Benghazi attack was an inside job

 .

By: Jeffrey Phelps

No matter how you slice it, the September 11, 2012 attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, causing the deaths of four Americans, including US ambassador Christopher Stevens and three State Department officials, was an inside job.

Appearing on Denver's KUSA Saturday for the purposes of reaching out to a heavily contested battleground state that appears to be leaning toward Mitt Romney less than two weeks away from the general election, Barack Obama was grilled about the fairness of waiting until after the election to give Americans, hungry for answers, any information about the attack, yet continued to duck legitimate questions regarding the burnt out Libyan consulate and nearby CIA annex outpost.

Despite the obvious political expedience of wanting to wait until after the election to publicly deal with the tragic situation, Obama denied that the election had anything to do with not wanting to answer America's questions and continued to repeat the same response given since deciding to finally admit the attacks were not a spontaneous act of an unruly mob. “The situation is still under investigation” and the administration wants to “get it right,” prior to answering any questions, the president repeated.

Video: White House officials "murdered" my son



One can only wonder why the administration didn't feel the same way about making sure they “got it right,” prior to attempting the sale of the month-long falsehood that the attack was merely a spontaneous uprising in response to a YouTube video. A claim that ended up resulting in the humiliating detainment and interrogation of individuals associated with the video, despite the video having nothing at all to do with the situation.

Now the questions continue to grow louder. Yet, quickly approaching two months later, despite demands by family members of the slain ambassador and his colleagues, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department continue to refuse answering the many very serious questions that have emerged since the attack that happened on the ironically coincidental anniversary of 9/11, 2001.

As the questions and evidence continue to mount about who was actually behind the attacks, undeterred by the official silence, and the fact that multiple cries for help landed on deaf ears and were openly ignored until it was far too late, it may in fact be Americans and the victim's families that end up deciding just how important these attacks are and just how they end up effecting the election, despite what appears to be a massive cover-up and a blatant disregard for the truth about what happened in Benghazi.

One of those pieces of evidence emerging happens to be who ended up taking responsibility for the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, a faction of Al Qaeda... The so-called “terrorist” organization that, admittedly (Hillary Clinton), solely exists due to the original founding and funding of the organization by the CIA and their late asset, Osama bin Laden, before his death in late 2001 from “natural causes.” What the American people are still waiting for, however, is an admission to the fact that Al Qaeda is still being used by the CIA in various parts of the Middle East, including Libya, for the purposes of, among other things, the continued sale of terror propaganda in the Western establishment's mainstream media and for the destabilization of certain energy-rich nations that are also seen as obstacles to an agenda that maintains the fraudulent federal reserve note as the world's reserve currency. Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya and others, including Iran, are perfect examples of nations that fall within various gray areas of the agenda, clearly spelled out over a decade ago in documents written by the neocon family of political operatives, entitled “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC).

The establishment's media continues to use the term “rebels” to describe the forces involved in bringing down these governments, dictators and regimes, but when the black flag of Al Qaeda rose over the city of Tripoli after the fall of the Muammar Gaddafi regime in late 2011, it was clear that NATO/CIA-backed Al Qaeda forces were once again responsible for the destabilization and ultimate destruction of another nation that was simply unwilling to play ball with these globalist organizations and their Middle Eastern/North African agenda. Since then Al Qaeda and its various factions, like Ansar al-Sharia, have been in overall control of the war-torn Libyan state and the so-called “terror” attacks that continue to happen there. Quite obviously with monetary and weapons support by Western backed forces and the US military-industrial complex, even as the media continues to sell the propaganda that Al Qaeda is the reason for the continued loss of liberties here at home and why the TSA continues to stick their hands down our pants and rip out the colostomy bags of the elderly at airports across the country.

Although the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was already underway, according to news reports, it was only two hours into the event when word reached forces in the region, forces that were prepared to fight for the lives of the Americans trapped there. At that point plenty of time remained for a potential rescue and Africom commander, General Carter Ham, was prepared to step in and decided to send help, despite direct orders to “stand down” and let the attack continue. For his decision to help attempt to save the Americans under attack by Al Qaeda forces, Gen. Ham was detained and subsequently relieved of his position as Africom commander.

During the attack, CIA officers from a nearby annex building were pleading for help that never came. Confirmed reports state that at least three separate attempts requesting outside backup were ignored. Similar to the gut instincts Gen. Ham had to violate direct orders to leave fellow Americans to die on their own, two courageous CIA officers decided to attempt rescuing the ambassador and anyone else remaining alive at the consulate on their own. Although at the time of their arrival they were unable to locate the ambassador, two of his colleagues were found by the officers and were taken to the nearby annex building, where they also began taking heavy fire.

Although clear and constant communication was upheld between those being attacked in Benghazi and higher CIA headquarters, backup was never deployed and the fighting raged on well into the night. It wasn't until over six hours after the attacks began and at least four hours after initial radio contact with individuals in position to send back up that local Libyan “February 17” forces arrived on the scene to help the Americans, but subsequently demanded the release of the three Al Qaeda attackers that had been successfully taken into custody by the CIA officers during the fighting. Sadly, the two CIA officers that risked their lives trying to save the ambassador and his colleagues were killed shortly thereafter by a US-funded, Al Qaeda mortar shell.

Perhaps the most startling revelation that has come out of all this, however, happens to be the fact that two armed drones with video surveillance happened to be hovering over the attack scene almost the entire evening, feeding live video of the attacks in progress to officials at the White House, Pentagon and State Department... With the Commander-in-Chief being the only individual that has the authority to order a stand-down in the event Americans are under attack by, what most people mistakenly believe are, enemy forces.

Less than a week later, in what can only be seen as a sickening display by the Obama administration and his campaign for reelection to somehow symbolize the attacks on the consulate and CIA annex, a flag released for sale on the Obama campaign website appeared to be a representation of the bloodstained hand smears on a wall in the consulate where Ambassador Stephens and his colleagues were murdered by Western-backed Al Qaeda forces. Heavy backlash forced the administration to remove the flag only days later from its website. A direct link to the image on the campaign website can still be found at this location, despite the sale of the flag being publicly discontinued.

Unlike Hillary Clinton who tried to assume responsibility for the situation, a very coincidental one day prior to the final presidential debate last Monday, CIA director David Petraeus gave new meaning to the term, “there's no honor among thieves,” and threw Obama under the bus, according to the Weekly Standard, while stating, "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate,” insinuating that the stand down order could have only come from Obama himself.
The father of one of the CIA officers, a former Navy seal, killed in the waning moments of the attacks, confirmed mere days ago that it was the White House that personally gave the stand down order to allow the attacks to continue without aid from any nearby forces and understandably calls the situation and act of “murder.”

Ironically, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both attended the slain officer's Memorial service last week and attempted to console his father, Charles Woods, with an apology. Regarding the meeting, Mr. Woods continued, “When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrews Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’” Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hand at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

Amazingly, even though it had been long-since admitted that the initial excuse for the attack, the YouTube video, was proven to be a total and complete falsehood, Hillary also came over, according to Mr. Woods, and had the nerve to say, “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”

 http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-attack-was-an-inside-job