Benghazi Betrayal May be a Cover-Up of American Weapons in Hands of Terrorists

Townhall.com ^ | November 17, 2012 | Rachel Alexander

[Kaslin]

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 authorizing covert 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.”

[Carry_Okie]

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.

Uh, methinks that would be "imminent." The author needs to brush up on his vocabulary.

Not a word about weapons going to Syria, the ongoing operation in Zero's reconfiguration of the Middle East into a unified nation dedicated to destroying Israel.

As if Stevens was going to buy all those weapons and just sit on them. Incredible.

[DoughtyOne]

I do wonder if this all boils down to Obama being embarrassed that he gave away 20,000 shoulder fired weapons to take down aircraft?

If he was moving part or all of those to Syria, the stink would be global. Europe would be furious.

That unified nation works with my take on things. I’ve been addressing it as a United States of Iran, but I have seen at least one talking head reference it as a United States of Islam.

Either way it’s chilling, because Israel would indeed be their unified focus.

Then they’d fall back on each other again.

[thouworm]

We refuse to look evil in the eye and call it what it is...because it’s OUR government right or wrong.

Until, perhaps, "we" begin to see that "our government's" foreign policy is not very different from "our government's" domestic policy. Maybe then "we" will wake up....or not.

[Uncle Miltie]

"American weapons had been given to Libyan terrorists"

That's been my (and others') speculation since mid-September.

Why the big cover-up? The only logical explanation large enough to cover the malfeasance is that the horrible thing being covered up is so huge, that the 0bama Administration would fall if it became known.

The only thing that big is 0bama supplying Al Qaeda.

I'm sticking with that hypothesis until better facts arrive.

[timestax]

[upchuck]

Perfect! :)