the al queda attack started not under the cover of darkness, not from the stealth provided by dark alleys, not from clever operatives massing in silence to attack the american embassy by surprise.
this attack was launched under the cover of pretext, a cover of pretext provided by barack obama and hillary clinton. al queda took advantage of that pretext, hid under its cover, and murdered our ambassador as obama and clinton stood incredulously to the side, trapped in there their own fabrication & deceit.
i use "fabrication" because i will use "lies" later, to describe how obama and clinton tried to explain their involvement and their ineptitude away. i use "fabrication and deceit" because this american disaster started well before the attack on benghazi was launched, well before september 11, 2012.
we know quite a bit now about the lies, after the attack. the blogs and the washington times have documented and substantiated the lies, which began only minutes after the attack. we know now, that obama and his henchmen knew that it was al queda within minutes of the attack beginning. we know now, that alerts went out from the embassy that they were under attack, and that these alerts went to the white house, to the state department, to the c.i.a., and to the various military districts having "jurisdiction" over libya. we know now that general carter ham has been sacked for trying to come to the aid of the beleaguered embassy staff, and that he was removed from command for his efforts.
we also know something else in our guts, which no one dare speak, because of the implications.
use your head for a while, and think. the narrative is that ambassador stevens, an aide, and two navy seals were supposed to have held off a determined mob of al queda operatives, for a period of from 7 to 9 hours, and that these al queda forces had automatic weapons, and mortars, and i have heard some mention of rockets.
we know now that these men could have been rescued. no one will say it, but if they could have held off a group attacking them for that long, then there is just no way that the mob could have resisted the onslaught of direct attack by u.s. military while they were massed like that.
period. end of discussion. these men were abandoned to die, by obama, clinton and leon panetta. and, the joint chiefs of staff. obama did it by design, as did clinton. the rest of them because they lacked sufficient courage to do what was right.
let's start with the immediate facts.--
stevens was in libya engaged in a "by back" of guns and weapons given to the al queda types, and opposition forces to ghaddafi. it is more than just an assertion that these guns, weapons to include shoulder held ground to air missiles, were going to turkey, where they were being parsed out to syrian forces opposed to assad.
we know this from many sources, not the least of whom were the russians, who were not happy to see the u.s. and nato supplying weapons to bring down their client state, and to evict their puppet ruler. russia simply does not want to concede syria to the control and influence of iran. think hezbollah in lebanon, and hamas in the west bank and gaza.
it is simply beyond contravention that this is so. a friend has the goods on this, and will publish soon on it. it is his story, and he will tell it brilliantly.
hillary clinton went to libya, even before ghaddafi was cold in the ground, and announced a round up of the guns, and announced more aid for libya. translation, she went there to spread the word that guns would be bought back.
now, if you are an al queda guy, looking for some coin, what is the only thing on earth that is better than selling the united states a weapon? why, it would be to sell the united states that weapon a second time. how do you sell a weapon twice? why you sell it, you steal it, and you sell it again. that's how.
o.k. so much for that, right now. we'll get back to that. the stage for the benghazi attack has been set. but, the play does not start there.
three seemingly unrelated things stand out in my mind.
1.)the apology from the cairo, egypt embassy of the united states of america. it was somewhat curious, because it was issued a day before the disturbance at the u.s. embassy in cairo.
2.)"normative standards of international" law to be applied by american jurists, and when in conflict with established u.s. constitutional principles, to supersede them.
3.)the seeming speed that obama and minions came up with an obscure 14-minute film that absolutely no one has even seen, before or since benghazi, as a pretext to explain the "outrage" of the "arab street" over an outrageous portrayal of mohommed.
this latter thing has always puzzled me.
of all the derogatory things that are said every day in the united states by bloggers like me about mohammed, of all the cartoons that depict him as the crazy pederast that he was, and thief to boot, ... , of all of this, why this film.
how was it seized upon in near unanimity between government bureaus and news media to explain the embassy riot and attack? well, as i look at the whole matter, the chances of him being identified so quickly in order to explain all of this, in terms favorable to the a-rabs after the cairo embassy affair, are just about slim and none.
the only plausible explanation about all of this is that the film was picked as the fall guy, the foil, the explanation for all of this well in advance of any of the public events involved.
well, now, that seems reasonable at first blush. but, when you think about it, it is a bit troubling. why would they pick something out to explain something, if the something hadn't happened yet? and, the only explanation for that, is that obama and hillary knew that the cairo riot was going to happen.
and, that they were prepared in advance to apologize for it. hence, the missive from the cairo embassy, a mistimed stroke if ever there was one, more reminiscent of a marx brothers movie than the machinations of statesman, exercising state craft at its highest levels.
and, that they were prepared in advance to make the film and the film maker the whipping boy for the violence in the "arab street," at cairo.
and, that hillary was prepared in advance to launch her attack upon the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in our written constitution, and enshrined in our heritage. hillary did not misspeak herself at the memorial service on september 14, 2012, ... , she simply spoke rather half hearted-ly from a script that had become badly outdated between 09.10 and 09.11.2012. she had fully intended to launch the attack on the first amendment after cairo, to use cairo as a pretext to advocate restraint upon our freedom of expression.
the fact is that freedom of speech as we exercise it is not the legal norm in the world, least of all in europe and england. western europe & england are governed by the euro union declaration of rights and by the united nations declaration of rights. both documents provide for freedom of speech. well, all right, you say. but, both documents also say that all subjects and citizens are to be protected from insults because of their ethnicity and religious belief, and that acts and statements hurtful to them are restrained. the declarations further state that no rights are absolute, and that the rights belong to the community, and not to the individuals comprising it. and, finally, the euro union declaration provides that when rights are in conflict, they are to be resolved in the interests of community harmony.
as decided by the euro union jurists and bureaucrats in charge of such matters. i know about this, because i wrote extensively (and very well, i think) with regard to these issues and the trial of geert wilders.
obama and clinton are fans of these standards. they are in favor of their importation into our domestic law.
both are in favor of limiting speech that is critical of islam.
finally, in this regard, you must remember that before cairo and benghazi there was a continual chorus of protest from islamic political leaders, clerics and arab u.n. diplomats clamoring for restrictions on hate and insult speech directed toward islam. in this litany, this chorus, it was sometimes hard to remember that islam regards as slander and blasphemy those things such as truth, clarity and accuracy about islam mohammed, to the extent they feel it makes islam harder to proselytize.
prominent in this whining was the prime minister of turkey, who day after day called for restrictions on speech harmful to islam.
why is this significant?
well, for one thing, this country is just about the only country on earth, and the last of the great industrial nations, to allow such speech. geert wilders, a dutch parliamentarian, was prosecuted for a film called "fitna," which by any standard, simply told the truth about islam.
so, i think the cairo riot was pre-arranged, and known to obama and clinton & various minions at state, and they were prepared, and scripted to respond in an attempt to sell to the american public the notion that we should give up our freedoms of unrestrained, and unrestrainable, political and religious speech.
in short, that we submit to "international normative" legal standards which almost unanimously prohibit saying anything nasty about islam. ask geert wilders. ask elisabeth sabetitch. ask the canadian levant. ask mark steyn. they all have faced criminal prosecution in the netherlands, in austria, and in canada for saying things that muslims and various authorities have taken exception to.
no, the european & english authorities do not prosecute muslims for saying that the queen should have her head chopped off. beats the hell out of me?
well, obama and hillary were ready after cairo. they were ready to step up, and in conformity with the aims and espoused goals of the muslim brotherhood to launch an attack upon our institutions of free speech.
and, then, i believe that al queda in libya saw the perfect opportunity to strike, and to steal all the weapons amassed at the benghazi warehouses run by stevens and his cia partners in the gun running business. i think al queda saw simple commercial opportunity, plus the opportunity to replenish their firepower, reassert their control over capital assets rightfully belonging to them. (they are descended from a very long line of cutthroats and pirates, after all.)
hillary and obama and the prime minister of turkey, the muslim brotherhood, and islamic clerics the earth over told al queda and the arab world that a 14-minute film had enraged them, and that they in their frenzy had no choice but to rise up and strike the hated infidels in the neck, and steal the guns back, to sell them again to the hated infidel for his hated money, .... , well, maybe they don't hate the money so much.
they had the film to blame.
they had been provided the perfect cover of pretext, as provided by the obama administration.
they attacked quickly and without hesitation. they attacked while obama and hillary and susan rice were in the middle of their own frenzy, while they were gearing up to attack free speech.
and, they caught obama in the middle of his lies.
they caught obama in his lies, and placed him in a situation where he could not think fast enough to extricate himself from the situation.
how could he bring military strikes in on top of what he had told the world were the observant faithful of islam, outraged over a slanderous portrayal by an american resident?
how could he tell the world that military strikes were needed because it was al queda that was attacking us because they did not want to see their weapons go to syria, because they wanted to sell us once again the guns we'd given them to fight ghaddafi?
how could he explain the stupid cairo embassy gaffe of releasing an apology the day before it happened?
you remember the "star trek" episodes where james t. kirk, that brave captain kirk, wriggled from every extremity by kissing the computer? and, the computer stood there, flooded by human emotions, and blew steam out its ears, muttering, "does not compute. does not compute."
well, obama did not compute.
a better man would have stepped forward, and done what was right, and called in the military to protect his people. and, taken the aftermath with humor and grace, even if it meant his head. but obama is not built that way. he is not, put simply, a better man.
and, the only thing that the obama administration could think to do was to continue their lies, and to make their denials the more preposterous with every continuing revelation. they were caught in the inextricable webs of their own construction. trapped by what they had viewed as a clever plan to usurp and forfeit our ancient freedoms.
far too clever by half a turn, and outwitted by a bunch of camel jockeys who wear sheets, and thongs made of tire carcasses. outwitted, and stuck in their construct, with no place to go, and no way out. their $600 shoes of absolutely no avail.
we know who led the assault. quite likely who killed stevens, and how. those responsible walk around benghazi and brag about it.
now, you may think that i have my head stuck squarely up my nethers. well, good for you. you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how superficially derived.
but, i remind you of something.
on september 14, 2012 hillary clinton appeared at a memorial for the fallen, and told some in attendance that those responsible for this would be prosecuted.
no, not the al queda.
but, the poor maker of a 14-minute film that no one ever watched, has never watched, and that she claimed had inflamed the world. she knew it wasn't true. she knew it wasn't true two hours after the attack on the "embassy grounds" had started. yet, we sat through all this for days, and watched as a man was herded back and forth and in and out of federal & state custody, with a jacket over his head to protect his identity.
we watched as his liberty was stomped and mutilated upon the pretext of lies spun by obama and hillary.
and, i've got news for you. we sat and watched as our liberty came perilously close to being destroyed by barack hussein obama and hillary rodham clinton. for those of you who retain your liberty this night, understand that it is because of a little cadre of conservative bloggers who have risen up and protected you, and because of some reporters at fox news and the washington times, who were determined to keep you out of chains. if not for the people i have identified, obama and hillary would have prevailed in this lie, quite a few thanks owed to a credulous press which is just now waking to the reality of the lies told to us by "our government."
if not for them, who would have destroyed the mantle of chains and binders by which obama and clinton meant to enslave you?
john jay @ 10.29.2012