Wednesday, November 7, 2012

More on Obama & the Benghazi cover-up

Some additional notes about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi from Bret Baier of Fox News and Frontpage Magazine, but first I want to repeat and reemphasize what I stated in an earlier post about the Benghazi cover-up:
Obama tried to conceal the terrorist link behind the attack on the U.S consulate because he did not want the public to find out that he had actually empowered Al Qaeda militants inside Libya.

The facts are slowly trickling in, and we now know that Al Qaeda terrorists are working inside the Libyan government [inside the interior ministry etc.]. They have also been put in charge of border security, thus allowing more and more Al Qaeda terrorists to flow into the country.

Moreover, an Al Qaeda member, Abdelhakim Belhaj, had been put in charge of, among other things, overseeing security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 until at least the spring of 2012.

Obama's good buddy, Mustafa Abdul Jalil - the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) - appointed him to this position.

And, Obama, in his efforts to oust the Gaddafi regime, went along with all of this and effectively empowered Al Qaeda to wreak havoc upon Libya.

And now, as a result of this shocking, calamitous foreign policy decision, four U.S. diplomats are dead.

Hence, the cover-up.
Back to Bret Baier and Frontpage Mag:

Baier quotes from the CIA's official timeline of events:
"The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack."
Baier notes:
So the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is at the Benghazi hospital and suspected dead. The CIA contractors know that, but they can't get there because the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked group Ansar al Shariah, the "militia that mounted the consulate attack."

This goes up the chain communication at 1:15 a.m. on Sept. 12. The White House, the Situation Room, and all of those paying attention to intel channels know that the guys on the ground have determined the group that's behind this. It's the Al Qaeda-linked militia that are still fighting and have the hospital surrounded.
Baier goes on to ask why the President and his cronies continued to propagate the 'spontaneous demonstration' myth while playing down the terrorist link behind the attack, when they knew from the get-go that it was an Al Qaeda-linked "militia that mounted the consulate attack".

Frontpage Magazine notes:
The CIA contractors could not get inside the hospital because Ansar Al-Sharia [the group that mounted the attack on the consulate] was outside [the hospital]. So how did Ambassador Stevens and his supposed rescuers get inside?

The official story is that Stevens was rescued by a mob of helpful citizens, who kept stopping to snap cell phone photos of his corpse, but that’s just what good Samaritans do in the region...
I was also bothered by the 'good Samaritans' narrative after I had seen a video of these purported saints screaming 'Ala Akbar' while snapping photos of Stevens' body. Hmmm, maybe there were some bad dudes who just happened to be hanging out with the 'good Samaritans'... Hmmm....

Frontpage Mag continues:
So now the “rescuers” take Stevens to a hospital, access to which is controlled by Ansar Al Sharia, the very militia that tried to kill him... Ansar Al Sharia then lets Stevens in, without harming him further, even after trying to kill him.

Something doesn’t add up here. Either the “rescuers” were taking in his body for a reward. Or it wasn’t the presence of Ansar Al Sharia that slowed down the CIA response.
One final note: I pointed out at the onset of this post that, after the attack on the U.S. consulate, Obama tried to conceal the Al Qaeda link behind the attack because it was he who empowered Al Qaeda inside Libya. This is most certainly true; the following, however, is mere speculation, but very likely true:

Among the various reasons as to why Obama refused to send in U.S. troops [who were stationed nearby] to rescue the U.S. diplomats, I would posit, and add, the following explanation:

Obama had assured the American people, during the Libyan uprising, that he would assist the Libyan rebels without sending in American boots on the ground.

With the Presidential election looming, he wasn't about to alter that plan. Hence no boots were to be sent on the ground, even if it meant jeopardizing the lives of the 4 U.S. diplomats. For ultimately, their lives had to be sacrificed for the greater good: Obama, and his re-election.

Additionally, the President did not wish to engage in a brand new battle with Al Qaeda terrorists before the election, especially when it was he who was responsible for giving Al Qaeda the scepter of power and the reigns of destruction inside Libya.

The deaths of the four U.S. diplomats were essentially a trade-off that helped Obama retain his seat in the Oval Office.

Ultimately four American diplomats sacrificed their lives for the greater cause: Obama

And judging from last night's election, it worked out just fine; it was well worth the sacrifice...... Ahem......

Good grief.....