This administration has repeatedly shown their fondness for the art of distraction. Lets face it magicians are envious of this administrations mental slight of hand. When it comes to the use of distraction, aptitude combined with media cooperation, has proven remarkably effective. When there isn’t a natural disaster or tragedy handy, they will produce one of some kind, if nothing else a security leak is always handy. After you have seen a magic act repeatedly, you will try to ignore the distraction and instead utilize it to point towards the truth.
Not to downplay the IRS and AP scandal but I think the administration is very happy that it is taking some of the attention away from Benghazi. Most likely because the IRS and AP situations where totally under the administrations control, they may have isolated themselves sufficiently to be shielded. Benghazi on the other hand was far from controlled. We see them trying very hard to point us anywhere but Benghazi. Does the attack at Benghazi have the potential to reveal something that they fear?
Important as “who knew what when” regarding the change in talking points, I think there are even more important unanswered questions. Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi? Why were the first 67 hours after the attack, missing from the emails released by the White House? The attack began at 9:42 p.m. that is 3:42 p.m. EST, at 11:10 p.m. (5:10 p.m. EST) the drone arrived. Where is the drone footage? Where are the survivors’? Why are all the survivors’ identities kept secret? There have been reports of as many as 34 survivors were evacuated requiring two planes.
We have heard some theories and rumors. Glen Beck and Geraldo Rivera both have mentioned the possibility of a weapons deal. Well the latest is, there are two whistleblowers as reported by PJ Media, that will testify as to what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi. Reportedly, they are currently talking with attorneys because their jobs are not covered under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Unnamed high-ranking diplomats; are providing information regarding their testimony. When we combine the know facts with reports that are starting to emerge it paints a very interesting picture.
We have to go back to Col. Muammar Gaddafi, back when the rebel uprising was just beginning. The administration wants to provide MANPAD Man-Portable-Air-Defense Systems or shoulder-fired-anti-aircraft missiles to Ansar al-Sharia a rebel group to aid in the overthrow of Gaddafi. There is a request that the CIA look into taking care of this. The CIA reportedly thinks that it is such a bad idea that they refuse to do it. The State Department arms them nonetheless. Herein lies the first quandary.
First, this is a violation of UN Resolution 270 prohibiting the direct or indirect sale or transfer of weapons to any party in Libya.
Second, if the CIA refused because they felt that Ansar al-Sharia was linked to al-Qaeda, which is now widely understood to be the case. For the State Department to provide arms to the enemy is the classic definition of treason. The question becomes who knew Anssar al-Sharia was linked to al-Qaeda and when?
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
Unless I missed something al-Qaeda would definitely be classified as an enemy, shoulder-launched missiles is definitely aid.
After the overthrow of Gaddafi, the “MANPAD program” began, were the U.S. is “helping” Libya to recover and secure its weapon stockpiles. You see there are these other missiles the ones Gaddafi had stockpiled. It was reported 30,000 but shortly the number was changed to 20,000. I am sure that the change was just a clerical error, you know 10,000 got lost in translation, it’s not like they can just be spirited away, or anything like that, right?
Russia had sold Gaddafi an unknown number of Grinch SA-24, a.k.a. Igla-S, the man-portable infrared homing surface-to-air missile, similar to the U.S.-made Stringer missiles. These shoulder-launched missiles like the Stinger have the capability of taking down military planes and commercial airliners.
If we provided stingers to Ansar al-Sharia, it presents another problem for the State Department as if treason wasn’t enough. You see Gaddafi’s stockpile was not American weapons so an explosive residue test will always be able to distinguish them in the aftermath of an attack. The MANPAD program has reportedly only recover 5000 of the missiles and refuses to disclose the origin of manufacture or current disposition.
This is the scenario that one of the whistleblower desires to testify about, that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to oversee a buy back of some Stinger missiles from Ansar-al-Sharia. If Ambassador Stevens was in fact meeting with Ansar al-Sharia, obviously it was a trap. The State Department Operations Center reported that the al-Qaeda-linked group, Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack at 6:06 p.m. EST less than 3 hours after the attack. You wonder if the insistence to purge any reference to Ansar al-Sharia and their link to al-Qaeda from the talking points, wasn’t just for the benefit of the presidential election but the administration still foolishly holding hope they can recover the Stinger missiles.
We have another whistleblower that says that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi overseeing an arm shipment that was going through Turkey to supply the Syrian rebels.
I don’t think that these two reports contradict each other. This appears to be an incidence of the State Department requiring Ambassador Stevens to multitask, or possibly the two arms deal where actually linked.
We know that Ambassador Stevens had a meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin just before his death. Requested information on this meeting through the Freedom of Information Act has been declined.
According to Saudi intelligence, Ansar al-Sharia is backed, funded and directed by Iran. On July 31, 2012, gunmen in Benghazi abducted seven Iranian Red Crescent workers. They where still being held captive at the time of the attack in Benghazi and were released less than a month after the attack. The whistleblower maintains that these where not your normal Red Crescent workers, that they where spying on the gunrunning operations into Syria when they were picked up.
So, the group that claims responsibility for the attack is Iranian controlled, we have Iranian Red Crescent workers, allegedly Iranian spies, that are prisoners. Weapons being shipped to Syrian rebels to overthrow Bashar Hafez al-Assad whose main support comes from Iran. The whistleblower asserts that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens was not a terrorist attack but was a national-state attack.
The unnamed diplomats also stated that their military contacts insist that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate.” They were steadfast in there assertion that it will be revealed that the White House ordered AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham to stand down. Further, they assert that Gen. Ham refused and that the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.” It is interesting to note that Gen. Ham retired as head of AFRICOM in April well short of the scheduled rotation. In addition, it’s interesting that the announcement of his retirement by the Defense Department came on Oct 31, 2012. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has stated that Gen. Ham told him forces were available and “had proximity” to Benghazi.
At this point we can only take all this as heresy. I have to admit that just like Cinderella’s slipper it fits nicely. In view of the fact that these whistleblowers apparently work in security positions and thereby fall under special restrictions, any testimony will most likely be closed. We must continue to press our representatives to seek out the truth. We can’t trust the Media; it is up to all of us. We can’t remain silent over the fear of what somebody might think, or in fear of who may be offended. Diligently seek the truth. Inspire other to seek prove for themselves what is true.
This is just a glimpse of the big picture and it is not a pretty sight.
When you look at the fact that Russia and Iran are backing Assad in Syria, Russia in fact just announced they are going to provide anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. Saudi Arabia is supporting the rebels. Now we have Sen. McCain sneaking into Syria to meet with the rebels and voicing his support to arm the rebels, even though the rebels have publicly voiced their alliance with al-Qaeda.
Supplying arms to an enemy is treason. How is this so hard to understand?
Why is it we have a Middle East policy, that judging by the past results, the main beneficiary is always the Muslim Brotherhood?
Have you heard the phrase, “the bear from the north?”
Well that is very complex, maybe I should save that for another time.