The Assassination of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens

 

by John Galt
October 31, 2012 05:00 ET

 

As the story about the death of four brave Americans doing what their nation had asked of them, at least from a government perspective, fades into the noise of the 2012 elections and the monstrosity known as the mainstream media, the question which must be asked is staring everyone in the face:

 

Did President Barack Obama order the assassination of the United States Ambassador to Libya and the subsequent cover up?

 

The supposition stated above is not a reach, nor is the speculative inquiry which follows.

 

First, let’s establish a series of facts thanks to the hard work of some surviving journalists within the Washington, D.C. cesspool of propagandists.

 

1. The facts that this was indeed a terrorist attack are still vague. As of over 30 days later, only one suspect, a dupe from Tunisia was captured in Turkey and charged with being a suspect in the alleged attack. Despite leaks from the administration that “retaliatory strikes” were in the planning stages, no arrests nor counterattacks even using drones as purportedly would occur, have been carried out against the alleged terror cell which engaged in the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

 

2.  President Obama was 100% aware of the events which were occurring in real time on September 11, 2012. The Blaze.com published an obvious, but logical article on October 28, 2012 validating this fact with an article where retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer stated that his sources knew the President was witnessing the attack in real time.  Despite the reality which even the regime knew would leak out eventually, the political handlers and insiders insisted on promoting the story that the murder of our ambassador was due to a two time loser creating a video for YouTube which fewer than 50,000 people had seen before 9-11-12. This begs the question which the media is too stupid to ask: Was Obama watching in horror or to ensure that the job was done properly?

 

3.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation was never allowed to survey the scene immediately after the attack nor interrogate any suspects in the nation. The most disturbing facts are that the stories erased from the memory of the American public create questions which have not nor will not be answered unless the CIA investigation or other intelligence source data is released:

 

Why was the Ambassador sodomized by the Islamist terrorists immediately before or just after his death and that aspect of the reporting deleted in all future references to the story? If we are to believe Islamic lore, it was to dishonor his body as too impure for entrance into heaven and condemnation to hell by Allah. It is also a method used to dissuade other intelligence insiders though also to keep silent and play ball with the administration until further notice.

 

Why were all media reports about the alleged theft of CIA files, including the North Africa NOC (non-official cover) list scrubbed from the internet, even though the New York Times as late as September 23rd acknowledged the setback for U.S. intelligence agencies in the region?

 

Lastly, why was the F.B.I. denied entry into the consulate until many days after the attack? According to the initial media reports there was extensive looting, including quite probably classified data, before the buildings were set on fire. The  U.S. Government and especially the Obama administration are delaying any Congressional or media inquiries into what data was lost or the role of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the smuggling of arms to various regional rebellions before his death on September 11th.

 

Now it begs the big questions which are hanging over this entire national nightmare being deliberately obscured by media malpractice and political malfeasance by both parties. In this commentator’s opinion there are only two reasons as to why the President of the United States could or would be capable of such a heinous act such as the assassination of an American ambassador overseas.

 

The first, and most logical reason would be the simple solution:

 

Where and what happened to the over 19,000 shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADS) from the collapsed Libyan regime?

 

The former U.S. Navy Seals who were killed in Benghazi on that eventful night were on a mission according to numerous news sources to meet with Libyan intermediaries and seek out those weapons so they could be placed under control of the new Libyan government or a NATO coalition to prevent them from being obtained by terrorist organizations outside of the region. Their heroic efforts that night not withstanding, the lack of any apparent progress and the sudden appearance of shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of the Syrian rebels is far too much of a coincidence to view without great skepticism.

 

The larger concern however, is what if the Ambassador had information he was about to make public about a threat on the U.S. homeland? Imagine the election implications if millions of people suddenly cancelled commercial aircraft flights because of the threat of Islamist radicals shooting down extremely vulnerable U.S. commercial flights on take off or approach to airports throughout the American homeland. To make matters worse, think of the immediate collapse of the air transportation industry with millions of people cancelling flights during the busiest flying season of the year around Thanksgiving, triggering tens of thousands of layoff notices before the election.

 

Based on the performance of this administration to date, such a warning would never be allowed nor permitted due to the pragmatic risk to the economy and the potential panic it would create. Thus this justification for killing the ambassador might seem reasonable and simple, the real possibility of this occurring does not seem to impact the decision making process of the leadership in Washington.

 

That leaves the second possibility, and most damning one:

 

Follow the money.

 

In 2008, there was extensive reporting about mysterious donations to the Obama campaign from overseas sources which to this day remain a mystery.  In an article from Andrew McCarthy at the National Review (Obama’s Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations) where he quotes Ken Timmerman at Newsmax, the following statement rings true to this election cycle also:

 

By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.

 

A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws. For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit. Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.

 

And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

 

Yet the mainstream media remains complicit in the coverup of this alleged illegal activity even during this election cycle. The problem is though, that governments like those in Saudi Arabia do not offer up nor authorize “donations” to foreign leaders for free as they extract political favors or in some cases, mercenary activity to justify giving large sums to Presidents and Prime Ministers of other nations. The connection between the article linked above about the sudden appearance of shoulder fired aircraft missiles and the story from the U.K. Guardian on June 22nd does not take much of a reach:

 

Saudi Arabia plans to fund Syria rebel army

 

The plan then, as it is in action now, is to funnel arms and communications equipment through Jordan and Turkey into Syria to the rebels to further destabilize Bashir Al-Assad and collapse his regime. The issue for the Saudi royal family however is that there can be no direct link to the purchase or supply of weapons from their Kingdom to the use by other Muslims to kill another Islamic leader; even if he is a  Twelver and loyal Shiite ally of the Iranians. Conveniently enough, that is where the United States comes into the picture along with a campaign for re-election starving for cash.

 

Logically speaking, the assumption that thousands of the arms reported missing in Libya have been secured or at least accounted for by the U.S. intelligence community. With the blessings of the State Department looking to remold the world in its own perverse utopian vision of singular world governance along with the establishment of  regional blocs of power, the administration basically had a green light to supply the Syrian rebellion with weapons provided it could funnel those arms from a source with few if any American fingerprints. Initially the administration failed to engage in resupplying the anti-Assad forces with weapons but limiting American involvement to humanitarian support; at least until the middle of this summer.

 

The theory is quite simple. Weapons are shipped via one of the Ambassador’s former shipping partners of whom he had a prior relationship with during the Libyan rebellion would be used to transit arms paid for by Saudi overseas agents, probably front companies in Europe. The weapons are moved using CIA intermediaries to American bases in Turkey, inventoried and then transported via private carriage into Syria for use against Assad. For allowing the use of American facilities to support the Saudi royal families political goals, the Obama campaign would receive tens of millions of dollars in donations, often below the $200 per donation reporting limit in exchange for this support of the Syrian rebels. It is a total win for the administration as it strengthens the relationship of the Obama administration with Saudi Arabia and the royal family. It assists the rebellion in Syria to overthrow the dictatorship of Assad and helps to create the vision Obama and others have seen via the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and  their Wahhabi financiers in Riyadh. Lastly it guarantees a steady flow of cash which will never be tracked nor traced to its origins because of U.S. election law and the refusal of the Obama administration to supply the data as it is not required by U.S. law.

 

Imagine what would happen if an American ambassador decided to show some honor and come forward and do the right thing by threatening to go public with the corruption and information he or she had about such an operation.  Then imagine a meeting being set up with a member of the Turkish government, probably friendly to or working with U.S. intelligence agencies  in Benghazi on September 11th to either discuss the next shipment or establish further plans for expanding the arms for money laundering operation. Fast forward to a reality where the guards surrounding the ambassador abandon him upon the first attack which could or could not be construed as a CIA sponsored hit under orders from the President to eradicate all evidence on site at the consulate including the ambassador. Far fetched? Not with this administration. If one takes a moment to look at the current status of this abomination in Libya, there is no evidence remaining as to what covert activity the ambassador was up to nor is there any ability to confirm now which deals he was indeed involved in during a confidential Congressional hearing which will never occur now.

 

The lack of a proper team to protect the Ambassador now begins to make sense considering the vulnerability of meeting the Turkish attache in Benghazi and the apparent orders of American forces to stand down while the assault was underway. This lack of protection, similar to an insider organized crime hit, also validates the old saying, “Dead men tell no tales.”

 

If anyone doubts the logic behind the concept of the U.S. government ordering a hit on one of its own, a quick refresher course of American history is long past due. The problem with this regime is that their Marxists tendencies are similar to those of the old Soviet Union where the achievement of political goals regardless of obstacles must be achieved with extreme prejudice; even if that means killing American citizens in cold blood to promote their program.

 

Or in this case, their “Project.”

 

 

 

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: