The Official Underzog website
Posted on 10/20/2012 10:56:58 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative
We all know that there is a lot which is strange about the Libyan mess. It even appears that the Obama Administration is hiding something. I assume they wanted to make this whole thing look like an unplanned protest which got out of hand, to protect Obama’s narrative of himself as the brilliant foreign policy genius, who engineered a perfect “Arab Spring.” But there are other possibilities, and we will look at one here.
First there is the most baffling aspect of the situation. Security was pulled in Benghazi, against the requests of the Ambassador and a Special Forces Security Team Leader. The SF team leader recommended more security, only to see himself and his team pulled, along with another DSS security team. Supposedly 34 security personnel were pulled from the very country which was about to be attacked, in the period leading up to the attack. On top of that, unlike every other embassy abroad, the Marine guards were specifically pulled out. To do that, in one of the most lawless and dangerous places we maintained a presence was very strange.
The two, now legendary former SEALs, Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty, were only there by chance. Attached to the CIA to chase down loose SAMs, they just happened to be stationed nearby, and mounted their valiant defense only after they heard the attack begin.
It almost seems as if the whole consular office, which housed an Ambassador, in one of the most lawless places on earth, deep in radical fundamentalist Islamist country, was purposely left as an unprotected, sitting duck, just as it was about to come under attack. How did that happen?
The security situation was so strange, that some are even postulating that Obama reached out to the Muslim Brotherhood, and organized this whole thing, including the poor security, purposefully. The theory goes that Obama wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap Stevens, and then Obama would negotiate his release at the last minute, maybe even giving over the Blind Sheikh, in return. While I suspect our enemies would be eager to help Obama hold on to the Presidency, I doubt Obama would be stupid enough to try this. He is, above all else about protecting himself, and that would be one hell of a risk. And yet, it almost makes as much sense as any other explanation.
Despite the environment of uncertainty, the Stevens mess did have that feeling, when every break falls for your enemy, and you feel like the deck was stacked somehow. So many opportunities to stop this before it began, and all of them, against all logic and simple common sense, were not taken advantage of.
Presumably under orders, Stevens traveled to a poorly guarded outpost of houses, in a hostile, terrorist haven right before the attack, rather staying in the secure, hardened embassy in Tripoli. The attackers knew the layout of the grounds, and who was in what houses. The attackers knew about the secret safe-house. The safe-room which Stevens was in, saw its air supply compromised with "diesel" smoke – was it coincidental, or did insurgents know the location of the air draw, and fill it with diesel smoke to try and smoke him out for kidnapping? Security, including the de rigueur Marine detachment, was pulled, and then partly replaced with unarmed locals, contracted through a British firm, itself very unusual.
And the big question – why did the administration lie so aggressively about the Youtube video, especially, given that the date of the attack clearly pointed to a planned operation, on 9/11? Why did they want this to all look unplanned? Who would care if it was a wild protest, or Al Qaida lashing out?
It feels like something is being hidden from us. And even stranger, it even feels almost like our own government went out of it’s way to set this goal up purposefully for Al Qaida.
What if our government did set this up, but Obama and Hillary knew nothing of it, and weren’t involved at all?
We have seen a lot of talk lately about how radical Islamists are infiltrating our government. Even Hillary’s right hand gal Huma has a list of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood a mile long. Suppose Al Qaida was so pissed about Bin Ladin’s killing that they decided to risk burning one of their highest ranking sleepers within our government bureaucracy at the State Department, to use them for some bureaucratic tactical support. The sleeper or sleepers administratively saw Stevens would be ordered to a vulnerable location like Benghazi at some point, they avoided assigning adequate security to that location, and waited. Al Qaida then gets to take a brutal revenge this year, on the anniversary of September 11th. We kill their leader and then kill their second in command in June in Pakistan, and in return they kidnap our ambassador, and do God knows what to him on video, before killing him – probably putting it on the internet for all to see.
Somebody in State, obviously below Hillary, pulled almost all of the Security in Libya, even going out of their way to remove the Marines. I have no doubt if anybody had bothered Hillary with security arrangements at some consular outpost somewhere, she would have launched an expletive filled tirade about wasting her time and thrown her martini on them. Someone at State had Stevens in Benghazi rather than Tripoli, without adequate security, on September 11th, just as he was about to come under an incredibly organized attack. So who gave the orders, and what are their stories?
According to CBS news, the head of the Special Forces Security team which requested more security in Benghazi, “insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted, and had requested, enhanced security.” The team leader went on to say they were told “to do with less. For what reasons, I don’t know… We tried to illustrate… to show them how dangerous and how volatile and just unpredictable that whole environment was over there. So to decrease security in the face of that really is… it’s just unbelievable.”
According to ABC News, the team leader said, “The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay.” Despite this, ABC went on to report that “a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy’s Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST’s tour be extended past August…”
So Nordstrom wanted it, Stevens wanted it, and the SF team leader wanted it, but their requests disappeared once they reached the State Department’s bureaucracy back home.
Of course, this could easily be Liberal incompetence in the face of reality, but then why aren’t we seeing it all over the world? Why did it apparently happen just in the one place we were about to be attacked by a force of 200 organized Al Qaida militants, and why did it happen right before the attack was launched? (Especially since the Security Team had already been extended once before with no problems.)
From ABC News:
“The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had already asked for — and received — an extension of the SST earlier in the year. A February draft request for a 120-day extension, obtained by ABC News, stated that the team is “an integral part of our mobile and fixed site security functions,” augmenting the security escort work done by the Mobile Security Detachment, protecting the embassy, training local guards, serving as a Quick Reaction Force, providing “vital medical, communications, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), as well as, command and control enablers that are critical to post’s security effort.”
The embassy request stated: “Quite simply, we cannot maintain our existing levels of Embassy operations, much less implement necessary staffing increases, without a continued SST presence.””
It may not be likely, but if an Al Qaida mole at State did set this goal up for Al Qaida, by administratively pulling security, it’s worth noting that it would be devastating for Obama, Liberals, and all the Liberal Appeasers who want to fill our government with radical Islamists, as a sign of good will to our enemies. Imagine the outcry among normal Americans. These idiots letting the enemy run aspects of our government.
Suppose, on the day of the attack, as Obama listens to it live in the situation room, he asked angrily, “Who pulled all the security?” and the answer comes back, “A State Department worker named Mohammed Hussein, al Awaki.” Suppose a check of this guy finds he has as many connections to Muslim terrorists as Huma.
If it gets out, there would be a purge of anyone in State or Intel with a questionable Muslim pedigree, while Obama and his Liberal cabal would have been shown to be the incompetent tools we all know they are in matters of national security. And this would all happen right before the election.
If this was the case, at the moment Obama realized what happened, full cover-up mode would go into effect. It would be just as if Obama had pulled the trigger on the Benghazi attack himself, as a Muslim sleeper working for Al Qaida.
A key element of the coverup, would be to make the attack look unplanned. If it was unplanned, then the US government’s actions wouldn’t be related, and wouldn’t deserve scrutiny. Some protestors in a safe neighborhood just caught us sleeping by accident, so no need to investigate. Howeer, if an outpost deep in Al Qaida country was left wholly unguarded, and ripe for an attack, people may want to know why.
I’d really like to know who made the call to stall and thwart sending security to Benghazi, who put Stevens there, and just what their stories are. Sadly, given how our government protects it’s own incompetents, I will be surprised if we ever get any names.
Hopefully Mitt is up to the Herculean task of cleaning out the Stables of State and Intel. After Obama, we are going to have to purge a lot of bad actors from our government, and it will be all the tougher with rubes like McCain trying to thwart us at every turn.
Certainly, communications were directed to a specific individual. If we have the written directives, who are they addressed to and what did that person do with them? Better yet, why are we having to ask these questions instead of those we elect to speak for us?
I would not put anything past this man. He will stoop to any level to keep his hold on the White House.
Take a look at that woman who testified at the congressional hearings. Brilliant Mata-Hari or feckless bureaucrat?
Government is getting too big and the population is too desensitized. In the 50’s, everybody would have been thrown out over this. Now, it is barely worth a yawn among the electorate.
If you read my site, you will see my work looking at amygdala development, political orientation, r/K Selection Theory, and environmental conditions. A comfortable, secure environemnt fails to adequately train the amygdala to drive defensive actions when threatened.
We’ve had it pretty easy for pretty long, so the populace’s collective amygdala just isn’t developed enough to freak them out over this. With time, this will change, but it will require the implosion of the debt bomb and some harsh times, to bring everybody’s amygdalae up to speed, and bring sanity back to the populace.
Truth be told, it is all part of a natural cycle that occurs in any population. Free resources -—>population adopts an r-maximizing psychology (aversion to competition/threat, promiscuity/early age of sexualization of young, low loyalty to in-group)-—> population maxes out, resources become limited, competition begins -—>population turns K (competitive/aggressive, monogamous, later age of sexualization, high loyalty to in-group)
It’s true. We may not be able to spot the moles to smoke them out.
Think of this as “Fast and Furious” with jihadi twist...
Thank you for this post. There is much in it worthy of more consideration and investigation.
I have thought much the same as you with regard to whether or not this was an internal operation, an “October surprise”, designed to bolster Obama’s bona fides as a strong, war-time leader. Obviously, he isn’t one.
Where I differ with you is your apparent exoneration of Obama and Hillary from planning and executing this. Why do you think they were not the perpetrators in this conjectured scenario? Why not Hillary alone as the instigator through the Muslim Brotherhood via Huma?
Further, when the White House, the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the several branches of the military, the Sec’y of State’s office and other alphabets all watched the attack in real time for SIX straight hours, why was nothing done to help? Who ordered the drone overhead and who positioned the satellite overhead so all these folks could watch and listen as the attack began and progressed. Where are the videos now? Why have these people been silenced by Panetta? Where was Obama during this attack? Where was Hillary? For that matter, where was Huma Weiner? (I assume she took the rat’s name).
I've seen the hypothesis that the security was removed as part of an October Surprise that backfired and went horribly wrong ( what Hussein 0bama plan hasn't?) Unless members of the 0bama regime, including Barry himself, are prosecuted, we will probably never know the truth, and maybe not even then.
“I doubt Obama would be stupid enough to try this.”
I would not put anything past this man. He will stoop to any level to keep his hold on the White House.
If this was a Tom Clancy novel we would be hearing “Plausible Deni-ability” by now. Certainly there is a lot happening in this incident that makes a reasoning individual ask some intriguing questions.
Without going into depth though, I too think that this was a engineered operation, (sloppily), with the goal of releasing the “Blind Sheik” to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. And like most sloppy operations it failed, Back-fired and achieved the opposite of the desired goal.
Which is probably the thing that makes it the most believable as a scenario. The Obama White House has a very, very good record of achieving the opposite of what their stated goals were.
It appears he needed Candy Crowley's help in that second debate -- even whining like a little kid for her to speak louder to help him.
Fortunately all Romney has to stress is the deliberate weakening of security over the objections of everyone who knew anything.
This is going to be the worst asskicking in a debate EVAH.
bingo, I could be wrong but my sense is that Ambassador Stevens was a liaison between the US and Turkey to smuggle weapons to the Syrian rebels. Obviously Assad and Iran stopped it. Considering the obozo admins lack of experience, Obozo likely thought since the US was arranging the provision of weapons for the anti-government rebels that the Libyan embassies would be immune from being attacked. Just like in F & F, his plan backfired and Americans died.
“Why do you think they were not the perpetrators in this conjectured scenario? Why not Hillary alone as the instigator through the Muslim Brotherhood via Huma?”
The timing speaks to Al Qaida, IMO. I wouldn’t think Hillary or Obama would specifically use that date, though I could be wrong.
I don’t doubt the sociopathy of the modern Liberal politician, or their unlimited hunger for power at all costs, but it seems as if this would be just a little too much risk for them. They are, above all cowards, and the thought of ending up bouncing on the end of a rope would, I think, prevent them from making the jump to actually helping Al Qaiad in a way which couldn’t be denied.
Oddly enough on the slower military response, I saw Stevens requested to be allowed to keep an airplane which was tasked with quick deployment of security assests throughout Libya, but State took it away, saying it wasn’t needed, since planes could be chartered on an as-needed basis. The first Military to arrive in support at Benghazi supposedly had to wait for a charter plane to ferry them from Tripoli to Benghazi. Again, someone in State left them hogtied.
But obviously, it is all speculation.
” this failed treasonous act.”
Failed or no it is still treasonous
I’ve seen that, and of course Assad surely could have provided support to the attackers, or even contracted them expressly for this, under a false Al Qaida flag.
Stevens had just ended a meeting with the Turkish Ambassador, which he apparently didn’t want to do in Tripoli, so maybe that was behind the scenes. But it seems as if Obama, and Hillary (and their little F&F II) couldn’t have benefitted from pulling the Marine guards, if that was the case. So I see this post as being a slightly different issue, relating to our letting hostile elements gain influence within our government bureaucracies.
Why was Stevens stripped so completely of security, and forced to stay in a compound, deep in militant territory, with only 5 DSS personell, many of which were manning camera feeds? How did that battle field get prepped, and who did it?
Obama and Hillary just don’t seem to benefit from stripping him of security. Any F&F II doesn’t benefit from seeing the Marines pulled either. IF they were running a Covert Op, leaving teh Ambassador open to being killed by his target would seem poor planning, as it would risk the Operation becomming open.
The only way I see the Marine guards pulled, the SOF security team pulled, the DSS team which was pulled pulled, and their security airfleet pulled, is if this operation had assets on the inside, managing the bureaucracy at State, and providing logistical support by hogtying our ability to defend against the attack.
I will bet, regardless of this case, we will see such an coordinated operation in the future, if we keep letting the enemies within our gates, and giving them the power to deny assests to operators on the ground.
>”Which is probably the thing that makes it the most believable as a scenario. The Obama White House has a very, very good record of achieving the opposite of what their stated goals were.”
I don’t know whether to laugh, or nod my head vigorously in agreement. The most incompetent administration since Carter.
>This is going to be the worst asskicking in a debate EVAH.
Agreed. Romney has been quite a delight to watch. This next one should be even better.
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.