DeciduousHorns
Rookie
- Banned
- #1
[The following article, "The Murders in Libya, The Presidential Debate, and The Pattern of Obama Foreign Policy" is by Barry Rubin, one of the foremost experts on the Middle East. I have edited it for this forum.]
The official story of what led up to the attack is just plain weird. Supposedly, the U.S. ambassador [Chris Stevens] arrived back in the country and immediately ran off to Benghazi virtually by himself allegedly to investigate building a new school and a hospital there yet without any real security. His protection was to be provided by relatively untrained Libyans who a few months earlier had been rebels in the civil war.
[...]
If he was, as accounts by sources in the U.S. intelligence community suggested, negotiating with a terrorist, anti-American group to obtain the return of U.S. weapons provided during the civil war, that would have been a much higher-priority matter. I have been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons system that was Washingtons highest priority to buy back, but the details make sense. The fact that the ambassador was not accompanied by a delegation of foreign aid experts to evaluate these alleged projects shows that the reason for the ambassadors presence in Benghazi is being covered up. This situation transcends State Department jurisdiction and brings in the CIA and higher-level national security officials. The plan would have been in the presidential briefing and it is quite conceivable he would have been called on to approve of it.
Obama and his administration immediately lied to the American people about the cause of the attack, what happened, and who appeared to have done it.
They said the attack was due to the video rather than a revolutionary Islamist attempt to hit at the United States and subvert the regime in Libya.
They said the attack was a spontaneous act in the context of a peaceful demonstration when it was a planned assault.
They said that there was no idea who was responsible when it was almost certainly al-Qaeda.
[...]
[A]ll three of the above lies were ... a matter of turning national security into a political issue, and that is what Obama has done throughout his term.
To acknowledge the cause of the attack would have been to acknowledge the real threat in the Middle East and the embarrassing fact that American weapons had been given to terrorist, anti-American groups. Incidentally, far from learning anything in Libya, Obama is now doing precisely the same thing in Syria.
To acknowledge the nature of the attack would be to show the depth of the security failure on September 11 of all days in not recognizing the danger in Benghazi. This includes the fact that the guards were untrained; that they had according to one of them been aware of the danger and not told any Americans; that they had fled; that Libyan regime sources had apparently tipped off the attackers to where Americans were hiding; and that there had been no U.S.-provided security. ... It has now come out that the State Department hired a small, relatively unknown British firm (hows that for outsourcing jobs?) which in turn hired 20 untrained, unarmed Libyans who were told to sound the alarm and run away if there was an attack.
To admit that al-Qaeda is still very much in business would show that Obamas claim the group had been defeated was false ... Al-Qaeda is, of course, still strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places.
[...]
Mitt Romney at debate: "... On day following the assassination of the United States ambassador the first time thats happened since 1979 when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didnt know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser ...."
In this regard, Obama ... simply put his own political benefit ahead of national security.
[Mr. Rubin will not divulge the weapons system Ambassador Stevens was negotiating with the terrorist group for their return; one can't help but imagine just what kind of sophisticated weaponry Obama unleashed -- a weapons system, mind you, that can be used against the civilized free world -- when he authorized their release to Libyan rebels.]
The official story of what led up to the attack is just plain weird. Supposedly, the U.S. ambassador [Chris Stevens] arrived back in the country and immediately ran off to Benghazi virtually by himself allegedly to investigate building a new school and a hospital there yet without any real security. His protection was to be provided by relatively untrained Libyans who a few months earlier had been rebels in the civil war.
[...]
If he was, as accounts by sources in the U.S. intelligence community suggested, negotiating with a terrorist, anti-American group to obtain the return of U.S. weapons provided during the civil war, that would have been a much higher-priority matter. I have been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons system that was Washingtons highest priority to buy back, but the details make sense. The fact that the ambassador was not accompanied by a delegation of foreign aid experts to evaluate these alleged projects shows that the reason for the ambassadors presence in Benghazi is being covered up. This situation transcends State Department jurisdiction and brings in the CIA and higher-level national security officials. The plan would have been in the presidential briefing and it is quite conceivable he would have been called on to approve of it.
Obama and his administration immediately lied to the American people about the cause of the attack, what happened, and who appeared to have done it.
They said the attack was due to the video rather than a revolutionary Islamist attempt to hit at the United States and subvert the regime in Libya.
They said the attack was a spontaneous act in the context of a peaceful demonstration when it was a planned assault.
They said that there was no idea who was responsible when it was almost certainly al-Qaeda.
[...]
[A]ll three of the above lies were ... a matter of turning national security into a political issue, and that is what Obama has done throughout his term.
To acknowledge the cause of the attack would have been to acknowledge the real threat in the Middle East and the embarrassing fact that American weapons had been given to terrorist, anti-American groups. Incidentally, far from learning anything in Libya, Obama is now doing precisely the same thing in Syria.
To acknowledge the nature of the attack would be to show the depth of the security failure on September 11 of all days in not recognizing the danger in Benghazi. This includes the fact that the guards were untrained; that they had according to one of them been aware of the danger and not told any Americans; that they had fled; that Libyan regime sources had apparently tipped off the attackers to where Americans were hiding; and that there had been no U.S.-provided security. ... It has now come out that the State Department hired a small, relatively unknown British firm (hows that for outsourcing jobs?) which in turn hired 20 untrained, unarmed Libyans who were told to sound the alarm and run away if there was an attack.
To admit that al-Qaeda is still very much in business would show that Obamas claim the group had been defeated was false ... Al-Qaeda is, of course, still strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places.
[...]
Mitt Romney at debate: "... On day following the assassination of the United States ambassador the first time thats happened since 1979 when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didnt know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser ...."
In this regard, Obama ... simply put his own political benefit ahead of national security.
[Mr. Rubin will not divulge the weapons system Ambassador Stevens was negotiating with the terrorist group for their return; one can't help but imagine just what kind of sophisticated weaponry Obama unleashed -- a weapons system, mind you, that can be used against the civilized free world -- when he authorized their release to Libyan rebels.]
