Posted on 10/24/2012 6:38:42 PM PDT by moneyrunner
Was Benghazi the base from which Team Obama was funneling arms to Jihads seeking to overthrow Syria and establish another radical Islamist State? Suddenly Ambassador Stevens presence there and his meeting with a Turkish diplomat begins to make sense.
GAFFNEY:
Was Obama gun-walking arms to jihadists?
Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting — notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org — and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as Benghazigate.
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.
Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a “mission.” What Mr. Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” that lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”
We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
It gets worse. Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed — and were known by the local jihadis to house — arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens.
It's also part of a pattern that's emerging about Obama's policies in the Middle East. Note that all of countries that have experienced the so-called "Arab Spring" have produced radical Islamist leaders. Which leads to a common question when you see the results of the Obama policies: are the policies failures or are they deliberately designed to do what they have done? Some have asked this about Obama's domestic "failures" and now it's worth asking about the destruction of American interests overseas.
It also leads to another interesting question: what group is actually responsible for the attack? The Islamists who were getting the weapons don't have an obvious motive for the attack. Syria's Assad regime would benefit from the destruction of the Benghazi compound. We won’t get a truthful answer if Obama is re-elected, and a Romney administration may not want to open that can of worms.
This could also explain why the CIA and the State Department are both willing to fall on their swords and claim that the attack was all about a You Tube video. The discussion about who knew what and when they knew it diverts attention from alternative reason behind the attack. Once you eliminate the video as the spark that led to the attack you are left with no stated motive. The default motive: that Jihadists don't like us and would attack us, just as they would any enemy, is plausible on the surface, ... but under closer scrutiny doesn't pass the smell test.
THERE IT IS. America is lost........
When will Issa, Chaffetz and all of Congress GET ON THIS? What are they doing?
They had one hearing and they promised more, WHEN? What are they waiting for? Why are they in not speaking to the Media?
We don't need this to break open after NOV 6th. We need it now and before Obama and crew can SCRUB that video.
I think I am going to be sick, waiting for results NOW.
If this was a Republican president, I can guarantee you that Pelosi, Reid, etc.,etc.,etc.,, would have FULL 24/7 face time with the media.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2949789/posts
"This Is What Benghazi ‘Consulate’ Really Was" by Aaron Klein
Maybe the Jihadis in Libya got pissed because Ambassador Chris Stevens was trying to get those Stinger missiles back. We will get them back all right—when they shoot down another TWA 800.
It now begs another question. Were the 'leaked' e-mails today that name Al Qaeda just another cover story for yet another 0bama lie?
That’s pretty common. I recall embassies and consulates being referred to as missions as far back as the ‘70s.
And Dims still try to make hay about Iran Contra....
Perhaps. But you really don't need to export arms and ammo to Libya; the country is awash in them. But collecting them and sending shipments of arms to Syrian "rebels" via Turkey is logical. What isn't logical is arming fanatical Jihadists. We did that in Afghanistan and that helped defeat the USSR, but it also turned poorly armed fanatics into well armed fanatics who hated us as much as they did the Russians.
I agree that Gaffney makes a compelling case. The theory about Syrian involvement is my addition to it. It seems to me that you need more than general hatred for us to put together a well planned attack on several buildings separated by a mile. They used more than rifles and RPGs; they used mortars and that takes set-up time and spotters. The attackers also included blocking units that tried to ambush our personnel as they traveled between the buildings. This sounds very professional, definitely not something cobbled together on the spur of the moment.
Imagine that you are a Leftist who doesn't like America because America has been "dictating" to the rest of the world. Imagine that you want America to have less influence in the Middle East and the region is in turmoil. Imagine that you actually admire the Muslim Brotherhood because you are sympathetic to Islam and are also sympathetic to their anti-Americanism. If you think like that wouldn't you support, with money and arms, regimes like the one that has taken over Egypt and may well take over Syria if Assad falls? Would you not avoid aiding the protesters in the streets of Iran a few years ago? If you were Obama, wouldn't that make sense?
I agree, that would have worked out better for them than the lie they told. The problem is that this interfered with Team Obama's claim that with Osama dead al Qaeda was finished off. So they came up with a story they figured the MSM would buy. Remember, for 3 days after the attack the "story" was that Romney's comments were a gaffe. Very little attention was paid to the attack with all the MSM's fire trained on Romney. Team Obama was so convinced that the MSM would cover for them and would broadcast any lie that they got very, very stupid.
Well, Putin is an ally of Assad. It's actually a possibility.
Not to get too conspiratorial, but if you are hiding the fact that you have warehouses of weapons going to Syria, would you think long and hard about sending a bunch of troops there who may blow your cover?
Then again, keep in mind that Obama was on his way to a fundraiser in Las Vegas and could not be reached for a decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.