Posted on 10/25/2012 6:11:05 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
CBS News has released a clip of an interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes on Sep. 12 with President Barack Obama that indicates Obama knew the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a premeditated terror attack--and suggests the White House later deceived the public by blaming protests against an anti-Islam video. CBS chose not to air the clip for over a month--but did air Obamas attack on Romney that same night.
Obama told Kroft that the attack in Benghazi was different from the violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo: "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."
Obama's remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks. CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama--not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant--first to the question of the nature of the Benghazi attack, then to the question of whether the president had in fact called it an act of terror from the start.
According to Fox News, the clip first appeared online on Oct. 19. It was embedded Oct. 24 in an article by CBS News Sharyl Attkisson. What CBS chose to air, instead, was President Obamas attack on his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who had criticized the administrations apologetic response to the Cairo demonstration.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The dots I am connecting indicate that Stevens was in Benghazi on 9-11 (an increased risk compared to the Embassy in Tripoli) taht he surely understood) to meet the Turks to make the shipping arrangements for U.S. weapons being funneled from Libya to Syria.
It all makes sense in context, and meets Occam’s Razor.
If the Turks knew when and where the meeting was being held (obviously, they were there), then somebody in the Turkish team leaked this meeting time/place info to Libyan Al Queda elements, who had time to organize the attack.
They knew exactly when Stevens would be there, person, place, time, all they needed for an attack. They had no interest in just trashing some buildings rented by the USA. They were there to kill the ambassador, and they did.
Occam’s Razor says that somebody on the Turkish side was the informant, but who knows. It could just as well have been Huma Abedin, as far as I am concerned. Anybody who knew about the 9-11 (high importance to disregard the date) meeting could have dropped the dime.
Or the Turks/Al Queda might have insisted that only 9-11 was a date that worked for them, since they WANTED the assassination to take place on 9-11, and not a random date. That’s more of a stretch, but not inconceivable.
See 21 for more plot development.
That analysis all fits the pieces of the puzzle into a picture. It answers the question - WHY? (regading the cover-up)
There can be no doubt that something prompted the administration to not act in Benghazi to save lives. Something prompted them to cover it up.
This analysis also points to another, perhaps larger, crime.
How many fact points support this analysis? Do we have travel records for the turks? Ship names will cargo lists?
In other words, can we pin down this analysis?
In other articles I’ve seen the names of Turkish ships involved, including port visits, dates, etc. I can’t put my finger on them at this moment, but the information is out there.
I can see no other reason for Stevens to be in Benghazi on “danger day” 9-11 other than to meet with the Turks to discuss their main mission, transferring Libyan arms to Syria.
No doubt somebody leaked the info, so that Al Qaeda was ready for the attack as soon as the Turks left the “consulate.”
Glenn Beck has a report that has names and ships.
I would like to see this analysis supported by as much detailed fact as possible. If we take all the speculation out of this - it will have an impact.
If there is too much speculation/assumption/logic, it can be disregarded.
Didn’t CNN get the ambassador’s appointment book?
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.