Benghazi Betrayal May be a Cover-Up of American Weapons in Hands of Terrorists
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: authorizingcovert 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.”
When liberals look at the poor, first and foremost, they see people who will vote for them in exchange for goodies. This gives liberals a perverse incentive to keep as...Read More
Rachel Alexander is a Senior Editor at The Stream and Editor of Intellectual Conservative. She writes for Townhall, the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research, the Christian Post, weekend news items for Right Wing News and occasionally for the UK Guardian. She is a recovering attorney and former gun magazine editor. In 2011-2014, she was listed as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists by Right Wing News.
See, there really is a good reason to not only read the bill, but understand what the heck is in
The Washington Times has a troubling article on the over criminalization of America. For example, they tell the story of
It looks like some Democrats get it, while others are still in la la land, perhaps even having taken the