Recent emails from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by Judicial Watch which indicates that Ben Rhodes, speech writer for President Obama, “conducted meetings with” former UN Ambassador Susan Rice to collaborate on her now infamous “Benghazi comments.”
Journalist Jennifer Rubin asserts: “The Rhodes memo certainly seems to confirm the allegations Republicans have been making for more than a year: the White House was intentionally spinning after the attack so as not to damage their reelection prospects. The White House denied this, and now there is evidence the critics were right. Isn’t the mainstream media the least bit curious about what happened? You’d think their new-found independence and critical analysis of Obama foreign policy would provoke some rumination about Benghazi. Or perhaps, they are simply unwilling to recognize that they missed the boat all along and concede that conservative media scooped them again and again.”
In defense of the FOIA emails released, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council (NSC) said: “In the email Ben Rhodes makes clear that our primary goals included making sure our people in the field were protected and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice,” Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. “The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time and what we understood to be the facts at the time.”
Meehan continued: “Unlike those who insist on politicizing the events in Benghazi, our focus remains on ensuring that a tragedy like this isn’t repeated in Libya or anywhere else in the world. In our view, these documents only serve to reinforce what we have long been saying: that in the days after September 11, 2012, we were concerned by unrest occurring across the region and that we provided our best assessment of what was happening at the time.”
Last December, the The New York Times (NYT) reported that al-Qaeda was not involved in the attack in Benghazi.
This information was attributed to “extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context.”
This past January, the US State Department (SD) stated that Ansar al-Shari’a were the group responsible for the attacks in Benghazi.
The SD explained: “Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya. Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya.”
This information was obtained by Guantanamo Bay detainees Sufian bin Qumu and Ahmed Abu Khattalah who are alleged the heads of the Darnah and Benghazi branches of Ansar al-Shari’a.
In 2012, David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was planning on informing the House and Senate committees that Ansar al-Shari’a was identified as “a prime suspect” at Benghazi from the beginning.
However, facts surrounding the attack have been ignored by the majority of media outlets because they do not fit into the “official” narrative that has become the Benghazi scandal.
Mohammad al-Bishari, landlord of the gated-villa rented out by the SD and the actual “compound” where the attack occurred confirmed that the men who attacked the villa, threw grenades over the walls, shoot and killed the US Marines who tried to defend Stevens; then looted and stole sensitive documents containing the names of Libyans working with the US and the Saudi Arabian government in terroristic operations, as well as oil contracts tying the US and Saudi Arabia, and burned it to the ground after murdering US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
The assailants were armed with American assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and carried the black flag of the Ansar al-Sharia.
Petraeus’ testimony may have been publically censored because of a little known fact that has been kept from the general public about US Ambassador Stevens “other mission” in Benghazi.
Stevens was conducting surveillance missions for the CIA on the National Transitional Council (NTC), the defacto-government installed by the US after the assassination of Gaddafi, and their Salafi extremist ties which lead to the Muslim Brotherhood.
In truth, Stevens was conducting arms deals with the NTC while simultaneously spying on the NTC for the CIA. This was a true nature of Stevens’ diplomatic missions which were sanctioned by the SD.
Stevens became the “liaison” between US-sponsored terrorist factions and the movement of arms to Syria to assist the FSA. And this is the reason Stevens was murdered.
Shipments to the FSA have come from Saudi Arabia where the Salafi terrorists originated and the Ansar al-Shari’a is used to further subversive interests.
Thanks to the US, the Saudi government and Stevens, the FSA are the most heavily armed state-sponsored jihadist group in the Middle East.
This leads into Hillary Clinton’s involvement as then Secretary of State.
Clinton, was responsible for diplomatic security, and denied Stevens’ request.
And in response, there was an order from the US government to disarm the US Marine Security by refusing them live ammo while allowing them to keep their guns.
Clinton, not wanting the Saudi connection to become common knowledge, and knowing that Stevens was directly involved in arms trade deals between the NTC and the Saudi government to arm the FSA in Syria paved the way for Stevens to be murdered.Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.