Benghazi clear as mud?

The U.S. State Dept. issued a press release today congratulating the Libyan people on the formation of a new government.

The United States congratulates the Libyan people on the formation of a government. This is a critical milestone in their democratic transition. We encourage the country’s leaders to build democratic and security institutions and to promote economic development and the rule of law. The Libyan people fought a difficult revolution in order to enjoy a democratic future with peace, security and prosperity. The United States looks forward to working closely with the new government and is committed to supporting the Libyan people during this historic transition.

That would be great news for Libya except it never happened –

I point this out because nothing is ever what it appears to be concerning Libya and the U.S. presence there. Even when official sources are utilized. The attack and subsequent murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi is a prime example. The U.S. State Dept. doesn’t even list the Benghazi location in what is generally referred to as a consulate –

Why does this matter? Because the true mission of this facility is the reason behind the attack, the cover-up and the stonewalling the Obama administration is engaged in to attempt to get past the election.

One of the key questions raised in the aftermath is why the U.S. didn’t have the appropriate level of security in place in Benghazi. This is tipped off by the State Dept. omitting the location as an official diplomatic mission or consulate. Was it really a consulate or just a cover?

Here is the theory behind Benghazi that cannot be substantiated at this point. Ambassador Chris Stevens was the point man for funneling weapons obtained throughout Libya from the caches of the  Moammar Qaddafi regime. They were being sent via Turkey to insurgents throughout the Middle East, but primarily in Syria. Saudi Arabia funded the operation. The Benghazi location was the meeting place to coordinate the transfer of arms as well as Jihadist recruits.

The arms were not only delivered to members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, but to Al-Qaeda as well. This is the reason for entire cover-up charade. Of course, this is nothing new for the U.S. as we only need look back at the Iran-Contra scandal. The U.S. has a long history of arming insurgents as well as Al-Qaeda in the case of Afghanistan.

The badly bungled attempts at covering-up this story are where the incompetence of the Obama administration really shines. The video uprising theme is apparently in response to the “secret” cable exposed by Fox News. Investigative reporters Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin are well on their way to becoming the modern-day Woodward and Bernstein of the Watergate era. The cable from a regional security officer explains that the compound could not withstand a “coordinated” attack. The administration is running on the meme that they didn’t have the appropriate intel to respond to the attack. The video narrative was hatched to reflect an un-coordinated, spontaneous attack. This provides the cover for only preparing for a “coordinated” attack. It was an ill-conceived rationale at the outset.

The entire video narrative unraveled. The shift began to explain away the non-response due to insufficient intel and risk for any rescue forces. We have since been made aware of a pattern of warnings that undermine this storyline as well. Multiple warnings and requests for additional security exist. Griffin reported on Fox that a regional security officer even warned of an attack the day of in this clip. Please note the reference to the “U.S. special mission” rather than the consulate.

The Al-Qaeda representative in Libya is Ansar al-Shariah, purported to be behind the attack. Why would they take out Stevens if he was their arms supplier? Why were the Libyan police assigned to security casing the joint just hours prior to the attack? What took place in that last meeting with the Turkish representative? And of course why did the U.S. sit by and watch it go down? Was Ham fired by Obama? Why is it referred to as “special mission”?

These and many more questions still remain. After Tuesday’s election, hopefully we’ll really see the heat turned up on exposing the real truth.

6 thoughts on “Benghazi clear as mud?”

  1. I also find it interesting that during the attack Obama spent an hour on the phone with Netanyahu. Haven’t seen anything on any Israeli connection but it’s strange that he couldn’t find a minute for the guy at the U.N. meeting but he can right in the middle of this crisis. The article you linked also points out that the weapons have shown up in the Sinai. I’ll bet there is more to this.

  2. This is one mixed up mess of events. Anyone who knows what really happened and why isn’t talking, at least not yet. More than anything, the idea that so many Americans are still willing to vote for Obama, after seeing his total incompetence, blows my mind. I hope we can get to the bottom of this, but by the time we do, it may be too late.

  3. Larry, I see this race as completely over and Obama is done. But the media and the pollsters have a vested interest in showing a tight race down to the wire. Even after Obama loses, the GOP won’t back off pressing this issue. Not when they can show so many layers of incompetence and/or cover-up as well showing the media being complicit. Somebody will face the music but will it go to the top? I would highly doubt that.

Comments are closed.