Skip to comments.Why Was Security Stripped in Benghazi?
Posted on 10/31/2012 2:03:46 PM PDT by bayouranger
Data points continue to accumulate about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. The picture that is beginning to emerge from connecting those dots is deeply concerning on multiple levels. Two related issues dominate this analysis: The stripping of security protection from the Benghazi mission prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack and the refusal to send or even permit local help on the night of the attack.
As Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge suggested on the Mike Huckabee show on Oct. 27, both of these critical subjects may have been driven by a perceived need to cover up the existence of the role being played by the U.S. mission in Libya to serve as a command hub for the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad regime.
It has now been established through the persistent work of Congressional leadership figures and such investigative journalists, media and talk show hosts including Fox News, Michael Coren at Canadas Sun News, Aaron Klein at World Net Daily and Diana West that the Benghazi mission played a central role in a U.S. government policy of engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East, as Center for Security Policy president, Frank Gaffney, put it.
Benghazi Staffed by CIA Operatives: What Was Their Role?
According to media reporting, Benghazi was staffed by CIA operatives whose job may have been not just to secure and destroy dangerous weapons (like RPGs and SAMs) looted from former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafis stockpiles during and after the 2011 revolution, but also perhaps to facilitate their onward shipment to the Al-Qaeda- and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian opposition.
President Barack Obama signed an intelligence finding sometime in early 2012 that authorized U.S. support for the Syrian rebels and by mid-June 2012, CIA operatives reportedly were on the Turkish-Syrian border helping to steer weapons deliveries to selected Syrian rebel groups. According to an Oct. 14, 2012 New York Times article, most of those arms were going to hard-line Islamic jihadists.
One of those jihadis may well be Abdelhakim Belhadj, former leader of the Al-Qaeda-linked..
0bama wants to oust Syria’s Assad because his (Obama’s) illegal war in Libya and funding the MB in Egypt turned out so well?
I can put forward some conspiracy theories about this but would not be appropriate. Really, I can not think of any reasonable thesis for this to happen in Libya. Nothing good could possibly come from removing the security so am looking forward to some ideas.
What were these folks in charge thinking!
” - - - - need to cover up the existence of the role being played by the U.S. mission in Libya to serve as a command hub for the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad regime. - - - “
Same reason the rules of the BATF were broken in F&F?
State Department Officials testified in Congress that their goal was to “normalize” the environment or words to that effect.
Translation: don’t assign security based on reality, but on what you wish was reality.
If you’re getting pulled out..
1) pull the employess out first
2) pull the security out last.. they could fight their way out if need be...
INSTEAD... the White House...
1) pulled the security out first..
2) hoping the employess would fight their way out...
Fire Marshall Bill must’ve been in charge..
Well, I can somewhat understand that if relations were already normalized. Have a real problem thinking that they could essentially normalize without reciprocal actions by the Libyan Government (which did not really exist yet).
If that was really the case, just what the hell were they thinking!
Are you saying that our Administration has it ass-backwards?
Are you saying that our Administration has it ass-backwards?
[ Are you saying that our Administration has it ass-backwards? ]
Well their logo is a Donkey...
” - - - What were these folks in charge thinking! - - - “
But, but, Axelrod and Jarrett worked long and hard on this! They meant well. Really, they did. The Commie Party was counting on them!
Russia always needs a buffer zone of nations between itself and the mean old West that are somewhat hostile to the West.
Besides, Obama had promised Putin that he would be ‘flexible’ after the election, and what could be more flexible than to deliver Syria to al-Qaeda with Libyan arms?
BTW IMHO, when there is a coverup of a cover up, eventually “somebody gets left behind,” contrary to the latest ‘Obama Says.’
Heh... Can’t believe I posted that without understanding the comment! Thanks for that - heh... I wish that I was smart enough to have realized that...when I posted it...
What were they thinking? I just told you what they said they were thinking, and I have a comment on that - Dumbest S*@#t I ever heard is what they were thinking.
The world exists as they want it to, so their thinking never makes any sense in realtiy.
you have to answer the real question: why were the Arabs gathered at the consulate, what was their mission, who were they after?
Were they mad that the CIA was gun running to the Syrians. I don’t think so.
To me the puzzle pieces have formed a clear picture:
1. The Video - it was the stalking horse and facade for the reason for Arab mob gathering;
2. The real target - the ambassador to be kidnapped;
3. The denial of security - to make the kidnap easy
4. The unexpected - the heroic Seals. All actions post their engagement are a FUBAR mission;
5. Allahu Akbar - when they found the ambassador breathing, a dead man is not a good kidnap victim
6.Standdown - now self explanatory, can kill your accomplices
7. The purpose - multiple of you are losing an election.
8. The video again - only thing that the could think of as a denial that made any semblance of belief, although it was a lie.
My last question is why was there a drone over teh consulate anyway. Why had the POTUS, VPOTUS, and SECSTATE gathered in the Whitehouse. What did they think they were going to watch?
Well yes, I understand that this Administration lives in a different world but reality does interfere and I guess this time it did - big time. After all, most are Marxists or Communists and have no contact with reality.
I guess he wanted the employees dead.
[ I guess he wanted the employees dead. / Why? ]
So that nobody could rat him out about arms being given to Muzzie forces..
Some say surface to air missles..
Add to that the filthy saudis, the filthy turks & the filthy qataris too.
[ My last question is why was there a drone over teh consulate anyway. Why had the POTUS, VPOTUS, and SECSTATE gathered in the Whitehouse. What did they think they were going to watch? ]
Answer: a kidnaping to give them cover to release the blind shiek and everyone held in Guantaimo BAy.. to the muzzies..
They must have been “giddy” for the propect of committing heinous treason.. and stealing the election when the Ambassador and staff were released...
EXCEPT IT WENT FUBAR.. and blew up in their faces..
None of those are filthy
WHY IN THE HELL would someone high up put Stevens there ON 9/11 to broker weapons?? This makes NO sense. He was put there on a SIGNIFICANT DATE to ENHANCE the historical aspect of the kidnapping. Think about it. Everyone would remember 'the OTHER 9/11' where an Ambassador was kidnapped and 0bama set him free!!! This was the election bounce 0bama was hoping for.
I believe 'the Anti-Islam video' narrative was fabricated to be used following the kidnapping and even though things went South, 0bama stuck to that narrative. Blaming a film maker in America (assaulting freedom of speech) was one of the byproducts to be exploited by 0bama following Stevens' kidnapping and release. His mention of the movie 6 times in his United Nations speech was probably written well before 09/11/12.
Reciprocity to al qaeda for the killing of yahya al libi...just as a helicopter full of DEAD SEALS was reciprocity for ‘killing’ bin laden. Quid pro quo.
That would be outrageous if so - can not believe anyone in the Administration (except Obama) could go along with that at all. I would have to be totally pessimistic about this government and country to believe that! No way!
Would you be skeptical about your country sending weapons UNTRACED to Mexican drug cartels and saying “90% of weapons used in violent crimes in Mexico come from the United States?” when everyone knew that isn’t true? THEY WERE WORKING ON MAKING IT COME TRUE to justify stripping American firearms dealers of their rights. If you can’t go after the gun owners, go after the gun sellers! This had ‘Eric Holder’ written all over it.
Apples and oranges. The ‘video’ was a plan to start riots and protests all over the arab street and blame Israel for the video. The only reason that didn’t work was because Walid Shoebat KNEW the filmmaker was NOT, as first claimed, a billionaire Israeli Jew. Only a fluke that the filmmakers’s partner just happened to be Shoebat’s cousin, a falsestinian terrorist.
EVERYTHING, including the deaths of Americans, would have been blamed on Israel.
Turkey? We’re in bed with Turkey?
Doesn’t Obama have some quasi-hush-hush, buddy-buddy relationship with some “he was like a father to me,” friend-of-the-family, mentor, spiritual-guide, Turkish somebody? Gave him guidance on raising his girls or something? Am I remembering that accurately?
Open your eyes. The clinton administration did exactly the same thing many times over.
They were watching NBA re-runs....
Guess you thighed them clean on your way to purifying mecca.
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.