Benghazi? We don’t know nothing about no Benghazi!!!

UPDATE:  The ever-eloquent Mark Steyn explains why it does, indeed, matter.

Of course reality matters…

And a bit of the testimony here:

It would be simply sad if it were not so dangerous…

5 Responses to “Benghazi? We don’t know nothing about no Benghazi!!!”

  1. CodeSlinger Says:


    Mark Steyn does a good job of articulating “what difference it makes” that Obama, Clinton, Panetta and Petraeus all lied to the American people about Benghazi.

    But, like so many other commentators, he focuses on the implications for domestic party politics and studiously avoids the real heart of the matter. In all the kerfuffle about who knew what, when, who gave the order to stand down, and who is trying to make political hay out of it, the really important questions are being overlooked by almost everyone:

    Why did they lie? And why did they let Stevens die?

    All the evidence points to a very disturbing conclusion: Benghazi was the payback for an illegal arms deal gone bad.

    Consider the following facts:

    The Libyan Army had a large number of SA-7 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, which were stolen by the Libyan rebels and are now officially unaccounted for.

    Ambassador Christopher Stevens was the official US liaison to the Libyan rebels, and his mission in Benghazi was to recover these missiles.

    The so-called consulate in Benghazi was actually the office wing of a warehouse complex.

    A Libyan freighter, the Al Entisar, put into the Turkish port of Iskenderun on September 6. Iskenderun is only 35 miles from the Syrian border. The Al Entisar’s 400-ton cargo included a large consignment of small arms, including rocket-propelled grenades and… SA-7 missiles.

    Shortly thereafter, the Free Syrian Army mysteriously acquired a large supply of SA-7 missiles. Surprise, surprise.

    Stevens met with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin on September 11, finishing about an hour before the attack on his complex by Ansar al-Sharia.

    It is impossible to say just what, but it seems quite clear that something about this transaction was not to the liking of Ansar al-Sharia and/or the Free Syrian Army, both of which are al-Qaeda affiliates. Hence the attack.

    Rather than let the truth come out, Obama, Clinton, Petraeus and Panetta set Stevens up to take the fall. And they concocted a ridiculously improbable series of nested cock-and-bull stories to cover it up – with the full participation of the media.

    And this brings us to the most important question of all:

    What happens to democracy when the government cannot be held accountable for its treasonous malfeasance because the press refuses to bring the truth to the people?

    The chilling answer to this question is becoming all too clear.

    Xanthippa says:

    There is even more to this – in this very line of reasoning – than you point out.

    Turkey’s Erdogan and Assad are personal enemies. It’s deeper than just religion or politics. And, Obama has cited Erdogan as his closest international political ally…

    There are numerous rumours that while Obama was a Senator, he had had a romantic relationship with Stevens and that that is why Stevens was the only one trusted to handle these ‘sensitive’ transactions, despite being openly homosexual and being sent to negotiate with fanatics who think all homosexuals ought to be killed. It was, as per rumour, thought that Stevens’s relationship with Obama and the Islamists’ need for Obama would protect him from their wrath.

    I could go on and on…it seems that Obama, whose administration is deeply penetrated by Ikhwan operatives, is the firs US president who is an Islamist (even if he isn’t a Muslim).

  2. CodeSlinger Says:


    I’m not sure that Stevens’ homosexuality mattered all that much. Homosexuality is rampant among both sexes in Islamic countries – the stricter, the more so. Everybody does it, everybody knows that everybody does it, they just don’t admit it. So being gay could actually have worked to his advantage, if he played his cards right. A sanctimonious Christian fundamentalist would have had much bigger problems.

    I suppose it’s possible that Stevens was killed to keep him quiet about some skeleton in Obama’s closet, but I doubt it. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence to back up this assertion, just wild surmise. Meanwhile, better sources of dark hints about Obama’s secret past are still walking around unscathed. So I think this is misdirection, intended to keep our eyes off the real issue, which is that the CIA is arming al Nusra.

    The close relations between the Obama administration and Ikhwan (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood) are problematic, I agree. But the other factions, like the Salafis and the Wahhabis, are even worse. It’s very likely that Ikhwan is playing the Americans like Yehudi Menuhin played the violin. But, in all practicality, who else could they realistically work with in the Middle East?

    Now the idea that Erdogan and Assad have become personal enemies is an interesting one, because it wasn’t that long ago that they were good friends. Do you have any ideas about what may have happened between them to bring about this reversal?

    Xanthippa says:

    I agree that Stevens was not killed to cover up the relationship – rather, Stevens was picked to be the contact because Obama trusted him, due to their ‘close’ relationship. He was not killed to cover it up, but because even such a close relationship could not trump political expediancy.

    As to Erdogan and Assad – I do not know what had happened, but something DID happen…and it drove a huge wedge between them, one that is there an is ‘personal’…

    And – there are elements in the Middle East that are pro-secular and pro-democracy…these are the same people who are protesting against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, acting as vigilante groups to protect female protesters from rape by the pro-MB supportes…still, in the absence of an acceptable party, the only acceptable response is to not back ANY party!

  3. CodeSlinger Says:


    Well, from a certain purist point of view I can’t disagree with you, but you know the old saying:

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

    This maxim must be shaping American machinations in the Middle East to some degree.

    The question is, to what degree?

    Be that as it may, however, there are certain lines which must not be crossed. It’s one thing to “work with” the Muslim Brotherhood in order to pre-empt other players’ attempts to establish influential relationships in the region. It’s quite another to fund, train, and arm organizations whose whole reason for being is to bring down the USA.

    The inescapable conclusion is that these lines were crossed in Benghazi.

    Otherwise there would be nothing to cover up.

  4. Steynian 467nd | Free Canuckistan! Says:

    […] tell real wizards from fake ones these days; Canadian CSIS makes a smart move; Benghazi? We don’t know nothing about no Benghazi!!!; Our Solar System May Be More Unusual Than Previously Thought; The consequences of the Obama […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: