Posted on 11/17/2012 11:58:21 AM PST by Kaslin
In a scandal looking more and more like Fast and Furious, information is coming out revealing what may be the real reason why the Obama administration refused to provide military support to save Americans in Benghazi. Obama was terrified the public would find out that American weapons had been given to Libyan terrorists, who then used them against Americans in the attack.
Glenn Beck reported that Glen Doherty, the former Navy Seal who was killed alongside Ambassador Christopher Stevens, told ABC News that he was looking for weapons in Libya. Middle East expert Barry Rubin has said U.S. intelligence confirms that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate for the return of an American weapons' system. Beck suspects that due to the lack of military security around Stevens, he was a CIA operative sent to bring back the wayward weapons, not just a diplomat. The terrorists may have even attacked the embassy in order to seize the American weapons stored there from the rebel-arming program.
There is ample evidence backing this up. In March 2011, Obama signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert help for the rebels in Libya. Although it did not appear to provide weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has suggested that a U.N. resolution embargoing arms shipments to Libya only applies to weapons going to the Libyan government. In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Obama tellingly declined to say whether he would arm the Libyan insurgents.
Political analysts are calling Benghazigate a worse presidential scandal than Watergate, because four Americans lost their lives. The cover-up is so vast it seems like there are new astonishing details breaking every day. Yet until the salacious sex scandal with General Petraeus came out, the scandal and cover-up was not receiving anywhere near the attention that Watergate did.
The sudden resignation of respected General David Petraeus a week before he was scheduled to testify to Congress about Benghazigate is the most bizarre aspect of the scandal. Conservatives were flabbergasted when Petraeus defended the administration shortly after the attack, repeating what U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had said on television about a video being responsible for the attack. Some suspect that Petraeus provided the defense as a last-ditch effort to save his job. It did not work, since he was forced to resign shortly afterwards over an extramarital affair with his biographer. This was strange, since President Clinton survived an extramarital affair that took place within the White House.
Petraeus allowed his biographer access to his personal email, which is being described as a breach of security. However, White House Counter-terrorism adviser John Brennanreportedly knew about the affair in the summer of 2011. If there was a compromise of U.S. security serious enough to force Petraeus's resignation, then the White House let that breach of security last for over a year until Petraeus resigned a week ago.
After Petraeus was forced out over the affair, he switched his story, and on Friday told Congress that classified intelligence had been provided to the White House showing that the attack came from terrorists. It is now known that the American consulate in Benghazi alerted the White House several hours prior to the attack that they feared one was eminent. Petraeus testified that the White House withheld that information from the public, ostensibly to avoid tipping off terrorist groups.
Over two months later, the Obama administration still has not revealed who instructed U.N. Ambassador Rice to make appearances on five shows after the attack declaring that it was a “spontaneous demonstration” in response to a video. The surveillance video from the attack has not been released, even though three top U.S. Senators have written letters demanding that it be declassified. There has been no explanation why General Petraeus was not forced to resign until a week before he was scheduled to testify about Benghazi. By then, his extramarital affair had ended.
The cover-up is extremely hypocritical coming from the Democrats. The left was outraged over President Reagan secretly providing U.S. arms to the Contras in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra hearings resulted in Reagan dismissing Oliver North from his position at the National Security Council. In contrast, there has been no fall guy losing their job over Benghazigate, even though four Americans are dead. Instead, the opposite is occurring; guys like Petraeus are ousted in order to continue to protect the cover-up. The Obama administration will stop at nothing to protect those complicit in the cover-up. As a popular graphic now making the rounds on the Internet declares, “If Obama would have defended our Ambassador like he did Susan Rice, four Americans would still be alive.”
Is it really surprising the the Muslim-in-Chief is arming his brothers?
With a name like Hussein, was there ever any doubt?
the —> that.
Whatever the details may eventually turn out to be - and there’s little likelihood that they’ll come from the administration - it’s clear that Premier Hussein is lying. Again.
If this is true,then we’re talking treason on the part of all involved.It’s the level of treason that puts a rope around the neck.
Glen Doherty told ABC News he was looking for weapons? Huh? I don’t think so. But I do recall reading in the pilotonline just after the attack that the former SEALs were in Libya looking for MANPADS. I am not absolutely certain that’s where I read it. But the impression I had from the story is that someone who knew Glen or Ty was the source of that information.
You mean King Don Obama? Or Ding Dong Obama?
Not at all
Not in my mind.
CAAAHHHH-MON, townhall.
America has been under attack on many fronts since zero's first inauguration.
We all know incoming presidents do things within minutes or hours from that inauguration speech and I'm guessing the Chicago mafia was already in place and just needed the official cover.
I'll go one further, I think we may find we had/have an Iran connection for anything that had "weapon against America" attached to it.
As usual
Well, they armed Mexican narco-terrorists. Why would this be a stretch?
There was originally 22,000 (THOUSAND) MANPADS originally floating around Libya unguarded, mostly a mix of SA-7’s and harder to fool SA-24’s.
Some of the commercial heavies CAN take one solid hit and keep flying, but two hits would take down 90% of heavy commercial aircraft so struck.
There are some pretty spectacular YouTube videos of recent MANPADS hits by “rebels” against Assad helicopters, and the results are EXTREMELY striking (corkscrewing down, then tremendous mid-air explosion of fuel cell).
What is really surprising to me is that no one asks why o was ready, willing, and able to leave over forty AMERICANS ro die in a hellhole like Benghazi with not so much as a ho hum. Why no one seems to realize that this attack didn’t just start in Benghazi. It started here in the USA. American weapons in the hands of Libyans is/was no secret. The assigned motive is wrong.
Backing the friendliest fiends, eh. Except when they turn on us.
Petraeus, when first questioned about his affair with Broadwell, did not resign. If he was even a little bit honorable, he would have resigned then. It has been stated that members of the Obama administration watched the events at Benghazi in “real time”. What were they watching? They had to buy the security camera footage from the Libyans. Why would they do that if they were watching those cameras in “real time”.
The attack was IMMINENT not eminent.
Treason. Zippy originally set out to abandon 30, not 4 and he abandoned classified material to the enemy.
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.