa region—including the al-Qaeda-riddled ranks of the “Syrian Free Army” and its political sponsor the Syrian National Council (SNC) at the expense of more moderate factions.
GETTING EVEN WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
However, on 31 October 2012 Hillary Clinton gave a speech held during a conference by “friends of Syria” (i.e. those countries aiding the revolution against Assad) held in Zaghreb, Coatia. In her speech she announced that the U.S. would no longer consider the SNC to be the “visible leader” of the Syrian opposition. In other words, this was an announcement that from this point on the U.S. was to cease its support of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda elements in the Syrian opposition.
Why?
Why would the “Obama” administration make such a sudden 180 degree about-face with regards to its support of the MB’s efforts in Syria? And at this particular time?
The only logical explanation is that “Obama” and Clinton feel that they had been double-crossed by the MB when the MB turned the kidnap operation over to Benghazi al-Qaeda types without gaining adequate guarantees that there would be no deaths.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
This further raises the question as to why the Ansar ash-Shari’a, who performed the operation, would double cross their MB allies by killing the four Americans. There are three possible answers to that question.
ONE is that nobody anticipated that the two ex-Seals would defy their orders to “stand down” and take up arms on their own volition in an attempt to save as many Americans as possible from the Consulate. Then, finding armed opposition where they expected none, the Ansar ash-Shari’a fought back resulting in the four deaths. Supporting this argument is that Ambassador Stevens was not killed by gunshot, but died from smoke inhalation after the Consulate was set afire.
TWO, al-Qaeda got tired of hearing “Obama” brag about how he had won the war on terrorism and defeated al-Qaeda by killing bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. Therefore they desired to show him that they were still around, and that they had no intention of cooperating with him in his kidnapping scheme just to help him win re-election. In other words they were looking for bigger and better things and a defenseless ambassador and consulate were just too tempting a target—especially with 9/11 coming up.
THREE, the Ansar ash-Shari'a simply wanted revenge for the U.S. killing one of their own (named al-Libi) who had been an al-Qaeda leader.
In light of all this, it was no accident that they chose the 11th anniversary of 9/11 to stage their attack.
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE
Skeptics might say that there are too many people and entities involved for this to have been pre-arranged by the “Obama” Administration, the Turks, and the Libyans because the danger of someone, somewhere along the line, leaking information is much too great. To get all of these entities to cooperate on such a project—while keeping it secret from the Ambassador and those at the compound (as well as the general public)—is just too far-fetched.
COUNTERPOINT
I would agree with the skeptics IF the goal was to murder the Ambassador. I really can not see the Libyans agreeing with the murder of a foreign Ambassador on their soil—an ambassador who happened to be very popular among the Libyan people and with the current Libyan government for the role he played in helping them dethrone Qadhafi. Nor would the Turks be enthusiastic about the murder of an Ambassador who was helping them funnel weapons and fighters into Syria.
However, if the goal was to merely kidnap the Ambassador so that “Obama” could play the hero and arrange his release sometime during the October prior to the U.S. elections, then it becomes feasible. Yes, it is still audacious, but “Obama” is used to pulling off audacious acts: Phony Birth Certificate, Phony stories about who his real biological father was (i.e. engaging in a life-long cover-up of who his real father was), running for President when not constitutionally eligible based on his fraudulent birth records, Social Security fraud, the murders and un-explained deaths and disappearances that paved the way for his election to the Presidency, cover-ups about his homosexual activities, lies about Obamacare in order to reduce opposition to getting it passed, Fast and Furious, etc. He has gotten away with all of these because he has learned (as he said in his autobiography) that all he has to do was flash that winning smile of his and he could get away with any lie (or activity) that he wanted to. He has also learned since first running for the Presidency that he has a docile, subservient, and worshipful press that will do anything to help him cover up any action, or statement, legal or illegal, that he should desire to engage in.
THANK GOD FOR THE ALTERNATE MEDIA
Were it not for Fox news, conservative talk radio, and a handful of websites on the internet (including this one www.americadeathwatch.com) the Benghazi scandal would be long dead and buried. But by keeping it alive we can force the Republican members of the U.S. Congress to continue investigating once the elections are over. And, any serious investigation must lead to an impeachment—as that will be the only way to force “Obama” to confront serious questions about the scandal (since the media has abrogated its responsibilities).
HOW “OBAMA” GETS EXPOSED
And here is where the “Obama” Administration’s attempts at a cover-up are going to be exposed. For two reasons:
ONE. There are just too many people involved in the cover-up. At some point, sooner or later, someone in that link is going to crack and began spilling the beans—in order to save their own skin, if for no other reason. Then, once one person has cracked, it becomes easier to get others to confess also.
TWO. There is a paper (and/or e-mail) trail within U.S. Government departments and agencies. By following this paper trail, the Congressional investigators can discover the answers to the following questions: Who issued the orders to withdraw what little security there was at the Consulate? Who was it that ignored the requests for additional security during the run up to 9/11? Who was it that made the decision to NOT send in marines who were available in Sicily only two hours away while the attack was still going on and who could have saved the lives of all four Americans?
FOLLOW THE PAPER TRAIL
By asking those questions, and following the paper trail, the investigators can smoke out whomever it was at the top of the food chain that was ultimately responsible for this fiasco. At the same time, with each level of the cover-up that they peel away, additional facts (such as those mentioned in this essay) will come to the surface. The end result of which will be the removal from office of Barack “Obama” (at the very least for being totally incompetent and incapable of performing the job of President—even if he is innocent of attempting to arrange the kidnapping of an Ambassador) and/or his imprisonment (if he is found guilty of planning the above-mentioned kidnapping and/or knowingly engaged in the cover-up and subsequent lying to the public). However, before sending “Obama” packing, Congress also has to investigate the aforementioned scandals of the Intelligence leaks, Fast and Furious, and the phony Birth Certificate.
Clare Lopez who served for 25 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and is currently a senior fellow at www.radicalislam.com, has reported on her site several new pieces of information that help to fill in some of the gaps in the Benghazigate scandal. These new bits of information seem to support the scenario I mentioned in a previous section on this page concerning “Obama’s” culpability in a plot to kidnap U.S. ambassador Stevens so “Obama” could (“bravely” and “wisely”) arrange his release in the run-up to the U.S. elections in November. The following essay makes use of the information provided by Clare Lopez, along with information from other sources, and includes the connecting of more dots by myself.
SEAN SMITH’S PREMONITION
On 15 September 2012, CNN reported that Sean Smith, the murdered State Department information management officer, was an avid internet gamer and the morning of the day he died he posted on a gaming site that he had seen a member of the Libyan police force taking photos of the U.S. Benghazi consulate. This is what is called a “pre-attack casing’ by those of us who have worked at installations overseas. All embassy and consulate employees receive regular briefings (both before and after being sent overseas) on the symptoms, or “finger-prints,” of when an attack is being planned. Consequently Mr. Smith wrote on his posting his feeling that those in the consulate might die that night.
KEY DOCUMENTS FOUND ON FLOOR OF CONSULATE
On 01 November 2012 the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) posted a new report that they gleaned from the United Arab Emirate (UAE) based Alaan TV, in which one of their young reporters showed how she found pages of documents strewn about the U.S.’s Benghazi Tactical Operations Center (consulate) in the wake of the 11 September 2012 attack. She is the one who found the two documents that show the observations of Sean Smith and others the morning before they were attacked. These are the two reports that the FBI “investigators” failed to find, and that were reported by “Foreign Policy” magazine and Fox news.
THE LIBYAN CONNECTION
A copy of one of these reports was sent to Mohammad Obedi, head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs office in Benghazi. A copy of the other report was sent to the Chief of the Benghazi Police. Both of these reports stated that at 6:30 that morning one of the Libyans hired to guard the Consulate reported that he’d seen someone he identified as a member of the local police force in the upper level of a building across from the American compound taking photos of the interior of the compound (corroborating Smith’s observation). The Libyan guard further identified the police car parked on the street as car “322.”
The letters found by the Alaan reporter also stated that the Consulate had repeatedly asked the Libyan authorities on that very day not only to investigate the incident involving car “322,” but to provide additional emergency security especially for that day stating that “many hours pass when we have no police support at all.”
STATE DEPARTMENT NEGLIGENCE AND/OR CULPABILITY
There is no doubt that Sean Smith would have sent a cable to the State Department in D.C. conveying the same information, most likely exact copies of those sent to the Libyan authorities. It is impossible for any U.S. Embassy or Consulate to have NOT sent the same info to Washington.
State Department spokesperson in Washington Mark Toner brushed off inquiries about the documents found at the Consulate by repeating the “Obama” mantra that “it is still being investigated.” Libyan officials also tried to dodge the issue by failing to answer questions.
THE TURKISH CONNECTION
But here is the real stinger: ‘Ali Sait Akin, the Turkish Consul General to Benghazi was in a position to warn Ambassador Stevens about the attack, but failed to do so. The Turkish Consul had met with Stevens at the U.S. Consulate on the day of the attack, and departed the Consulate late in the day only hours before the attack. Prior to his departure, large numbers of bearded jihadis in machine-gun mounted pick-up trucks bearing the logo of the Ansar ash-Shari’a (the local al-Qaeda franchise) had blockaded all the streets around the U.S. compound.
In order to reach his own Consulate and/or place of residence, the Turkish Consul would have had to pass through these road blocks. Yet he passed through unmolested and there is no evidence he made any attempt to contact the U.S. mission to warn them of what he saw. That indicates that the Turkish counsel knew an attack of some sort against the U.S. consulate was on the verge of taking place. Needless to say, Turkish authorities are not talking at all one way or another about what happened to the U.S. mission, or what they may or may not have known ahead of time.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Let’s review what we have here:
ONE: Starting in April of 2011 there had been a series of attacks in Benghazi against foreign personal and institutions indicating that security throughout the city was deteriorating. The worst of these was a rocket attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in June that tore a hole in the outside wall large enough to drive a truck through. In this environment all other Foreign representatives except the Turks and the U.S. pulled all of their people out of Benghazi. Even the British pulled out completely in the weeks prior to 9/11. Yet the U.S. not only failed to pull its personnel out, and not only failed to respond to the Consulate’s repeated requests to beef-up security, but actually PULLED OUT two security units as if they desired to have the Consulate to become even more vulnerable.
TWO: The Libyan authorities failed to respond to the Consulate’s request for more local security.
THREE: The Turkish Consul failed to warn the U.S. Ambassador after he had personally witnessed the jihadis blockading the streets with their machine-gun mounted vehicles.
FOUR: The authorities of all three countries, the U.S., Turkey, and Libya, are refusing to talk about this issue and/or answer questions and/or provide information.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
The only logical conclusion is that The Turkish government, including their Consul in Benghazi, and at least some elements within the Libyan government, are not only cooperating with “Obama” and Hillary Clinton in trying to cover up this incident, but also had cooperated with “Obama” and Clinton in terms of setting up the U.S. Consulate to be vulnerable to be over-run by any sort of coordinated attack.
TRI-PARTITE COOPERATION
What is significant about the involvement of the Turkish and Libyan authorities is that the “Obama” administration was cooperating with the Libyans and the Turks in funneling weapons and jihadi fighters from Libya into Syria via Turkey. Ambassador Stevens was involved in the negotiations for and coordination of these gun-running deals. This has led many to speculate that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans were set-up for assassination in order to prevent them from “talking” about these deals. My personal belief is that that scenario has no validity at all. The entire world already knew that the U.S., and other countries, was funneling weapons and other aid into Syria via Turkey. And, since most of the world, including the vast majority of the U.S. voting public, favor sending aid to the Syrian rebels and doing what we can to bring down the murderous Assad regime, there is no reason what-so-ever for “Obama” to want to keep that secret, or cover it up. Revealing that information would only help him in the elections, not hurt him.
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD CONNECTION
All of this new news reported in this section pertaining to the Turkish and Libyan involvement only reinforces what I’ve stated above on this page that the U.S. Ambassador Stevens was set up NOT for assassination, but for a kidnapping. What the evidence indicates is that “Obama” made a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) whereby he would virtually eliminate all security around the embassy and get the Libyans and the Turks to cooperate in that, thus insuring that the MB, or their surrogates, would meet little or no resistance when they stormed the compound to kidnap the Ambassador.
“OBAMA” THE “HERO”
Then, once the U.S. Ambassador was safely in the hands of the MB, “Obama” could negotiate with them for his release. According to this scenario “Obama” would gain the ambassador’s release in October prior to the elections by offering them the release of the above-mentioned Blind Shaykh (Umar ‘Abd ar-Raham, currently serving time for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). Such a move would not only serve Turkish interests because they have turned much more pro-Islamic than they ever were in previous decades. For that reason they would obviously prefer an “Obama” presidency to a Romney presidency. The Libyans, for their part, probably feel a certain degree of gratitude for U.S. (i.e. “Obama’s”) aid in bringing down Qadhafi, and like all Arabs, fear that a Romney Presidency would be much less pro-Arab, and more pro-Israeli, than an “Obama” presidency. That is why the Turks and the Libyans would have no qualms in doing whatever they could to aid “Obama’s” re-election.
ORIGINAL INTENT
So, what “Obama,” the Turks, and the Libyans, are trying to cover-up, is the original intent of the attack on the U.S. Consulate. It was supposed to be just a kidnapping that somehow went wrong and resulted in a fire-fight and deaths. And now everybody is scrambling, and fumbling around, in their attempts to find ways to cover-up the whole thing.
Need more proof?
“OBAMA’S” AID TO THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
There is one more thing that “Obama” and Hillary Clinton would like to cover-up, and this is their 18-month-long alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. As stated elsewhere on this site, the “Obama” administration has directly interfered in Egyptian Domestic politics so as to aid the MB’s ascension to power. They have also rolled out the red carpet for more MB influence within the United States itself—including at the highest levels of the “Obama” administration. In this context, according to Clare Lopez, the “Obama” administration has deliberately and knowingly backed MB and al-Qaeda type jihadis in country after country of the Middle East and North Africa region—including the al-Qaeda-riddled ranks of the “Syrian Free Army” and its political sponsor the Syrian National Council (SNC) at the expense of more moderate factions.
GETTING EVEN WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
However, on 31 October 2012 Hillary Clinton gave a speech held during a conference by “friends of Syria” (i.e. those countries aiding the revolution against Assad) held in Zaghreb, Coatia. In her speech she announced that the U.S. would no longer consider the SNC to be the “visible leader” of the Syrian opposition. In other words, this was an announcement that from this point on the U.S. was to cease its support of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda elements in the Syrian opposition.
Why?
Why would the “Obama” administration make such a sudden 180 degree about-face with regards to its support of the MB’s efforts in Syria? And at this particular time?
The only logical explanation is that “Obama” and Clinton feel that they had been double-crossed by the MB when the MB turned the kidnap operation over to Benghazi al-Qaeda types without gaining adequate guarantees that there would be no deaths.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
This further raises the question as to why the Ansar ash-Shari’a, who performed the operation, would double cross their MB allies by killing the four Americans. There are three possible answers to that question.
ONE is that nobody anticipated that the two ex-Seals would defy their orders to “stand down” and take up arms on their own volition in an attempt to save as many Americans as possible from the Consulate. Then, finding armed opposition where they expected none, the Ansar ash-Shari’a fought back resulting in the four deaths. Supporting this argument is that Ambassador Stevens was not killed by gunshot, but died from smoke inhalation after the Consulate was set afire.
TWO, al-Qaeda got tired of hearing “Obama” brag about how he had won the war on terrorism and defeated al-Qaeda by killing bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. Therefore they desired to show him that they were still around, and that they had no intention of cooperating with him in his kidnapping scheme just to help him win re-election. In other words they were looking for bigger and better things and a defenseless ambassador and consulate were just too tempting a target—especially with 9/11 coming up.
THREE, the Ansar ash-Shari'a simply wanted revenge for the U.S. killing one of their own (named al-Libi) who had been an al-Qaeda leader.
In light of all this, it was no accident that they chose the 11th anniversary of 9/11 to stage their attack.
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE
Skeptics might say that there are too many people and entities involved for this to have been pre-arranged by the “Obama” Administration, the Turks, and the Libyans because the danger of someone, somewhere along the line, leaking information is much too great. To get all of these entities to cooperate on such a project—while keeping it secret from the Ambassador and those at the compound (as well as the general public)—is just too far-fetched.
COUNTERPOINT
I would agree with the skeptics IF the goal was to murder the Ambassador. I really can not see the Libyans agreeing with the murder of a foreign Ambassador on their soil—an ambassador who happened to be very popular among the Libyan people and with the current Libyan government for the role he played in helping them dethrone Qadhafi. Nor would the Turks be enthusiastic about the murder of an Ambassador who was helping them funnel weapons and fighters into Syria.
However, if the goal was to merely kidnap the Ambassador so that “Obama” could play the hero and arrange his release sometime during the October prior to the U.S. elections, then it becomes feasible. Yes, it is still audacious, but “Obama” is used to pulling off audacious acts: Phony Birth Certificate, Phony stories about who his real biological father was (i.e. engaging in a life-long cover-up of who his real father was), running for President when not constitutionally eligible based on his fraudulent birth records, Social Security fraud, the murders and un-explained deaths and disappearances that paved the way for his election to the Presidency, cover-ups about his homosexual activities, lies about Obamacare in order to reduce opposition to getting it passed, Fast and Furious, etc. He has gotten away with all of these because he has learned (as he said in his autobiography) that all he has to do was flash that winning smile of his and he could get away with any lie (or activity) that he wanted to. He has also learned since first running for the Presidency that he has a docile, subservient, and worshipful press that will do anything to help him cover up any action, or statement, legal or illegal, that he should desire to engage in.
THANK GOD FOR THE ALTERNATE MEDIA
Were it not for Fox news, conservative talk radio, and a handful of websites on the internet (including this one www.americadeathwatch.com) the Benghazi scandal would be long dead and buried. But by keeping it alive we can force the Republican members of the U.S. Congress to continue investigating once the elections are over. And, any serious investigation must lead to an impeachment—as that will be the only way to force “Obama” to confront serious questions about the scandal (since the media has abrogated its responsibilities).
HOW “OBAMA” GETS EXPOSED
And here is where the “Obama” Administration’s attempts at a cover-up are going to be exposed. For two reasons:
ONE. There are just too many people involved in the cover-up. At some point, sooner or later, someone in that link is going to crack and began spilling the beans—in order to save their own skin, if for no other reason. Then, once one person has cracked, it becomes easier to get others to confess also.
TWO. There is a paper (and/or e-mail) trail within U.S. Government departments and agencies. By following this paper trail, the Congressional investigators can discover the answers to the following questions: Who issued the orders to withdraw what little security there was at the Consulate? Who was it that ignored the requests for additional security during the run up to 9/11? Who was it that made the decision to NOT send in marines who were available in Sicily only two hours away while the attack was still going on and who could have saved the lives of all four Americans?
FOLLOW THE PAPER TRAIL
By asking those questions, and following the paper trail, the investigators can smoke out whomever it was at the top of the food chain that was ultimately responsible for this fiasco. At the same time, with each level of the cover-up that they peel away, additional facts (such as those mentioned in this essay) will come to the surface. The end result of which will be the removal from office of Barack “Obama” (at the very least for being totally incompetent and incapable of performing the job of President—even if he is innocent of attempting to arrange the kidnapping of an Ambassador) and/or his imprisonment (if he is found guilty of planning the above-mentioned kidnapping and/or knowingly engaged in the cover-up and subsequent lying to the public). However, before sending “Obama” packing, Congress also has to investigate the aforementioned scandals of the Intelligence leaks, Fast and Furious, and the phony Birth Certificate.
BENGHAZI WITNESSES CASHIERED
(Posted 13 November 2012)
(The sources for this portion of this essay were gleaned from articles on www.politicaloutcast.com and www.newsmax.com as well as my own analysis of other sources).
The big news over the last couple of days is about the resignation of the CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, due to an extramarital affair. There are several issues here, one, as far as the CIA is concerned, has to do with the security threat that Gen. Petraeus’s affair represented. The mere fact that the FBI knew months ago that he was engaging in this affair, meant that he had placed himself in a position to be exploited by foreign (or domestic) powers who desire to harm the U.S. and/or learn secrets they have no right to.
GIVING YOUR ALL TO A JOURNALIST
To make matters worse, the woman Petraeus was having an affair with was a journalist, who I am sure was able to obtain many a juicy story normally unavailable to uncleared personnel (thus scooping her competition). Indeed, Petraeus had frequently invited her to meet with him in his office inside CIA headquarters (when uncleared people are never allowed inside the building). Due to this situation CIA officers had long expressed concern about her unprecedented access to the director in violation of agency policy.
NO WAY “OBAMA” DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE AFFAIR
Since the FBI had been following this case, reading e-mails, taking testimony from other CIA officers, etc., for several months, there is no way that Eric Holder, the DOJ (under which the FBI serves), and the President did not know about this affair and its seriousness—given the high rank and position of the subject. Any time an intelligence officer is caught in such a compromising position, their employment is immediately pulled. And, yet, the White House, with the concurrence of the DOJ (Eric Holder), and the FBI, held off for several months on asking for Petraeus’s resignation until after the election. His resignation did not come until three days after the elections. Does anybody smell a cover-up?
KEY BENGHAZI WITNESS
Another angle to the Petraeus resignation is the fact that he would have been a key witness in the upcoming Congressional hearings on the Benghazi scandal. His removal from government raises the question as to whether or not Congress would now have the authority to subpoena him to testify. If not, then the Benghazi case would have to be kicked outside to a civilian court, just like the Fast and Furious scandal was. Consequently it would take months, and possibly years, to be able to get to the bottom of it—just like “Obama” wants. Alternately, Gen. Patraeus could prove to be the national hero he once was by voluntarily testifying--and/or even publishing a book about the Benghazi affair--or Petraeus can choose to "be-tray-us" by saying nothing.
OTHER WITNESSES
Eric Holder’s upcoming resignation also presents problems, since he obviously would be a key witness in the cover-up of the Petraeus scandal—as well as being a key witness in the above-mentioned Fast and Furious which has already been kicked outside to a civilian court (a civilian court in the jurisdiction of the District of Colombia, one of the most corrupt districts in our country, and a region entirely under the control of Obamaphiles).
Hillary Clinton, another key witness in the Benghazigate scandal, as well as possibly the Fast and Furious scandal, is also resigning.
MILITARY DISMISSALS
Gen. Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, abruptly resigned only days after the 9/11 Benghazi fiasco. His sudden and unexpected retirement came years ahead of his previously scheduled retirement date, and before the elections, amid rumors that he deified orders to “stand down” and attempted to send a rescue group to Benghazi during the attacks. The MSM media reports just said that he was asked to resign for “insubordination.”
Carrier Strike Group Three Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was fired outright by “Obama” for “inappropriate leadership judgment” amid rumors that he also advocated sending in a rescue group during the Benghazi attacks.
Meanwhile, the “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” MSM continues to lie for “Obama” and help him cover up each and every scandal that surfaces so they could watch their boy sail to election victory and get four (or more) more years.
And, finally, the New York Times announced a few days ago that “there are no scandals in the Obama Administration.” What a pathetic joke of a “news” organization they are.
(The sources for this portion of this essay were gleaned from articles on www.politicaloutcast.com and www.newsmax.com as well as my own analysis of other sources).
The big news over the last couple of days is about the resignation of the CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, due to an extramarital affair. There are several issues here, one, as far as the CIA is concerned, has to do with the security threat that Gen. Petraeus’s affair represented. The mere fact that the FBI knew months ago that he was engaging in this affair, meant that he had placed himself in a position to be exploited by foreign (or domestic) powers who desire to harm the U.S. and/or learn secrets they have no right to.
GIVING YOUR ALL TO A JOURNALIST
To make matters worse, the woman Petraeus was having an affair with was a journalist, who I am sure was able to obtain many a juicy story normally unavailable to uncleared personnel (thus scooping her competition). Indeed, Petraeus had frequently invited her to meet with him in his office inside CIA headquarters (when uncleared people are never allowed inside the building). Due to this situation CIA officers had long expressed concern about her unprecedented access to the director in violation of agency policy.
NO WAY “OBAMA” DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE AFFAIR
Since the FBI had been following this case, reading e-mails, taking testimony from other CIA officers, etc., for several months, there is no way that Eric Holder, the DOJ (under which the FBI serves), and the President did not know about this affair and its seriousness—given the high rank and position of the subject. Any time an intelligence officer is caught in such a compromising position, their employment is immediately pulled. And, yet, the White House, with the concurrence of the DOJ (Eric Holder), and the FBI, held off for several months on asking for Petraeus’s resignation until after the election. His resignation did not come until three days after the elections. Does anybody smell a cover-up?
KEY BENGHAZI WITNESS
Another angle to the Petraeus resignation is the fact that he would have been a key witness in the upcoming Congressional hearings on the Benghazi scandal. His removal from government raises the question as to whether or not Congress would now have the authority to subpoena him to testify. If not, then the Benghazi case would have to be kicked outside to a civilian court, just like the Fast and Furious scandal was. Consequently it would take months, and possibly years, to be able to get to the bottom of it—just like “Obama” wants. Alternately, Gen. Patraeus could prove to be the national hero he once was by voluntarily testifying--and/or even publishing a book about the Benghazi affair--or Petraeus can choose to "be-tray-us" by saying nothing.
OTHER WITNESSES
Eric Holder’s upcoming resignation also presents problems, since he obviously would be a key witness in the cover-up of the Petraeus scandal—as well as being a key witness in the above-mentioned Fast and Furious which has already been kicked outside to a civilian court (a civilian court in the jurisdiction of the District of Colombia, one of the most corrupt districts in our country, and a region entirely under the control of Obamaphiles).
Hillary Clinton, another key witness in the Benghazigate scandal, as well as possibly the Fast and Furious scandal, is also resigning.
MILITARY DISMISSALS
Gen. Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, abruptly resigned only days after the 9/11 Benghazi fiasco. His sudden and unexpected retirement came years ahead of his previously scheduled retirement date, and before the elections, amid rumors that he deified orders to “stand down” and attempted to send a rescue group to Benghazi during the attacks. The MSM media reports just said that he was asked to resign for “insubordination.”
Carrier Strike Group Three Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was fired outright by “Obama” for “inappropriate leadership judgment” amid rumors that he also advocated sending in a rescue group during the Benghazi attacks.
Meanwhile, the “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” MSM continues to lie for “Obama” and help him cover up each and every scandal that surfaces so they could watch their boy sail to election victory and get four (or more) more years.
And, finally, the New York Times announced a few days ago that “there are no scandals in the Obama Administration.” What a pathetic joke of a “news” organization they are.
If President Obama goes to war in Syria, it may be the undoing of the Democratic party, to a degree. This can be a very unpopular war, taking sides in a civil war between Islamic groups, both of which are unfriendly to American interests.
ReplyDelete