Share This Post

Sat, 2012-10-27 02:17 -- John Batchelor
Saturday, October 27, 2012


Spoke Larry Johnson, Reza Kahlili, in re the Benghazi events of 9-11-12, and the continuing revelations of why the White House, State and other voices did not dispatch military assistance to the requests for support over several hours.  Larry Johnson publishes an update of the facts we have so far of the responsibilities and unexplained poor performance of the national security apparatus.  My fresh information is how to explain the surprising scale of the errors at Benghazi.  It is useful to stipulate that the building where Ambassador Stevens was attacked was not a consulate.  It was a State Department residence that was maintained to provide an explanation for the presence of the CIA station that was about a mile distance -- the so-called "annex" that was also attacked by the Jihadists on September 11 and where the two ex-Seals perished and many were wounded.  The CIA station "annex" was responsible for recruiting and training Libyan assets in Benghazi, many of whom were directed to the so-called "Libyan Brigade" that is serving in Syria under the supervision of Turkish Military Intelligence.  (This is part of the operation aimed at removing the Assad regime and replacing it with Jihadist/Islamists sympathetic and beholden to the Sunni lords at Cairo-Ankara-Riyadh-Doha.) The attackers were fully informed of these facts, as they are part of the Cyrenaica networks of Jihadists/Islamists that have dominated the province for decades.  (The attackers are commanded by the tribes/authorities of the province.)  Why was the US dealing with treacherous gunmen?  This is the infamous big picture of Libya and the Obama administration.  I am told that, following the fall of Tripoli in the fall of 2011, POTUS Obama ordered that the Jihadists were to be handed control of Libya.  POTUS believes this gesture demonstrates to the Arab Spring's newly-minted Jihadist/Islamist warlords (Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sanaa) as well as to the old warlords (Riyadh, Doha, Ankara) that the US policy is not opposed to Jihadism and Islamism (despite the drone strikes and the assassination of Bin Laden.)   In addition to this gesture of apologetics, POTUS has directed the US and its allied security apparatus to train and equip the gunmen of Benghazi in order to send them to Syria in order to demonstrate how the US supports the Jihadist/Islamist cause not only in Libya, not only in Syria, but also throughout the ummah.


This unusual formula of apologizing for as well as trusting and working with Jihadists was moving along as ordered by the US until the crisis of the Benghazi attack.  On the afternoon of September 11, 2012, POTUS confronted the contradiction in his policy in a dead ambassador, Chris Stevens, whose job included assisting the Jihadist/Islamists who then assassinated him.  Why didn't the US counterattack?   The indication so far points to a decision by POTUS, VPOTUS and the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, meeting in the Oval Office approximately 5 pm ET, to maintain the fiction of the video protest riot in order to avoid dealing with evidence of the wrong-headed US choice made a year earlier in Libya and continuing in Syria and so forth.  I am told that the reason the Jihadists in Libya posted on Facebook that the attack was launched by the umbrella group "Ansar al-Sharia" -- this was reflected in the 6:08 PM ET email to the White House -- was to counter the US story that the protest was a video riot.  The killers wanted credit for their betrayal.  The Obama administration continued to maintain the fiction for the next weeks, because POTUS chooses to maintain his Libya policies.  Rather than reassess Obama administration's false apologetics for the anti-American Arab Spring, POTUS continues to argue that Benghazi was the work of bad elements who will eventually be defeated by the Jeffersonian wing in Tripoli out of gratitude to the US.   In sum, my information is that the president's handling of the now uniformly tyrannical and predatory Arab Spring is a "strategic political fiasco."  Will it change the results on November 6?  Unlikely.  However the inquiries that will follow the election will likely challenge all of the Obama administration's decisions before and after September 11, 2012.