by Sandy Stringfellow
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens
All reports thus far have portrayed Ambassador Stevens as a dedicated State Department career employee striving to make a positive difference in the world. He was intelligent, witty, trilingual, well-read, philosophical, engaging, optimistic, and idealistic in his thinking. How would such a devotee to helping lift up the world’s down-trodden react after learning his dreams, hard work, personal sacrifices, bravery, and hard-fought efforts were nothing more than window dressing for the ideologically cynical motive of collapsing foreign governments under the guise of pursuing democracy?
How would his conscience react after experiencing the sudden realization of his own complicity in so many deaths; a sense of personal intellectual and emotional responsibility for collateral damage derived from goons, fundamentalist fanatics, and – in many cases, children – using weapons he helped provide without the noble objective of honest democracy with which to validate the bloodshed?
How would ambassador Stevens react with regard to these casualties; from children, the elderly, and the indigent caught in crossfires or used as human shields; from discovering he was nothing more than a strategic pawn, used ultimately for the purpose of spreading tyranny? It seems reasonable to accept the premise he wouldn’t be happy about it – nor would anyone with mettle – and could be upset enough to contact someone in a position to help make such information known to the public and willing to do it.
Evidence and the Investigation
When crime solving, physical evidence is of paramount importance. Without it, investigators rely on circumstantial evidence deduced through related events and patterns of behavior, connecting associations known or discovered during an investigation, along with discerning the probable motive and intent behind the crime. Ideally, the first thing to occur in a criminal investigation is for the arriving officer to secure the crime scene, thus preserving physical evidence.
The Washington Post published a report by Michael Birnbaum on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, revealing what was found when a Washington Post reporter and an interpreter visited the mission site, protected only by two private security guards. A member of the family owning the compound allowed the journalists to enter.
“More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the wreckage of the U.S. mission on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate information about American operations in Libya.
Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’ trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and an interpreter visited Wednesday. […] The itinerary of Stevens’ trip to Benghazi includes a near-full accounting of his planned movements during what was supposed to be a visit that lasted from Sept. 10 until Sept. 15. It includes names and phone numbers of Libyans who were scheduled to meet with him. Some of those Libyans have not made their contact with Stevens public and could be at risk if it were publicly known.
The meetings include briefings with U.S. officials, a private dinner with influential local leaders, and meetings with militia heads, businesspeople, civil society activists and educators. The highlight of the visit was the opening of the American Space, a center intended to serve as a hub for U.S. culture and education.”
The FBI finally arrived on-site at the mission crime scene in Benghazi, Libya, on October 4, 2012, more than three weeks after the attack took place, and spent twelve hours sifting through [remaining] evidence, beginning before sunrise and leaving after sunset. The New York Times reported on September 28, 2012, the following information on why the FBI had not visited the crime scene more than two weeks after the attacks:
“Sixteen days after the death of four Americans in an attack on a United States diplomatic mission here, fears about the near-total lack of security have kept F.B.I. agents from visiting the scene of the killings and forced them to try to piece together the complicated crime from Tripoli, more than 400 miles away. Investigators are so worried about the tenuous security, people involved in the investigation say, that they have been unwilling to risk taking some potential Libyan witnesses into the American Embassy in Tripoli. Instead, the investigators have resorted to the awkward solution of questioning some witnesses in cars outside the embassy, which is operating under emergency staffing and was evacuated of even more diplomats on Thursday because of a heightened security alert.”
It’s obvious King Barry wasn’t in any hurry to secure the crime scene; in fact, quite the opposite. So we’re tasked with assembling and reviewing circumstantial evidence as the primary method of solving the hypothetical question regarding King Barry’s possible premeditated involvement with one murder, and his accessory after the fact to three other murders at the Benghazi mission.
The Chicago Way
There’s a rather long list of detailed and inter-woven questions that need to be answered in order to shed the light of truth upon a crime that was not only avoidable, but appears to have been planned with inside knowledge. The odds of having these questions answered and congressional action taken is very slim, especially with Speaker John Boehner in control of the House of Representatives and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in office. DOJ head Eric Holder and his FBI have been assigned by King Barry to investigate the Benghazi mission murders; the same Eric Holder found in contempt of Congress for his refusal to turn over subpoenaed e-mails and other documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious after King Barry asserted executive privilege over the evidence in question.
None-the-less, it is our duty to ask if it is reasonable – based on what’s known about King Barry and his Progressive Marxist actions – that four murders committed during the Benghazi mission attacks were a de facto result of an experienced operative providing intelligence to someone in al-Qaeda as to Ambassador Stevens whereabouts and travel schedule during a covert State Department/CIA mission to recover weaponry provided by King Barry to overthrow Gadhafi? If a certain party – in addition to al-Qaeda – wanted Ambassador Stevens dead, an anonymous tip dropped into the global information stream at the right place and time may have been all the enticement al-Qaeda needed as motivation for the mission attack. It wouldn’t take much planning, and such a raid could be carried out on short notice by an experienced militia.
Al-Qaeda appears to have been receiving intelligence from multiple sources; Libyans in charge of security were photographing the mission prior to the attack and fled the premises as the attack began, leaving the mission virtually undefended. Without prompt action of directed return fire by the two SEALs – Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – whom left the safe-house to defend those under attack at the mission, many more would likely have been killed by the al-Qaeda militiamen.
One of the Libyan guards contracted to protect the mission stated “that on the morning of the attack, the [mission] had asked the Libyan security unit assigned to it to increase the number of its security vehicles outside the compound to 10, and to send 25 additional guards – but that for an unknown reason, the [mission] later cancelled that request.”
The safe-house location appears to have been known as well
and setup for ambush. Mortars may have been in position when escapees from the besieged mission reached the safe-house. After the rendezvous with an arriving rescue team, escapees and their rescuers began receiving accurate mortar fire as they were leaving the safe-house location for the airport and a flight out of Benghazi, indicating the mortars were already “sighted in” with the fire-team lying in wait.
The thesis behind this exploratory essay isn’t complex. It’s premise: a duplicitous and traitorous radical political operative holding the highest U.S. elected public office conspired and intended to eliminate a witness for the purpose of concealing the evidence of a different crime – a far greater crime – along with the catastrophic political fallout if the “greater” crime became known to the electorate. This greater crime could qualify as a war crime (crimes against humanity, for example) if the incriminating information was able to be corroborated through testimony of someone with firsthand knowledge of the motive and criminal intent behind the greater crime having been committed.
Everything must be weighed within the strategic context of King Barry winning the 2012 presidential election; right now, it’s all that matters to King Barry and his sponsors. It could be unfortunate for all if King Barry is underestimated; as with a wounded animal that’s been cornered, King Barry may well prove to be quite dangerous during the run-up to our November 6 election day. Considering the company he keeps in Chicago, King Barry may literally be fighting for his own life. Everything comes full circle given enough time. “The Chicago Way” has once again been infused into American politics…with a vengeance.
Sandy Stringfellow is a writer and musician with an interest in history, economics, and politics.