Strangely the terrorist attack on our Consulate at Benghazi has gone almost unreported by the liberal-media in America with the exception of Fox News. And the Obama Administration has stumbled all over itself in its obvious lies and cover-ups regarding the events in Benghazi. Why? Why is the President and his Administration going to such lengths to cover up the Benghazi debacle; and why is the liberal-media seemingly so complacent over this obvious cover-up on the part of the Administration? Senator Rand Paul (R) Ky may have let the cat out of the bag during yesterdays Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearings on Benghazi.
During the Senate hearing on Benghazi yesterday, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. special mission attacked on Sept. 11 was involved in gun-running. The remarks were perhaps the most important and telling of the entire hearing since they address a possible motive behind the jihadist attacks.
The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya? “To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.” Continued Paul: “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.”
That section of the exchange with Paul was almost entirely ignored by media, which instead focused on the Republican senator’s earlier statement that if he were president he would have relieved Clinton of her post. Various news agencies have filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who describe the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East. In September, a story broke claiming that the slain U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.
In November, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Assad’s regime, the security officials said.
According to the 39-page report released last month by independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government. “Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states. “This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).” The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.”
During the Libyan revolution against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups. At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi acknowledged in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
Media cover up?
From the beginning, U.S. media reports on the events in Benghazi have been misleading. The vast majority of media coverage worldwide refers to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a “consulate,” even though the government itself has been careful to call it a “mission.” A consulate typically refers to the building that houses a consul, who is the official representative of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli. Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information. On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, Ambassador Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy. The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.
Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state. However, according to the State Department investigation, the building was a “U.S. Special Mission” set up without the knowledge of the Libyan government.
Two days before the November presidential election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 “60 Minutes” interview in which Obama made statements that contradicted his earlier claims about the attack. In the released portions of the interview, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden on the day of the attack, he had declared it an act of terror. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Reuters quoted a purported civilian protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. building.
Immediately following the attack, President Obama and other White House officials claimed anti-American sentiment fueled by the obscure anti-Muhammad video on YouTube sparked civilian protests outside the U.S. mission that devolved into a jihadist onslaught. However, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials later made clear no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, officials said.
So the question now – among others – should be is the Obama Administration arming Turkey and various jihadist groups in an attempt to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Syria? And were they doing so out of the “Special Mission” in Libya? And where are the weapons that reportedly were being stored at Benghazi now? Are they being used by the jihadists in Mali?
I’ve written many articles on this blog arguing that Turkey is the ancient land of Gog and Magog. Just as I have written many articles arguing the possibility that the Syrian civil war could break out beyond Syrian borders and, with Turkey playing such a key role in the Syrian conflict, we could very well be looking at the earliest stages of The War of Gog and Magog (Eze 38, 39).
If, in fact, Benghazi was nothing more than a shipping center for the Obama Administration running weapons and jihadists into Turkey and Syria, as Senator Paul claimed, then the civil war in Syria is much bigger and takes on even more significance than I originally thought. And now, with the jihadists turning on their masters in Benghazi, and stealing whatever weapons were at Benghazi, then we can expect that those weapons have made their way into Mali and other Northern African countries and that, as a result, the violence there should only escalate?
The pro-Islamic policies of the Obama Administration, specially their pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies, have already rewritten the map in the Middle East with the fall of the pro-Western Mubarak regime in Egypt, the fall of Gaddafi in Libya, the change of governments in Yemen and Algeria combined with the Muslim Brotherhood filling the political vacuums left behind in these various countries. Now, with the help and support of the Obama Administration, it appears as if Syria is next in line.
Many have asked me over the years how an Islamic coalition force could – as the War of Gog and Magog suggests – invade the modern state of Israel when it was so obvious that America would never allow that to happen. My answer has always been the same; ‘Something has to change in America; Either through war or economic collapse, or through a drastic change in our foreign policy.’ What we are seeing today is an answer to that question which is a drastic shift in America’s foreign policy under the pro-Islamic Obama Administration.
The Obama Administration obviously does not understand the spiritual forces they are dealing with. Eschatology, or end time prophecy is clear in that The War of Gog and Magog is near – and the Obama Administration is playing right into the hands of bible prophecy…