Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Was Benghazi Orchestrated?

No Longer "IF", but now "WHEN"

Click here for related story [Washington Post]

Since the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on 9/11/12, the Administration has kept up its charade of the "spontaneous mob protesting the Pastor Jones Video."

That line burned out before Mr Obama left the Rose Garden to head for the casinos in Las Vegas to "double down" as he likes to say.  According to newly released communiques, The White House and State Department were informed by 6 PM [EST] on 11 September that a radical Islamic militant group [specifically Ansar al Sharia] had claimed responsibility.

That group is tied to the Libyan military force [February 17 Battalion] assigned to protect the Consulate.  The new commander of that unit was mysteriously ordered to "Stand Down" just before the assault began. [
His predecessor, Faouzi Bouktef, was assassinated 21 Aug 2012].

Before Mr Obama arrived at the Las Vegas gaming tables, the news had already surfaced that the perpetrators had identified themselves and posted their responsibility for the attack on Facebook and Twitter

Amb Rice at the UN with Hillary
So, heads were being scratched as to why Ambassador Rice was announcing to the United Nations the same lame "spontaneous protest" tale -- when her United Nations audience had already been briefed by their own national intelligence services -- and, they had watched international TV broadcasts and read foreign newspaper accounts of the sequence of events and the terrorist participants -- who had recorded the event on their cell phones and posted to YouTube and Facebook. 

[Oddly, other than Fox News, the US Media has reported very little on the Benghazi assault.]

But now, more facts are surfacing from members of the US Intelligence Community, the State Department, and the US Military [albeit in the face of retaliation threats by Attorney General Holder]. 

The story began unraveling with documentation that Ambassador Stevens had reported a heightened security threat -- citing a series of attacks against the US and other embassies -- and  he had repeatedly requested additional security be provided.  To his astonishment, not only were his requests denied, but part of his security assets were pulled out

[We've learned that the denial came from the Oval Office.]


A low key prescnce
a)  The Ambassador had just returned from a secret meeting in Italy where he had reportedly disclosed the details provided by the Contract-SEALS regarding the movement of heavy weapons, to include 20,000 shoulder fired missiles from Qadafi's arms warehouses.  He was traveling covertly [he had just returned from Italy], and his assailants knew his exact itinerary and precise location; and, they were fully aware of the location of the CIA's Safe House since they had it under surveillance and had precision mortar targeting in advance.

We've mentioned before that there was likely a mole in the US Embassy in Tripoli [as is the case in all US embassies]; however, only the CIA Station Chief [COS] and his Base Chief in Benghazi would have known the location of the Safe House [a hardened secret facility] which came under precision attack -- and neither would give up that information.

     b) The only others with access to this information would be the Intelligence hierarchy, to include the Director of National Intelligence [Jim Clapper], the CIA Director [General Petraeus], and the National Security Advisor [Tom Donilon - former lobbyist, EVP at Fannie Mae, and criticized as having "no credibility with the military" by his predecessor General James Jones (USMC)].

Born in Iran, Early Employer of Michelle Obama
c) But, let's not leave out Valerie Jarrett, personal advisor to Mr Obama.  Ms Jarrett has unlimited access to all sensitive information in the White House, the US Intelligence Community, and the Defense Department by virtue of her relationship with the President.  Ms Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran, speaks native Farsi, worked for Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, and, she employed Michelle [Robinson] Obama; she was also a backer of the Solyndra scam.   Her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, had some very interesting linkages to
Arab oil interests backing black candidates.

The President is known to make no decision without consulting Valerie Jarrett.

d)  So, we narrow the field of those knowledgeable, and we're reasonably certain that our top intelligence and military folks -- who have all been vetted with in-depth background checks and polygraphs -- wouldn't breach security; so that leaves Donilan, a political hack, and Jarrett -- 
the field now consists of Mr Obama and Ms Jarrett; we suspect that Ms Jarrett passed along the specific information to "interested parties."

2)  THE PASTOR JONES VIDEO Sequence of Events

The perfect fall guy
a) The Jones video had been on the Internet for nearly a year, produced by a shadowy figure flush with cash, but remarkably, untraceable.  It was a tedious, fourth rate film in English, designed as an insult to Muslims.  It went virtually unnoticed on YouTube for months before the assault on Benghazi.

     b)  Oddly, the video was translated into Arabic -- by unknown entities -- shortly before the Benghazi attack.  Immediately thereafter, a sophisticated marketing campaign gave it visibility throughout the Muslim world.  Even the marketing campaign sparked little interest.  Nonetheless, it was promoted heavily in the Middle East -- particularly Libya and Egypt, shortly before the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. 

     c) The thread to this promotion of the video seems to lead to Washington -- to the Oval Office, perhaps as a scheme concocted and possibly orchestrated by David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to create an inflammatory crisis in the Middle East to which Mr Obama could respond by acting "Presidential" -- and thus be hailed as a hero and reelected.

    d)  But there is still another explanation, which we'll discuss below.

3)  ADMINISTRATION COVER-UP by Leon Panetta and the White House.

     a)  Mr Obama's formal position from moments after the assault began has been that the incident was simply a "spontaneous mob protest" against the Reverend Jones video.  When that balloon was deflated with statements by intelligence officials and military officers, supported by copies of emails and embassy cables.

"..,you don't deploy forces..."
b)  Mr Panetta then took the position:
"... the basic principle here,,, is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

c)  Mr Obama deflected questions when asked if Americans on the ground were denied requests for help during the attack.

d)  Contradicting Mr Panetta's story was the fact that several hundred Intelligence, Military, and White House personnel were not only addressees on the emails and cables, and aware of the assault within minutes of its beginning, they watched live coverage by a surveillance drone flying over the Consulate grounds; so they -- and Panetta, knew precisely what was going on since they watched the entire event nearly from start to finish.


     a)  At the initiation of the assault, we now know that the two ex-Navy SEALs [Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty] at the CIA Safe House heard the noise surrounding the assault and immediately announced they were heading to the Consulate to assist.  The CIA Base Chief ordered them to not get involved and contacted the Station Chief in Tripoli -- who communicated to CIA headquarters in Langley and the Pentagon NMIC [National Military Intelligence Center].  The order came down, twice, that the SEALs were to stand down.  Frustrated, the SEALs declared the orders were invalid, and headed to the Consulate and engaged the assault force.

-- CIA Director, General Petraeus, has formally announced that the orders to the CIA Base Chief to "Stand Down" were not his. [He had formerly attempted to support the Panetta story]

b)  Adding to the drone surveillance coverage was video coverage from an AC-130 gunship equipped with sophisticated night vision and infra-red  [IR] systems, plus extraordinarily powerful video equipment.  The Intelligence and Military Communities witnessed the IR "painting" of ground targets [the Libyan assault force], and were outraged that the commander of the AC-130 was ordered "Do Not Engage".

The SEALs painted the targets with a GLD [Ground Laser Designator] assuming the gunship would eliminate the assailants; but, the painting was detectable by the assailants, who then located and killed the SEALs when the AC-130 failed to fire.  When the assault ended, the two former Navy SEALs fighting the ground battle were dead, along with 60 of the Libyan assailants.

   c) New information reveals that the Commander of the US African Command [AfriCom], General Carter Ham, aware that Benghazi was under assault, ordered a response team to be dispatched immediately; coordinating with the Pentagon, he was ordered to "Stand Down" reportedly by directive of the Secretary of Defense.  Ham, unwilling to leave Americans to be over-run and killed when he had the assets to assist, ordered the preparations to continue and be prepared to launch.  Minutes later, Ham's deputy advised him that Secretary of Defense had relieved him of command, and the Deputy assumed command of Africom.

-- Panetta tried to cover up the fact that he had relieved Ham by including the announcement in a Public Affairs brief at the Pentagon when he introduced a program by Mrs Petraeus supporting the health and welfare of the Military.

Political Casualties: GEN Ham and ADM Gaouette
  d)  Buried in the Panetta propaganda surrounding the Benghazi travesty is the story of another US flag rank officer who was relieved of his command after he attempted to respond to the Benghazi attack.  Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, commanding the Carrier Strike Group Three [CSG3] stationed in the Persian Gulf, responded to the distress calls from the US Embassy in Libya and ordered his units to“assist and provide intelligence for” General Ham's reaction force.

-- Panetta alleged "inappropriate leadership judgment" for his relief of ADM Gaouette.

    (1) Subsequent stories have appeared that Gaouette's relief from command "had nothing to do with Benghazi" and CSG3 was in Guam when the Benghazi attack occurred.
    (2) Wikipedia was altered to reflect that CSG3 was not in the Persian Gulf at the time.
    (3) These accounts proved false since a UPI story had covered SecDef Panetta's urgent redeployment [28 AUG 2012] of the CSG3 to the Persian Gulf again for standby duty in the event Israel attacked Iran.  Gaouette would have been back in the Persian Gulf by Labor Day, and there is nothing to indicate that CSG3 redeployed elsewhere; so it was, in fact, in the Persian Gulf on 9/11/2012.


It is evident that the Benghazi incident has been a cover up from start to finish.

Based on the evidence that has been released so far, we propose the following scenario:

1)  The Administration appears to have concocted a scheme using the offending video as a means to stir up turmoil in Libya.  The production of the video may have been underwritten by Axelrod's connections, and the video was then translated into Arabic, marketed and promoted in the Middle East to provoke incendiary reactions by Muslims.

2)  The Administration presumed it could create a violent reaction and counted on a slaughter of the Consulate staff, which in turn would provoke an inflamed reaction among the American public, allowing Mr Obama to assume command of a military retaliation to the incident.

3)  The Administration issued orders for "diplomatic reasons" to prevent a local US military response -- removing security forces, and restraining local US military and intelligence personnel.

4)  The ex-SEALs in country were unwilling to accept orders they knew were wrong, and went to the defense of the Consulate, defending it and shepherding the US personnel to the CIA Safe House and fighting off the assault force.

5)  Two flag rank officers attempting to take action to protect US citizens were relieved of their commands.

6) When the dust settled, the President attempted to downplay the incident and ordered his staff to go with the "spontaneous mob" story, until it fell apart.  Since then, the Oval Office has engaged in damage control, firing flag rank officers, sending an FBI team to the US Embassy in Tripoli to intimidate staffers, and recreating documentation to cover their actions. A new wave of censorship is underway using coordination with Facebook to censor Special Operations Speaks PAC from publishing information on Benghazi.

We have the Who, What, Where, and when for this scenario, but we don't have the WHY for certain; so, here's our conclusion:

1)  The President of the United States approved the creation of this debacle for political purposes for his own reelection objectives; kind of an October Surprise.  The crisis would allow him to look Presidential, just in time for the election.

2)  But, here's the big WHY question; Why Stevens?

a)  It appears Stevens had become highly visible in his investigation into the captured Qadafi arms warehouses -- and it appeared he had determined the missing weaponry, to include 20,000 SA-7 missiles [shoulder fired surface to air missiles capable of bringing down helicopters or jet fighters], RPGs, and a variety of powerful infantry weapons -- ostensibly headed for Syrian rebels via the Libya.n ship Al Entisar were headed elsewhere.

b)  Were the weaponry headed solely for Syrian rebels, appropriate stories could be created similar to the "Freedom Fighter" image of supplying Afghan rebels with sophisticated weapons to fight the Soviet occupation force.

c)  But the final scenario would explain why the Administration was desperate to neutralize Ambassador Stevens' investigation.  A more strategic picture emerges if we consider the spread of the Muslim Brotherhood systematic takeover of the Arab Spring movements.  Arming the Muslim Brotherhood [MB] with Qadafi's captured weaponry would make the MB a formidable force against even the most well-equipped governments.  Providing them with thousands of SA-7 missiles would enable the MB to wreak havoc with commercial flights in the region as well as to take on US airborne forces.

d) The linkage to the Administration lies in an incident we covered, but which went unreported in the US Media in July, when Secretary of State Clinton came to visit the newly installed Egypt President Morsi -- of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The visit set off mass protests, the key element of which was that the Egyptians felt their revolution by Mubarak had been co-opted by the MB -- with the support of the US.

They felt justified in that belief because Clinton's aide, Huma Abedin has family ties to the MB; her mother, Salhea Abedin is part of the clandestine organization "Muslim Sisterhood" consisting of the wives and daughters of MB senior leadership.

Oddly, Republican leadership assailed US Congresswoman Michelle Bachman for mentioning this linkage.  But, Bachman may be onto something since the State Department, apparently through Abedin, has seemingly embraced Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi -- the MB's "chief Sharia jurist", according to Andrew McCarthy.

Sheikh al-Qaradawi promotes terror and is a leading supporter of Hamas, and the Union of Good network in the US which is rated as a Terrorist Organization by DHS.

Why would the President be working hand-in-glove with Muslim Brotherhood terrorists?