Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Question

Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links



Not a single member of the Obama Administration except Lt. Gen. David Rodriquez (but not under oath before any congressional committee) has ever admitted that the Benghazi boondoggle was orchestratd by ranking members of the Obama Administration. In August, 2013 CNN was the first leftwing media to acknowledge that the claims that a spoof video about the Prophet Mohammad triggered a bloody protest in Benghazi were false.

The Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi US Consulate attack began to unwind like this: Gen. Carter Ham, head of Africom, was receiving the same threat assessment emails from Gregory Hicks that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were reading (although both Panetta and Clinton insisted under oath that they personally saw no communiqué from Benghazi), Gen. Ham assembled a rapid response team and notified Panetta he was "ready to go." Panetta ordered him to stand down and await further instructions. (Which suggests that although Obama was preparing for a Las Vegas fundraiser at that moment, he was still being kept-up-to-speed on what was happening, moment-to-moment in Benghazi by Panetta and Clinton.)

When Panetta told Ham to stand down, the General told him to screw himself, adding that he was sending his men in to rescue the Mission. Within a minute or so after Gen. Ham hung up the phone, Lt. Gen. (three stars) David Rodriquez entered his office and told Ham (four stars) that he—Rodriquez—was relieving Ham of his command on orders from the Secretary of Defense because he refused to obey a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief of the military. Let me see...who is that? Oh, yes. Obama. I think that's about as hands-on as you can get. So much for plausible deniability.

When Darrell Issa [R-CA], Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called the co-chairs of the "independent" Accountability Review Board on Benghazi, former federal judge and retired ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullens to testify before his Committee in May, he had to subpoena Pickering to get him to show. Both Pickering and Mullens refused to meet privately with Issa and his staff to discuss confidential material which could not be discussed in a televised House Committee hearing. So much for the independence and accountability of the review board.

Pickering and Mullens acknowledged to Congress on Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013 that [a] they were limited in scope who they could question, what questions they could ask and [b] they were required to submit their report to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for vetting before they released it.

Pickering and Mullens were asked why neither Clinton, Panetta nor any other top Obama official were questioned by the Accountability Review Board last year in the wake of the Benghazi attack and the murder of four Americans. There are still a ton of unanswered questions about what was actually happening on the ground at the Benghazi consulate compound on September 11, 2012. The attack appears to have been launched by two al Qaeda-linked terrorist factions: the Al-Nusra Front and Ansar al-Sharia. They were not there to protest a homemade video by a US citizen named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (which only 200 people in the world had ever seen at that point, and no one in Libya even knew about).

It appears the raid may have been staged solely to confiscate weapons stored in Benghazi, awaiting the okay to surrender them to the Free Syrian Army. That scenario, while guesswork, lends logic to the theory that the reason for no boots on the ground in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 was to conceal the fact that the Benghazi compound was more of an armory for the Syrian rebels who were battling Bashar Assad than to protest a video denigrating Mohammad by attacking the US mission in Benghazi, Libya.

It might prove embarrassing for the Obama Administration if a Benghazi rescue mission morphed into a Congressional hearing questioning why, without the advise and consent of Congress, Obama was arming the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Free Syrian Army which apparently was expecting an immediate shipment of arms from the Obama Administration. Is it possible someone in the Syrian "freedom movement" let the information slip to the wrong "freedom fighter?" Al Qaeda, which is not a friend of the Muslim Brotherhood, may have thought the weapons would be better served in al Qaeda's hands than the hands of the Brotherhood-aligned Free Syrian Army?

It would be difficult for the Obama people to explain a cache of weapons in the compound that the Obama Administration appears to have been trying to copter out of Benghazi when the raid started. In other words, maybe everyone was reading the risk assessments from Hicks, and they responded not by trying to reinforce the consulate or extract consulate personnel. Rather, it appears, they were trying to get rid of the weapons in order to keep them from falling into the hands of al Qaeda. And, believing, perhaps, that when the weapons were gone, the catalyst for violence would dissipate and the raid would end.

If that's a reasonably accurate assessment of what was happening on the ground, it didn't work. In the end, the Obama inner circle created a bigger scandal than Watergate when Nixon hirelings broke into the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in the Watergate office complex in order to bug it. The Watergate break-in was a crime. But, no one died. In Benghazi, the Obama Administration chose not to defend the consulate for fear, it now seems, that their covert skullduggery might be revealed. It was more convenient, it appears, to deliberately let four Americans: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Consulate IT Specialist Sean Smith, former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty die at the hands of radical extremists.

In Benghazi, the guilty party—the Obama inner circle—shielded itself from having to discuss anything about Benghazi with anyone, including the constitutional body which, by law, they answer to.

Remember when Barack Obama promised the families of murdered Americans that he would bring the guilty parties to justice? Of course, he didn't really mean the real guilty parties. He meant the terrorists who killed Stevens. Technically, by UN standards, they are combatants in a war between Islam and America. Captured, they should be treated as combatants and not criminals.

The real criminals in the Benghazi incident were the members of the Obama Administration who engineered the cover-up. They are the ones who committed the crime against the United States—and the American people. Particularly the families of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty. The inner circle participants of the cover-up are Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Janet Napolitano, then UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, the caretaker of all of Obama's secrets, and State Dept. press spokeswoman Victoria Nuland who was rewarded for her role in the Benghazi cover-up with the job of Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs on Sept. 12, 2013. Promotions guarantee silence.

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.