30 March 2013
There have been a number of theories about what took place in Benghazi and why. Of course, we are aware of the administration’s obvious lies about a bogus YouTube video being the cause. I’ve also written on the fact that some believe that the attacks in Benghazi took place as a result of an international Fast and Furious by the Obama administration. As questions arise about where the the Benghazi survivors are and why they are being silenced, Republican congressmen have called on Secretary of State John Kerry to bring them forward. However, is the reason that the Benghazi survivors are not being allowed to speak, but instead are virtual prisoners for the past eight months, is because they would destroy each of the stories that have gained prominence and end up proving that the Benghazi attack was really a bungled abduction attempt?
Back on November 14, 2012, retired Four-Star Admiral James “Ace” Lyons was a guest on Lou Dobbs Tonight and suggested that the attack in Benghazi, Libya was a result of a bungled abduction attempt. Many of the readers of this blog are aware of that while some are not.
Admiral Lyons’ career in the United States Navy included two years of service as the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 1985 to 1987. His speculation is that the kidnapping was planned to be a first stage in an international prisoner exchange, which included the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheik” who was convicted of orchestrating the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993.
Lyons has put forth that the Obama administration softened security in Benghazi to reduce the possibility that resistance would be minimal as the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist organization kidnapped Ambassador Chris Stevens. They just were not counting on Americans to step up and resist, like those brave souls which included former U.S. Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and State Department information manager Sean Smith. Woods and Doherty, ignored order to “stand down.”
In a piece published by the Western Center for Journalism, Kris Zane cited an anonymous source inside the White House that explained that Benghazi was to be used for political gain for Barack Obama, indicating that the goal was two-fold. The first was to be able to release Abdel Rahman which would be “palatable to the American people” and second, it would be an “October surprise for Obama.” In doing this, Obama would be seen as having won the release of Stevens, thus boosting his approval ratings heading into the 2012 elections.
Zane then produced a video and published it on October 25, 2012 that detailed the research and findings conducted to the conclusion, which you can see below.
Additionally, Alex Newman, writing at The New American, pointed out that the official report by the U.S. government’s Accountability Review Board not only omitted, but failed to even raise some of the most glaring questions about the Benghazi attacks. Those questions are:
• What was the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists, self-styled al Qaeda terrorists, and Western-backed “revolutionaries” take over Libya in the first place?
• Did that half-baked scheme to arm Jihadist leaders, who as the report acknowledges had previously fought U.S. troops in Iraq, contribute to the attack, as countless experts and officials have suggested?
• What was actually going on at the compound in Benghazi, which as the report states, was never a “consulate” despite establishment media claims?
• Was Ambassador Stevens recruiting and arming Jihadists and terrorists to wage war on the Syrian regime after what Obama called the “success” in Libya, as a growing body of credible evidence suggests?
• Why did the administration claim for so long that the attack was just a “protest” over a YouTube video gone awry, even when it knew definitively that was not the case?
• Was the lack of security at the compound a political ploy to conceal the extent of the lawlessness and utter chaos left in the wake of Obama’s unconstitutional “regime change” war on Libya, as even members of Congress have alleged?
My guess is this. The Benghazi survivors continue to be, in essence, prisoners of the government because their accounts just might tell us exactly what the Benghazi attacks were all about. After all, Benghazi survivors would have more than likely heard discussions taking place during the attacks and could testify to that, along with who was actually there and they could provide detailed information of what actually took place to the American people. The story seems very plausible to me. The problem seems to be getting Republicans to move on this issue and not ask, but demand these survivors come forward and testify as a matter of national security.
If Barack Obama was playing games with the lives of Americans, including an American ambassador, for his own political gain, then the truth needs to come out and justice needs to be done.