Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. –Thomas Jefferson
Robert Klein Engler is an artist a poet and a patriot. You can contact him through his FaceBook Page
Ambassador Stevens and Betrayal at Benghazi
–Robert Klein Engler
“From the halls of Foggy Bottom, to the shores of Tripoli,
We advance our Nation’s interests, in the land of Qadhafi.”
–Chris Stevens
“Dude, this was two years ago!”
—Tommy Vietor, National Security Council Spokesman
“They are dogs,” the men say of the dead, as they attack and smash the headstones of Allied and Italian service members laid to rest in a World War II cemetery in Benghazi. In an act of betrayal to once allies, markers identifying Christian or Jewish war dead are damaged and broken. One man takes a hammer to a ceremonial Cross of Remembrance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57390828-503543/vandals-desecrate-wwii-cemetery-in-libya/
Benghazi is a place where not only crosses but men are broken. At this port city on the Mediterranean coast in eastern Libya, US ambassador Chris Stevens had his last meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin on September 11. 2012.
According to Clare Lopez, a Middle East intelligence expert, “Akin was able to leave the consulate without incident even though the area outside the compound was swarming with jihadis setting up checkpoints.”
“…Turkish Consul General would have had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American compound and left the area. There is no record that he phoned a warning to his American colleague, the one he’d just had dinner with…” A few hours after that, ambassador Stevens would be dead, the victim of a terrorist attack.
We now know that, “Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault…the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials…were informed that the event was a ‘terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.”
The attack on September 11th was not the first attack on the mission at Benghazi. The administration was aware of attacks at the Benghazi mission in April and June before the attack that killed ambassador Stevens on September eleventh.
Prior to that meeting, Stevens was an eyewitness to the violence in Libya. According to his Libyan friend, Ali Tarhouni, “They witnessed what Tarhouni calls the killing fields, where young Libyans perished each day in the fight to oust Gadhafi. The two men shared a tense moment pondering the chances for success as rebel forces attacked Gadhafi’s stronghold in Tripoli.”
http://seattletimes.com/text/2020361531.html
stand down
Could ambassador Stevens’ life have been saved at Benghazi? “According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty…were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack. The first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired…and (they) requested permission to go to the consulate to help out…”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/11/26/questions_for_the_president_benghazi_edition_296670.html
The Examiner.com claims “…former House speaker Newt Gingrich…was informed by a U. S. senator that at least two media networks have recently been given…evidence about the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans…”
“The networks obtained e-mail evidence from…the office of National Security Advisor James Jones…ordering a counter terrorism team to cancel a rescue mission at the U. S. consulate and CIA annex in Libya. According to Gingrich…they were told explicitly by the White House ‘stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action.’”
http://www.examiner.com/article/emails-show-white-house-ordered-u-s-forces-to-stand-down-benghazi
We know now there was ample time to send help to save ambassador Stevens, if a decision had been made to do so. This is Jeffery Kuhner’s point.
Jeffery Kuhner writes in WorldTribune.com, “Two hours after the assault began the State Department sent an e-mail to numerous agencies–including the White House Situation Room–that Ansar al-Sharia, a terror group affiliated with Al Qaida, had claimed responsibility.”
“The e-mail went directly to the White House’s Executive Office–the president’s inner circle…from nearly the beginning Mr. Obama knew that Benghazi was a terrorist atrocity.”
http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/12/28/greatest-hits-2012-benghazi-obama-knew/
Dave Hodges adds creditability to the Gingrich statements about an order to stand down at Benghazi. Hodges claims on his radio show, “There is now proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton.”
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/11/03/ambassador-stephens-death-and-the-coming-military-coup/
When called before Congress, General Ham (AFRICOM Leader) avoided the issue of a stand down order. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah asked General Ham directly, “Did we have assets in the area? The answer is “yes.” Did we have proximity? The answer is “yes.”
Why didn’t we send in some of those assets? The general said he was not requested to do so. Who would have requested (ordered) him to take action? The only one who could make that request is the President of the United States.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3036105/posts
The Conservative Report Online believes a representative of the President gave the stand down order. Doug Ross maintains that Valerie Jarrett gave the orders to stand down in Benghazi. Valerie Jarrett, who constitutionally is not in the chain of command cannot do that. “Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.”
http://conservativereport.org/benghazi-valerie-jarrett-cic/
By December 19, 2013, as reported by Adam Housley, “Recent media reports have contradicted claims that U.S. personnel were given stand-down orders and kept from responding to the scene–but sources on the ground that night tell Fox News that not only were they given, but they were given in multiple locations, as Fox News has previously reported.”
Almost two years after the Incident at Benghazi, we learn there were orders given to stand down and not come to the rescue of ambassador Stevens. In spite of over a year of denial by the administration, we now know that just after the attack was reported, members of a security team were directed to stand down by a CIA agent who is referred to as Bob.
In an interview with Bret Baier a member of the team was asked, “You use the words ‘stand down…A number of people now, including the House Intelligence Committee insist no one was hindered from responding to the situation at the compound…so what do you say to that?”
“‘No, it happened,’ said Tiegen” (a member of the team).
“‘It happened on the ground—all I can talk about is what happened on that ground that night,’ added Paronto. ‘To us. To myself, twice, and to–to Tig, once. It happened that night. We were told to wait, stand–and stand down. We were delayed three times.’”
In the final analysis, we may say with Sharyl Attkisson what many have known all along, “We spoke to, again a CIA team leader expert, an anti-terrorism expert who says the only person who stops those forces that spun up automatically without waiting to be told—the only force is the commander in chief, slash the White House, an authority that comes from him.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/13/sharyl-attkisson/
the second story
Ambassador Chris Stevens was not married. He had no children. He dedicated his life to working overseas for the US government. The product of the liberal East Bay community of Piedmont, Calif., Stevens was an international trade lawyer by training. He kept a home in the leafy East Bay enclave even after being named US ambassador to Libya.
“Harry Johnson, 69, who lived next to Stevens when the future diplomat was a boy, said Stevens had kept in contact after graduating from Piedmont High School in 1978. ‘He was so intelligent, but never lost the human touch,’ Johnson said. ‘He could make anyone feel comfortable and make them a part of his world because he fit into theirs.’”
http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Libyan-ambassador-kept-human-touch-3859504.php
Instead of practicing law, Stevens turned his talent and education to service overseas. He reportedly loved Libya and her people. Some say Stevens hoped to move on from service in Libya and become the US ambassador to Iran.
Maybe Stevens thought of himself as a modern day Lawrence of Arabia. After his death at Benghazi, rumors began to circulate claiming Stevens was gay.
Jean Ann Esselink, writing for The New Civil Right Movement, believes it’s more important to see Stevens as an American hero rather than just a gay man.
Esselink writes, “…I cannot tell you if Chris was gay. I can tell you only that he was a 52-year-old man without wife or child, at least one he claimed in public. I could find no bereaved lover of either sex who raised a hand to acknowledge a relationship.” Perhaps Esselink should have asked the men at Chicago’s Second Story bar to raise their hand.
The Second Story Bar is a small gay bar found off North Michigan Ave. in Chicago. It is said the bar attracts gay diplomats stationed at the consulates around the city. Inside the bar there is a second story being told about the Incident at Benghazi and ambassador Stevens.
Kevin Dujan, writing in the HillBuzz.com says of the gay men he contacted in Chicago at the Second Story bar and elsewhere, “Of course, they’ve all been talking about ambassador Stevens’ murder by Muslims in Libya: and all of them are incredulous that the State Department sent a gay man to be ambassador to a Muslim country.
Why would they be incredulous? Because news reports continue to indicate that the Muslims who murdered Stevens also raped him repeatedly, before and after his death.”
“Friends of Christopher Stevens in Chicago say he was gay. A member of the Serbian diplomatic team based in Chicago told HillBuzz.org that the State Department knowingly sent a gay man to be the ambassador of Libya. HillBuzz.org reports “in Chicago’s diplomatic circles at least there is no doubt that Chris Stevens was gay,” so reports the Examiner.
Before the November election, the Advocate, an important GLBT newspaper, made a point of condemning a Log Cabin Republican ad that used an image of Stevens’ dead body.
The ad claimed, “If the Obama Administration isn’t going to protect Gay/Gay-friendly American citizens from the terror of Islamic radicalism, what makes you think they will protect us from Shariah Law…?”
http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2012/10/12/body-ambassador-used-obscene-ad-gay-republicans
There may be another reason why the White House would not want to make it known Stevens might have been gay. To do so would open the door to selective outrage. Progressives become outraged over the death and rape of a gay man when it suits their political purposes.
If it is uncertain who Stevens loved, we do know that while in the Peace Corps, Stevens, “fell in love with Morocco and that part of the world.” This seems fitting for someone with a talent for both French and Arabic and who earlier wrote in his Piedmont High yearbook, “What a bore it is, waking up in the morning always the same person.”
ascots and idealism
There is a photograph of Stevens and his friend Austin Tichenor. It was taken in the 1970s. In the photograph Stevens sports an ascot. The Kodachrome color in the photograph is shifting to red with age. The two young men look happy together.
http://scannedretina.com/2012/09/16/the-clinton-calculated-setup/
Writing on Queerty.com, a respondent who identifies herself as “Lesbian Conservative” maintains, “The fact is, Chris Stevens was gay and he was open about it. The issue of whether it was smart for Madame Clinton to send him to the violent and virulently anti-homosexual backwater of Libya is a legitimate question to ask.
Some speculate that a gay Chris Stevens might have known Barack Obama before Obama became president. Eric Rush, writing in Canada Free Press wonders about their meeting. If such a meeting did occur it would rub salt into the wound of betrayal at Benghazi.
“We also know that Obama lived more or less the bachelor’s life in Washington D. C.–where Stevens was also working–from 2005 to 2008…Would it be outside the realm of possibility to postulate that…there had been a relationship between the…Senator and the gay diplomat…?”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49995
Before going to Washington, ambassador Stevens attended the University of California at Berkley. Being gay there is no big deal. The university is not known as a hot bed of conservatism. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Many of Stevens’ liberal values were shaped while attending classes at UC Berkley. Most importantly, his affection for Islam dates from that time. Given his education, it seems likely that Stevens never expected his fate a Benghazi.
“While at UC Berkeley, Stevens joined the chapter of Alpha Tau Omega fraternity. Steve Tovani met Stevens at the chapter’s house during a rush event in Stevens’ freshman year.”
“‘The day he walked into the house,’ Tovani said, “I just knew he was the guy that we wanted in the fraternity…He had this very easygoing, kind, gentle manner, and it exuded this kind of friendliness.'” After studying history at Berkeley, Stevens joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco.
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/09/13/stevens-justin/
In Morocco Stevens may have understood that Islam was something exotic, something legalistic and masculine. Islam was an antidote to the hard edge of Protestant America Stevens was alienated from. Islam may have been for Stevens the counterculture idealism of the 60s, matured with a coherent theology.
Whatever went wrong at Benghazi was not part of Stevens understanding of Islam. Most likely, it was a betrayal of Stevens’ idealism. His “very easygoing, kind, gentle manner,” was not enough to save him. If he had lived through the battle, the disappointment might have been enough to effect a political conversion in him.
How close was ambassador Stevens to Islam? Sabri Malek, the spokesman for the Democratic Party in Libya, claims Stevens, “had a very personal private matter, a very romantic relationship with the mystical side of Islam.”
Malek continued, “He always felt that he belonged to the Libyan community and the society…He was one of us. He had a habit of going down the local street …going to a very famous bar, it’s like a fruit bar where he takes his milkshakes…hardly with any security.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/murdered-u-s-ambassador-stevens-a-muslim/
This close relationship with Islam, especially Sufism, brings into question Stevens’ request for more security at Benghazi. On the one hand Stevens felt he belonged to the Libyan community, yet on the other hand reports say he was worried about his safety. Beyond that, Stevens’ attraction to Sufism also could have fanned the rumors about his sexual orientation.
There has always been a complex, homosexual strain of thought in Sufism, exemplified by the Persian Sufi poet, Jalal al-Din Rumi. Is it possible that Stevens attraction to Sufism led to this schizophrenic reaction about security at Benghazi?
Reports out of Benghazi tell of violence against gay men there. Only a few months after Stevens’ death, “An extremist Salafist militia posted pictures of a group of men (reported to be gay) it had captured…The men are being threatened with mutilation and execution.” In the photo accompanying the report, the men are lined up facing a wall with pink cloths over their heads.
file:///death-by-libyan-militia-20121126/http///www.queerty.com/12-men-accused-of-being-gay-face-torture-
Stevens also would have had enemies both inside and outside of Libya beyond antigay militias. Outside of Libya, some claim that Stevens’ death was ordered by Ayman al-Zawahri as revenge for US drone strikes.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/stevens-killed-to-avenge-u-s-drone-strike/
Inside Libya, those Libyans who supported Qaddafi were no friends of the American ambassador. Some of those Qaddafi supporters argue that Stevens got the death he deserved.
They point to a picture online where ambassador Stevens supposedly “gloats over Qaddafi’s corpse after the Libyan ruler’s torture and murder…made possible by seven months of brutal, non-stop U. S. led NATO bombing of Libya in which…thousands of Libyan government soldiers and innocent Libyan civilians were slaughtered in the name of protecting Libyan civilians.”
http://hpub.org/us-ambassador-chris-stevens-got-what-he-deserved-in-libya/
the ambassador’s business
In spring 2011, before Stevens left for his fatal assignment in Libya, he met with Douglas Kmiec in Malta. Kmiec, a well-known law professor and commentator, has been a key Catholic supporter of Obama.
According to Kmiec, he and Stevens, “spoke of the inter-faith diplomatic effort of President Obama.” Afterwards, Stevens sailed in a Greek ship to Libya.
There is a sepia colored photograph of ambassador Stevens on a donkey at the top of the webpage set up to remember his life. Stevens looks at the camera and smiles, but both he and the donkey seem a bit uncomfortable. Either Stevens is too big for the donkey or the donkey is too small for Stevens.
To the side, a man stands and looks on. He is native to this place and Stevens is not. What might the man be thinking? Is this the American messiah who will being democracy and McDonald’s to Libya? Is he waiting for his tip? Will he beat the donkey home with a switch, then sit by his fire and wonder at the ways of Allah?
http://www.rememberingchrisstevens.com/page/2
Ambassador Christopher Stevens first arrived in Libya secretly in a cargo ship to serve as a liaison to the rebels fighting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. From the embassy in Tripoli, Stevens made his way on September 11th to the “Special U.S. Mission” in Benghazi where he met his death.
What was Stevens doing in Benghazi? How did the terrorists know he was there, and how were they able to launch an assault that lasted eight hours? One answer is that “Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/does-benghazi-probe-drop-unintentional-bombshell/
Beyond that recruitment, a source told Fox News that Stevens’ last meeting was with “Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Stevens was in Benghazi ‘to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.'”
http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi-stevens-cia-attack-libya-2012-11
Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley offers us another answer as to why Stevens was at Benghazi. He claims that ambassador Stevens’ main task at the Benghazi consulate/CIA post was to, “maintain relations with al-Qaeda death squads, especially for the purpose of moving them through Turkey into Syria.” This was of course against official US policy, which has declared al-Qaeda the number one enemy of the United States.
Dr. Tarpley goes farther than most analysts when he claims outright, “this administration…had Chris Stevens murdered by the very terrorists that Stevens was running guns to on behalf of the CIA.” If this is true, then a betrayal at Benghazi is also true.
http://counterpsyops.com/tag/chris-stevens/
Dr. Tarpley offers no independent documentation for his claims. Nevertheless, he is not alone in his views about US help for terrorists. Writing in the Canada Free Press, Doug Hagmann makes a similar claim about US help for the Free Syrian Army rebels linked to al-Qaeda. Hagmann says, “The entire (CIA) arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346
a special relationship
Chris Stevens was the product of an education that valued the new policies coming out of the White House towards the Muslim world. Did these new policies lead him to underestimate the risk he was taking at Benghazi? If Stevens made one mistake, like Dido, he may have trusted when he should have doubted.
A United States ambassador often earns more than one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars a year. Yet, beyond the income, the position of ambassador carries a unique distinction. Unlike other government jobs, an ambassador is the personal representative of the President of the United States.
The relationship between an ambassador and the president is akin to the trusting relationship between friends. When an ambassador asks for help and that help is not forthcoming, a trust and a friend are betrayed. Not to understand this betrayal is not to understand something fundamental about human relationship, government protocols aside.
Try to imagine what betrayal might have been for ambassador Stevens. Moving in the closed circles of the Department of State, flying off to France, Morocco, Malta and Libya, at taxpayer’s expense, it’s hard to imagine how one day you can be at the top of the world and the next day under it.
This is how it ended–breathing in toxic diesel fumes and hiding from the flames that lick at the safe-room door. When the dust settled after the battle, it was time for our enemies to collect their trophies. “…Stevens’ personal belongings–including his camera, cell phone, identification papers and various private documents–are being kept locked in a safe in the possession of Wesam Bin Hameed in Libya.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/terrorist-has-personal-effects-of-slain-u-s-ambassador/?cat_orig=us
speak well of the dead
“As-Salaam-Alaikum; my name is Chris Stevens, and I’m the new U.S. ambassador to Libya.” Stevens spoke those words to the people of Libya when he was first appointed ambassador.
He added, “Growing up in California, I didn’t know much about the Arab world…I worked as an English teacher in a town in the High Atlas Mountains in Morocco for two years and quickly grew to love this part of the world. As-Salaam-Alaikum.” What began as “Peace be with you,” certainly didn’t end that way.
http://lybio.net/tag/chris-stevens-remembering-u-s-ambassador-to-libya-quotes/
There was a ceremony of flags and drums at the air force base to dampen controversy. “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the rage and violence aimed at American missions was prompted by ‘an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.'” A military band played the hymn, “Nearer My God to Thee.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/obama-libya-remains-chris-stevens_n_1884567.html
A memorial service was held in San Francisco’s City Hall for ambassador Stevens on October 16, 2012. There, mourners, as it should be, spoke well of him.
“Christopher Stevens stood out as extraordinary in an already extraordinary group of people,” said former Secretary of State George P. Shultz. “Democracy is not a spectator sport, and Christopher Stevens was a full participant in his beloved democracy.”
“A Bay Area native, Stevens…attended UC Berkeley and UC Hastings Law School before pursuing a career in the foreign service. Loved ones were quick to point to his devotion to his family.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/chris-stevens-memorial_n_1974130.html
Earlier reports in the Ma’an News Agency of Stevens’ death praised his work as an ambassador. “‘It’s just tragic,’ said Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO leader and veteran negotiator with Israel. ‘It’s very sad. I thought he was a person who was not just intelligent but also caring.’”
“Ashrawi went on to say that as a mediator, the Arabic-speaking envoy ‘understood the Palestinian situation well. He was very understanding and he listened; he didn’t repeat talking points.'”
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=519983
Stevens’ biography on the US Embassy website tells us, “Ambassador Chris Stevens considers himself fortunate to participate in this incredible period of change and hope for Libya.”
“As the President’s representative, his job is to develop a strong, mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Libya. Ambassador Stevens was the American representative to the Transitional National Council in Benghazi during the revolution.”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chris-stevens-us-libya-ambassador-killed-142949456.html
Stevens’ cousin Becca remarked on an Internet page set up in his memory, “I could trust Chris completely; he had my back and I had his.” Unfortunately, Becca was not at Benghazi and could not have Stevens’ back when hell broke loose.
http://www.rememberingchrisstevens.com/
But what of those who were supposed to have his back in Benghazi? Why did they not follow through and save Stevens? Here is the advent of the unthinkable that goes beyond the risks associated with work in the foreign service.
Just as caution is advisable when working overseas, so it is advisable when assessing the character of a man we never met. After reading the public statements ambassador Stevens made about his work in Libya, you get the impression that he was a man who was both dedicated and idealistic.
Beyond that, Stevens may have been so dedicated and idealistic he might not have been opposed to hatching plots to further what the believed in.
Such idealism and dedication may be traced back to Stevens’ elite education and the Protestant values that helped shape the United States. In the early 21st century the religious underpinnings of these values have dropped away. All that remains is the aroma of religion.
Growing up in a family of doctors and lawyers, this was the liberalism that Stevens brought to Libya and to his calling as our ambassador. Ambassador Stevens lived the way many contemporary progressives live, believing he was in union with the political truth of his generation.
Stevens’ betrayal at Benghazi is all the more bitter because it points up how mistaken he may have been to trust in his government and the ideals of liberalism they abuse.
It’s worth repeating that when asked about his son’s death, Stevens’ father, a registered Democrat, answered, “‘It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,’ Jan Stevens…said in a telephone interview from his home in Loomis, California…”
Who can blame Stevens’ father for his statement after suffering the loss of his son? But when the “Innocence of Muslims” video explanation put forward by the administration began to fall apart, it became obvious that politics and betrayal would replace the official explanation. Innocence would give way to lies. Why would a father not see this and want to hide from the truth?
Ambassador Stevens probably felt he was on the right side of history, advancing the liberal ideals of equality in Libya. It would be difficult to persuade him or his like-minded colleagues otherwise.
If the ambassador could come back and tell us what happened at Benghazi, would he say it was not until that fatal night, when no one came to help, that he fully understood loss and betrayal?
If a gay man were betrayed during the Incident at Benghazi, it wouldn’t be the first time such a betrayal happened in love or in war. Some gay men, because of their resentment and a desire for revenge, are drawn to tyrants.
Ernst Rohm found that to be the case. He was a gay man and an important Nazi. Nevertheless, when he no longer served a purpose, Hitler betrayed Ernst Rohm and had him shot.
who’s lying?
Writing for RadicalIslam.org, Clare Lopez speculates that the flow of arms to Syrian rebels may have been behind Stevens’ murder. Lopez writes, “Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).”
“…Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid…groups that were…allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization…that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2011.”
http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/arms-flow-syria-may-be-behind-beghazi-cover
If an Al Qaeda group was behind the murder of Stevens, that still doesn’t explain their motive. Glenn Beck thinks Stevens had been helping arm Arab Spring rebels in Libya and Syria. Perhaps something went wrong with one of the deals Stevens was negotiating at the Benghazi mission. In any event, Beck argues there is more to the Incident at Benghazi than we have been told so far.
How much more? Beck thinks there is a lot more. “This is why the White House covered,” Beck claims, “because our ambassador was killed by a guy we were running guns to and we are still running guns today,” If these claims are true, then Congress must make the evidence about the gun running public. Beck should testify and tell us all he knows about the Incident at Benghazi.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/glenn-beck-obama-destined-for-prison/
“Lt. Col. Tony Schaefer reported to Fox News that his own sources have confirmed that President Obama actually watched the monstrous attack unfold live, in real time:
“‘I hate to say this, according to my sources, yes, [the President] was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, ‘What did the President do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?’ He–only he–could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something.’”
http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/10/29/what-we-know-about-benghazi-obama-should-resign/
Contradicting these accusations by Lt. Col. Schaefer, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, “President Obama was absent the night of Benghazi attack and did not check in once during the night of the deadly terror assault.”
“‘Did you have any further communications with him that night?’ Senator Ayotte asked.”
“‘No,’ Panetta replied.”
“It was also revealed that neither the Secretary of Defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton once during the eight-hour attack on the consulate in Benghazi.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275432/Panetta-President-Obama-absent-night-Benghazi-attack-did-check-night-deadly-terror-assault.html#axzz2KaWmFpaU
According to Aaron Klein, “WND (World Net Daily) has reconfirmed with multiple knowledgeable Middle Eastern security sources that the U.S. special mission in Benghazi was used to coordinate Arab arms shipments and other aid to the so-called rebels fighting in Libya and later in Syria.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/sources-confirm-u-s-gun-running-to-jihadists/
This revelation by WND comes after Hillary Clinton’s testimony to the US Senate, where she denied any knowledge of arms shipments and other aid to Syrian rebels.
Senator Ron Paul asked Clinton, “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex…”
“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.
“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/23/1485661/rand-paul-conspiracy-theory-libya/
a theory of the murder
When a police detective investigates a murder, one of the first things he does is develop a theory of the crime. He tries to answer three basic questions. How did the victim die? If he was murdered, who did it, and finally, what was the motive for the murder? In short, we need a theory of the crime to find out the truth about the Incident at Benghazi.
So far, most official investigations into the Incident at Benghazi never ask these question, Asking questions about who changed what talking points will never answer the question why we have dead Americans at Benghazi.
Eleanor Clift, columnist and pundit from the Daily Beast, insisted during a broadcast discussion of Benghazi on “The McLaughlin Group” that U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens wasn’t really murdered. Her exact words are: “I’d like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered,’ ” she said, bending her fingers in the air to suggest the drawing of quote marks, “but died of smoke inhalation in a CIA safe room.” But how could she know this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/12/eleanor-clift-ambassador-stevens-wasnt-murdered-di/
Against Clift’s assertion, Bill Gertz claims in The Counter Jihard Report that, “An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U. S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi went bad.”
http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/ambassador-christopher-stevens/
Related to the question about the cause of Stevens death is the question about his torture and the mutilation of his body. The photographic evidence seen on the Internet leads us to question the explanation that Stevens’ death was caused by smoke inhalation. There are just too many wounds seen on Stevens’ body in some photographs for that explanation to be the whole story. Smoke inhalation usually does not leave a wound on the forehead or shoulder that miraculously heals itself in a Benghazi morgue.
“The most recent summary of the events came from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2014. In an appendix, the report provides a timeline. It has this entry for 1 a.m. Sept. 12, 2012.”
“Local Libyans found the Ambassador at the Mission Facility and brought him to a local hospital. Despite attempts to revive him, Ambassador Stevens had no heartbeat and had perished from smoke inhalation.” Yet without an autopsy report, how do we know this to be true?
Until the official autopsy results are given to the public, we are left to wonder how Stevens died at Benghazi. Rumors of rape, mutilation and torture will persist until proven otherwise. Like most of the facts surrounding the Incident at Benghazi, it is hard to see the truth through the darkness and the smoke.
It seems unlikely that ambassador Stevens died of natural causes. This being the case, other questions arise. Could the life of the ambassador have been have been saved? Was an order to stand down given to stop aide from reaching Benghazi? What was ambassador Stevens doing at Benghazi in the first place? Finally, Who killed ambassador Stevens?
We know now that it may have been possible to save Stevens and the other Americans at Benghazi. “Judicial Watch…released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering ‘forces that could move to Benghazi’ during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, ‘we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.’”
“According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty…were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack. The first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired…and (they) requested permission to go to the consulate to help out…(Forbes).”
The Examiner.com claims “…former House speaker Newt Gingrich…was informed by a U. S. senator that at least two media networks have recently been given…evidence about the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans…The networks obtained e-mail evidence from…the office of National Security Advisor James Jones…ordering a counterterrorism team to cancel a rescue mission at the U. S. consulate and CIA annex in Libya. According to Gingrich…they were told explicitly by the White House ‘stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action.’” Former House Speaker Gingrich has never been called by the Select Committee to verify these statements.
http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/robert-klein-engler/
As far back as 2012, the “official” explanation for the Incident at Benghazi is that it was a spontaneous demonstration protesting a video that was seen by the attackers as insulting to the Prophet and Islam. We know now that this “official” explanation, and the motive it suggests is a lie. According to the president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, “I think you can fairly conclude that it was during that phone call that they (Clinton and Obama) decided to push the video lie…” Nevertheless, the White House has repeatedly claimed Stevens’ death was the result of a protest to a video insulting to Islam.
The death of a US ambassador is a serious matter. Stevens was the personal representative of president Obama. To let years go by wit out charges made in this matter seems scandalous. At the very least, the perpetuators could be charged with forth degree murder. No to do so may be a result of the fundamental transformation that is taking place in US society and an attempt to coverup what was going on at Benghazi.
What was Stevens doing at Benghazi that brought him into harms way? It is generally agreed that some kind of gun running was taking place at Benghazi and that ambassador Stevens was a party to it. Fox News confirmed this. Weapons were probably collected by the CIA from the old Libyan regime and assembled at Benghazi for transport via Turkey to the rebels fighting Assad in Syria.
http://www.infowars.com/mainstream-media-on-benghazi-it-was-about-gun-running/
Many now believe that after Stevens’ death the administration put forward the cover story of a video being the reason for the attack that “killed” Stevens. In her Dover Air Force Base statement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
Nevertheless, Guy Taylor, writing in the Washington Times, claims documents show that the administration’s story that the attack at Benghazi was false from the beginning. “Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred…”
In his book, ‘Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,’ Edward Klein, “claims President Obama instructed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to blame the Benghazi terror attack on a protest over an anti-Islam film, over Clinton’s objections.” Perhaps Klein should testify under oath about this accusation.
We know, too, that, “When the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi…threatened to expose the administration’s gun-running into Syria, it was Victoria Nuland who initiated the White House cover-up. After reading the first draft of the State Department’s talking points stating the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack, Nuland warned this ‘could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill.’”
Edward Klein writes, “If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument (the video caused the death of four Americans) out of the water…Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,’” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “‘Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.’”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/did_hillary_lie_to_congress.html
If Stevens was involved with gun running, and an Internet video was not the motive for the attack at Benghazi, then we must look elsewhere for a motive for the crime. Something must have gone wrong in the weapons exchange that caused the attack to take place and Stevens and others to die. What could have that been?
It’s highly unlikely that forces loyal to the Kadhafi regime could have attacked the CIA compound at Benghazi, without Stevens and the more than 30 Americans stationed there not knowing about the attack before hand.
This delivery of weapons to al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias leads some to believe that Steven’s death was a hit, to keep him quiet about this connection between Clinton’s State Department and illegal gun running. If we accept this motive, then Ambassador Stevens, who was bright, ambitious, and well known to both Obama and Clinton was betrayed by them.
But if all parties in the weapons exchange were making money by it, including al-Qaeda, what would be their motive for attacking and killing Stevens? Most likely not the motives mentioned above. It doesn’t make sense that al-Qaeda would be biting the hand that feeds it. This being the case, there seems to be no motive in these explanations for killing Stevens and stopping the flow of money and weapons.
Is there another motive that builds on the weapons exchange and the video protests that leads to Stevens alleged torture, mutilation and murder, a motive that explains most of the evidence in this case?
It has been suggested that Stevens’ death and the destruction at Benghazi were the result of a foiled plot to kidnap the ambassador and exchange him for the Blind Sheik who is held in a US prison. Then, after negotiations, both Stevens and the Blind Sheik would be exchanged, the arms shipments could continue, and Obama would be reelected. A good plan with a good outcome for many. But something went wrong. The kidnappers and Stevens did not count on resistance offered by other brave Americans who were not in the loop.
Even if Secretary Clinton knew that US forces were ready to defend ambassador Stevens, only the president has cross border authority. Clinton could not order on her own that US forces go from Italy and cross the border into Libya. Does this mean Clinton and Obama conferred before a decision was made? Obama or his agent may have given the order to stand down, and then they concocted the video story?
Some say there are militia members who were on the scene at Benghazi. They affirm that the attack on the compound was because of a video, but how can such a story be believed? Those militia members and their commander never testified to Congress under oath.
Unnamed sources say militia leaders may have helped orchestrate and directly participated in the attack—even though they were being paid, being fed, given automobiles and even allowed to swim in the consulate pool by the U.S. State Department. Fox News also has learned that the leader of the brigade, Fawzi Bukhatif, left Benghazi the day the attack ended on Sept. 12, even as the consulate and annex were still smoldering…”
As it happened, not everyone was ready to stand down during the attack. Woods, and later Doherty, thought the attack was real and they responded like the brave Americans they were. They came out shooting. This resistance was a surprise to the attackers who were planning on no resistance and an easy kidnapping. When some of the attackers were killed, things got out of control.
The attackers, many who may have had Muslim Brotherhood ties in Egypt, felt betrayed and angry. They took their anger out on ambassador Stevens. It was this anger that may have led to Stevens’ alleged torture and death. The motive for Stevens’ murder seems to be revenge. That revenge may have been carried out by a group led by Ahmed Abu Khattala.
It was reported that in 2014, the United States had captured a militant suspected of leading the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby.
Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured by American troops in coordination with law enforcement. Kirby said Khattala was captured…and that all U S personnel involved in the operation are safe.
Khattala, said Kirby, is now “in a secure location outside of Libya.” Has this man been brought before Congress to testify? As far as anyone knows, he has not. What is Congress waiting for? Isn’t his testimony necessary? Ought it not be made public so that this murder investigation can be closed?
But maybe Khattala is not the man we are looking for and maybe he lacks a motive for killing ambassador Stevens. There has never been another theory of the crime at Benghazi like the failed kidnapping theory and explains all the facts that we so far know.
Once things fell apart at Benghazi, the administration made a decision to go with the cover story they already had on the shelf or were developing–blame it on the video, lie, and hope for the best.
Given the evident planning for an attack at Benghazi, the lines of communication between ambassador Stevens, the CIA and State Department along with various factions in Libya, a planned kidnapping of a US ambassador is certainly a possibility. The failure of this plan is also the best motive we have so far for the murder of ambassador Stevens.
You would think, after all this time, the results of any honest and complete investigation into the death of ambassador Stevens would have answered clearly three questions: a) How did ambassador Stevens die, b) If he was murdered, who killed him, and c) What was the motive for his murder?
Any homicide detective investigating a crime would want to answer these questions. Why can’t Congress do the same? Not to answer these questions truthfully and to get lost in a blizzard of emails seems to be an obfuscation. Yet, when it comes down to it, those emails may be the only evidence investigators have to build a case against Clinton. Even though many are troubled by her statements regarding the Incident at Benghazi, there is so far no smoking gun, so to speak.
Like Al Capone, Clinton may end up being prosecuted on a lesser charge. Many thought that Capone was guilty of murder, but he was found guilty of tax evasion, instead, and set to prison. Perhaps the only case against Hillary Clinton will be built electronically. Still, we have to wonder why it takes so long to answer three questions common to any murder investigation. Anything else but these answers gives the impression someone is being protected. And so they may be, for the time being.
gunrunning at Benghazi
The website GlobalResearch.com gives some detail about the gunrunning that took place at Benghazi. They claim much of the activity at Benghazi was done in an attempt to arm the rebels in Syria.
Quoting a report by Seymour Hersh, Global Research claims that “A highly classified annex to the (Hersh) report…described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations…By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria…The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.”
Most important is that, “The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation…” This violation of the law and the suggested involvement by members of Congress from both parties may be one reason there is reluctance from many in Congress to fully investigate what went on at Benghazi.
The Global Research report offers no theory about why ambassador Stevens was murdered, yet it claims, “There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents–particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens–were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.”
A writer for the American Free Press accepts arms transfers were going on at Benghazi and that ambassador Stevens was in the thick of it. He then adds, “As to the motivation behind this executive decision to allow these American men to die, Smith offered a theory.
“‘Being seven weeks before the 2012 election, Obama had no intention of retaliating against the responsible parties at Benghazi…The reason why is that since weapons were being delivered to al Qaeda rebels in Syria, it’s an act of treason to aid, arm and abet a known enemy.’”
“Smith provided a closing thought: ‘Both entrenched political parties have their hands dirtied in this affair.’” Yet, even with this closing thought, there is no reason given for why our ambassador and other Americans were murdered. We have a theory of a crime that explains everything but the crime.
https://americanfreepress.net/?p=12411
After her Senate testimony, Mrs. Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State. Ambassador Stevens was forgotten. No one recalled that Stevens was Clinton’s translator or that he was with her during the March 14, 2011 meeting with Libyan rebel chief Mahmoud Jebril.
http://thegipster.blogspot.com/2013/02/your-services-are-no-longer-required.html
About a year after that meeting in Libya, Clinton stood with her hand over her heart when Stevens’ gray coffin came off an air force plane. With latch and handle, the government supplied coffin looked like an oversized piece of rolling luggage. “Clinton said their deaths are ‘not easy.’ But she added, ‘We must be clear-eyed even in our grief.'”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html
We now know that men from Egypt participated in the Benghazi attack. Aaron Klein writes, “A Senate investigation for the first time confirmed an Egyptian organization participated in the deadly attack on the U.S. special mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.”
“The 88-page Senate report states ‘individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including … the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks.'”
Beyond that, Klein adds, “The Muslim Brotherhood connection may serve as further evidence of an Egyptian role in the Benghazi attack.” This admission adds weight to the growing suspicion that a kidnapping plot against ambassador Stevens was planned.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/confirmed-egyptians-participated-in-benghazi-attack/
Bill Gertz, writing in the Washington Times, gives credibility to the kidnapping claim, Gertz states, “An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U. S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi went bad.” An FBI spokeswoman indicated that the bureau is aware of the claim but declined to comment.
On October 11, 2012 the author of the blog The Last Refuge claims, “Benghazi was not an assassination attempt, it was a botched kidnapping.” The kidnapping was botched when the two ex-Navy Seals, not aware of the plot, decided to offer resistance.
“…The al-Qaeda goal was to kidnap Ambassador Chris Stevens and ransom him back to the U.S. in exchange for Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.”
The Occam’s Razor Behind The “Coordinated” Benghazi Attack – Answers To The Confusion
Walid Shoebat also gives credence to the kidnapping theory, and takes the theory a step further. He involves the president of Egypt in the plot to kidnap ambassador Stevens. Shoebat writes in his article, Hostage Crisis: The Blind Sheikh, Benghazi and Smoking Guns that, “A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12.”
Shoebat continues, “Four-star Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) who on November 14, 2012, appeared on Fox Business Network with Lou Dobbs…During that interview, Lyons said he believed the only reason that made any sense relative to Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi on 9/11 was a kidnapping operation in which Stevens could be traded for the ‘Blind Sheikh.'”
http://shoebat.com/2013/06/30/benghazi-turning-a-blind-eye-for-the-blind-sheikh/
Ambassador Stevens may have been killed because the jihadists felt betrayed. The resistance by Woods may have foiled the kidnapping plans. He knew nothing of the plot and responded to the call of duty.
That response had the consequence of the kidnappers killing Stevens and planning another attack of revenge hours later. When the plans went south, Stevens was swept away by a sirocco he little expected or understood.
Even if, as one commentator on Facebook maintains, “the kidnapping theory is a good way to begin a conspiracy theory,” as time goes by, this theory is gaining credibility. As of May 12, 2014, James A. Lyons writes in the Washington Times that, “My informants have confirmed that Stevens was to be kidnapped and held hostage for the release of the Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.” The farfetched comes to be the near at hand.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/12/lyons-benghazi-revisited/#ixzz31acGxzix
If the kidnapping story is discredited, what explanation are we left with? Some argue that there is yet another explanation emerging that claims there were two clandestine operations going on at Benghazi. “One of them was the weapons transfer program, transferring weapons from Libyan stockpiles to Syria.”
We know, now, that “Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.” Furthermore, “Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces…”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/rand-paul-hillarys-benghazi-story-unraveling/
Reports in PJ Media give credence to the gunrunning accusation that took place at Benghazi. PJ Media claims that whistle blowers will come forward and say that “Stevens’ mission in Benghazi…was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA.”
“Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming ‘insurgents’ with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.”
PJ Media will also add to stories circulating that in fact a stand down order came from the White House. “Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops ‘assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately…”
“(General) Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House ‘called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.’”
“While claiming that Al Qaeda had been weakened, Obama said that the attacks on U.S. embassies were in fact a natural outcome of misunderstandings on both sides–of ‘difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.’”
He proceeded to attack the infamous anti-Islam video. “‘And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.'”
We now know Obama’s words were hollow. Guy Taylor, writing in the Washington Times claims documents show that the administration’s story that the attack at Benghazi was false from the beginning. “Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred…”
The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012–a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.”
We know, too, that, “When the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi…threatened to expose the administration’s gun-running into Syria, it was Victoria Nuland who initiated the White House cover-up. After reading the first draft of the State Department’s talking points stating the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack, Nuland warned this ‘could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill.’”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/russias_olympics_and_obamas_liberation_theology.html
Edward Klein writes, “If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument (the video caused the death of four Americans) out of the water.”
“‘Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,’” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “‘Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.’”
This adviser continued: “‘Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”
http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/
Hillary did what she was told to do. Catherine Herridge, writing for Fox News, claims, “Hillary Clinton’s newly released memoir leaves little doubt she was the first member of the Obama administration to publicly link an anti-Islam video to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack—though she does not explain what intelligence she relied on to make the faulty connection.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/fact-check-what-hillary-left-out-benghazi-chapter/
If what Herridge writes is true, then it means that Obama knew about the video before Clinton did, and then told her to use it as a cover story. The video explanation for the attack at Benghazi has its roots in the White House, not the State Department.
If more proof is need that both Clinton and Obama lied about the cause of the Benghazi attack, then consider the recent report by Jordan Schachtel. “In an interview… Air Force Major Eric Stahl, who piloted the aircraft that took the attack’s survivors and victims’ corpses from Benghazi, said CIA personnel were ‘confused’ by the administration’s strategy to blame the YouTube video.”
“He said they knew very well, the same day, that the Islamist assault was a planned attack. Stahl said, ‘They knew during the attack… who was doing the attacking.’ He continued, ‘Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.’”
To add insult to injury, we now know that UN ambassador Susan Rice may have been knowledgeable of events in Benghazi and help distort the truth of what had occurred there by blaming the incident of a video. Aaron Klein Writes, “On September 16, 2012, Rice…appeared on five morning talk shows—on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN—telling the story of protests that erupted “spontaneously” as a result of a ‘hateful video” offending Islam.’”
“The most recent government documents released as a result of a Judicial Watch lawsuit—materials reviewed in full by this reporter—show Rice was directly engaged in conversations with State Department employees about Benghazi while the attacks were still ongoing and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing. The emails do not mention spontaneous protests, but instead discuss ‘fighting’ and an ‘attack.’”
As more and more facts about the video surface, it becomes clear that of all the explanations put forward to explain the death of Chris Stevens and others at Benghazi; a gun running scheme gone bad, a foiled kidnap plot, clandestine operations, or a YouTube video, the only explanation we know to be completely false, the video explanation, is the one offered by the US government.
Given the strong ties Stevens had with the jihadists, his involvement in a kidnapping plot is not out of the question. Besides that, a failed kidnapping plot to free the Blind Sheik is the only theory of Stevens’ murder that explains all the know facts. Perhaps it may even explain why General Petraeus made an undisclosed trip to Libya a few weeks before he resigned as director of the CIA.
Susan Posel claims in The Daily Sheeple, that Petraeus and Stevens had a mutual interest in Benghazi. “Petraeus was well aware of Stevens’s role in Benghazi. When Stevens died, the CIA agents who worked with him during his intelligence gathering missions said that the agency “lost a good pair of eyes.” This comment explains the entire reason for a massive cover-up being perpetrated onto the American public complete with an extramarital affair to keep us distracted.”
we are under attack
The last words Gregory Hicks heard Ambassador Stevens speak, via telephone, were: “Greg, we are under attack.” If Chris Stevens was in a romantic relationship with Libya, as Sabri Malek claims, could it be that this love, in its many forms, blinded the ambassador to the betrayal and death that lay ahead?
Days after the attack and fire at Benghazi mission, Christopher Stevens’ journal was found among the charred ruins, as if it were the lost letter of a betrayed lover. Are these burnt pages all that remains of the trust Stevens placed in his inter-faith diplomatic effort?
We read in the journal that Stevens worried thoughts about the lack of security at the Benghazi station. Soot, like a shadow, falls across truth and darkens the pages.
Only six US ambassadors have been killed by armed attack in the service of their country. That’s about one ambassador every forty years. What happened at Benghazi is not commonplace but extraordinary.
No father wants the memory of his courageous son to be eroded even if his death is extraordinary. Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, the Navy Seal killed at Benghazi, expressed outrage that his son was abandoned and left to die for political purposes.
Speaking on a Portland radio show, Charles Woods said, “We need to make sure that this does not happen again so that people like Ty, principled men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives, won’t be abandoned by their Commander in Chief.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-father-of-downed-former-navy-seal-breaks-silence
When will we know the whole truth about what happened at Benghazi? Mary Commanday, a retired Marin Symphony cellist and the mother of Stevens, “…doesn’t want to talk about the politics surrounding her son’s death. She said, “I don’t think it’s productive to lay blame on people.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57534825/chris-stevens-mother-speaks-out-on-death-in-libya/
The mother of Sean Smith, also killed at Benghazi, holds a different view. She does not trust what little information Washington is telling her.
Pat Smith said in an interview, “I look at TV and I see bloody handprints on walls, thinking, my God, is that my son’s?” she said. “I don’t know if he was shot. I don’t know–I don’t know. They haven’t told me anything…And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57534825/chris-stevens-mother-speaks-out-on-death-in-libya/
Secretary Clinton and the ambassador
When Secretary Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in late January, she did little to dispel the mystery that still surrounds the Incident at Benghazi and Stevens’ death.
Speaking about Clinton’s testimony, Oliver North said, “We still do not know why the ambassador was in Benghazi and not at his post in Tripoli. We don’t know why he was traveling with such a short, scant security detail. We don’t know why the State Department ignored the requests for improving the security situation at the consulate…”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/north-clinton-benghazi-testimony/2013/01/23/id/472663
Chris Zane, writing in The Western Center for Journalism challenges Secretary Clinton’s testimony before Congress with recently released information. Citing evidence from hacked emails, Zane writes, “According to Blumenthal’s February 16, 2013 email to Clinton, the Benghazi attack was well-planned and well-funded by Saudi billionaires:”
“‘The attack…originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. During July and August 2012 these financiers provided funds to…Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb…These funds were eventually provided to Ansar al Sharia and its allied militias in the Benghazi region in support of their attack on the U.S. consulate.'”
Zane then goes on to speculate about the reasons the Obama regime wanted the attack to take place. “The question becomes: if the CIA was backing Qaddafi, why then did NATO, with Obama at the helm, decide to topple the Qaddafi regime?”
“The answer may lie in the fact that Obama is largely aligned with globalists, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal is a global, totalitarian caliphate.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/were-saudis-behind-benghazi-attack/
Clinton also had a heated exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson during the hearing. Earlier, Johnson had accused her of “purposefully misleading the American people” by blaming nonexistent protests. “‘…What difference at this point does it make?’ Clinton shot back in a raised voice.
With Secretary Clinton’s testimony we are left with something like the odor of Robespierre coming from the ashes at Benghazi. This odor permeates even those who mourn. Here also the irony of betrayal is noted. Politics may have contributed to Stevens’ death yet we are told we should not politicize it.
As someone who spoke French, you’d think Stevens would have remembered the ironies of the French Revolution. When considering the political ideologies that led Stevens to Benghazi, one is reminded of the French revolutionary Robespierre, and a mastermind behind the Reign of Terror.
It’s possible ambassador Stevens, like Robespierre, was a victim of his own policies. When led to the guillotine, Robespierre reportedly said as his last words, “Show my head to the people–it will be worth it.”
Imagine if your son had died violently in the service of his country. You ask the Secretary of State how and why he died. The only answer a mother gets is a cold, “What difference does it make–he’s dead, isn’t he?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981056/posts
What difference does it make if a man is betrayed? Betrayal in love leads to a broken heart. Betrayal in war is often as final as death itself. Does Secretary Clinton know in her heart that her husband did something like that to her? Did she just turn her betrayal into ice and move on? Does her indifference come from this turning? Chris Stevens could not move on. His betrayal was a betrayal unto death.
Growing up in a liberal enclave, ambassador Stevens was one kind of American. Unlike Stevens, Sean Smith had his own family and was the father of two children. Growing up in yet a different kind of Florida family, Woods could be said to have believed in a more conservative America. They all died at Benghazi, but what kind of politics led to their death?
the wound that will not heal
The Australian News sums up the fate of ambassador Stevens at Benghazi when they write, “But the irony of his death is that Stevens fervently backed the Libyan revolt that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and the broader Middle East spring, only to be killed in an attack after the strongman’s fall.”
Where was the President of the United States during the Benghazi attacks? According to Rick Lowry, “Obama’s actions and nonactions on that terrible night are a blank spot in his presidency. We simply don’t know much about them, and the White House has always been perfectly content to leave it that way.”
Lowry adds, “The day after his mystery night, Obama publicly emerged. He gave a statement at 10:35 a.m. condemning the Benghazi attack–and left Washington at 2:20 p.m. for a fundraiser in Las Vegas.”
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/05/where_was_the_president_on_the.html
Dan Pfeiffer, senior advisor to the president, refuses to disclose if the president was in the Situation Room or not. In spite of Pfeiffer, the one man who should know where the President was on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, is Mark Sullivan, once head of the US Secret Service. He was charged with knowing the whereabouts of the President at all times. Unfortunately, Sullivan retired in February 2013, and is not talking.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/01/report-secret-service-director-to-resign-post/
We now know, too, there was ample time to send military help, but we do not know why that help was NOT sent and who ordered the help available in Tripoli to stand down. Jonathan Moseley claims, “Elite U.S. troops were completely capable of saving Ambassador Chris Stevens during the Benghazi Consulate attacks on September 11, 2012.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/us_military_we_could_have_saved_ambassador_stevens.html
Daniel Greenfield tries to imagine the last moments in Benghazi. He writes, “We will…never know what was going through Christopher Stevens’ mind on September 11, 2012, as he battled the choking smoke, experiencing what so many New Yorkers had experienced on September 11, 2001. Like them, he was faced with a terrible dilemma, a choice between remaining in the fire and committing suicide by going outside.”
“…Stevens chose to remain inside and die rather than face the tender mercies of his attackers…The photos that have been released, along with claims by Libyan jihadists that they sexually assaulted his corpse, suggest that he made the right choice…perhaps in those final moments…Christopher Stevens finally understood the true horror of the Muslim world that he had fallen in love with as a Peace Corps volunteer.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/christopher-stevens-feeds-the-crocodile/2/
How do we square that audacious truth with the September 25 statements by Barack Obama at the United Nations? The memory of Stevens’ death must have still been fresh in his mind. He had supposedly been told by Hillary Clinton earlier that the video story was not credible. Nevertheless, Obama said…
“…a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world…the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”
Reports say more than thirty survivors of the attack are being kept under wraps and not allowed to talk to the media. “Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)…has been asking the State Dept. to produce witnesses and survivors of the Benghazi attack and has been left without a response.”
In an attempt to keep the survivors of the Benghazi attack away from the public and the media so that their story will not come out, reports are that officials have changed the name of some of the survivors who are still in the hospital.
Representative Chaffetz claims that the administration “‘will not give us the names.’ He said one person who went to the hospital even had their ‘name changed’ on hospital records so as not to be identified.”
Soon after the attack that killed ambassador Stevens, the president was adamant in his desire to find the truth. He claimed, “We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” One has to wonder if after all the lies that have been told about the Incident at Benghazi that the president’s search for truth and justice will lead right back to him.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/weeks-best-quotes/story?id=17246303 – 2
Imagine if you were present when Stevens’ flag draped coffin was rolled off the cargo plane at Andrew’s Air Force Base. You saw the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stand by the ambassador’s coffin and blame the death of our ambassador on a video few saw.
Before introducing the President, Mrs. Clinton speaks into a pair of black microphones, “So we will wipe away our tears, stiffen our spines and face the future undaunted. And we will do it together protecting and helping one another.” Helping one another?
going forward
It’s been many years since ambassador Stevens met his untimely death at Benghazi. In that time the slow drip of revelations about what happened in Libya has been constant. Unfortunately, the drips have not added up to a flood. Likewise, the violence and betrayal at Benghazi has been overshadowed by the violence advanced by the Islamic State in Syria, or ISIS.
The promised Congressional hearing on Benghazi may end up being just political posturing and disclose nothing but what we already know. Nevertheless, some facts are emerging that make the theory of a failed kidnaping of our ambassador more credible. In this regards, two developments are significant.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/stand-down-two-theories-about-the-incident-at-benghazi
Writing in the American Thinker, James Lewis states, “If you think the CIA would never collude with the primitive head choppers of ISIS, consider what John Brennan and Obama have already done. In Benghazi we now know the CIA colluded with Al Qaida gangs in Libya and Syria to smuggle advanced weapons from Gadhafi’s huge stockpile to the Sunni rebels in Syria, the precursors of ISIS.”
http://americanthinker.com/2014/08/does_isis_have_blackop_backers_.html#ixzz3BuOVBff9
We must remember that ambassador Stevens was a key player in this smuggling. It is no longer far fetched to imagine that a black-ops plan to guarantee the reelection of Obama could involve Stevens.
Beyond that, there are some who claim to the shock of others, that the Obama administration has switched sides in the war against terror. “A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.”
“She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.”
http://counterjihadreport.com/2014/08/29/cia-expert-obama-switched-sides-in-war-on-terror/
When these two developments are considered in light of what we already know about the Incident at Benghazi, the failed kidnaping theory continues to make sense. Furthermore, it looks like we can begin to draw a line from ISIS to Benghazi to the White House.
Because the Incident at Benghazi traps so many corrupt players from both political parties in a web of deceit, the truth about what happened there may not be known for a century, if ever.
If the truth about Benghazi is eventually told, it may not be told by any administration. It may be told, by those who have no interest except he truth. Two years after the Incident at Benghazi, a new book tells a story that makes you wonder why a US administration would not want to make the heroism that took place there known as quickly and as widely as possible, especially in an election year.
“13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi,” by Mitchall Zuckoff, “… is an extraordinary and exciting first-hand account of the courageous and honorable actions of a few men … who took it upon themselves to do their duty and act—some of them against orders—when others did not, could not, or would not act.”
http://americanthinker.com/2014/09/courage_and_honor_in_the_benghazi_battles_.html]
To put a blanket of silence over these heroic deeds means something more had to be covered with a blanket of silence, too. This may be why Zuckoff’s book, “leaves unanswered such important questions as whom the assaulters were, the assaulters’ motives and ends, and why the assaulters broke off and resumed assaults several times during the 13 hours.”
Benghazi trial generates more questions than answers
The trial in Washington, D.C. of Abu Khattala is over. The Washington Post reports: “A Libyan militant accused of being a ringleader of the deadly 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was convicted on terrorism charges…But the jury declined to find him directly responsible for the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.’”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/accused-benghazi-ringleader-convicted-of-terrorism-charges-in-2012-attacks-that-killed-us-ambassador/2017/11/28/39fca3b8-ca37-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.83a004ebb78d
“At trial, his defense team said Abu Khattala was drawn to the fiery scene in his home town as a bystander. They questioned the credibility of three Libyan witnesses who testified they saw or heard Abu Khattala take steps to plan, execute and claim responsibility for the attacks.
Notably absent as witnesses for the defense were Susan Rice, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. All of them at one time or another suggested that the attack at Benghazi was caused by an offensive video, and not Abu Khattala as a ringleader of violence. Why the defense team did not call them to testify is a mystery.
In an interview, Susan Rice once said: “Let’s be clear about what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region…was a result—a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated … which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting”
Barack Obama is on record saying: “What we’ve seen over the last week … is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.”
Kelly Riddell wrote in The Washington Times for Tuesday, June 28, 2016: “Another day goes by, and publicly Mrs. Clinton continues to blame the internet video in her remarks…On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney, answering a question about Benghazi during a press conference, said: ‘We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive.’”
Even though Khattala’s trial featured “dramatic testimony by surviving State Department and CIA operators, some taking the stand under fake names and disguised in wigs and mustaches to protect their identities,” no one from the defense team saw fit to call Rice, Obama, and Clinton to testify.
After the trail, “Dana J. Boente said in a statement that, “‘…Our work is not done. We will not rest in our pursuit of the others’ involved in the attacks.” At the end of the trial, Abu Khattala was found not guilty of ambassador Stevens’s murder. So far, no one else has been charged with Stevens’s death.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/benghazi-attacks-trial-verdict-khattala.html
Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage repeat this conclusion in their Nov. 28, 2017, article. “A former militia leader from Libya was convicted on Tuesday of terrorism charges arising from the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed a United States ambassador and three other Americans. But he was acquitted of multiple counts of the most serious offense, murder.
“A Libyan militant accused of being a ringleader of the deadly 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was convicted on terrorism charges…But the jury declined to find him directly responsible for the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/accused-benghazi-ringleader-convicted-of-terrorism-charges-in-2012-attacks-that-killed-us-ambassador/2017/11/28/39fca3b8-ca37-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.10537cb5207e
Notably absent as witnesses for the defense were Susan Rice, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
All of them at one time or another suggested the attack at Benghazi was caused by an offensive video, and not Abu Khattala as a ringleader of violence. Why the defense team did not call them to testify is a mystery.
In an interview Susan Rice once said: “…let’s be clear about what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region…was a result—a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated…which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting…”
Barack Obama is on record for saying: “…What we’ve seen over the last week… is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.
Kelly Riddell writes in The WashingtonTimes for Tuesday, June 28, 2016, “Another day goes by, and publicly Mrs. Clinton continues to blame the internet video in her remarks…On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney, answering a question about Benghazi during a press conference, said: ‘We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive…’”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/benghazi-report-points-out-obama-clinton-lies/
Even though Khattala’s trial featured, “…dramatic testimony by surviving State Department and CIA operators, some taking the stand under fake names and disguised in wigs and mustaches to protect their identities,” no one from the defense team saw fit to call Rice, Obama and Clinton to testify.
After the trail, “Dana J. Boente said in a statement that, “‘…Our work is not done. We will not rest in our pursuit of the others’ involved in the attacks.”
In spite of Abu Khattala’s trial and verdict, we still don’t know answers to three lingering questions about the Incident at Benghazi.
How did ambassador Stevens die, who killed him, and what was the motive?
ashes
The body of US ambassador John Christopher Stevens arrived back in the United States at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012, weeks before the November presidential election. Reports claim after the attack at the US mission in Benghazi, Stevens’ body was located at a hospital in Libya by using his cell phone.
Why have so many in government, from the President on down to the Secretary of State and pentagon generals, lied or have not been totally forthcoming about what happened at Benghazi to ambassador Stevens?
Arnold Ahlert, a writer for FrontPagPageMag.com claims, “Eyewitness testimony by the remaining survivors has the potential to devastate this administration. It would likely blow a large hole in Obama’s phony Middle East narrative…and it might even reveal why any attempts to rescue Americans under attack were either aborted, or never undertaken at all.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/
If Chris Stevens were alive today, what would he say about the Incident at Benghazi? Maybe he would avoid the truth, too, because he wants to become the ambassador to Iran. He has a career to consider, his “cursus honorum” to follow, not just his UC Berkeley idealism. Maybe Stevens would slough off his betrayal as just part of his job.
After almost five years, the Incident at Benghazi still casts a long shadow across our politics. Sen. James M. Inhofe, (R) Oklahoma, reminds us of this when he said, “I have made a study of different cover-ups–the Pentagon Papers, Watergate and Iran-Contra. I’ve never seen anything like it. I think this is probably the greatest cover-up, in my memory anyway,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/22/inhofe-benghazi-cover-bigger-watergate-iran-contra/
Who knows how far the cover-up extends? It may stretch from Washington, DC to Cairo, Egypt. Who knows when the cover-up will end or see the light of day? Betrayal, like lies, requires darkness to live.
Each of us must face our end, yet the scandal that is the Incident at Benghazi shows no signs of ending soon. For ambassador Stevens, however, the end came most difficultly–breathing in toxic diesel fumes and hiding from the flames that licked at the safe-room door.
Then the attackers found him out. They knew ahead of time the location of the safe room.
What followed after that may have been a betrayal too horrible to speak about here. As the compound at Benghazi filled with smoke and the crack, crack, crack of gunfire sounded outside, did Stevens realize no one was coming to help him? Videos seem to show Stevens was dragged alive from the burning compound, only to die later.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/article/how-did-ambassador-stevens-die
Stevens never heard the reassuring drone from a Lockheed AC-130 gunship overhead. Did someone hear above the din the muffled prayer, “Bismillah al rahman al rahim?” Maybe all that was heard was a cock crow from some stone building down the street. That was the sound of betrayal, not the help Stevens imagined.
When the dust settled after the battle at Benghazi, it was time for our enemies to collect their trophies. “…Stevens’ personal belongings–including his camera, cell phone, identification papers and various private documents–are being kept locked in a safe in the possession of Wesam Bin Hameed in Libya.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/terrorist-has-personal-effects-of-slain-u-s-ambassador/?cat_orig=us
The autopsy on Christopher Stevens’ body has not yet been made public. The cause of death is officially unknown. Stevens’ remains were laid to rest in a family plot at Grass Valley Cemetery in California.
There was no grieving widow graveside to watch the coffin slide into the hungry earth. It’s been a trail of ashes and lies from Benghazi to Grass Valley since then. Ashes, ashes all fall down.*
###
Now available at amazon.com; “A Republic, if you can keep it” 
*Quotations contained in this article are from sources generally believed to be reliable. The author has not independently investigated the individual claims or assertions and is presenting the quote only for informational reference
Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
(c) 2018 Uriel Press