by Sandy Stringfellow
King Barry Reaches Out
Certainly it’s damaging to the propagation of King Barry’s vamped-up, bin Laden-killing, pseudo-patriotic, nimbus-mythic image for us regular everyday Americans to wonder how our tough-guy king could so callously find it within himself to barter our lives and the lives of those whom so bravely and selflessly serve our country for the dubious purpose of deposing an ally; not to mention his credibility as the Nobel prize-winner bringing new understanding to Islamic-fascist jihadists.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Progressive Marxism at work; doing what they’ve done so well over most of the past century: conditioning our thoughts and behavior by re-defining what we know to be true through repetition of the untrue. The most accomplished writers in a theater-of-the-absurd genre could not concoct anything more preposterous, yet today this terminological absurdity is official government policy.
George Neumayr summed up King Barry’s penchant for system-messaging at the basest of levels – highlighting his dis-ingeniousness and that of Secretary Hillary Clinton through their obvious hypocrisy – in his article Obama to Jihadists: Be Nicer, published in The American Spectator on September 27, 2012:
“Low comics have become presidential vetters and late-night talk shows have become places of refuge after a terrorist attack. Between the back-slapping and guffaws, Letterman asked Obama if ‘an act of war’ had occurred. Obama deflected the question, launching into a sermonette on how the Islamic world needs a slight attitude adjustment. Try to be nicer in the future, was the sermonette’s essential message. […] This week he kept up the patter on The View and at the UN. It is a toss-up as to which forum was more fatuous. His UN speech was hailed as a robust defense of free speech. Never mind that his administration tried to suppress the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video and sent police to the filmmaker’s home on ‘unrelated’ charges, hauling him off so that it could blast pictures of his arrest to North Africa and the Middle East. […] ‘The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect,’ said Obama, who is on record supporting ‘hate-crime’ legislation that would ban politically incorrect speech in the public square.”
None-the-less, Americans wouldn’t look kindly upon anyone – especially our president – helping American weapons become available to those seeking to kill Americans; nor would they appreciate the multimillion dollar carte blanche bonanza of weaponry King Barry provided to all comers willing to participate in his international revolutionary co-op, as long as the eclectic mix of Libyan rebels (al-Qaeda among them) professed support for his efforts to oust Gadhafi.
Motivation to avoid this reelection liability by staving off the political disaster resulting from a terrorist attack using MANPADS may explain why Ambassador Stevens was visiting our Benghazi mission on the most dangerous night of the year, protected by nothing more than your typical house of standard construction. Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt described the rented villa as “like a cardboard building” without basic bullet-proof glass or reinforced entry doors.
Was Ambassador Stevens following orders from our Hillary Clinton-led State Department to expedite the known on-going recovery op of weapons State had shilled at King Barry’s directive to Libyan rebels for the express purpose of over-throwing a government that had been working with U.S. and British intelligence agencies to capture, interrogate, or kill Islamic terrorists? Had new intelligence become known, requiring King Barry’s urgent attention? If not, one must wonder who approved Ambassador Stevens’ visit to Benghazi on September 11, 2012, and why?
Why would Ambassador Stevens not hunker down in Tripoli during this predictable time of 9/11-inspired Islamic rage, safely sequestered inside our fortified U.S. Embassy, unless his trip to the Benghazi mission was considered by someone at State a matter of urgent importance? A meticulous examination of all cables into and out of the Benghazi mission during the prior months leading up to the attack would be most interesting, but these State Department communications are as likely to be forthcoming as were Department of Justice communications pertaining to the illegal Fast and Furious federal gun-running operations into Mexico.
The timing of Ambassador Stevens Benghazi mission visit is downright puzzling given his understanding of al-Qaeda; the suspected assassination attempt on his life; knowing al-Qaeda wasn’t thrilled about losing access to high-tech weaponry; worries over the paltry security conditions at the mission; and being familiar with the overall “threat level” in Benghazi as al-Qaeda continues to consolidate its power through expansion of Muslim Brotherhood political influence: power gained – thanks in large part – from King Barry’s financing and support of the ubiquitous Arab Spring. Mainstream media downplayed the extent to which our U.S. government armed the Libyan rebels, but King Barry did indeed provide an exceptional amount of assistance through executive fiat in support of Libya’s Arab Spring; one could reasonably and without exaggeration call the morphing of former allies into the various newly-established and ever-expanding Muslim Brotherhood regimes “King Barry’s Spring.” It’s only fair, after all; credit where credit is due.
Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent for The Independent (UK), reported in his article America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels – Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi, on Monday, March 7, 2011: “Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi….The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi’s armor, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers…Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport.” Anti-tank rockets and mortars, along with RPG’s, AK-47’s, and ammunition, all headed for Benghazi; stronghold of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the location where King Barry’s illegal war in Libya gained footing: the Libyan revolutionary flame was kindled in Benghazi, and King Barry held the lighter.
The Benghazi Mission Murders
Suspicious circumstances surround the Benghazi mission murders. It’s suspected the attack and subsequent murders were a reprisal by Libyan al-Qaeda as revenge for King Barry’s own executive-ordered unmanned aerial drone attacks and the collateral damage that often results. More specifically, al-Qaeda anger over the drone attack that killed Libyan al-Qaeda chieftain Mohammed Hassan Qaed in Pakistan – thought to be the deputy leader of al-Qaeda – has been cited in reports as a motivation for the attack. Throughout out North Africa, the Mid-East and elsewhere, tribal loyalties usually eclipse all other social connections.
It’s a convenient package, just what King Barry and his brain trust are likely aiming for as they change the meme to keep us off balance: eventually plead guilty to manslaughter and avoid the charge of first degree murder, as a manner of speaking. Considering the facts, however, does it not leave unanswered questions arising from the attack? Did King Barry know in advance of the pending assault on our mission in Benghazi? If so, what did he know, when did he know it, and why was the threat level not increased at the mission if warnings were made known to him by those in positions of security and threat level analysis? More importantly, why was Ambassador Stevens given permission – or instructed – to make the Benghazi mission trip over the anniversary of 9/11?
One of the most in-depth early reports on the Benghazi mission murders was written by Defense Correspondent Kim Sengupta and published in The Independent (UK) on September 14, 2012, titled Revealed: inside story of U.S. envoy’s assassination. Mr. Sengupta raises interesting points pertaining to the lines of inquiry set forth in this essay; they are listed as follows in paraphrased form:
The murders at the Benghazi mission were “the result of a serious and continuing security breach.”Ambassador Stevens visit to the Benghazi mission was “meant to be confidential.” Secret documents are missing from the mission, some with names of Libyans working with Americans. The secret location of the “safe house” was compromised; other “safe house” locations across Libya are no longer considered secure. The U.S. State Department had credible information forty-eight to seventy-two hours in advance that embassies and missions may be targeted on 9/11, yet “no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lock-down’, under which movement is severely restricted.” The Benghazi mission underwent a security evaluation in preparation for possible violence connected to annual 9/11 anti-American activities. Foreign nationals contracted to defend the mission ran away.
Mr. Sengupta reports in his article Libya: We gave U.S. three-day warning of Benghazi attack, published in The Independent (UK) on September 18, 2012, American diplomats had been warned seventy-two hours in advance of a potential for violence in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11:
“A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. ‘The situation is frightening, it scares us,’ he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr. Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguards were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.”
At the Security Clearance/CNN website, Suzanne Kelly, Elise Labott, and Mike Mount reported on September 24, 2012, further information regarding the Benghazi mission attack; highlights are as follows in paraphrased form:
The Benghazi mission was known to have minimal security measures in place. The mission – a “rented villa” – was considered a temporary facility, operating under a reduced security provision waiver. These “conditions” would have been approved in Washington, D.C., with “input” from Libyan officials, and supposedly with input from Ambassador Stevens as well. The security “waiver” confirms consensus among the Washington, D.C., policy decision-makers in charge the Benghazi mission was of “critical” importance.
A few hours before his murder, Sean Smith, U.S. Air Force communications specialist serving with the State Department at the Benghazi mission on the night of the attacks was corresponding with his friend and fellow EVE Online game player Alex Gianturco and sent the following ominous message: “…assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
Next: Part 3, The Perils of Revolution