President Eisenhower, in his farewell address to America saw fit to leave us with a somewhat cryptic warning when he spoke of the growing power of a military industrial complex. The group he warned of feels no national loyalty. It has but one goal and that is to derive enormous profits from producing and selling military equipment to both the United States and foreign nations.
Much to the chagrin of the American public, we pay for many of their representatives, in the form of the CIA, with our taxes. The roles of many of the agents of the CIA takes on two basic forums i.e.: The gathering of intel and gunrunning. Today they have tapped into a virtual goldmine since Barrack Obama took office and began fomenting civil unrest and the rise of a new Caliphate in the Middle East.
In 1785 the poet Robert Burns wrote a poem and in it was a line that we have all heard: "The best laid schemes of mice and men go often awry". Most have not heard, however the rest of that line. It continues "and leave us nothing but grief and pain for promised joy." And, so it was in Benghazi.
So very much is being written about the Benghazi narrative, so much attention focused on the issue, and so little is known. Many facts are emerging but none grasp the full agenda, and so on and on, bloggers continue writing the same tired facts, and the same over viewed timeline of events, as once again America tries to peer through the smokescreen generated by the Obama administration and fails to connect the dots revealing the whole picture.
Forgive me if I sound overly critical in the previous paragraph. I do not mean it to be censorious but in my search for answers I keep seeing the same things repeated over and over, ad infinitum. Everyone writes that Obama was gunrunning, that he allowed four men to die, and that he is guilty of treason.
I seek more, and occasionally find more. Something that Claire Lopez mentioned allowed me to advance my building of the puzzle one step farther. I am indebted to a very perceptive woman. She understands the thinking and methods of Jihad. Her only failing is that she has not yet grasped the thinking and methods of Barrack Obama, and that is quite understandable, for he is not thinking. He is a puppet. To understand Barrack Obama one must look through him to the motives of the puppet masters.
I shall combine Ms. Lopez's perceptive thoughts and mine to show you a truly sordid scenario. Politics gets no dirtier than this.
In two previous essays Benghazi: Two Conflicting Agendas ... One Dead Ambassador(BTC) and Benghazi: Treason, Murder, and Greed(BTM) (Both links are repeated in Suggested Reading at the end of this essay) I laid out the case that Obama's gunrunning is nothing new. He, under the guise of humanitarian aid, has managed to ship vast amounts of weaponry to our enemies, Al Qaeda, that were used in their overthrow of Qaddafi.
Now Qaddafi, admittedly, was not what one would call a humanitarian, and so few protested Obama's involvement in the arms smuggling. That war turned into a victory for Islam and so resources were then being redirected to the Syrian front to take on another not so nice guy. Again few complain. After all Assad is a dictator and we want all to have democracy, even if that democracy leads to tyranny under Sharia law.
Few of my fellow citizen journalists were complaining about Obama's involvement with Al Qaeda and using the word "Treason" until he intentionally allowed four men to die, but the involvement, gunrunning, and treason were there all along.
In BTC I presented a scenario where there were two separate agendas at play. Ambassador Stevens was involved in rerouting unused armament that we had provided to the Jihadists in Libya to Turkey where they were then transferred to the Turkish/Syrian border. The second agenda, and the one that led to the death of the ambassador, was that Obama wanted to allow those weapons to be sent cross country to Hamas for use in the upcoming war with Israel. I also answered everyone's question about why there was a drone in the sky over the CIA compound before the battle ever began.
In BTM I delved farther into events and postulated that not all Muslims are in it just to honor Allah, putting forth the idea that someone in the picture was a free lance gunrunner, whose interest in Benghazi was stealing the weaponry that was under control of the ambassador.
And that, brings us to the significant contribution of Ms. Clair Lopez. She studied the Benghazi timeline well and concluded that the Turkish Consul General, who dined with the Ambassador and was his last appointment of the day, must have colluded in the destruction of the compound and the death of the ambassador. Her logic is that Stevens walked the Consul to the gate at the end of the business day and by then the Jihadists check points, mortar emplacements, and trucks bearing heavy machine guns were already in place.
The attackers had previously stopped all traffic from entering the area and the Consul left the compound and crossed through the armed assailants unmolested. He saw what was there and knew what was coming. One simple cell phone call to Stevens would have prepared him for the assault. That call was not made. Ms. Lopez conclusions are that the consul and by extension the Turkish Government had double crossed the ambassador. That is where she and I reach a slightly different interpretation of that double cross.
In BTM I put forth the idea that there was a free lance Muslim gunrunner. Thanks to Ms. Lopez I am now convinced that the gunrunner was none other than the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and he double crossed not only the ambassador, but Turkey as well. Turkey wanted those weapons in the CIA compound's warehouses. They wanted them to be on the next boat out of Benghazi and routed to the Turkish port in Iskenderun, thirty five short miles from the Syrian border.
Thanks to the 911 assault on the compound, Turkey did not get those weapons. They were sent en route to Gaza where they would be sold for the money that Secretary of State Clinton was sending to Hamas. Oh, what a wicked web they do weave!
Obama's part in the treachery. Everyone writes of how he let the Ambassador and his subordinates die to cover his involvement in the gunrunning of weapons to the Al Qaeda forces in Syria. Nonsense! It was a well known secret, with plausible deniability, that we were providing arms to the so called rebels of Syria. Obama wanted those arms to reach Gaza, not Syria. Were he and the CIA on the same page, those arms would have found their way to Syria and he would have guaranteed it by protecting them and the ambassador. The ambassador was expendable, arms for Gaza was not, and so the order to stand down was given.
So many are now writing about when Obama knew of the attack on the compound and even watched it in the Situation Room. Something is missing. He must have known that it was coming. Thus far we have no timeline about when the drone showed up but it was shadowing the CIA compound before the attack began. That means that the gun emplacement of Al Qaeda were seen before the first shot was ever fired. This fact rolls Obama's involvement back to a still earlier time.
One other issue not fully explored, and it can be, is the fact that Sean Smith took the time to go to a gaming site on the internet and posted the message "assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our "police" that guard the compound taking pictures." Mysteries yet remain about that attack and this is one of the greater. He certainly was leaving behind a message that they had been betrayed by those entrusted with safeguarding the compound. I want to know to whom that message was directed. I cannot believe that it was for all of the people who frequented that site. Somewhere out there is one person for whom that message was meant.
Mister Smith had full access to the State Department, the CIA, and the NSA. Who was he messaging on a game site? The significance of his words is that he already felt betrayed by all of the above and was anticipating his own death, and a subsequent cover up. He wanted one particular individual to know that a grand betrayal had taken place there.
A final thought. Anyone reading this is in all likelihood fairly well versed on what has transpired since Barrack Obama was elected. Recall Rahm Emmanuel saying "Never let a good crisis go to waste."? They don't. Four Americans die in a far off and hostile land and it means nothing to Team Obama except a way to further their goals. Everyone with half a brain knows that the absurd video that was part of the smoke and mirrors of Benghazi, had nothing to do with the attack on the CIA compound, but...It gave Obama a chance to excuse Islam's behavior as well as a chance to criticize our freedom of speech and a promise to curtail it.
Their agenda is so big, so all encompassing, and I must admit, so well planned, that it seems almost unstoppable. U.N. Resolution 16/18 is designed for one purpose only and that is to create laws world wide that prohibit criticism of Islam. Those slimy, spineless, immoral bastards are using the Benghazi ordeal as a way to promote this freedom ending resolution.
Benghazi: Two Conflicting Agendas ... One Dead Ambassador
Benghazi: Treason, Murder, and Greed
Whether By Stalin Or Obama...A Purge Is Still A Purge
Obama And Terrorism...A Cluttered Trail Of Death And Deceit
The Coming Caliphate
If You Don't Know What Resolution 16/18 Is You Are Asleep And In Danger
Israel's Gaza Dilemmas This Front Page Magazine report from the war front by a man who lives in Israel