The Rise of Al-Qaeda and Why the Administration Lied about Benghazi

For nearly a year, we have had no answer to why the administration lied about Benghazi — why it told the world, not to mention the parents of our murdered SEALs at the funeral of their sons, that the cause of that fatal conflagration was an anti-Islamic video no one saw, when the various arms of our executive branch (White House, State and intelligence) already knew, or strongly suspected, it was a terror attack orchestrated by al-Qaeda affiliates.

That this lie was deeply immoral is obvious. What still eludes us is the cause of that lie, other than the equally obvious desire to avoid embarrassment weeks before a presidential election.

But what was this embarrassment about? Recent events have supposedly unearthed a tie to secret arms shipments to Syrian rebels, but as the always cogent Barry Rubin points out, anyone paying attention to the story has known this for some time. Rumors of such shipments filled the Internet even before the Benghazi fireworks.

Furthermore, as Rubin also indicates, if that information had been immediately revealed or leaked to the public soon after the event, it would have been met by a national shoulder shrug that was firmly ratified by Obama’s loyal media claque. It wouldn’t have impacted the election much, if at all.

No, something more problematic was involved and I suspect I know what it was. No one wanted to admit — or probably face for themselves — the extent to which the president, and therefore his administration, the State Department, the CIA and even the military, was in bed with Islamists.

I, unfortunately, do not have a secret access to the truth. I like most of us have only seen bits and pieces as I have read everything I can get my hands on. There is very little out there that is rock solid. What is rock solid does not make my accusation less than plausible, in fact the evidence we have so far make it a pretty plausible story.

With Obama anything is possible. He got health care passed. He nationalized the auto industry, except for Ford. He nationalized the school loan program. He has for all intents and purposes nationalized the banking industry. He has voided DOMA, he has pushed queer marriage. He has allowed 24 year old girls to buy abortion pills. It would have simply been impossible to believe all these things would have happened before his election.

It is fact that weapons were being smuggled out of Lybia into the hands of Syrian Rebels who were Al Qeuda sympathizers or Al Queda in fact. It is a fact that Al-Queda off shoots were guarding the embassy. It is a fact that Morsi said that the Blind Sheik would soon be in Egypt.

Everybody knows about the gun running, that would not be enough to change names and hide people all over the world. The deal for the Sheik, that could be a problem it ever proven.

I don't think Congress can handle the truth so they won't seriously go after it. The truth will come out but I suspect it will be decades before it happens.

I’ve read a little more about the Blind Sheik Theory. As outrageous as it sounds there is, as you state, some evidence in it’s favor.

But one bit of evidence seems to weigh against it: The attackers, whoever they were, had Ambassador Stevens. They had their man. But somehow the actions of the CIA guys who resisted the attack are portrayed as disrupting the plan.

How can that be? Stevens had been captured. Why not just whisk him away and go on with the plan to trade for the Blind Sheik?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.