How long as it been? Years have gone by and there is a Select Committee of Congress, yet still we do not know the answer to three basic questions about the Incident at Benghazi that any detective doing a homicide investigation would ask. We do not know how ambassador Stevens died. If he was murdered, we do not know who did it, and finally, what was the motive for the murder of our ambassador? In short, we need a theory of the crime to find out the truth about the Incident at Benghazi.
Until the official autopsy results are given to the public, we are left to wonder how Stevens died at Benghazi
“The most recent summary of the events came from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2014. In an appendix, the report provides a timeline. It has this entry for 1 a.m. Sept. 12, 2012.”
"Local Libyans found the Ambassador at the Mission Facility and brought him to a local hospital. Despite attempts to revive him, Ambassador Stevens had no heartbeat and had perished from smoke inhalation." Yet without an autopsy report,
how do we know this to be true?
Until the official autopsy results are given to the public, we are left to wonder how Stevens died at Benghazi. Rumors of rape, mutilation and torture will persist until proven otherwise. Like most of the facts surrounding the Incident at Benghazi, it is hard to see the truth through the darkness and the smoke.
It seems unlikely that ambassador Stevens died of natural causes. This being the case, other questions arise. Could the life of the ambassador have been saved? Was an order to stand down given to stop aid from reaching Benghazi? What was ambassador Stevens doing at Benghazi in the first place? Finally, Who killed ambassador Stevens?
We know now that it may have been possible to save Stevens and the other Americans at Benghazi. “Judicial Watch…released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering ‘forces that could move to Benghazi’ during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, ‘we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi.
They are spinning up as we speak.’”
“According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty…were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack. The first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired…and (they) requested permission to go to the consulate to help out…(Forbes).”
As far back as 2012, the “official” explanation for the Incident at Benghazi is that it was a spontaneous demonstration protesting a video
The Examiner.com claims “…former House speaker Newt Gingrich…was informed by a U. S. senator that at least two media networks have recently been given…evidence about the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans…The networks obtained e-mail evidence from…the office of National Security Advisor James Jones…ordering a counterterrorism team to cancel a rescue mission at the U. S. consulate and CIA annex in Libya. According to Gingrich…they were told explicitly by the White House
‘stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action.'” Former House Speaker Gingrich has never been called by the Select Committee to verify these statements.
As far back as 2012, the “official” explanation for the Incident at Benghazi is that it was a spontaneous demonstration protesting a video that was seen by the attackers as insulting to the Prophet and Islam. We know now that this “official” explanation, and the motive it suggests is a lie. According to the president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, “I think you can fairly conclude that it was during that phone call that they (Clinton and Obama) decided to push the
video lie…” Nevertheless, the White House has repeatedly claimed Stevens’ death was the result of a protest to a video insulting to Islam.
The death of a US ambassador is a serious matter. Stevens was the personal representative of president Obama. To let years go by without charges made in this matter seems scandalous. At the very least, the perpetuators could be charged with fourth degree murder. No to do so may be a result of the fundamental transformation that is taking place in US society and an attempt to cover up what was going on at Benghazi.
What was Stevens doing at Benghazi that brought him into harms way? It is generally agreed that some kind of gun running was taking place at Benghazi and that ambassador Stevens was a party to it. Fox News confirmed this. Weapons were probably collected by the CIA from the old Libyan regime and assembled at Benghazi
for transport via Turkey to the rebels fighting Assad in Syria.
Many now believe that after Stevens’ death
the administration put forward the cover story of a video being the reason for the attack that “killed” Stevens. In her Dover Air Force Base statement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
Nevertheless, Guy Taylor, writing in the Washington Times, claims documents show that the administration’s story that the attack at Benghazi was false from the beginning. “Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the
CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred…”
In his book, ‘Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,’ Edward Klein, “claims
President Obama instructed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to blame the Benghazi terror attack on a protest over an anti-Islam film, over Clinton's objections.” Perhaps Klein should testify under oath about this accusation.
We know, too, that, “When the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi...threatened to expose the administration's gun-running into Syria, it was Victoria Nuland who initiated the White House cover-up. After reading the first draft of the State Department's talking points stating the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack, Nuland warned this ‘could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill.’”
Edward Klein writes, “If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument (the video caused the death of four Americans) out of the water…
Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,’” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “‘Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.’”
If Stevens was involved with gun running, and an Internet video was not the motive for the attack at Benghazi, then we must look elsewhere for a motive for the crime. Something must have gone wrong in the weapons exchange that caused the attack to take place and Stevens and others to die. What could have that been?
It's highly unlikely that forces loyal to the Kadhafi regime could have attacked the CIA compound at Benghazi, without Stevens and the more than 30 Americans stationed there not knowing about the attack beforehand.
This delivery of weapons to al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias leads some to believe that Steven’s death was a hit, to keep him quiet about this connection between Clinton’s State Department and illegal gun running. If we accept this motive, then Ambassador Stevens, who was bright, ambitious, and well known to both Obama and Clinton, was betrayed by them.
But if all parties in the weapons exchange were making money on it, including al-Qaeda, what would be their motive for attacking and killing Stevens? Most likely not the motives mentioned above. It does’t make sense that al-Qaeda would be biting the hand that feeds it. This being the case, there seems to be no motive in these explanations for killing Stevens and stopping the flow of money and weapons.
Even if Secretary Clinton knew that US forces were ready to defend ambassador Stevens, only the president has cross border authority.
Is there another motive that builds on the weapons exchange and the video protests that leads to Stevens alleged torture, mutilation and murder, a motive that explains most of the evidence in this case?
It has been suggested that Stevens' death and the destruction at Benghazi were the result of a foiled plot to kidnap the ambassador and exchange him for the Blind Sheik who is held in a US prison. Then, after negotiations, both Stevens and the Blind Sheik would be exchanged, the arms shipments could continue, and Obama would be reelected. A good plan with a good outcome for many. But something went wrong. The kidnappers and Stevens did not count on resistance offered by other brave Americans who were not in the loop.
Even if Secretary Clinton knew that US forces were ready to defend ambassador Stevens, only the president has cross border authority. Clinton could not order on her own that US forces go from Italy and cross the border into Libya. Does this mean Clinton and Obama conferred before a decision was made? Obama or his agent may have given the order to stand down, and then they concocted the video story?
Some say there are militia members who were on the scene at Benghazi. They affirm that the attack on the compound was because of a video, but how can such a story be believed? Those militia members and their commander never testified to Congress under oath.
Unnamed sources say militia leaders may have helped orchestrate and directly participated in the attack—even though they were being paid, being fed, given automobiles and even allowed to swim in the consulate pool by the U.S. State Department. Fox News also has learned that the leader of the brigade, Fawzi Bukhatif, left Benghazi the day the attack ended on Sept. 12,
even as the consulate and annex were still smoldering...”
As it happened, not everyone was ready to stand down during the attack. Woods, and later Doherty, thought the attack was real and they responded like the brave Americans they were. They came out shooting. This resistance was a surprise to the attackers who were planning on no resistance and an easy kidnapping. When some of the attackers were killed, things got out of control.
The attackers, many who may have had Muslim Brotherhood ties in Egypt, felt betrayed and angry. They took their anger out on Ambassador Stevens. It was this anger that may have led to Stevens' alleged torture and death. The motive for Stevens' murder seems to be revenge. That revenge may have been carried out by a group led by Ahmed Abu Khattala.
It was reported that in 2014, the United States had captured a militant suspected of leading the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby.
Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured by American troops in coordination with law enforcement. Kirby said Khattala was captured…and that all U S personnel involved in the operation were safe.
Khattala, said Kirby, is now "in a secure location outside of Libya." Has this man been brought before Congress to testify? As far as anyone knows, he has not. What is Congress waiting for? Isn’t his testimony necessary? Ought it not be made public so that this murder investigation can be closed?
But maybe Khattala is not the man we are looking for and maybe he lacks a motive for killing Ambassador Stevens. There has never been another theory of the crime at Benghazi like the failed kidnapping theory and explains all the facts that we so far know.
Once things fell apart at Benghazi, the administration made a decision to go with the cover story they already had on the shelf or were developing--blame it on the video, lie, and hope for the best.
Given the evident planning for an attack at Benghazi, the lines of communication between Ambassador Stevens, the CIA and State Department along with various factions in Libya, a planned kidnapping of a US ambassador is certainly a possibility. The failure of this plan is also the best motive we have so far for the murder of Ambassador Stevens.
You would think, after all this time, the results of any honest and complete investigation into the death of Ambassador Stevens would have answered clearly three questions: a) How did Ambassador Stevens die, b) If he was murdered, who killed him, and c) What was the motive for his murder?
Any homicide detective investigating a crime would want to answer these questions. Why can’t Congress do the same? Not to answer these questions truthfully and to get lost in a blizzard of emails seems to be an obfuscation. Yet, when it comes down to it, those emails may be the only evidence investigators have to build a case against Clinton. Even though many are troubled by her statements regarding the Incident at Benghazi, there is so far no smoking gun, so to speak.
Like Al Capone, Clinton may end up being prosecuted on a lesser charge. Many thought that Capone was guilty of murder, but he was found guilty of tax evasion, instead, and sent to prison. Perhaps the only case against Hillary Clinton will be built electronically. Still, we have to wonder why it takes so long to answer three questions common to any murder investigation. Anything else but these answers gives the impression someone is being protected. And so they may be, for the time being.
REMEMBERING CHRIS STEVENS: AN AMBASSADOR BETRAYED:
AN INTERNET AUTOPSY:
TWO THEORIES ABOUT BENGHAZI:
