IBYAN SCANDAL WORSENS FOR
“OBAMA”
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 11
th 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 11
th 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 11
th 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 11
th 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/world/africa/fbi-agents-scour-ruins-of-attacked-us-compound-in-libya.html?_r=1
After initial reports that documents had been confiscated or burned,
“On Wednesday, a Post reporter at the site discovered loosely secured sensitive documents about American operations in Libya; the newspaper sent copies of some of them to the State Department. Last month CNN discovered Mr. Stevens’s diary in the wreckage.”
“The F.B.I. spent little or no time interviewing residents in Benghazi. Typically they would spend weeks, rather than hours, at a crime scene as important to national security as this site. The F.B.I., which always investigates the deaths of American overseas under suspicious circumstances, has agents from its national security division and New York field office in Libya.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/sensitive-documents-left-behind-at-american-mission-in-libya/2012/10/03/11911498-0d7e-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
First Witnesses Called for House Hearings on Benghazi
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/first-witnesses-called-for-house-hearings-on-benghazi/
Despite Threats, U.S. Cut Security in Libya Before Attacks
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/04/despite-threats-u-s-cut-security-in-libya-before-attacks.html
From Militia Violence to Terrorism?
http://www.acus.org/viewpoint/militia-violence-terrorism
Libya’s Choice: National Reconciliation or Chaos
http://www.acus.org/viewpoint/libya%E2%80%99s-choice-national-reconciliation-or-chaos
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/27/the_lesson_of_bani_walid
The real power in Libya remains dispersed among the country’s bewildering array of grassroots military formations. Most are grouped around town or city military councils; Tripoli is divided into 11 district militias. The last time anyone counted, Misrata had 172, ranging from ten-man outfits to the 500-strong Halbus Brigade, with a wartime strength of 17,000. Of these, the strongest groups are from the cities of Zintan and Misrata.”
–Ambassador Stevens
State Department Covers Up Ambassador Stevens’ Death at Rented Villa in Benghazi
Susanne PoselOccupy Corporatism
October 8, 2012
On the 11th anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the US, a bombing in Libya occurred that resulted in the deaths of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, US State Department communications specialist and former US Air Force veteran Sean Smith and two US Marines. However, the official story provided by the US government and Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State do not explain the actual events that took place before and on the attack by alleged terrorists.
John Christopher Stevens was promoted in less than 1 year through the ranks from a Pearson Fellow of the Committee on Foreign Relations to US Amabassador. His promotion is questionable. His background was as a diplomatic lawyer. Being a foreign exchange student in his youth and versed in multi-cultural government programs, Stevens had deployments to Jerusalem as a political officer and deputy principal officer as well as working under the title of economic officer in Riyadh. Between 2007-2009, Stevens was a special representative to the National Transitional Council (NTC) during the US-sponsored Libyan revolution. Then suddenly, Stevens is elevated to the US Ambassador status in May of 2012 when he was stationed in Tripoli.
Sean Smith, an employee of the US State Department, whose work under Hillary Clinton since 2009, under official title of service information management officer (SIMO), was a true diplomat in his own right. Smith also had strong ties to the gaming world as a regular player on the Eve Online (Eve) multi-player online game. Eve specializes in games directed toward role-playing as soldiers, strategists and diplomats in an otherworldly setting.
Smith’s name within Eve was “Vile Rat” and used the game to chat with players, as well as pass encrypted communications to the US State Department. A close friend to Smith on Eve relayed a disturbing message provided by jabber (an instant messaging service) by Smith that “assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” Being a member of the Council of Stellar Management, Smith played the role of a diplomatic officer in Eve.
The friend recalls that Smith was on Eve the night of the attack and conveyed that sirens could be heard in the distance, and suddenly would go offline, then pop back up. In the last communication, Smith said “GUNFIRE”, logged off – and never returned.
Ned Coker, representative of the maker of Eve Online, CCP Games, explained in an interview: “I can tell you that CCP and its employees are overwhelmingly saddened by the news of Sean Smith’s passing, as we are when we learn of any player who is tragically lost. Many of us interacted with him professionally and personally and, honestly, it feels like our words are lost adrift–amongst such a tremendous, soul-affirming outpouring from the EVE community. The CSM, of which he is an alumni, will be posting a guest dev blog in his honor.”
During Smith’s 6 years on Eve, he used the game to communicate covert messages with the US State Department. Being the perfect cover, online games like Eve provide a pathway of communication between the US government and overseas operatives on nearly secured channels because of the cryptic messages being passed back and forth.
The “compound” where Stevens, Smith and 2 US Marines were killed was a gated-villa in Benghazi leased by the US State Department. Mohammad al-Bishari, landlord to the villa stated that it was burned down, and that Stevens and Smith died of smoke inhalation while 2 other American officials were gunned down at the gated-villa.
Just prior to the staged attack at the gated-villa, the staff was flown to Europe after being carted to Tripoli, where the actual US Embassy is located. The villa was empty when Stevens, Smith and the 2 US Marines arrived.
An anonymous Libyan security guard reported that there were no protests prior to the attack at the gated-villa where Stevens was staying in Benghazi. The guard said that he was hired months before the attack by a British security firm to protect the villa.
Bishari said that the men who attacked the villa, looted and stole sensitive documents containing the names of Libyans working with the US and the Saudi Arabian government in terroristic operations, as well as oil contracts tying the US and Saudi Arabia, and burned it to the ground after murdering Stevens. The assailants were armed with American assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and carried the black flag of the Ansar al-Sharia, or the Partisans of Sharia (PoS).
The representation of the PoS is directly connected to the Muslim Brotherhood who believe that those who do not adhere to Sharia law should be crucified. During the manufactured Arab Spring in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was able to obtain power through violence against the Egyptian citizens. Partisans or followers of the Muslim Brotherhood are tied to the Salafi version of Islam that demand complete adherence to the religion, lest they be deemed an infidel and killed.
Bishari said that Stevens would be staying at the villa after his arrival back from Tripoli. Stevens was continuing his mission of “conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups in and around the city.” One of the groups Stevens was monitoring was PoS who are also Muslim Brotherhood as well as Salafis.
Stevens, in conjunction with the CIA, were gathering sensitive intelligence going as far back as 2011. The attack on the villa in Benghazi posed a problem for the CIA who evacuated their operatives and contractors from the area prior to the attack. At one point, Stevens met with the PoS in Benghazi, while staying at the gated-villa when talking with the NTC.
The NTC is a defaco-government in Libya that assisted the US in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Headquartered in Benghazi, the NTC is the self-proclaimed “only legitimate body representing the people of Libya and the Libyan state.”
Stevens spent time negotiating with the NTC because of the international community’s recognition of the faction as a legitimate government because of their seat at the UN, as well as assisting the CIA in watching the PoS which is why he spent so much time in Benghazi, and why he travelled to the city after returning from Germany, Austria and Sweden.
Because of Stevens involvement with the extremist faction the PoS, his dealings with the NTC and his surveillance operations with the CIA, he became a sitting duck when he travelled to Benghazi to stay at the villa.
Stevens was concerned about being on a terroristic hit-list and worried that the PoS may be planning his death. He contacted the US State Department and called for more security. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, and responsible for diplomatic security, denied Stevens’ request. And in response, there was an order from the US government to disarm the US Marine Security by refusing them live ammo while allowing them to keep their guns.
Clinton has been working hard to cover her tracks and involvement in creating the perfect scenario that would facilitate the attack which occurred. After a Congressional investigation was initiated by Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Jason Chaffetz, House Representative of Utah, Clinton asked for more time before Issa “comes to any conclusions.”
The State Department claims that cryptic warnings of an impending attack on Benghazi was relayed, yet devoid of a time frame and therefore ignored.
When speaking to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Clinton explained that US-sponsored terrorist factions have been used in Benghazi to escalate the violence. Clinton said: “Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”
In a letter to Issa, Clinton suggested that Issa’s investigation be held off until after the November presidential elections or even pushed back into the early part of 2013 because witnesses were being questioned at the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Statement-for-Committee-Lt.-Col.-Wood-.pdf
Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy Testimony to the House Oversight Committee
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/121010_2012-10-10%20Kennedy%20testimony%20-%20Final.pdf