Sunday, April 21, 2013
Betrayal at Benghazi: What Difference Does It Make? --Robert Klein Engler
Betrayal at Benghazi: What Difference Does It Make?
--Robert Klein Engler
“From the halls of Foggy Bottom, to the shores of Tripoli,
We advance our Nation’s interests, in the land of Qadhafi."
--Chris Stevens
"They are dogs," the men say of the dead, as they attack and smash the headstones of Allied and Italian service members laid to rest in a World War II cemetery in Benghazi. In an act of betrayal, markers identifying Christian or Jewish war dead are damaged and broken. One man takes a hammer to a ceremonial Cross of Remembrance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57390828-503543/vandals-desecrate-wwii-cemetery-in-libya/
Benghazi is the kind of place where not only crosses but men are broken. A port city on the Mediterranean coast in eastern Libya, the name “Benghazi” can be traced back to mean, “bearer of victory.” If you want to ship weapons undercover to Syria, Benghazi would be a good place to do it. Benghazi is also as good a place as any to die in battle.
The Incident at Benghazi was a terrorist attack and battle that lasted about eight hours. It was not a spontaneous protest against the insulting YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims.” Once the truth is known about the Incident at Benghazi, the demonstrated heroism and betrayal there, will be studied at military academies in years to come.
The fact that the Incident at Benghazi was an act of terror is important. The distinction between an act of terror and a spontaneous demonstration is so important that it raises suspicions about what Barack Obama said in the White House rose garden after the attack.
According to Anneke E. Green of the Washington Times, "A check of the September 12, 2012 speech released by the White House shows that President Obama did not call the attack on the U. S. mission in Benghazi, Libya an 'act of terror' as he claimed in the debate..."
"He said that, 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for' but did not say that the Benghazi attack qualified or was being pursued as one."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/16/green-factcheck-obama-did-not-call-benghazi-act-te/
Because the Incident at Benghazi is not being pursued as an act of terror, we are left with the gnawing realization that the Americans at Benghazi could have been saved. W are left with a growing scandal and a cesspool of betrayal.
stand down
Many who have asked questions about the Incident at Benghazi are disappointed in the congressional investigation so far. The most important question that needs to be asked and answered for them is, "Who gave the order to 'stand down' at Benghazi?" Once that question is answered, the rest of what happened there may fall into place.
"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…"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/11/26/questions_for_the_president_benghazi_edition_296670.html
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.'”
http://www.examiner.com/article/emails-show-white-house-ordered-u-s-forces-to-stand-down-benghazi
If there is a cover-up about what happened at Benghazi, then the cover-up is not about inadequate security but about covering up why no one in the White House helped while Americans fought for their lives. We know now there was ample time to send help to save ambassador Stevens, if a decision was made to do so. This is Jeffery Kuhner’s point.
Jeffery Kuhner writes in WorldTribune.com, "Two hours after the assault began the State Department sent an e-mail to numerous agencies--including the White House Situation Room--that Ansar al-Sharia, a terror group affiliated with Al Qaida, had claimed responsibility.”
“The e-mail went directly to the White House’s Executive Office--the president’s inner circle...from nearly the beginning Mr. Obama knew that Benghazi was a terrorist atrocity.”
http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/12/28/greatest-hits-2012-benghazi-obama-knew/
Dave Hodges adds creditability to the Gingrich statements about an order to stand down at Benghazi. Hodges claims on his radio show, "There is now proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton."
"As Stevens was begging for help after the attack had begun, General Hamm had activated a special forces team within minutes of learning that the embassy, which was really a CIA safe house, was under attack."
"When General Ham received his “stand down” orders from Obama, he made plans to go ahead with the rescue and was arrested within minutes of contravening the order by his second in command, General Rodriquez."
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/11/03/ambassador-stephens-death-and-the-coming-military-coup/
Contrary to theses statements by Gingrich and Hodges, on November 1, 2012, Mark Hosenball reported for Reuters, "Following the initial broadcast of the Fox News report, Jennifer Youngblood, a CIA spokeswoman, denied that CIA had ever turned down requests for help from U.S. personnel in Benghazi. ‘No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate,’ Youngblood said.”
Youngblood’s statement does not refer to the Department of Defense, the Department of State or even the White House. They all could have denied help. Nor does it clear up the comments made by Newt Gingrich about the ignored calls for assistance.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/us-usa-libya-cia-idUSBRE8A102T20121102
Weeks later, the FBI was at Benghazi to do an investigation, but for only a few hours. How many witnesses did they interview? What did they find out? The man who led the attack on our "mission" at Benghazi is reported giving interviews on Arabic TV.
In a report issued by the Accountability Review Board at the end of December 2012, the board blamed "systematic State Department management and leadership failures," for the Incident at Benghazi." No individuals were named or held responsible for the systematic failures.
The report went on to say, "The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders." There was no mention of the Gingrich claim about a stand down order, nor has Speaker Gingrich come forward with evidence to challenge the board's conclusion.
Summing up the ARB's finding on the Incident at Benghazi, Darrell Issa writes, "The report does not tell the public who is responsible for the assault itself. Clearly, all the questions have not been answered because we still don't know--or the administration won't say--who was behind this terrorist attack."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/21/lingering_questions
Now that we know the Incident at Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Hodges and Gingrich ought to testify before Congress about their claims regarding a stand down order. Are these men trying to drum up an audience for their own ends, or are they trying to get at the truth?
If for no other reason, we ought to answer the question about who gave the alleged stand down order to set the minds of our men and women in military service at ease. In short, four men are dead and so far only the mercuric system in Washington is to blame. And Julius Caesar just ended up dead, too. "Et tu Brute? Then fall Caesar!" No betrayal here. Move on.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA_ATTACKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-18-21-20-30
the second story
Ambassador Chris Stevens was not married. He had no children. He dedicated his life to working overseas for the US government. The product of the liberal East Bay community of Piedmont, Calif., Stevens was an international trade lawyer by training. He kept a home in the leafy East Bay enclave even after being named US ambassador to Libya.
“Harry Johnson, 69, who lived next to Stevens when the future diplomat was a boy, said Stevens had kept in contact after graduating from Piedmont High School in 1978. ‘He was so intelligent, but never lost the human touch,’ Johnson said. ‘He could make anyone feel comfortable and make them a part of his world because he fit into theirs.’”
http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Libyan-ambassador-kept-human-touch-3859504.php
Instead of practicing law, Stevens turned his talent and education to service overseas. He reportedly loved Libya and her people. Some say Stevens hoped to move on from service in Libya and become the US ambassador to Iran.
Maybe Stevens thought of himself as a modern day Lawrence of Arabia. After his death at Benghazi, rumors began to circulate claiming Stevens was gay.
Some critics maintain that such rumors and gay bar talk are not appropriate, while at the same time arguing that four dead Americans is not optimal. Jean Ann Esselink, writing for The New Civil Right Movement, believes it’s more important to see Stevens as an American hero rather than just a gay man.
Esselink writes, “…I cannot tell you if Chris was gay. I can tell you only that he was a 52-year-old man without wife or child, at least one he claimed in public. I could find no bereaved lover of either sex who raised a hand to acknowledge a relationship.”
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ambassador-chris-stevens-the-hero-we-never-knew/politics/2012/09/17/49123
The claim that Stevens was gay by itself would not be unusual. There have always been gay men working for the US Department of State. What is unusual is the political fodder that could be made in an election year by keeping this fact about Stevens hidden or making it known.
In the past, a same sex orientation was often not talked about by Department of State personnel. That changed in 2009. Secretary of State Clinton announced, “…that the Department of State is extending the full range of legally available benefits and allowances to same-sex domestic partners of members of the Foreign Service sent to serve abroad.” These benefits applied to those working in Benghazi, Libya.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-embassy-libya-sought-13000-year-bodyguards-limited-english-gave-preference-citizen
Anyone with access to a computer and the Internet would know also that the Department of State was looking for bodyguards to work at the US Embassy in Tripoli. The Department of State never hid the fact that a "same-sex domestic partner" qualified as an eligible family member for employment. If ambassador Stevens or a bodyguard at the embassy were gay, members of al-Qaeda would probably be able to know that.
http://libya.usembassy.gov/job_opportunities.html
If members of al-Qaeda could use the Internet to find out who was gay in Libya, the men at the Second Story bar in Chicago could use their gaydar to know the same. The Second Story Bar is a small gay bar found off North Michigan Ave. in Chicago. It is said the bar attracts gay diplomats stationed at the consulates around the city. Inside the bar there is a second story being told about the Incident at Benghazi and ambassador Stevens.
Kevin Dujan, writing in the HillBuzz.com says of the gay men he contacted in Chicago at the Second Story bar and elsewhere, “Of course, they’ve all been talking about ambassador Stevens’ murder by Muslims in Libya: and all of them are incredulous that the State Department sent a gay man to be ambassador to a Muslim country. News reports continue to indicate that the Muslims who murdered Stevens also raped him repeatedly, before and after his death.”
http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291
“Friends of Christopher Stevens in Chicago say he was gay. A member of the Serbian diplomatic team based in Chicago told HillBuzz.org that the State Department knowingly sent a gay man to be the ambassador of Libya. HillBuzz.org reports "in Chicago’s diplomatic circles at least there is no doubt that Chris Stevens was gay,” so reports the Examiner.
http://www.examiner.com/article/did-hillary-clinton-send-gay-ambassador-to-libya-as-intentional-provocation
Even the Advocate, a newspaper that covers GLBT issues, seems to skirt this important fact about Stevens’ life. They never mention the rumors outspoken at the Second Story bar. A writer for the Advocate did notice, however, that such a fact has political implications.
Before the November election, the Advocate made a point of condemning a Log Cabin Republican ad that used an image of Stevens’ dead body. The ad claimed, “If the Obama Administration isn't going to protect Gay/Gay-friendly American citizens from the terror of Islamic radicalism, what makes you think they will protect us from Shariah Law…?"
http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2012/10/12/body-ambassador-used-obscene-ad-gay-republicans
There may be another reason why the White House would not want to make it known Stevens might have been gay. To do so would open the door to selective outrage. Progressives become outraged over the death and rape of a gay man when it suits their political purposes.
The death of ambassador Stevens did not suit progressive purposes during this election cycle. It would be best to keep what he was doing at Benghazi and who he may have been a secret.
If the facts are uncertain about who Stevens loved, we do know that while in the Peace Corps, Stevens, "fell in love with Morocco and that part of the world." This seems fitting for someone with a talent for both French and Arabic and who earlier wrote in his Piedmont High yearbook, "What a bore it is, waking up in the morning always the same person."
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Slain-US-Ambassador-to-Libyas-Ties-to-Bay-Area-Go-Deep-169452886.html
Oscar Wilde, like ambassador Stevens, fell in love with Morocco, too. He vacationed there with his friend Lord Alfred Douglas. Wilde claimed that although Morocco was westward of Piccadilly, it made you feel as if you were taken and set down in the Old Testament.
Almost prescient about the Incident at Benghazi that swept up ambassador Stevens in a sandstorm of betrayal, Wilde wrote, “The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."
sparkling lights
Laramie, Wyoming is half a world away from Benghazi, Libya. Benghazi is by the seashore and Laramie is in the middle of a continent. Nevertheless, death is not troubled to drag along politics when he pays a visit to one place or the other.
It would benefit the nation if members of the media gave as much attention to the events at Benghazi as they did to what happened at Laramie fourteen years ago. A tale of death and outrage links both cities.
When Matthew Shepard was found beaten and tied to a fence post on the outskirts of Laramie, then taken to a hospital where he later died, there was outrage within the gay community over his abuse. Vigils were held. Stories were written about homophobia. A play was staged about his life and death.
“The horrific events that took place shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, would become one of the most notorious anti-gay hate crimes in American history and spawned an activist movement that… would result in passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a federal law against bias crimes directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people.”
http://www.matthewshepard.org/our-story
Barack Obama had good words for Matthew Shepard during the recent presidential campaign. Obama claimed in a campaign video that, "Meeting people like Judy Shepard, and…hearing the heartbreaking tragedy of Matthew but also the strength and determination she brought to making sure that never happens to young people anywhere in the country again," helped shape his views on gay rights.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/obama-cites-matthew-shepard-in-gay-rights-evolution-124385.html
From the beginning, Matthew Shepard’s death was politicized. Chris Stevens father, on the other hand, said he did not want to politicize the death of his son during a political campaign. That time is now past. Both the death of Matthew Shepard and Chris Stevens have been dragged into the political arena.
Until we know the truth about Stevens death, the politics may not end. Rumors run, not walk. One blog entry said in regards to ambassador Stevens, "Perhaps they wanted him to become the biggest gay victim symbol since Matthew Shepard."
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2934634/posts?page=86
Could the murder of ambassador Stevens be a hate crime? If the murder is, the GLBT media seems not to want to know about it. The media was desperate to know the truth about what happened to Shepard, but looks the other way when it comes to the truth about what happened to Stevens.
Are we to conclude from this that those in the GLBT media have another political agenda? Any outrage over the death of Stevens must be contained. It's politically correct to be silent about what happened to him.
There is no politically correct silence when it comes to Allen Schindler. He was remembered recently by a story in the Huffington Post by Mike Spradley, who writes, "As the details of his death unfolded, I was sickened, struck by a sense of horror, sadness, and remorse.”
“Allen was savagely murdered by a shipmate, Airman Apprentice Terry M. Helvey, as accomplice Charles Vines watched, in a public bathroom in Sasebo, Japan." Will we have to wait twenty years for the fact about the life and death of ambassador Stevens?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-spradley/remembering-a-gay-sailor-murdered-in-japan_b_1902605.html
When Navy Seals paint a target with a laser, the target is said to sparkle. Doc O’Connor in the play, “The Laramie Project” reminds us, also that “I remembered… the night he and I (Matthew) drove around together, he said, 'Laramie sparkles, doesn't it?' …I can just picture--in his eyes--what he was seeing. And the last thing that he saw on this Earth was the sparkling lights of Laramie, Wyoming.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257850/quotes
If the sparkling lights of Laramie were the last things Matthew Shepard saw, then so was the light of his laser sparkling a target the last thing Ty Woods may have seen at Benghazi.
Horrific as the crime was at Laramie, Matthew Shepard was not raped and dragged through the streets of Laramie, Wyoming. He was not painting the enemy with a laser to see it sparkle. Matthew Shepard was not a Navy Seal nor was he a US ambassador.
the ambassador
The body of US ambassador John Christopher Stevens arrived back in the United States at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012, weeks before the November presidential election. Reports claim after the attack at the US mission in Benghazi, Stevens’ body was located at a hospital in Libya by using his cell phone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215431/Death-U-S-ambassador-Chris-Stevens-revealed-AK-47s-grenade-attacks-smoke-filled-safe-room.html
Ambassador Christopher Stevens first arrived in Libya secretly in a cargo ship to serve as a liaison to the rebels fighting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. From the embassy in Tripoli, Stevens made his way on September 11th to the “Special U.S. Mission” in Benghazi where he met his death.
What was Stevens doing in Benghazi? How did the terrorists know he was there, and how were they able to launch an assault that lasted eight hours? After three months, the administration has not yet answered these questions.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/does-benghazi-probe-drop-unintentional-bombshell/
There was a ceremony of flags and drums at the air force base to dampen controversy. "Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said the rage and violence aimed at American missions was prompted by 'an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.'" A military band played the hymn, "Near My God to Thee."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/obama-libya-remains-chris-stevens_n_1884567.html
A memorial service was held in San Francisco’s City Hall for ambassador Stevens on October 16, 2012. There, mourners, as it should be, spoke well of him.
“Christopher Stevens stood out as extraordinary in an already extraordinary group of people," said former Secretary of State George P. Shultz. "Democracy is not a spectator sport, and Christopher Stevens was a full participant in his beloved democracy.”
“A Bay Area native, Stevens…attended UC Berkeley and UC Hastings Law School before pursuing a career in the foreign service. Loved ones were quick to point to his devotion to his family.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/chris-stevens-memorial_n_1974130.html
Earlier reports in the Ma'an News Agency of Stevens' death praised his work as an ambassador. "'It's just tragic,' said Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO leader and veteran negotiator with Israel. 'It's very sad. I thought he was a person who was not just intelligent but also caring.'"
"Ashrawi went on to say that as a mediator, the Arabic-speaking envoy 'understood the Palestinian situation well. He was very understanding and he listened; he didn't repeat talking points.'"
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=519983
Stevens’ biography on the US Embassy website tells us, “Ambassador Chris Stevens considers himself fortunate to participate in this incredible period of change and hope for Libya.”
“As the President’s representative, his job is to develop a strong, mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Libya. Ambassador Stevens was the American representative to the Transitional National Council in Benghazi during the revolution.”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chris-stevens-us-libya-ambassador-killed-142949456.html
The autopsy on Christopher Stevens’ body has not yet been made public, but his remains were laid to rest in a family plot at Grass Valley Cemetery in California. There was no grieving widow graveside to watch the coffin slide into the hungry earth.
The outrage over the death of Matthew Shepard is still with us today, after almost fifteen years. Where is the outrage for our dead ambassador to Libya? Stevens’ life and terrifying death seems forgotten by the media. Is his life and death forgotten because in the deadly card game of progressive politics, “Muslim” trumps “queer?”
Some suspect there is no outrage over the death of ambassador Chris Stevens in the gay community because if Stevens were gay, he certainly was not “out.” Only openly gay men are worthy of outrage.
Some gay progressives do not want to know what happened to ambassador Stevens because they do not want to know the full story of why Stevens was at Benghazi in the first place.
Writing in CounterPsyOps, Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley offers us an answer as to why Stevens was at Benghazi. He claims that ambassador Stevens' main task at the Benghazi consulate/CIA post was to, "maintain relations with al-Qaeda death squads, especially for the purpose of moving them through Turkey into Syria." This was of course against official US policy, which has declared al-Qaeda the number one enemy of the United States.
Dr. Tarpley goes farther than most analysts when he claims outright, "this administration...had Chris Stevens murdered by the very terrorists that Stevens was running guns to on behalf of the CIA." If this is true, then a betrayal at Benghazi is also true.
http://counterpsyops.com/tag/chris-stevens/
Dr. Tarpley offers no independent documentation for his claims. Nevertheless, he is not alone in his views about US help for terrorists. Writing in the Canada Free Press, Doug Hagmann makes a similar claim about US help for the Free Syrian Army rebels linked to al-Qaeda. Hagmann says, "The entire (CIA) arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi."
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346
Whatever arms running operation that may have taken place at Benghazi, the suggestion of it reminds us ambassadors not only represent the US abroad, but they are also political appointees. Politics as well as fortune plays a role in an ambassador's destiny.
Chris Stevens was the product of an education that valued the new policies coming out of the White House towards the Muslim world. Did these new policies lead him to underestimate the risk he was taking at Benghazi? If Stevens made one mistake, like Dido, he may have trusted when he should have doubted.
A United States ambassador often earns more that one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars a year. Yet, beyond the income, the position of ambassador carries a unique distinction. Unlike other government jobs, an ambassador is the personal representative of the President of the United States.
The relationship between an ambassador and the president is akin to the trusting relationship between friends. When an ambassador asks for help and that help is not forthcoming, a trust and a friend are betrayed. Not to understand this betrayal is not to understand something fundamental about human relationship, government protocols aside.
There are both ashes and echoes at Benghazi. The ashes are from burnt papers and broken furniture. The echoes are the voices of judgment. The echoes and ashes at Benghazi suggest that someone chose politics and betrayed a friendship. No matter the failed plan or the failed policies at Benghazi, to have denied help when help may have been available would be a betrayal of the personal representative of the president.
Sean Hannity claims he has heard of evidence that verifies the betrayal at Benghazi. He should tell what he knows about the Incident at Benghazi to the US Congress. After that disclosure, will we still be able to ask, "What difference does it make if Stevens was betrayed?" Certainly, we must know by then it makes a hell of a difference.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/sean-hannity-on-benghazi-slaughter-audio-tapes-ive-heard-they-are-damning-video/
Try to imagine what betrayal might have been for ambassador Stevens. Moving in the closed circles of the Department of State, flying off to France, Morocco, Malta and Libya, at taxpayer's expense, it's hard to imagine how one day you can be at the top of the world and the next day under it.
Imagine a plantation house in the swamp with closed windows. That could be an image for the US Department of State that sent Stevens to Libya.
Seated at their desks, bureaucrats write political reports, to prop up inter-faith diplomacy. The reports say the trees around are filled with sugarplums, while outside the truth is dark shapes skirt from cypress to shadow.
A cloaked figure may suddenly flash across the windows. A clerk looks up from a file on his desk, thinking he saw something. But what? Nothing. The keyboards click away.
"As-Salaam-Alaikum; my name is Chris Stevens, and I’m the new U.S. ambassador to Libya." Stevens spoke those words to the people of Libya when he was first appointed ambassador.
He added, ""Growing up in California, I didn’t know much about the Arab world...I worked as an English teacher in a town in the High Atlas Mountains in Morocco for two years and quickly grew to love this part of the world. As-Salaam-Alaikum. What began as "Peace be with you," certainly didn't end that way.
http://lybio.net/tag/chris-stevens-remembering-u-s-ambassador-to-libya-quotes/
There is a Facebook memorial page for ambassador Stevens. You may see photos of him there and read about his life. Chris Stevens pursued his destiny to Benghazi. We do not know if the hounds of heaven likewise pursued him there. But certainly, as Francis Thompson wrote, the Incident at Benghazi shows, "We are born in other's pain and perish in our own."
railroad in the sand
There is much we do not know about the Incident at Benghazi that only a congressional investigation can bring to light. Was Stevens tragically murdered and raped, as Kenneth Timmerman claims in The Daily Caller? The smoke screen of an insulting video answers none of these questions.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/13/libya-killings-we-need-a-more-muscular-response/
The support Stevens gave to progressive politics makes a betrayal all the more poignant. He trusted in his President and the president’s cause. When requests were made for help at Benghazi, and if orders were issued to stand down, what must Stevens have thought?
As the compound at Benghazi filled with smoke and the crack, crack, crack of gunfire sounded outside, did Stevens realize no one was coming to help him? Whatever plan he was involved in was quickly going south.
Even without a gay subtext, the story about the Incident at Benghazi is a story more about betrayal than about politics. The betrayal tells us there is more to this story that should not be kept hidden. The politics tells us it may be all right if Muslim terrorists supposedly kill and rape a man when an election is at stake; you just can’t have young men in Wyoming doing the same.
Videos seem to show Stevens was dragged alive from the burning compound, only to die later. He never heard the reassuring drone from a Lockheed AC-130 gunship overhead. Did someone hear above the din a muffled prayer? "Bismillah al rahman al rahim." Maybe all that was heard was a cock crow from some stone building down the street. That was the sound of betrayal, not the help Stevens imagined.
Raymond Ibrahim reminds us of the betrayal that often accompanies rape. He writes, “Nor are men immune from such rapes…In fact, the photos of Ambassador Stevens--stripped of clothes, bloodied and tortured right before he was killed--very much resemble the photos of Gaddafi right before he was killed. One U.S.-supported ‘freedom-fighter’…can be seen sodomizing Gadaffi with a rod as others dragged him along.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/the-rape-of-christopher-stevens/2/
In love and war there is nothing worse than betrayal. Dante claims in his Inferno, “…that as soon as a soul commits betrayal, a devil displaces it…and governs inside the body.”
In his poem, "At the Station of a Train Which Fell Off the Map," Mahmoud Darwish, who is regarded as the Palestinian national poet, writes, "Our present converses with us: 'We live together.' Our past entertains us: 'If you need me, I will return.'"
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/6788/mahmoud-darwish_at-the-station-of-a-train-which-fe
"I will return," poetic hope, perhaps, from a man who saw poetry as the daughter of absence and followed loss like a railroad track that disappears in the sand. You have to wonder if ambassador Stevens, who was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, knew this poem.
The death of ambassador Stevens leads to a mystery like a railroad track that disappears in the sand. This mystery encourages some to look upon the official explanation of his death with suspicion. Conspiracy theories grow in this fertile ground of suspicion, so also do praise and thinking the unthinkable.
Stevens’ cousin Becca remarked on an Internet page set up in his memory, "I could trust Chris completely; he had my back and I had his." Unfortunately, Becca was not at Benghazi and could not have Stevens' back when hell broke loose.
http://www.rememberingchrisstevens.com/
But what of those who were supposed to have his back in Benghazi? Why did they not follow through and save Stevens? Here is the advent of the unthinkable that goes beyond the risks associated with work in the foreign service.
Working for the US government overseas sometimes comes with risks. Those who decide for a career in the foreign service understand those risks and proceed with caution. Chris Stevens knew this. His many requests for increased security at the Benghazi compound point out he knew about threats there.
Just as caution is advisable when working overseas, so it is advisable when assessing the character of a man we never met. After reading the public statements ambassador Stevens made about his work in Libya, you get the impression that he was a man who was both dedicated and idealistic.
Such idealism and dedication may be traced back to Stevens' elite education and the Protestant values that helped shape the United States. In the early 21st century the religious underpinnings of these values have dropped away. All that remains is the aroma of religion.
The rest is liberalism, as we know it. Growing up in a family of doctors and lawyers, this was the liberalism that Stevens brought to Libya and to his calling as our ambassador.
Ambassador Stevens lived the way many contemporary liberals live, believing he was in union with the political truth of his generation. Stevens' betrayal at Benghazi is all the more bitter because it points up how mistaken he may have been to trust in his government and the ideals of liberalism they abuse.
Part of the tragedy haunting the Incident at Benghazi is that there are intelligent men and women who cannot be shaken from their dream of liberalism. Even when they see a betrayal before their eyes, they somehow believe they are good human beings when they turn away and say nothing. As long as their political interests are met, what difference does it make?
No matter the betrayal, no matter the lies, some politicians are so hypnotized by the metaphor of civil rights they cannot wake up and pass judgment on a man whose betrayal caused the unwarranted death of four Americans. We had a rehearsal of this sleepwalking when Bill Clinton was president.
The damage Bill Clinton caused to Monica Lewinsky's life seems immeasurable. Yet, people stood by him. They still do. They must have reasoned the policies and power Clinton projected was in the long run better for the nation than his impeachment and resignation. "What difference does it make," has a long history among Democrats.
There is something like the odor of Robespierre coming from the ashes at Benghazi. This odor permeates even those who mourn. Here also the irony of betrayal is noted. Politics may have contributed to Stevens' death yet we are told we should not politicize it.
It’s worth repeating that when asked about his son's death, Stevens' father, a registered Democrat, answered, "'It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,' Jan Stevens...said in a telephone interview from his home in Loomis, California..."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-14/libyan-ambassador-s-death-not-a-political-issue-says-dad.html
Who can blame Stevens' father for his statement after suffering the loss of his son? But when the "Innocence of Muslims" video explanation put forward by the administration began to fall apart, it became obvious that politics and betrayal would replace the official explanation. Innocence would give way to lies. Why would a father not see this and want to hide from the truth?
Ambassador Stevens probably felt he was on the right side of history, advancing the liberal ideals of equality in Libya. It would be difficult to persuade him or his like-minded colleagues otherwise.
Stevens could have suppressed even thoughts of a lover to further his ideals. Nevertheless, the last few moments of Stevens' life may have done what his elite education never intended to do--undermine his belief in the project of contemporary American liberalism.
The tragedy of contemporary liberalism is that some in government uses and betray good men like ambassador Stevens for their own ends of party politics and political power. The idealism and dedication Stevens brought to his work could be wasted, for the sake of an election and their careers.
That's the cold, political reality for many in the government who sent Stevens to his fatal appointment. It's over at Benghazi. He's dead. Move on. What difference does it make?
Are the moral underpinnings of their politics, the belief in the righteous cause that swept the Democrats into office and for whom Stevens worked, are these underpinnings now shown to be simply crass and self-serving. Stevens could not be saved because a more important Democrat Party election had to be saved first.
If the ambassador could come back and tell us what happened at Benghazi, would he say it was not until that fatal night, when no one came to help, that he fully understood loss and betrayal?
Beyond that betrayal, what if our ambassador and others in government were involved in shipping guns illegally to our stated enemy? That being the case, the American people would have been betrayed, a betrayal by members of its own government.
If a gay man were betrayed during the Incident at Benghazi, it wouldn’t be the first time such a betrayal happened in love or in war. Some gay men, because of their resentment and a desire for revenge, are drawn to tyrants.
Ernst Rohm found that to be the case. He was a gay man and an important Nazi. Nevertheless, when he no longer served a purpose, Hitler betrayed Ernst Rohm and had him shot.
who's lying?
Once we dismiss the explanation that a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video was behind the death of ambassador Stevens, we are left to search for the real motive for his murder. Writing for RadicalIslam.org, Clare Lopez speculates that the flow of arms to Syrian rebels may have been behind Stevens' murder.
Lopez writes, "Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)."
"...Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid...groups that were...allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization...that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2011."
http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/arms-flow-syria-may-be-behind-beghazi-cover
If an Al Qaeda group was behind the murder of Stevens, that still doesn't explain their motive. Glenn Beck thinks Stevens had been helping arm Arab Spring rebels in Libya and Syria. Perhaps something went wrong with one of the deals Stevens was negotiating at the Benghazi mission. In any event, Beck argues there is more to the Incident at Benghazi than we have been told so far.
How much more? Beck thinks there is a lot more. "This is why the White House covered," Beck claims, "because our ambassador was killed by a guy we were running guns to and we are still running guns today,” If these claims are true, then Congress must make the evidence about the gun running public. Beck should testify and tell us all he knows about the Incident at Benghazi.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/glenn-beck-obama-destined-for-prison/
"Lt. Col. Tony Schaefer reported to Fox News that his own sources have confirmed that President Obama actually watched the monstrous attack unfold live, in real time:
"'I hate to say this, according to my sources, yes, [the President] was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, ‘What did the President do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?’ He--only he--could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something.'"
http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/10/29/what-we-know-about-benghazi-obama-should-resign/
Contradicting these accusations by Lt. Col. Schaefer, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, "President Obama was absent the night of Benghazi attack and did not check in once during the night of the deadly terror assault."
"Panetta said to Senator Kelly Ayotte, that President Obama left operational details for Benghazi 'up to us' - implying that the situation was under the control of Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
"'Did you have any further communications with him that night?' Senator Ayotte asked."
"'No,' Panetta replied."
"In addition, Panetta admitted to Senator Ayotte that there was no communication with anyone at the White House and that no one from the White House called for an update on the situation."
"It was also revealed that neither the Secretary of Defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton once during the eight-hour attack on the consulate in Benghazi."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275432/Panetta-President-Obama-absent-night-Benghazi-attack-did-check-night-deadly-terror-assault.html#axzz2KaWmFpaU
According to Aaron Klein, "WND (World Net Daily) has reconfirmed with multiple knowledgeable Middle Eastern security sources that the U.S. special mission in Benghazi was used to coordinate Arab arms shipments and other aid to the so-called rebels fighting in Libya and later in Syria."
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/sources-confirm-u-s-gun-running-to-jihadists/
This revelation by WND comes after Hillary Clinton's testimony to the US Senate, where she denied any knowledge of arms shipments and other aid to Syrian rebels.
Senator Ron Paul asked Clinton, “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.
“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
Chris Zane, writing in The Western Center for Journalism challenges Secretary Clinton's testimony before Congress. Citing evidence from hacked emails, Zane writes, "According to Blumenthal's February 16, 2013 email to Clinton, the Benghazi attack was well-planned and well-funded by Saudi billionaires:"
"'The attack…originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. During July and August 2012 these financiers provided funds to...Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb...These funds were eventually provided to Ansar al Sharia and its allied militias in the Benghazi region in support of their attack on the U.S. consulate.'"
Zane then goes on to speculate about the reasons the Obama regime wanted the attack to take place. "The question becomes: if the CIA was backing Qaddafi, why then did NATO, with Obama at the helm, decide to topple the Qaddafi regime?…The answer may lie in the fact that Obama is largely aligned with globalists, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal is a global, totalitarian caliphate."
http://www.westernjournalism.com/were-saudis-behind-benghazi-attack/
If this is true, then ambassador Stevens, who may have been in the dark about all the ins-and-outs of the Benghazi attack, was sacrificed for a globalist vision of world dominance. It's hard to imagine Stevens would have given his own life willingly to such a twisted operation. Furthermore, if Secretary Clinton knew of this Saudi plan, what does that make her--an accomplice to murderer?
After her Senate testimony, Mrs. Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State. Ambassador Stevens was forgotten. No one recalled that Stevens was Clinton's translator or that he was with her during the March 14, 2011 meeting with Libyan rebel chief Mahmoud Jebril.
http://thegipster.blogspot.com/2013/02/your-services-are-no-longer-required.html
About a year after that meeting in Libya, Clinton stood with her hand over her heart when Stevens’ gray coffin came off an air force plane. With latch and handle, the government supplied coffin looked like an oversized piece of rolling luggage. "Clinton said their deaths are 'not easy.' But she added, 'We must be clear-eyed even in our grief.'"
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html
Where does the slow drip of revelations lead us? We know the administration was aware of attacks at the Benghazi mission in April and June before the attack that killed ambassador Stevens on September eleventh.
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/us-news/item/318280-sen-graham-obama-knew-of-ied-attacks-in-run-up-to-benghazi-terror-strike
Ambassador Stevens was an intelligent man. He must have been aware of these facts, too. We know he meet with a representative of the Turkish government at Benghazi, but couldn't that meeting have occurred at a different time and place?
Prior to that meeting, Stevens was an eyewitness to the violence in Libya. According to his Libyan friend, Ali Tarhouni, "They witnessed what Tarhouni calls the killing fields, where young Libyans perished each day in the fight to oust Gadhafi. The two men shared a tense moment pondering the chances for success as rebel forces attacked Gadhafi's stronghold in Tripoli."
http://seattletimes.com/text/2020361531.html
Many believe, now, that no actions were taken to save the ambassador because that would have exposed a failed foreign policy plan to the world. Such exposure would have impacted the reelection of the president. Instead, the Incident at Benghazi would be blamed on a video supposedly insulting to Islam that few had seen.
If it is true that what went on at Benghazi was seen via a live drone feed to members of the administration and they still took no action, then what could that failed plan have been?
One explanation to emerge is that the plan was to have Stevens kidnapped and in return for his release, the blind Sheik would be released and sent to Egypt. This would make the president look compassionate and guarantee his reelection.
http://guardianlv.com/2012/11/obamas-watergate-benghazi/
On October 11, 2012 the author of the blog The Last Refuge claims, "Benghazi was not an assassination attempt, it was a botched kidnapping." The kidnapping was botched when the two ex-Navy Seals, not aware of the plot, decided to offer resistance.
"...The al-Qaeda goal was to kidnap Ambassador Chris Stevens and ransom him back to the U.S. in exchange for Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.”
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/11/the-occams-razor-behind-the-coordinated-benghazi-attack-answers-to-the-confusion/
Ambassador Stevens was probably killed because the jihadists felt betrayed. Perhaps infatuated with Obama and believing in the liberal policies Obama promoted, Stevens was swept away by a sirocco he little expected or understood.
The kidnapping explanation leaves us with four Americans sacrificed so that the president could be reelected. If this is true, then the US Congress must understand this betrayal as the high crimes and misdemeanors necessary for impeachment.
Recently, the alleged foiled plot to kidnap ambassador Stevens at Benghazi, and exchange him for the release of the blind sheik has resurfaced in new terrorist demands. The terrorists who seized an Algerian oil refinery reportedly came from Libya where they would have been aware of the Incident at Benghazi.
According to the New York Post, "The lives of two Americans seized in a brazen attack on a remote Algerian gas plant would be spared in return for the release from federal prison of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and a fellow terrorist."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/algeria_blind_side_5Joixee6ls7DPRrCAOKyoJ
If the kidnapping story is discredited, what are we left with? There is yet another explanation emerging that in fact there were two clandestine operations going on at Benghazi. "One of them was the weapons transfer program, transferring weapons from Libyan stockpiles to Syria."
The other operation "was direct raids against Al-Qaeda conducted by John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor, that instigated blowback in the form of the attack on our 'consulate' in Benghazi...But because Stevens wasn't made aware of these unilateral raids going on in his backyard, there was no way he could have even prepared himself for blowback. Stevens likely didn't even know why he was being attacked the night he was killed."
http://www.therightscoop.com/ambassador-chris-stevens-didnt-have-to-die-in-benghazi-the-real-story-of-what-led-to-his-death/
With the disclosure of these new details, one has to wonder how a US president could lie not only to the American people but to the world about what happened at Benghazi.
"While claiming that Al Qaeda had been weakened, Obama said that the attacks on U.S. embassies were in fact a natural outcome of misunderstandings on both sides--of 'difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.'
He proceeded to attack the infamous anti-Islam video. "'And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.'"
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/25/Obama-to-UN-Not-My-Video-More-Guards-Would-Not-Have-Helped
Of all the explanations put forward to explain the death of Chris Stevens and others at Benghazi; a gun running scheme gone bad, a foiled kidnap plot, clandestine operations, or a YouTube video, the only explanation we know to be false is the one offered by the US government.
It is not unusual for corrupt governments to betray those who believe their lies. The Incident at Benghazi looks to many like another example of such a betrayal. It seems safe to say ambassador Stevens was committed to his work and believed he was advancing a good cause. He did not deserve to be betrayed.
In spring 2011, before Stevens left on his assignment in Libya, he met with Douglas Kmiec in Malta. Kmiec, a well-known conservative law professor and commentator, has been a key Catholic supporter of Obama.
According to Kmiec, he and Stevens, "spoke of the inter-faith diplomatic effort of President Obama." Afterwards, Stevens sailed in a Greek ship to Libya.
The poet Byron, a century earlier, also left Malta. In his poem "Farewell to Malta," Byron writes, "I go--but God knows when, or why/ To smoky towns and cloudy sky/ To things (the honest truth to say)/As bad--but in a different way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-kmiec/let-no-one-say-chris-stev_b_1887748.html
ascots and idealism
There is a sepia colored photograph of ambassador Stevens on a donkey at the top of the webpage set up to remember his life. Stevens looks at the camera and smiles, but both he and the donkey seem a bit uncomfortable. Either Stevens is too big for the donkey or the donkey is too small for Stevens.
To the side, a man stands and looks on. He is native to this place and Stevens is not. What might the man be thinking? Is this the American messiah who will being democracy and McDonald's to Libya? Is he waiting for his tip? Will he beat the donkey home with a switch, then sit by his fire and wonder at the ways of Allah?
http://www.rememberingchrisstevens.com/page/2
Rumors have their ways, too. The rumor that Chris Stevens was gay has not subsided. Does Stevens look gay while astride the donkey in the webpage photograph? Who looks gay to begin with?
There is an older photograph of Stevens and his friend Austin Tichenor. It was taken in the 1970s. In the photograph Stevens sports an ascot. Are ascots a gay fashion statement? The Kodachrome color in the photograph is shifting to red with age. The two young men look happy together, if not somewhat affected.
http://scannedretina.com/2012/09/16/the-clinton-calculated-setup/
Writing on Queerty.com, a respondent who identifies herself as "Lesbian Conservative" maintains, "The fact is, Chris Stevens was gay and he was open about it. The issue of whether it was smart for Madame Clinton to send him to the violent and virulently anti-homosexual backwater of Libya is a legitimate question to ask.
http://www.queerty.com/right-wing-blogs-allege-slain-u-s-ambassador-chris-stevens-was-gay-20120916/ - comments
Some speculate that a gay Chris Stevens might have known Barack Obama before Obama became president. Eric Rush, writing in Canada Free Press wonders about their meeting. If such a meeting did occur it would rub salt into the wound of betrayal at Benghazi.
"We also know that Obama lived more or less the bachelor's life in Washington D. C.--where Stevens was also working--from 2005 to 2008...Would it be outside the realm of possibility to postulate that…there had been a relationship between the...Senator and the gay diplomat...?"
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49995
Before going to Washington, ambassador Stevens attended the University of California at Berkley. Being gay there is no big deal. The university is not known as a hot bed of conservatism. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Many of Stevens' liberal values were shaped while attending classes at UC Berkley. Most importantly, his affection for Islam dates from that time. Given his education, it seems likely that Stevens never expected his fate a Benghazi.
"While at UC Berkeley, Stevens joined the chapter of Alpha Tau Omega fraternity. Steve Tovani met Stevens at the chapter's house during a rush event in Stevens' freshman year."
"'The day he walked into the house,' Tovani said, "I just knew he was the guy that we wanted in the fraternity...He had this very easygoing, kind, gentle manner, and it exuded this kind of friendliness.'" After studying history at Berkeley, Steven joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco.
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/09/13/stevens-justin/
From these bits and pieces of Chris Stevens' life, what can we learn about his attraction to Islam? Stevens may have understood that Islam was something exotic, something legalistic and masculine. Islam was an antidote to the hard edge of Protestant America Stevens was alienated from. Islam may have been for Stevens the counterculture idealism of the 60s, matured with a coherent theology.
Whatever went wrong at Benghazi was not part of Stevens understanding of Islam. Whatever went wrong cost Stevens his life and the lives of three other Americans. Most likely, there was a betrayal of Stevens' idealism. His "very easygoing, kind, gentle manner," was not enough to save him. If he had lived through the battle, the disappointment might have been enough to effect a political conversion in him.
Tourists may still ride a donkey and have their picture taken while at Benghazi. The city is not all about burning buildings and killing American ambassadors. Benghazi has a fun side, too. If you're a gay man and plan a visit to Benghazi you can join Realjock.com ahead of your visit.
On their website Realjock asks, "Do you want to meet great single gay men in Benghazi for friendship, dating, and more? Hang out with the best gay men on the web?"
Just remember, while riding donkey back, try to stay away from the ruins of the US mission. If you get in trouble, don't call for help. Help has been ordered to stand down.
http://www.realjock.com/gay-men/banghazi/benghazi
a shadow across truth
Days after the attack and fire at Benghazi mission, Christopher Stevens’ journal was found among the charred ruins, as if it were the lost letter of a betrayed lover. Are these burnt pages all that remains of the trust Stevens placed in his inter-faith diplomatic effort?
We read in the journal that Stevens worried thoughts about the lack of security at the Benghazi station. Soot, like a shadow, falls across truth and darkens the pages.
Only six US ambassadors have been killed by armed attack in the service of their country. That’s about one ambassador every forty years. What happened at Benghazi is not commonplace but extraordinary.
Will we forget about ambassador Stevens and the other Americans who died at Benghazi? The poet Khaled Mattawa passed his childhood in Benghazi. He wrote about a hanging at Parliament Square. "Once I believed forgetfulness was a gift from the gods,” he wrote, “not an erosion of the soul."
No father wants the memory of his courageous son to be eroded. Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, the Navy Seal killed at Benghazi, expressed outrage that his son was abandoned and left to die for political purposes.
Speaking on a Portland radio show, Charles Woods said, "We need to make sure that this does not happen again so that people like Ty, principled men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives, won't be abandoned by their Commander in Chief."
http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-father-of-downed-former-navy-seal-breaks-silence
When will we know the whole truth about what happened at Benghazi? Mary Commanday, a retired Marin Symphony cellist and the mother of Stevens, “…doesn't want to talk about the politics surrounding her son's death. She said, "I don't think it's productive to lay blame on people."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57534825/chris-stevens-mother-speaks-out-on-death-in-libya/
The mother of Sean Smith, also killed at Benghazi, holds a different view. She does not trust what little information Washington is telling her.
Pat Smith said in an interview, "I look at TV and I see bloody handprints on walls, thinking, my God, is that my son's?" she said. "I don't know if he was shot. I don't know--I don't know. They haven't told me anything...And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57534825/chris-stevens-mother-speaks-out-on-death-in-libya/
As times passes, the cesspool of Benghazi will become even more murky. It's unlikely we will be able to get from the Libyans any time soon a clear answer as to why a planned attack against Americans took place there.
Writing in the Daily Beast, Jamie Dettmer claims, "With the city (Benghazi) engulfed in violence, and the authorities struggling to contain the chaos, the Libyan inquiry into what happened the night of Stevens’ death has stalled. 'The authorities couldn't do anything, even if they could categorically prove who was behind the attack--they don’t have the force to be able to make arrests,' says a European diplomat based in Tripoli."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/08/mysterious-killings-hit-libyan-city-of-benghazi.html
Conditions in Libya make it is all the more necessary that the US Congress seek the truth about ambassador Stevens' death. Congress should act soon, so that the cesspool at Benghazi does not becomes the cesspool at Washington, DC. Even now, to add insult to injury, the US officials who were to blame for the reported lack of security at the Benghazi mission were never really punished.
"The highest-ranking of those officials who was supposedly smacked down for incompetence, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not 'resigned' from government service, as Americans were previously led to believe. Rather, he just switched desks..."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/more-deception-at-the-white-house-benghazi-officials-who-were-fired-actually-werent.html
When Secretary Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in late January, she did little to dispel the mystery that still surrounds the Incident at Benghazi. Speaking about Clinton's testimony, Oliver North said, "We still do not know why the ambassador was in Benghazi and not at his post in Tripoli. We don’t know why he was traveling with such a short, scant security detail. We don’t know why the State Department ignored the requests for improving the security situation at the consulate..."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/north-clinton-benghazi-testimony/2013/01/23/id/472663
Nor did Clinton explain why the US President went before the United Nation and blamed the Incident at Benghazi on an obscure video. If anything, Clinton made what happened at Benghazi and the death of ambassador Stevens seem more cold and distant.
Clinton had a heated exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson during the hearing. Earlier, Johnson had accused her of “purposefully misleading the American people” by blaming nonexistent protests. "'...What difference does it make?' Clinton shot back in a raised voice."
Imagine if your son had died violently in the service of his country. You ask the Secretary of State how and why he died. The only answer a mother gets is a cold, "What difference does it make--he's dead, isn't he? What difference does it make if we lied to the nation about it?" When you are the Ice Princess you do not melt, even before a congressional committee.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981056/posts
What difference does it make if a man is betrayed? Betrayal in love leads to a broken heart. Betrayal in war is often as final as death itself. Does Secretary Clinton know in her heart that her husband did something like that to her? Did she just turn her betrayal into ice and move on? Does her indifference come from this turning? Chris Stevens could not move on. His betrayal was a betrayal unto death.
bloody hand prints on the wall
The comments by the parents of ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith couldn't be more different. Stevens, Woods and Smith met their death at Benghazi, but the roads they took to get there were not the same. We realize this when we listen again to their parents when they talk about what happened at Benghazi.
On the one hand, Mary Commanday “…doesn't want to talk about the politics surrounding her son's death. She said, "I don't think it's productive to lay blame on people." Stevens' father, Jan Stevens, believes "It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue."
On the other hand, Charles Woods, the father of Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, is angry. He expressed outrage that his son was abandoned and left to die for political purposes. He said, "We need to make sure...men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives, won't be abandoned by their Commander in Chief."
Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith said in an interview, "I look at TV and I see bloody handprints on walls, thinking, my God, is that my son's?...They haven't told me anything...And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies." These comments show us that the political divisions in American society are not healed even in death.
Growing up in a liberal enclave, ambassador Stevens was one kind of American. Unlike Stevens, Sean Smith had his own family and was the father of two children. Growing up in yet a different kind of Florida family, Woods could be said to have believed in a more conservative America. They all died at Benghazi, but what kind of politics led to their death?
It's almost as if Stevens dabbled in a foreign revolution while Woods and Smith were assigned to protect him. Ambassador Stevens was in a complex situation made simple by his liberal, California ideology. That complex situation would end with bloody handprints on the wall of the US mission at Benghazi. Stevens and Woods were practical men of action. They understood theories are useless against bullets.
As someone who spoke French, you'd think Stevens would have remembered the ironies of the French Revolution. When considering the political ideologies that led Stevens to Benghazi, one is reminded of the French revolutionary Robespierre, leader of the Committee for Public Safety and a mastermind behind the Reign of Terror.
It's possible ambassador Stevens, like Robespierre, was a victim of his own policies. When led to the guillotine, Robespierre reportedly said as his last words, "Show my head to the people--it will be worth it." Well, maybe it was, but practically speaking, how could being betrayed by your own failed ideology have been worth it to Robespierre or to ambassador Stevens?
smoke and fire at Benghazi
The Incident at Benghazi has become a Medusa's head for many of our politicians. If they look directly at what happened at Benghazi they will turn to stone.
Why have so many in government, from the president on down to the secretary of state and pentagon generals, lied or have not been totally forthcoming about what happened at Benghazi? At this point, everyone knows a video was not to blame for the death of ambassador Stevens.
Two possible answers are before us. On the one hand, by keeping the American people from the truth about Benghazi our politicians are covering their own mistakes. On the other hand, they may know the truth about Benghazi will cause a social upheaval that would not be good for the country. In short, they may be self-serving or patriotic. It's hard to see our politicians as both.
The only way you protect yourself from your first lie is by telling a second lie. That's what we learn by reading the conflicting stories coming out of the Senate hearing on Benghazi. One says the president was not in his office. Another says he was. Back and forth the stories go. None of this testimony was given under oath, so there is no reason to take any answer as the truth.
If you had a government career that hung in the balance because of what happened at Benghazi, then you'd probably not be forthcoming, either. Just stall until the storm blows over, and then get on with the fundamental transformation of America.
But what if the truth about Benghazi is so startling that it would rip a tear in the social fabric that politics as usual could not repair? What if the truth about Benghazi tore the mask off the illusion of presidential power? Would you disguise the truth for the sake of the nation's stability?
Some politicians may hope to prevent the truth about Benghazi from coming out, not so much because they want to keep their power but because they want to keep a minimum of social order. That may be their motive for stalling and subverting the truth about the Incident at Benghazi.
The false stories about the Incident at Benghazi may be the noble lie Plato warned us about. The public cannot see the president or the secretary of state or a general for what they really are. The truth about Benghazi will not set us free. Instead, the truth will set us at each other's throats.
If this is where we've come in our politics, if we've come to a point where only a lie will save us, then aren't we already beyond saving? We might as well agree and say forget Benghazi. Let's get back to work shipping illegal arms to the Syrian rebels. What difference does it make?
If Chris Stevens were alive today, what would he say about the Incident at Benghazi? Maybe he would avoid the truth, too, because he wants to become the ambassador to Iran. He has a career to consider, his "cursus honorum to follow," not just his UC Berkeley idealism. Maybe he would slough off his betrayal as just part of his job.
But then again, maybe ambassador Stevens would see that the lies so far told about the Incident at Benghazi are in fact a smoke screen. There may have been at the core of Stevens' idealism the uniquely American trait of being honest in the face of corrupt power.
We hope that Stevens would have realized that the smoke of lies at Benghazi hides a real fire in Washington. We'd better find that fire and put it out or the whole house will burn down, not just the oval office.
And if we don't put out the fire of Benghazi, what then? Are we to stand before the smoldering ruins of our home, staring at a few charred boards covered with charcoal blisters and say, "See, they told us they'd fundamentally transform the way we live."
So they will, and go one to add, it wasn't that nice of a house to begin with. What difference does it make? Let's go back to building with straw instead of brick. Straw is more natural, more honest. It's the Benghazi way.
a continuing outrage
Daniel Greenfield tries to imagine the last moments in Benghazi. He writes, "We will...never know what was going through Christopher Stevens’ mind on September 11, 2012, as he battled the choking smoke, experiencing what so many New Yorkers had experienced on September 11, 2001. Like them, he was faced with a terrible dilemma, a choice between remaining in the fire and committing suicide by going outside."
"...Stevens chose to remain inside and die rather than face the tender mercies of his attackers...The photos that have been released, along with claims by Libyan jihadists that they sexually assaulted his corpse, suggest that he made the right choice...perhaps in those final moments...Christopher Stevens finally understood the true horror of the Muslim world that he had fallen in love with as a Peace Corps volunteer."
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/christopher-stevens-feeds-the-crocodile/2/
In the 1992 movie, “A Few Good Men,” Jack Nicholson, who plays the part of an arrogant US Marine officer is confronted in the courtroom by a determined attorney, played by Tom Cruise.
During a riveting exchange on the witness stand, the prosecutor demands, “I want the truth!”
The prosecutor is told, emphatically, “You can't handle the truth!”
The truth is, every day that goes by shows us it was a mistake for the administration and ambassador Stevens to have helped in getting ride of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Gaddafi might not have been a good cook, but he kept the pot from boiling over.
Americans can handle the truth that the terrorist attack on the US mission at Benghazi was not a spontaneous demonstration against a YouTube video. How do we square that audacious truth with the September 25 statements by Barack Obama at the United Nations?
“...a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world...the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/11/16/susan-rice-is-a-diversion-from-obamas-own-words/
Many progressives clamored for the truth about Matthew Shepard. Now, let them hear the truth about the death of ambassador Stevens. In the words of our Vice President, if gay men had any “cue balls,” they would, like all of us, have the courage to find out what happened at Benghazi.
The American people can handle hearing also the testimony of the Benghazi survivors. Reports say more than thirty survivors of the attack are being kept under wraps and not allowed to talk to the media. "Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)...has been asking the State Dept. to produce witnesses and survivors of the Benghazi attack and has been left without a response."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/13/Congressman-State-Dept-Hiding-Benghazi-Attack-Survivors-May-Not-Release-Full-Investigative-Report
In an attempt to keep the survivors of the Benghazi attack away from the public and the media so that their story will not come out, reports are that officials have changed the name of some of the survivors who are still in the hospital. Representative Chaffetz claims that the administration "'will not give us the names.' He said one person who went to the hospital even had their 'name changed' on hospital records so as not to be identified."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/lawmakers-demand-access-to-survivors-injured-in-benghazi-attack/
Even if the Benghazi survivors remain gagged by federal law and are not protected by the whistle-blower act, Congress can grant them immunity to testify. The unanswered questions about what happened there demand answers.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/20/Benghazi-Survivors-Remained-Gagged-By-Federal-Law
Let the witnesses and survivors speak. Then we may ask if the men and women who edit and read the Advocate can handle the full truth about the Incident at Benghazi?
Soon after the attack that killed ambassador Stevens, the president was adamant in his desire to find the truth. He claimed, "We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." One has to wonder if after all the lies that have been told about the Incident at Benghazi that the president's search for truth and justice will lead right back to him.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/weeks-best-quotes/story?id=17246303 - 2
smoke and fire
The Incident at Benghazi presented White House politicians with a choice between friendship and politics--the choices between winning an election or helping a friend who is your ambassador to Libya.
A choice was made. We know the results. The ambassador is dead. Because of the reported fatal order to stand down, the Incident at Benghazi has become a Medusa's head for many politicians and members of the media. If they look directly at what happened at Benghazi, at the choices that were made, they may turn to stone.
Why have so many in government, from the president on down to the secretary of state and pentagon generals, lied or have not been totally forthcoming about what happened at Benghazi? At this point, everyone knows a riot spurned on my an insulting video was not to blame for the death of ambassador Stevens. The video is a smokescreen to hide a more damaging fire.
A few possible answers are before us as to why the Incident at Benghazi is still obscured by a smokescreen of deception. On the one hand, by keeping the American people from the truth about Benghazi our politicians are covering their own mistakes. On the other hand, they may know that the truth about Benghazi will cause a social upheaval that would not be good for the country.
Arnold Ahlert, writing in FrontPagPageMag.com claims "Eyewitness testimony by the remaining survivors has the potential to devastate this administration. It would likely blow a large hole in Obama’s phony Middle East narrative about al Qaeda being 'on the run,' and it might even reveal why any attempts to rescue Americans under attack were either aborted, or never undertaken at all."
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/
One way to protect yourself from your first lie is by telling a second lie. That's what we learn by reading the conflicting stories coming out of the Senate hearing on Benghazi. One says the president was not in the war room. Another says he was. Back and forth the stories go. He said. She said. None of this testimony was given under oath, so there is no reason to take any answer as the truth.
If you have a government career that hangs in the balance because of what happened at Benghazi, then you'd probably not be forthcoming, either. Just stall until the storm blows over, and then get on with your job or the fundamental transformation of America.
But what if the truth about Benghazi is so startling that it would rip a tear in the social fabric that politics as usual could not repair? What if the truth about Benghazi tore the mask off the illusion of presidential power? Would you disguise the truth for the sake of the nation's stability?
Some politicians may hope to prevent the truth about Benghazi from coming out, not so much because they want to keep their power but because they want to keep a minimum of social order. That may be their motive for stalling and subverting the truth about the Incident at Benghazi. Politics as usual is better than a political upheaval.
The false stories about the Incident at Benghazi may be the noble lie Plato warned us about. The public cannot see the president or the secretary of state or a general for what they really are. The truth about Benghazi will not set us free. Instead, the truth will set us at each other's throats.
If this is where we've come in our politics, if we've come to a point where only a lie will save us, then aren't we already beyond saving? We might as well agree and say forget Benghazi. Let's get back to work shipping illegal arms to the Syrian rebels. What difference, at this point, does it make?
Because we do not know the truth about what happened to ambassador Stevens, we must also suspect that the truth is an occasion for blackmail. If you knew something about the president or secretary of state that would be damaging to their career, you could nurse that secret to get them to do your will instead of the will of the voters.
If Chris Stevens were alive today, what would he say about the Incident at Benghazi? Maybe he would avoid the truth, too, because he wants to become the ambassador to Iran. He has a career to consider, his "cursus honorum" to follow, not just his UC Berkeley idealism. Maybe Stevens would slough off his betrayal as just part of his job.
But ambassador Stevens was a literate man. Perhaps if he could look back at his death at Benghazi, he would recall the words of the great twentieth century English novelist E. M. Forster. When presented a choice between politics and friendship, Forster said, "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."
Given what we know so far about the Incident at Benghazi, in all likelihood there was an occasion for virtuous actions there, actions that placed loyalty to a friend above politics. E. M. Forster would have wanted it that way. The men who died defending ambassador Stevens acted bravely and virtuously. It looks like the politicians in Washington who let Stevens die did just the opposite.
If we don't put out the fire started at Benghazi, what then? Are we to stand tomorrow before the smoldering ruins of our home, staring at a few charred boards covered with charcoal blisters and say, "See, they told us they'd fundamentally transform the way we live."
Beyond that threat, we hope ambassador Stevens would have realized the smokescreen of lies about Benghazi hides more than a fire in the Oval Office. To realize the leader of your country is a self-serving liar and a coward undermines his right to office and that is an all-consuming fire. 
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)