Here are the first two paragraphs of an article today in the Daily Mail which may explain why president Obama has stonewalled Congress and the American people on the Benghazi attacks.
Four hundred American surface-to-air missiles were 'taken from Libya' during the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a former U.S. Attorney who represents whistleblowers claimed on Monday.
He added that the U.S. intelligence community is terrified they might be used to shoot down airliners.
The former US Attorney to whom the statements are attributed is Joe diGenova whose wife represents a number of folks who were at the Benghazi compound when it was attacked.
First of all, let's state the obvious. This may not be the truth. The British press loves sensational stories, and this one certainly fits that bill. We will need to hear from others with first hand knowledge to confirm this.
On the other hand, let's assume for the moment that the Mail story is correct. It certainly explains a lot. Think about it. Imagine that president Obama had allowed a US mission in Benghazi to be used as a storehouse for anti-aircraft missiles. Most likely, these were missiles that had been the property of the Gaddafi regime which were then retrieved by American operatives. Then assume that in the middle of the presidential campaign, terrorists broke in and stole 400 missiles, each of which could bring down a commercial airliner somewhere around the world. It would be a defeat of the sort that could have ended Obama's re-election chances. After all, the missiles would have been assembled at a site in Benghazi with almost no security, and certainly without the security that would have been necessary to protect them were an attack launched. Obama could not have acknowledged that without perhaps killing his chances for re-election. That would explain among other things:
1. The youtube video story -- This phony story pushed by the administration and Obama took the spotlight off of what was in the embassy when it was attacked. After all, if there were no terrorists involved, it was, by definition not a terror attack. No one would even think to ask about weapons in the embassy.
2. Obama's disappearance on the night of the attack -- Obama was told of the attack when it first occurred (roughly 5 pm Washington time). He then went back to the residence in the White House and had no further involvement with the entire matter, although he did speak to Hillary Clinton later that night. For a president to ignore an ongoing attack on an American embassy seems almost unthinkable, yet, it happened. On the other hand, if there were anti-aircraft missiles in the embassy, then Obama's departure is the classic tactic of the president. I can hear him now telling America that he had no knowledge that the missiles were in the embassy and that he learned about that fact from news reports. Imagine also a subordinate telling the press that there was no need for the president to know. If that sounds familiar, it is because the same strategy has been used repeatedly by Obama to deal with big failures by his administration.
3. The stand down order -- American troops that were on their way to Benghazi were told at the airport in Tripoli to stand down. The troops might have found remnants of some of the missiles had they gone to Benghazi. Also, another fifty men with knowledge would have made it almost impossible to contain the story. After all, nearly everyone in Benghazi was CIA, and they can keep most secrets. Army troops are another matter. Similarly, the failure to send a plane armed with laser guided missiles now also makes sense. Two Americans died under fire in Benghazi while they were on the roof painting the target with a laser, but there was no aircraft in the area. If the terrorists had missiles, one can now understand why the air force did not send in its aircraft. They would have been sitting ducks.
Only time will tell if this story is true. If it is, however, then this is perhaps the biggest presidential scandal of the last century, and that includes Watergate.
Four hundred American surface-to-air missiles were 'taken from Libya' during the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a former U.S. Attorney who represents whistleblowers claimed on Monday.
He added that the U.S. intelligence community is terrified they might be used to shoot down airliners.
The former US Attorney to whom the statements are attributed is Joe diGenova whose wife represents a number of folks who were at the Benghazi compound when it was attacked.
First of all, let's state the obvious. This may not be the truth. The British press loves sensational stories, and this one certainly fits that bill. We will need to hear from others with first hand knowledge to confirm this.
On the other hand, let's assume for the moment that the Mail story is correct. It certainly explains a lot. Think about it. Imagine that president Obama had allowed a US mission in Benghazi to be used as a storehouse for anti-aircraft missiles. Most likely, these were missiles that had been the property of the Gaddafi regime which were then retrieved by American operatives. Then assume that in the middle of the presidential campaign, terrorists broke in and stole 400 missiles, each of which could bring down a commercial airliner somewhere around the world. It would be a defeat of the sort that could have ended Obama's re-election chances. After all, the missiles would have been assembled at a site in Benghazi with almost no security, and certainly without the security that would have been necessary to protect them were an attack launched. Obama could not have acknowledged that without perhaps killing his chances for re-election. That would explain among other things:
1. The youtube video story -- This phony story pushed by the administration and Obama took the spotlight off of what was in the embassy when it was attacked. After all, if there were no terrorists involved, it was, by definition not a terror attack. No one would even think to ask about weapons in the embassy.
2. Obama's disappearance on the night of the attack -- Obama was told of the attack when it first occurred (roughly 5 pm Washington time). He then went back to the residence in the White House and had no further involvement with the entire matter, although he did speak to Hillary Clinton later that night. For a president to ignore an ongoing attack on an American embassy seems almost unthinkable, yet, it happened. On the other hand, if there were anti-aircraft missiles in the embassy, then Obama's departure is the classic tactic of the president. I can hear him now telling America that he had no knowledge that the missiles were in the embassy and that he learned about that fact from news reports. Imagine also a subordinate telling the press that there was no need for the president to know. If that sounds familiar, it is because the same strategy has been used repeatedly by Obama to deal with big failures by his administration.
3. The stand down order -- American troops that were on their way to Benghazi were told at the airport in Tripoli to stand down. The troops might have found remnants of some of the missiles had they gone to Benghazi. Also, another fifty men with knowledge would have made it almost impossible to contain the story. After all, nearly everyone in Benghazi was CIA, and they can keep most secrets. Army troops are another matter. Similarly, the failure to send a plane armed with laser guided missiles now also makes sense. Two Americans died under fire in Benghazi while they were on the roof painting the target with a laser, but there was no aircraft in the area. If the terrorists had missiles, one can now understand why the air force did not send in its aircraft. They would have been sitting ducks.
Only time will tell if this story is true. If it is, however, then this is perhaps the biggest presidential scandal of the last century, and that includes Watergate.
No comments:
Post a Comment