Was Benghazi a Warning From Putin?

by Tad Cronn 


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week explained why U.S. forces did not intervene when the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, was being attacked on September 11 over the course of a nine-hour battle:
“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
It sounds reasonable except for the fact that information has come out that the White House, including the president himself, were watching events in Benghazi unfold in real time via a live drone video feed.
Despite this, three requests for backup from two former SEALs who defied orders to try to rescue people at the U.S. mission were rejected.
How much more “real-time” information do you need than a live video feed?
In context, Panetta’s comment makes no sense.

In his show Monday, Rush Limbaugh discussed information that the drone was actually prepped to fire a missile but the order was cancelled. One of the SEALs on the ground had painted a target with a laser for the missile to strike, but when the missile was not fired, SEAL Ty Woods was killed because he had risked his location.
There is still a crucial piece of information missing that could explain these otherwise nonsensical facts.
The U.S. mission, when the mainstream media have discussed the Benghazi attacks at all, has been referred to as a consulate or embassy, but it’s become clear as more information comes out that it was anything but. It seems that it was part of a CIA operation to coordinate the funneling of heavy weapons and Islamist fighters, including al-Qaida-linked terrorists, to Syria through Turkey.
The dirty, open secret of the Arab Spring is that the “democracy” movements across the Mideast were all instigated by the Obama Administration through proxies, relying heavily on jihadists, the very people our troops have been fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Arab Spring was nothing more than mass regime change in multiple countries by President Obama, who no doubt thought he was going to wind up being the big man in control at the end of all the violence.

It hasn’t worked out that way. The Muslim Brotherhood took advantage of Obama’s fundamentally weak, narcissistic character to put its own people in charge. Obama thought he was using the Muslim Brotherhood, but it is actually the other way around.
That means something else doesn’t make sense about Benghazi. Why would the Muslim Brotherhood kill the golden goose that was giving it arms, money and support in its quest to establish a regional caliphate?
The group that claimed responsibility for the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, the two SEALs and another American is called Ansar al-Sharia. Some Ansar al-Sharia’s soldiers are the same soldiers Stevens had helped organize and arm in the U.S.-led effort to overthrow Moammar Gadaffi.
Enter Iran.
As far back as April, Saudi Arabian officials had accused Iran of providing monetary and materiel support to Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen. Likewise in Libya, Iran pulled the strings of Ansar al-Sharia, which after the downfall of Gadaffi was essentially a mercenary group allowed free reign in the country.

When Ansar al-Sharia attacked the U.S. mission, it was Iran giving the orders, according to the Canada Free Press.
Why would Iran care about what happened in Benghazi? Several reasons.
First, because the CIA weapons smuggling operation was destabilizing Iran’s ally Syria.

Second, Iran saw it as a chance to strike back at the U.S. with little chance of repercussions. The Iranians have Obama’s number. He wants them to give concessions on their nuclear program so he can look good for re-election, and he lacks the backbone for an open military confrontation, thus Benghazi was a low-risk operation for Iran’s leadership.

Third, and most important, Iran wanted to please its major international supporter and supplier of military and nuclear technology, Russia.
Last Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich accused the U.S. of arming the Syrian rebels: “It is common knowledge that Washington is aware of the delivery of various types of illegal weapons to armed groups operating on Syrian territory,” Pravda reported the spokesman saying.
The Russians have been on to Obama’s games in the Mideast since the beginning, and Russian military sources have complained of the use of U.S. anti-aircraft missiles by the Syrian rebels.
It’s part of the reason Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn’t get along with Obama, and it may be a factor in Obama giving away our missile deterrents in Europe so readily, to try to buy favor and indulgence in the Mideast.
If that’s the plan, it isn’t working.

Lukashevich called on all countries “to cease aid to rebel groups in Syria and do everything possible to prevent portable antiaircraft missiles falling into the hands of uncontrolled people, especially after the rebels threatened to attack civilian aircraft.”
Russia has good reason not to want Syria to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. For one thing, Putin has a better head on his shoulders than does Obama, and he realizes the Brotherhood cannot be trusted. If it came to power in Syria, the Brotherhood would be a force for chaos in the entire region.
Russia needs the Mideast to remain stable because it butts up against former Soviet countries. It needs Syria specifically to provide it safe ports to the Mediterranean.
So when Panetta talks about not having enough information, despite having a live video feed of the events, there are other considerations going on. Why was a missile armed, then not deployed despite having the target laser-painted by a SEAL on the ground?
The simplest answer is that Panetta and the rest of the situation room crowd, including Obama, must have seen something else on that video that made them hold off. What could it have been?

My guess: an ambush.
My bet is that there were Ansar troops lying in wait around the U.S. mission in anticipation of a military counterstrike.
A larger battle would have risked exposing what the U.S. has really been up to in Benghazi and revealing its proxy war in Syria.
That’s why the missile wasn’t fired, and I’m guessing Obama was the one to cancel the order because he was afraid for his image among liberal peaceniks during his re-election campaign.
Obama is now going around being “offended” and denying that he might have ordered anyone not to use the military in Benghazi. It smells like the sort of lie you get from a gangster who’s been caught holding a smoking gun while standing over a bleeding body.

The simplest and, I think, most likely explanation is that the Benghazi attack was a message to Obama from Putin, and it was a trap meant to embarrass the man who would be caliph. When the military response failed to materialize, after dragging out the fight for nine hours, the attackers killed the ambassador and went home.
And our government and media went into a news blackout to try to keep the truth from voters.