On October 4 in Canada Free Press, I wrote a column entitled Was Ambassador Stevens’ Death a Hit?, so suspicious did I find the circumstances surrounding the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya at that time. On October 25, I followed up with Obama’s Feet of Clay, in which I discussed the likelihood that President Barack Obama failed to react to the attack despite real-time knowledge of developments in Benghazi because he wished to obscure or bury evidence of the administration’s gun running activities to Libyan and Syrian rebels.
The reason for Obama’s desire to do so, in this scenario, would be twofold. One, because weapons were not only being provided to Libyan and Syrian rebels, but were in fact being provided to jihadists across the Middle East with whom Obama sympathizes, but who are enemies of the US. Two, because Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself may have become a liability for reasons still uncertain (although my first column outlines one possibility). The fact that Stevens’ mission, and that of other US operatives in Libya was a clandestine one has been established; this is certainly a likely reason for Obama to want a lid kept on it. If revealed, obviously this would substantially threaten his re-election chances.
As I indicated early on, not only did I see Obama’s pre-September 11 actions as being executed in order to cultivate plausible deniability on his part, but I suspected even then that he might have employed rebels or jihadis to eliminate Stevens. It does bear mentioning that Obama’s cavalier dismissal of intelligence briefings leading up to Sept. 11, 2012 was widely reported prior to that date.
Indeed, the administration’s grotesquely feeble and ongoing contention that the unrest across the Middle East (including in Libya and Egypt) was caused by an anti-Muhammad video became less and less believable as time wore on, and more information about that tragic night became unavailable.
As Fox News reported on October 26, we now know that CIA operatives in Benghazi on September 11 were thrice denied permission by the administration to intercede and attempt to save Ambassador Stevens and other personnel. We also know that there was a US intelligence drone in the air over the consulate during at least part of the seven-hour siege, and that Washington had the ability to monitor events on the ground in Benghazi in real-time.
Which begs the question: Did President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other White House and State Department staff literally watch our people die over there, while they did nothing?
Throughout this debacle, the question on the minds of news viewers and those news organizations willing to report relevant developments has been: Why? First, they asked why the administration did not provide adequate security for its foreign service personnel in one of the most dangerous places on Earth on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America. Then, it became a question of why they didn’t do so after credible threats had been voiced by Ambassador Stevens and others. Now, it has become a question of why the administration withheld aid for the doomed men as they begged for it, with intelligence service personnel ready, willing, and able to provide it, and heavier armaments within an hour or two away.
At this juncture, the evidence has accumulated so unambiguously on the side of the Obama administration not wanting Ambassador Stevens and the other men rescued, despite being fully cognizant of their peril.
I believe that President Obama not only knew of that peril, but knew beforehand that the embassy would be attacked, because he facilitated the attack himself. After the contempt of Congress vote went against Attorney General Eric Holder in June, I believe that Obama determined that the Libya operation had become too much of a risk, and took steps to “make it go away.” A Mideast “Fast and Furious” emerging within weeks of the election would be devastating. I believe that Obama coordinated the assault through his connections with local jihadists, and that Stevens was the primary target. Obama cleared the way for the assailants via his inaction and interference, intending to cloak their mission within those of “outraged protestors” in the region.
Given the evidence, what other reason could there be?
I make this inference from a wealth of knowledge of Barack Obama as a person and a politician, from years of studying him, his methods and motives, and from individuals who know the man. I have stated quite plainly that I believe he is a sociopath and malignant narcissist, an opinion that has been publicly shared by credentialed professionals in the field of psychology. It is more than likely that Obama has engaged in such action before, and on more than one occasion.
It is for this reason and numerous others that the imperative to remove him from office exists, and why he will continue to be a danger to the American people – and perhaps millions of others – until he no longer occupies the office of President of the United States.
At least we now know what Obama does when he gets that 3AM phone call referenced during the 2008 campaign. He waits until everyone’s dead, then goes back to bed.
I know that knowledge is small consolation.
Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary for numerous online and print publications. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level, which ignited a media firestorm that smolders to this day. His latest book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” examines the racist policies by which the political left keeps black Americans in thralldom, white Americans guilt-ridden and yielding, and maintains the fallacy that America remains an institutionally racist nation. Links to his work are available at Erikrush.com.Commenting Policy
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement