Category Archives: Ambassador Stevens death

In a nutshell

Trey Gowdy has been consistent with his questions relating to Benghazi and unlike some others, he has managed to distill the issues in a meaningful way. Why does it matter? This is a question that only a progressive liberal would ask, yet Trevor Gowdy provides a thought provoking response. I am not talking about the cracks regarding the fact that the NYT and other LSM have no idea about how to spell Benghazi, but I am talking about the way in which he has distilled the reason why this is so important.

In Gowdy’s own words, you do not leave people flapping in the breeze after sending them into a dangerous situation. You make an effort to get them out again. This, in a nutshell is one of the things that was so very wrong during the Al Qaeda attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

However, that fact is only a portion of the full story. There are many unanswered questions. Hillary Clinton has been less than honest in her answers. The “investigation” conducted by Thomas Pickering was a sham. At least one of the State Department employees removed from his/her position had nothing at all to do with the security issues relating to Benghazi and he has been unfairly punished. The question is why was he removed?

From the earliest days after the attack, we knew that the security officers who were with Ambassador Stevens were there to try and track weapons that were floating about the area. In those early days there was talk about an AQ training camp and that people were aware of this training camp. The weapons issue is in my opinion a bit of the iffy side and the reason for my expression of “iffiness” is due to the fact that Gadhafi had a large cache of weapons that included the rocket launchers etc. My question here is whether or not those weapons had already been rounded up so that they could not end up in the wrong hands.

My next issue relating to the weapons is who did the supplying when Qatar was doing the buying. To refresh your memories in relation to the weapons, oil money was used to pay Qatar for shipments of weapons. These were shipments that ended up being used in Misrata. There must have been other weapons that were also shipped in because there was no shortage of the supply of rocket launchers and the like as that war had dragged on. However, what also needs to be pointed out that the French and the British also supplied weapons. The French dropped weapons into the mountains in the region that was closest to and outside of Tripoli. The group who received those weapons were not Al Qaeda affiliated but they were Bedouin, and they belonged to a minority group inside of Libya. (This group had a particular beef against Gadhafi because he had banned them from using their own language). One commander of this group had a book where he noted the serial numbers of the weapons and who they were issued to before they set out on what was a successful campaign that led to the downfall of Tripoli.  What I do not know is whether or not those weapons were collected and returned to the French, as agreed.

Another issue to keep in mind is that Gadhafi also armed those who were loyal to him, and this means that there was a separate group that also have weapons. Amongst those Gadhafi loyalists are the Touareg, and it is this group that had been active in Mali. Please keep this in mind, because it means that it was Gadhafi money that had been used to launch the attack on the government in Mali. It is also a possibility that the Touareg had helped themselves to some of the weapons caches within Libya. There was ample evidence immediately after the end of the civil war in Libya that weapons were missing from some of these weapons caches. The question remains who took them? The members of LIFG were too busy fighting to have had the time to have taken the weapons and sent them across the border hundreds of miles away from where they were fighting. The question I think remains open.

Despite my above comments, I accept that there is also ample evidence of weapons remaining in the wrong hands in Benghazi after the war ended. The real problem was Ansar al-Shariah who were acting as though they had the right to dictate to the population of Benghazi with regard to how they conducted themselves. Some of these individuals were responsible for the flag of AQ flying over the ministry of justice building, yet the people of Benghazi did not welcome them.

Looking back at the timeline of events does not reveal much about the identity of those involved in the actual conflict. The February 17th brigade seems to have been made up of a disparate group – those who were “good” and those who were Islamists and had other motivations. If you did not follow the conflict you would not be aware that a lot of the young men were getting themselves wounded and killed because they had absolutely no experience with warfare. If they were shot at then they would run away. In those early days the “rebels” would advance, gain a small victory, and then when Gadhafi’s loyalists hit back they would run away. Eventually they were taught how to deal with the situation. This group of young men I would classify as the “good”. They were fighting for their lives and not a cause. Ansar al-Sharia joined with them but they were also the ones that seem to have committed most of the war crimes that were done by the rebels.

A big risk was taken when this particular group i.e. Ansar al-Sharia was supplied with weapons such as the rocket launchers. From what I understand, Ansar al-Sharia is not the same organization as LIFG but there can be some intermingling because LIFG had the political motivation to be rid of Gadhafi. That leaves open the question as to whether or not members of LIFG took part in the AQ attack on the US consulate.   It does appear that it was Qatar who was doing the funneling of weapons that were supplied by the USA, Great Britain and France in particular.

Whilst the civil war in Libya was winding down, the civil war in Syria was winding up. Certainly in the early days of the conflict the rebels had been a mixture of Islamists and others opposed to the Assad regime.  Turkey was dragged into that conflict and remains on the periphery because Syrians fled across the borders and they remain in the refugee camps on the border between Syria and Turkey.  It must be kept in mind though, that with the Libyan conflict, Nigeria, Algeria and Tunisia were also dragged into the conflict in the same way. There was always the opportunity for the weapons held by the Gadhafi regime to end up across the border. It really is that messy.

There are many questions that need answers including:

1. Did Obama secretly agree to supply weapons to the Libyan rebels? Did Libya pay for the weapons via Qatar?

2. Did Obama make a secret agreement with Turkey to supply the Syrian rebels with weapons?

3. At any stage did Obama consider the risk of these weapons ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda sympathisers?

4. What was the real reason for Ambassador Stevens to be in Benghazi? I have heard several versions including the tracking of weapons, and the latest version was the talk of making the consulate a permanent feature.

5. Why did the Department of State ignore the requests for greater security?

6. Why did Obama persist in the lie about a C grade documentary that had nothing to do with the AQ attack on the consulate? In other words, what were the ulterior motives for the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi? How much bigger is the cover-up?

I note here that I have seen some interesting speculation regarding the truth about the use of the c-grade documentary, and yes that speculation revolves around the issue of Muslim supremacy and the fact that Muslims want to shut down our ability to state the truth about Islam.

Which scandal will bring about impeachment?

The reality is that Barry Soetoro is embroiled in a series of scandals, not just one, that have the potential to bring about impeachment proceedings. In each case it is the lies and the cover-up that is important. The Republican Congressman Chaffetz is probably the most keen to consider impeachment over the stonewalling regarding the Al Qaeda attack at Benghazi. I do think that by the end of his investigations he will be even more keen to see the impeachment process put in place. Yet there are other scandals, each with their own importance and each of them attacks the very freedoms that are gained from the U.S. Constitution.

1. The attack on the First Amendment. The reality of the scandals that indicate attacks on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is only just beginning to hit. There are at least three scandals involved:

– IRS harassment of conservative groups

– the collection of AP records via DoJ

– the attack on Fox News and in particular James Rosen also via DoJ.

I have no doubt that this list will increase in the coming days as more and more things come to light. It is early days where each scandal is concerned.  The IRS one has some legs with so many lies being told that it seems obvious that the instigator of the harassment was in fact POTUS. The smoking gun has to be in the White House logs… and no I do not believe the story about the forum being the reason that the head of the union was at the White House. The log actually indicates that she was there for a meeting with POTUS. (developing)

2. The attack on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

– Fast and Furious which is still being investigated and there continues to be a situatin where Eric Holder is in contempt of Congress and the White House refuses to hand over documents relating to that matter claiming executive privilege. At this stage I am willing to state that Barry Soetoro was aware of Fast and Furious and that he was the instigator because he wants to be able to ban guns.  I have no doubt that Eric Holder is in collusion with Barry on this subject.

3. Benghazi. I cannot properly classify this one, but I see it as tied up with the attack upon the First Amendment. My reasoning is based upon the attitude of Muslims with regard to the Freedom of Speech…. but that is only one very small portion of this particular subject. Benghazi is a multi-part scandal because there are many issues to take into account including talk of gun running (this is not proved). The real scandal is of course the cover-up and there is where the free speech component surfaces, because of the false claims that a third rate short documentary was somehow to blame for what took place. The person who was responsible for the documentary is in jail, allegedly because of parole violations. Yet, it goes deeper because this is also an attempt to stop anyone criticizing Islam. The speeches of Barry Soetoro to the UN on the subject is ample evidence that this story is about anti-free speech motives.

Now I am one who supported the people of Libya as they fought to free themselves from the yoke of Gadhafi. It did not bother me that some of those fighting were Islamists. What Gadhafi had done through the years was sufficient reason to not support him in any way. I will continue to point out that the Libyan government is elected and it is not run by Islamists (even though Islamists are trying to get control). There are lots of issues remaining in Libya and the situation remains fluid. What I want to point out is that those governing Libya were not responsible for the Al Qaeda attack upon the US consulate. I will also point out that the Libyans would have been more cooperative if it had not been for the amateurish stuff ups that followed the attack including Susan Rice going on TV and contradicting President Mogharief of Libya. She caused him to lose face in Libya and abroad because of the contradiction.  I do not support the Islamists in Libya and I believe that those responsible for the continuing violence in that country, especially in Benghazi need to feel the full force of the Libyan law. However, that is a Libyan internal matter and is not necessarily related to the AQ attack.

The real issue is the cover-up and the refusal to acknowledge that Al Qaeda is not in demise as proclaimed. There has been a refusal to acknowledge terrorism in the USA and that has led to the harming of the survivors of the Ft Hood jihadi attack by Hussein Nidal. It also led to the refusal of the FBI to take warnings about the Tsarnaev brothers seriously, even though it did not stop the FBI doing surveillance on a journalist by the name of James Rosen who was just doing his job.

4. This leads me to the AP scandal again because it is one that is developing legs since it was first revealed. Once again I see this in terms of an attack upon free speech.

At least 3 of these scandals are tied to the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. From that point of view, I can see that there is an overkill, an overreaction in regard to that decision. In that decision, certain things were struck down that affected to a very small extent campaign donations.  What it did not do was to make it easier for corporations to donate to political parties or individuals. Neither did that case make it easy for overseas individuals to donate to political figures. In fact Barry Soetoro has been guilty of accepting those oversease donations (yet another scandal) and hiding the information via bundling. The parts of McCain-Feingold that specifically stayed in place were those parts that forbid foreign donations. The case itself dealt with the chilling of free speech, and this was something brought out in the opinion of Clarence Thomas. It was an issue that 5 of the justices took seriously. For this they were attacked by Barry Soetoro.

Each and every one of these particular scandals could lead to impeachment. We just have to see what develops because in each instance there has been intimidation of individuals that has been in place to stop them talking. It is not just Gregory Hicks who has complained about such intimidation.

A few names keep springing up in regard to these matters. One of them is Lois Lerner, another is Cheryl Mills who is a close associate of Hillary Clinton.  The name of Cheryl Mills keeps cropping up as underlings in the State Department have been “punished” and without just cause.

Who’s the boss?

I am not talking about the TV series because I never watched that show!!  Although I can tell you that Tony Danza was the star of the TV show, it is true I never watched it because the voices irritated me.

In fact I am referring to the chain of command in the latest round of point/counterpoint relating to the scandal of the biggest cover-up since the break-in at the Watergate Hotel (and I continue to not understand why that was so important a President had to be brought down). Yes, I am once again pointing fingers at the incumbent in the White House.

The title of this piece should say it all about that chain of command, because once again we see the White House administration attempting to deflect away from the accusations. The latest in the controversy that keeps surfacing is focus on the talking points. Who is responsible?

I probably see the chain of command in a very simplistic fashion (being a foreigner and all that stuff, there is no doubt that I would have a simplistic understanding of such weighty matters as “who is the boss?”).

Ambassador Stevens was the US Ambassador to Libya. His second in command was Gregory Hicks, who assumed command when Stevens died. Here we can establish the first of the relevant boss relationships. Hicks spoke to Hillary Clinton when the attack was underway, since he assumed the role of US Ambassador to Libya upon the death of Chris Stevens. Here we have the second of those relationships – Hillary Clinton is the boss of Chris Stevens and the US embassy staff in Libya. The failings regarding security prior to the attack are her failings. Ultimately Hillary Clinton is responsible for that lax security.

Within the State Department though, there are other players – Victoria Nuland and Patricck Kennedy are two of those players. It seems that Victoria Nuland had a direct hand in how the talking points were handled. However, Victoria Nuland is not the top of the managerial tree – Hillary Clinton is her boss.

If Hillary Clinton wanted the truth to surface then she would not have been demanding that there were changes in the talking points. However, Hillary Clinton is not the top of the managerial tree, although she was a political appointment at the Department of State. Who is the boss of Hillary Clinton?

Yes indeed, there is one person at the top of the political tree and that person is has the worst case of dithering that I have seen in a President since the time of Peanut Jimmy Carter.

Hillary Clinton deserves to be castigated over her role in this whole affair. However, aside from Hillary Clinton there is another who is even more deeply responsible, and that person is Barack Obama-Soetoro.

It is important to keep this in mind when reading articles about the talking points and the massive cover up that there was in fact a jihadist attack upon the US consulate in Benghazi.  Fingers are being pointed all over the place, but ultimately, the buck stops being passed when it reaches the Oval Office.


My post about blood-libel is speculative but what do the Syrians think?

It was MyPetJawa who led me to have a look at this site. Yes, it is actually Al Jazeera where this story is being aired.

The Syrians are confused, because they want to know why there is so much outrage over a poorly produced film when 33,000 have been murdered by the Assad regime. Their take happens to be that the murder of these men, women and children by Assad is more offensive to Allah than a poorly produced film.

You want to know something? These people are correct. If you read the comments and the tweets related to the subject you will see that the majority think the same thing.

The documentary movie is very poorly made. The words are dubbed over what the actors and actresses in the moving are saying… and this is why I am convinced that it is blood libel.

However, it seems that Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has been taken in, and he has up a post about how the Egyptian behind the movie looks like going back to jail. The thing is that when you read the man’s rap sheet I am surprised that he is not already in jail!!  Spencer states that the man is a Coptic Christian. If that is true, then there is no blood libel, but only if Robert Spencer is correct.

This is where it gets messy and we need to know the truth. I said on the other post or at least in comments that there were rumours regarding the producer with claims that he was a Jew and that he had backing from other Jews. I also heard that Coptic Christians were involved. Then there is the involvement of Terry Jones.

What if someone used the man’s name deliberately in order to set him and Coptic Christians up?

What I am saying is that the whole thing sounds very much like a set up. It simply does not ring true in some respects. The portion of the documentary that I saw (a very small portion) showed me something that reminded me of the worst of the Spaghetti Westerns. Yes, it really was that bad.

My questions remain. Did a Coptic Christian actually produce that rubbish? If not, then what is the likelihood that someone was pretending to be a Coptic Christian or a Jew with the intention of blame being placed upon them for allowing Rage Boy to be unleashed?

UPDATE: Ann Althouse has a post that is worth a look. It also supports the idea that the attack was planned. There is a twist and I think it makes perfect sense. I am sticking with the idea that this was a planned attack by Al Qaeda and there is more evidence to support this than all the denials in China (make that CNN and that dumb Amanpour woman). Here is an aspect that I had not thought about but it makes sense: This was a revenge attack because of a drone strike that took out an Al Qaeda operative who went by the name Al-libi meaning the Libyan. Does that make sense now?

UPDATE: Something brought to my attention, which I feel needs full verfication, but sickens me, is that Chris Stevens was possibly raped. There is a lot of confusion about what happened. I had seen reports stating that he was taken to the hospital, but where I saw what seems to be verification of what really took place shows a very different story, and it is very sick. This kind of behaviour is the work of Salafists.

UPDATE: It could be that CNN refuses to tell the whole truth, yet I found one report that is quite lengthy and I might add gives a lot of decent analysis. I want to point out that some of the opinion in the report comes from people who were associated with the Libyan Fighting Group who were considered to be linked to Al Qaeda in the past. The comments need careful study because the person making the comments is someone who knows the subject better than others.

Specifically, what this report points out is that the attack coincided with a statement from Al-Zawahiri and that it is indeed a revenge attack because of the death of Al Libi which was the work of a drone attack.

What is more, the report contains some extra detail about how the attack was timed with the protests and that the attack came in waves. The officials in the embassy were removed to what was supposed to be a secure location. That location was also attacked.

The name of the Salafist group is identified. What is more, this is the same group that attacked prior to the election. It is also the group that attacked the British Embassy in Benghazi.

The Libyan government does not have the ability to protect foreign embassy personnel, thus all are vulnerable anywhere outside of Tripoli. What is more the people behind the attack were keeping tabs on the US officials. They must have known that one of them was there to search for the very weapons that were used in the attack.

UPDATE: The truth about the attack is filtering out of Libya. The interim President has gone up in my estimation because he is not holding back on the truth. Yes, it is true that he talked about this being a foreign plot…. and it was a foreign plot… but Libya is now saying that 50 individuals have been arrested over the deaths of the 4 Americans. This was an Al Qaeda plot. I am not sure if the Egyptian Zawahiri was the originator and for all I know al Libi could have been the one who originated the plot. Apparently there were some foreigners who slipped into Libya via the borders of Mali and Algeria. Now you must understand that Benghazi itself is a long way from those borders. I can understand if there is mention of this being a pro-Gadhafi plot because the remaining Gadhafi family are in Algeria and there is a link between the Gadhafi family and Mali. It would not surprise me if we were to learn that Gadhafi money paid for the weapons that were used to carry out the attack. However, I add to this that the AQAP (Yemen based) knew of the plot.

On top of that there is the intelligence that the leader of the local group Ansar al Sharia had been busy recruiting people over the past few months. This suggests to me that they were planning something a lot bigger. I am not convinced that Chris Stevens was the target of the attack, but I do feel that perhaps one of the other men who died was the target. I suspect that one of the two ex-Navy SEALs was the target because he was there on a secret mission to find those weapons. The activities of Ansar al Sharia were known. It was not their first attack upon foreign diplomats. It always had the hallmarks of Al Qaeda.