Flashback Benghazi, Murder Wasn’t the Plan

Benghazi, Murder Wasn’t the Plan

 | October 23, 2012 | 6 Comments

Benghazi, Murder Wasn’t the Plan

A Facts Based Hypothesis

By John Daniels and Angela Wiltz

The Tavern Keepers Research Team


October 23, 2012





When it comes to the details surrounding the brutal murders of American Ambassador Chris Stevens, Communications Specialist Sean Smith, former US navy special forces soldiers Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, many of us cannot get past the nagging suspicion that there is something we aren’t being told…. a piece of the puzzle that hasn’t revealed itself; but what could it be? Basic common sense tells us that things don’t add up, like why was the consulate in Benghazi so poorly guarded? Even in the best of circumstances, most of us would acknowledge Libya is not a safe place for Americans, so why, as Paul Ryan asked during the Vice Presidential debates, would there be less security for our diplomatic envoy in Benghazi than for our envoy in a “safe” country such as France?


Beyond that we have to consider the optics of this attack, the theatrics if you will; an American ambassador, a communications officer and 2 former elite soldiers, killed on the 11th anniversary of September 11th. This is nothing short of a national tragedy, and based on the admitted facts, [such as insufficient security and lack of firearms] one that could have easily been avoided. We are the United States of America after all, and such things don’t happen to us. Didn’t we learn anything from the Iranian Embassy debacle of Carter Administration?


Without diving into what the administration said and when they said it, we know that they lied or at the very least were profoundly incompetent, even cavalier about the safety and lives of the Americans stationed in Benghazi. So, with this as an accepted truth let us move onto gut feelings and a story that was recently posted on the Western Center for Journalism website. From the get go the author of the article acknowledges that the story is hearsay, and we Tavern Keepers accept that as the foundation of the story; however, using this story as a starting point we decided to dig into the claims of the article. What were those claims? That,C.OJONES, the author of the story received a call from a woman in Washington, a long-time friend, with high-level political connections in Washington. According to the friend,

“Barack Obama, wanting an “October Surprise,” had secretly arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood for a kidnapping of our ambassador. Then sometime in October before the election Obama was to orchestrate some great military action to rescue Ambassador Stevens, causing all of America to cheer Obama’s strong foreign policy and bravery and making him look like a hero.” http://tinyurl.com/cuz7bqd


WOW! What an absolutely stunning accusation! However, it is one that we here at the Tavern believe is deserving of further investigation. To that end we began doing some digging and have compiled a timeline of events based on the reporting from a variety of news sources that include CBS, FOX News, Reuters, the Daily Beast, etc., as well as various international outlets. The following is simply a hypothesis based on accounts we found in the aforementioned sources.



Ambassador Chris Stevens, Libyan Ambassador for the United States

How the Muslim Brotherhood Ended up Guarding our Consulate in Benghazi


Let us begin earlier this year when in March of 2012, as the conflict in Libya drew down, the State Department started to reduce the US security presence in Benghazi there to “normalize relations.” (http://tinyurl.com/8wujbyx)They chose to hire a small British firm called Blue Mountain Security. This was an odd choice, as almost no one seems to have heard of the firm prior to Benghazi, but it is speculated that they already have an imprint in the area and were therefore chosen out of expediency. (http://tinyurl.com/8ldvjxp) The firm ended up hiring members of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to provide security for the consulate in Benghazi, a militia with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The hiring process was described as “casual,” and at least one member of the security team stated that he had never held a gun before. They were not issued weapons, and were told that in the event of an attack they should radio for help in and run for cover. (http://tinyurl.com/9hy28d3)



Early attacks on the consulate


In May there is evidence of the State Department refusing increased security assets in the area as a request was turned down for a DC-3 aircraft for transportation of embassy staff due to security risks in the country. On June 6, an attack occurred on the consulate in Benghazi when an IED blew up a section of the perimeter wall “large enough for 40 men to go through.” (http://tinyurl.com/99wc23z).




The Blind Sheik


On June 24, Mohamed Morsi is elected the president of Egypt. On June 29 it is reported that he gave a speech stating he will do everything in his power to have the Blind Sheik released. (http://tinyurl.com/9vggzbg) If our speculation is correct, at some point around this time the White House secretly began discussions for an “October Surprise.” The Muslim Brotherhood, who was essentially already providing security for the Benghazi consulate, saw a target of opportunity through which the Blind Sheik could be released, Libya would fall further under their control, and their friend in the White House would be propelled to another 4 years in office.


At this time, the Muslim Brotherhood was already planning a movement that would begin in early September as a way of pushing through “anti-Islamophobia” legislation worldwide through outrage and unrest. With the help of an expatriate Egyptian Coptic Christian, The Innocence of Muslims is created and put on YouTube in early July. When pressed on his identity, the filmmaker claimed he was an Israeli-American who thought Islam was a cancer and had been funded by 100 Israeli donors.(http://tinyurl.com/9blgdpq) He had previously been involved in a drug ring that was raising funds for Hezbollah. (http://tinyurl.com/bse38qb)


Meetings are announced, extra security is denied


So, the convergence is coming together for September. On July 8, the White House announced it would have a face to face meeting with Morsi in September, when the Egyptian president would be in the United States at the UN anyway. This would be the perfect time for “clearer heads” to find a solution to the would-be crisis that would unfold on September 11, leading to the culmination of the Ambassador being released, the Sheik being sent to Egypt, and Obama delivering a stirring speech at the UN to end islamophobia. (http://tinyurl.com/7tbjtzg)


On July 9, Ambassador Stevens requested a minimum of 13 additional TDY security personnel. Obviously the request was denied or ignored. (http://tinyurl.com/9ly6vls)



More security leaves


On August 5th, The State Department decides not to keep the state security team in Libya and reduces the mobile security detachment. (http://tinyurl.com/8oe2xlg)

This essentially left the Muslim Brotherhood connected February 17th Martyr Brigade in charge of consulate security in Benghazi.





Early warnings of an attack


In the weeks leading up to September 11, the family members of the security guards at the embassy start to warn them that something is going to happen. There are also reports that an unnamed Libyan politician warned the commander of the local security of the coming attack and told them to stand down when it occurred. (http://tinyurl.com/crcyyrl)


At this point the plan was in place for Stevens to end up at an insecure consulate in an unstable country – an easy target for kidnapping. All the White House had to do was get Stevens to the embassy, which they do as part of his work to recover weapons the US had given to Libyan rebels before they can pass into the hands of terrorists. In this task he wasn’t very successful, as it has been reported that at least some of the weapons have ended up in the Sinai Peninsula in the hands of Al Qaeda (http://tinyurl.com/95dwffs) and possibly Syria. (http://tinyurl.com/8q8p8ll)



All clear on the Benghazi front?


On September 6, The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security Website states the following:

“OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events. Often times these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.”


A statement that is completely absurd on face value. After the attacks the article is scrubbed from the site. (http://tinyurl.com/9levqvh)



The gears begin to turn


On September 8, portions of The Innocence of Muslims are aired on Egyptian television setting the stage and providing an explanation for the September 11th protests. (http://tinyurl.com/8fpg4po) On September 10, it came out that the Obama administration was putting together a $1 billion aid package for Egypt. It was also brought to light that Egypt wished to buy $1 billion in submarines from Germany.(http://tinyurl.com/9b35qv4). Perhaps this was either part of the ongoing deal, or an initial show that the United States and Egypt were forming close ties, the type that would be needed for allies to work through an “unexpected” crisis together.


On September 9, Dr. Sam Abdul Waris announces the formation of a coalition to fight against anti-Islamic speech. (http://tinyurl.com/9kmjx69) The coalition would push for the enforcement of blasphemy laws worldwide, and especially in the West. It would also “hold accountable” anyone who insults Islam locally or

internationally. (http://tinyurl.com/8oxanz2)

Botched kidnapping leads to murder


The Consulate Under Attack

This brings us to the date of the actual attacks. On September 11, a large protest forms at the Egyptian embassy that turns violent. The Innocence of Muslims is blamed as the catalyst for the video. (http://tinyurl.com/9dnnaoj) Also on September 11, Ambassador Stevens is in Benghazi, even though that area and the consulate itself have come under attack in the preceding months. He is there to meet with the Turkish Consul General for Benghazi, with the meeting taking place at the United States consulate and wrapping up in the early evening. Because of the late hour, Stevens decides to stay at the consulate for the evening. (http://tinyurl.com/8oe2xlg)


Why was Stevens meeting with the Turkish Consul General of Benghazi? It was reported in September that a large cache of 400 tons of weapons was shipped from Benghazi to Turkey in order to be given to Syrian rebels. (http://tinyurl.com/9ooxo4w) It is presumed that Stevens was sent to Benghazi for a meeting about these weapons.


Communications Specialist Sean Smith


The evening of September 11, two CIA agents who were in Benghazi decided to help with security at the consulate. One can make the assumption that they had heard the “buzz” about a potential attack and knew the consulate was vulnerable. They had a “safe house” roughly a mile away and were in the area hunting down weapons. (http://tinyurl.com/9j5c6oe). As a point of interest, according to Alex Gianturco, friend and fellow gamer of Sean Smith’s who was online with him when the attacks began, Smith made reference to a message earlier in the evening, “assuming we don’t die tonight” and noted that one of “our” police had been taking pictures of the compound. When the attack began, he sent an instant message to Gianturco, saying “fuck” and then “gunfire” before he was disconnected. What was that individual taking pictures of and why? (http://tinyurl.com/8m57qls)



Things Fall Apart


This becomes the downfall of the kidnapping plot. The agents, who were former Navy Seals, defend the consulate heroically when it is attacked. The kidnappers, who weren’t expecting much of a fight, ended up setting the embassy on fire in the attack, possibly to try to smoke the ambassador out and fulfill the kidnapping objective. Stevens, who was in a “safe room” that had no windows, died of smoke inhalation, as did Sean Smith. (http://tinyurl.com/8m57qls) While all of this was going on, a US drone was flying over the consulate, and Charlene Lamb herself testified in front of Congress that she was notified in real time via the Emanate Danger Notification System about the attacks on the Consulate as were the February 17th Brigade, the Embassy in Tripoli and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. (http://tinyurl.com/9yf55c6) It should be noted that according to Fox News reporting the CCTV cameras in the compound suffered very little damage, the walls had not been breached and there was no damage to the front gate. One could speculate that the reasons for this were that the terrorists hopped the gate and opened it from the other side as the Fox report suggests, or that someone on the inside opened the gate for them. With respect to the CCTV cameras, it is perhaps indicative of a group of people who were not concerned about their identities being known because they feared no ramifications.


Once it was determined that attempts to rescue Ambassador Stevens must be abandoned, the survivors fled the consulate for the safe house where they were to be rescued. The attackers knew of the safe house already, and pursued them all the way to it. Either they were out for blood, or they didn’t know that the ambassador was not part of the surviving group. (http://tinyurl.com/9j5c6oe)


President Obama responds on September 12, 2012

The Cover Up


Now the main players are left with quite a dilemma. Instead of a kidnapping, a US ambassador has been killed in a terrorist attack on September 11. The President’s first reported reaction was to go to bed. Does everyone remember Hillary’s 2008 campaign commercial about the 3:00 am wakeup call? This on face value seems cold, but it adds deniability for the President if the storyline is he was in bed when all of this was happening and didn’t find out about it until the next morning. He looks more suspicious if he’s in the situation room watching it happen in real time from the drone. (http://tinyurl.com/8z52pj8)


The White House claims there was a protest and blames the whole thing on The Innocence of Muslims. However, video evidence now debunks that a protest ever occurred. (http://tinyurl.com/9yf55c6) Frankly the story didn’t work very well from the start. Why would there be a protest at night in Benghazi, which unlike Cairo, is not a capital and not host to the main embassy. Also, while there are plenty of militias and such in Benghazi, most spontaneous protests don’t include laser guided weaponry. Perhaps the video was always meant to be the cover story for the kidnapping, but claiming that there was a spontaneous protest at the consulate became the fallback position when everything went awry.



President Obama is not happy with Egypt


On September 12, an obviously frustrated President Obama goes on Telemundo and states that Egypt is not an ally of the United States. One can only imagine that he wouldn’t be very happy with the Muslim Brotherhood run country at that moment in time. Instead of helping his re-election bid, they just gave him a huge international incident less than months before the general election. What isn’t clear is if Egypt had made it known that they still expected the delivery of the Blind Sheik. This evidently did occur, but during this period the Obama administration was looking at the possibility of sending the Sheik to Egypt to serve the rest of his life sentence. This was revealed by State Department officials who went to TheBlaze with the story, which was reported on September 17. (http://tinyurl.com/8qv2rqd)



The narrative begins to change


On September 19, CNN revealed that they had been on the ground in Benghazi after the attack and had found Steven’s diary. Also on the 19th, Counterterrorism Director Matt Olsen admitted before Congress that the attack was terrorist in nature. This contradicted the official stance which was that it was part of the protest. (http://tinyurl.com/93cry9o) On September 21, Hillary Clinton also stated that it was a terrorist attack.





The public turns against the militias


On September 21, anti-militia protests in Benghazi lead to two militias being driven out of their headquarters and the beginning of a large government crackdown on the groups. One of the main catalysts for this was the supposed involvement by the militias in the murder of Ambassador Stevens. (http://tinyurl.com/9t2a2wy) It’s very possible that the militias were involved in the attack and the Muslim Brotherhood had planned to use the event to start their initiative to drive the militias out of Libya and solidify government power.



The CIA is pulled out of Benghazi


On September 23 the New York Times has an article revealing that the CIA agents in Benghazi had been pulled out, along with other personnel. The move was described as a “catastrophic intelligence loss.” (http://tinyurl.com/8bcon43) It seems odd that the CIA, who obviously is skilled at operating in hostile environments, would be pulled out of the area. However, if the White House didn’t want them looking into the attack, it makes perfect sense. It would also explain why it took so long for the FBI to be allowed on scene. (http://tinyurl.com/8s9ergf)



A meeting is cancelled


On September 23, it was announced that the White House had cancelled the upcoming visit with Egyptian President Morsi. I would guess that relations weren’t very good between the two at that time, and Obama was already catching flak for cancelling his meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister. (http://tinyurl.com/bt2cegh)It’s very possible that there was blackmail in play and that the Muslim Brotherhood was threatening to expose the White House involvement unless the Sheik was released to them.



The UN speech


On September 25, President Obama went before the United Nations and stated that the unrest in the Middle East was due to The Innocence of Muslims. He also stated that insulting Islam should not be allowed. In this, he was doing his part in the push to ban “Islamophobic” speech. How very American to stand before the United Nations and promise to try to ban speech. Perhaps it was his legitimate feelings (it probably was), or perhaps it was an attempt to appease the Muslim Brotherhood since they now had him over a barrel. (http://tinyurl.com/8ec886d) Maybe it was both.



Morsi still wants the sheik


On September 27, Egyptian President Morsi stated that the Blind Sheik should be released to Egypt for humanitarian reasons, the same reason given to TheBlaze by State Department informants. (http://tinyurl.com/92bd4mo)Was this a public statement to the White House that they weren’t off the hook yet? Morsi has made promises to people that he will get the Blind Sheik released, probably the types of people who don’t take disappointment well. So, he expects the president to follow through even after all that has happened.



A counter offer?


On September 28, the White House announced that it was giving Egypt $450 million in emergency aid. (http://tinyurl.com/993kmfn) Perhaps this is “hush money” or perhaps this is an attempt to smooth things over until after the election when the Blind Sheik can be released with fewer political ramifications.


Conclusions… Draw Your Own

As we moved into October, the Obama administration, at all levels released a series of statements about the Benghazi attacks, each more incoherent than the last; but none actually clarified what took place on that tragic night; none offered a plausible explanation for the events in question or truly explained the role of State Department or the president.


While all we can do here at the Tavern is offer you the documented details and insert our own hypothesis, we do believe that we have proven one undeniable fact… there is still a great deal that the American people are not being told.


Is our theory conspiratorial? Absolutely; but for the first time since this all began, the puzzle pieces do start to fall into place. And who can say every conspiracy theory is wrong? What’s not conspiratorial however is the actions and statements of our highest ranking officials make little to no sense, unless they have something to hide.


Sadly, this hypothesis based on the available facts seems to ring most true. As the author of the original article,C.OJONES wrote, “This scenario, if true, more than satisfies my common sense gland.”


We want to remind everyone that the following piece is a hypothesis.  We are presenting what we believe to be a credible timeline and theory of events, but remember it is a theory.  If you would like to read the part one of this series, it is available at: http://tavernkeepers.com/benghazi-murder-wasnt-the-plan/

In recent days it has been reported by Jennifer Griffin of Fox News, who spoke to sources who were on the ground in Benghazi on September 11th, that when gunshots at the consulate could be heard at the CIA annex just one mile away, two requests for permission to assist the Ambassador and his team was made and twice operative were told to “stand down”.  According to Fox sources, Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods and at least two others ignored the order and made their way to the consulate, which by this time was on fire. (http://tinyurl.com/8uw7e5l).
As we discussed in our initial hypothesis, several attempts to rescue Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith were made, resulting in the discovery of Smith’s body, but with no success in finding Stevens.  The group, which now included the rescue team from the annex, the survivors from the consulate along with Smith’s remains made their escape under heavy fire as they made their way back to the Annex.

Gen. David Petraeus, now the head of the CIA, denies that anyone in his agency gave the order to stand down

By now most people who are following the Benghazi story as it unfolds are aware of the details that have come to light from the Fox News reporting, and while it has been extremely eye opening with regard to the depth of the cover up by the Obama administration, we are still left with the the lingering questions of “why”.  At this point it is unclear as to who gave the order for CIA operatives at the annex to “stand down”, with CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood speaking on behalf of General Petraeus and the organization releasing a statement on Friday denying that anyone within the CIA gave any such order.

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

So where does the orders come from and why?  Perhaps worse than the order to stand down, was the depraved indifference of whomever it was that refused to give the go ahead for the two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector, to offer assistance.


The AC-130U gunship

As PJ Media reported on October 26th,

The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets….. It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser….. There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors, and synthetic aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the dark of night, clouds, and smoke.


The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm Gatling gun for area suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can engage hard targets.

What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists and saving American lives.

The term, “Blood shouting out of my eyeballs” comes to mind.  WHY!  Why did our most senior officials allow this to happen?  We know that the assault on the annex lasted for more than 4 hours, and not only did a security guard on site had a laser focused on the mortar team as they desperately tried to hold their position as they waited for backup to arrive, the operatives were once again told to stand down.

On October 26th, a gentleman identifying himself as Doug in San Antonio,  a retired lieutenant colonel special operations planner for 15 years and seemingly well versed in Situation Room protocol, called into the Rush Limbaugh show.  Doug revealed a number of SOP elements that really blow Obama’s story of “we just don’t know what happened” out of the water.  In fact the insight he has provided should make every single American furious, because not only did our president let our people die, he clearly thinks that we are all moronic imbeciles.  Case in point, the SOP for the AC-130 gunships is to save American lives…. Period  The fact that they were not deployed could only mean that they too were told NOT to deploy.
Additionally, retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer and retired  Col. David Hunt both appeared on Fox’s Justice with Judge Jeanine on Saturday October 27th.  Lt. Col. Shaffer stated that his sources tell him that President Obama was one of the people present in the Situation Room and did indeed watch events unfold in Benghazi as they happened.  Both men agree that it would have taken an order by the president to intervene. (http://tinyurl.com/8nbtg7f)


Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated that they did not have enough information to put troops in harms way

We have also recently heard statements from a clearly frustrated Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta who claims that he consulted with General Carter Ham, Commander of the U.S. Africa Command, aka AFRICOM, and and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they jointly decided that they wouldn’t send in back up.

“(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,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “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.”

We Tavern Keepers have one thing to say to that, “Ah yeah you do!  Going into harms way is what these guys were trained to do.  It’s literally in the job description.  Additionally, sending in AC-130’s would not have put any additional people in danger as they would have been firing from the air. This is what you get when you have an ideolog running the Department of DEFENSE!  Besides which, they did have credible information from their own people on scene, both in the consulate and at the annex.

source: http://foxnewsinsider.com/tag/jason-chaffetz/

That being said, it should also be noted that on Friday October 26th, Rep. Darrell Issa (CA) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) were interviewed by Sean Hannity on his 9 PM Fox program.  During this interview Rep. Chaffetz mentioned that he had been in Libya with General Ham just weeks before and ask the general why no help was sent to the operatives in Libya when it was requested.  According to Chaffetz, Gen. Ham told him that he received no such request from Washington.  Here again we have a conflicting account of events on that night.
Speaking of conflict, on Saturday National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News that “Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” via email.  Seems like that buck just keeps getting passed around and nobody is stopping it.  So who was responsible for this debacle?  Let us just speculate for a moment.  Even if the Fox News reporting is flawed and nobody was told to “stand down”, there still remains the question of why support was not sent in at any point during those more than seven hours of fighting?

According to his schedule, the president was in the oval office at 5pm with Biden and Panetta

This brings us back to the kidnapping hypothesis.
A quick look at the president’s official schedule on the White House website reveals three things:
1. He had no intelligence briefing scheduled for that day.  Not too surprising since we know that president, with his magnificent brain, doesn’t feel he needs them.#
2. The president was in the Oval office at 5:00 PM with not only Vice President Joe Biden, but also Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.  But the administration would have us believe that the President had no idea what was happening in the Situation Room and by extension at the Benghazi consulate.
3. If retired lieutenant colonel special operations, Doug from San Antonio is credible, and we believe he is, that there is no way the president was not informed in real time that American lives were in danger and they needed help.

At some point Sec. Panetta was obviously informed, based on his own statements. Remember when Joe Biden, in front of a live mike, leaned into the president’s ear and said that signing the health care law was a “big f___ing deal”?  Well, maybe Panetta should have taken a cue from Joe because  this was a BIG F’ING DEAL!  But I digress…..
Based on the American credo of “no man left behind”, it is more likely than not that the would-be kidnappers assumed that their objective, Ambassador Stevens, had escaped in the SUV and was headed back to the annex with Tyrone Woods and any survivors of the initial consulate attacks. As we know an hours long battle ensued at the annex that ultimately left Woods and fellow former SEAL Glen Doherty dead.

The crowd found Ambassador Stevens barely hanging onto life inside the consulate

Meanwhile, a mile away locals had descended upon the consulate, where they found a barely alive Ambassador Stevens and brought him to a local hospital.  As we know, doctors at that hospital were unable to revive the Ambassador and he succumed to severe smoke inhallation.  What brought the locals to the consulate initially is unclear.  There has been some speculation that the locals that found Stevens may have been part of the kidnapping plot, and that when they found him they were overjoyed because the plan was still in motion.  To that end Tavern Keepers is providing a translated video showing the moments that the Ambassador was discovered in the wreckage.
The role of these folks however doesn’t change our hypothesis.  Back in Washington, Obama would not have know whether Stevens had been kidnapped and that was why our people could not find him, or if he had been killed.  On the ground, militants would have had no idea of the ambassadors whereabouts, and were still out to fulfill their main objective.

So if you were President Obama, and you saw your October surprise falling to pieces what would you do?  Would you provide support for the guys getting in the way of your plan?  Probably not.  But being the man that he is, the president would probably have decided to let it ride, knowing things were out of his control.  At that point he would have retreated to the residence in order to lay the groundwork for his plausible deniability claims, and allowing himself to get enough sleep so as to be fresh for his Vegas fundraiser the next day.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the transfer of remains ceremony on September 14, 2012

When their bodies were brought back to the United States, the ceremony was recounted by one of the father’s of the deceased.  Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods said that President Obama would not look him in the eyes, showed no remorse, and shaking hands with him was like shaking hands with a dead fish.  President Obama was likely frustrated and doing little to hide his feelings from loved ones of the fallen – our president is nothing if not passive aggressive when he is boxed in.
Finally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured him that the government would make sure that the person behind “that film” was found and prosecuted.  Woodson stated that he could tell that she was not telling the truth from the look in her eyes.  http://tinyurl.com/93tw2fr.  So there you have it, a President who is projecting his anger by being cold and distant and the Secretary of State whose heart doesn’t seem to be into the cover-up delivering the company line half heartedly.

On October 26 in an interview with Denver TV President Obama refused to answer whether the consulate was denied aid during the attacks.

“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.” http://tinyurl.com/9ay6jpf

As seems to always be the case recently, the President is unwilling to make any statement that would tie him to a version of the story.  When you’ve spun a lie that is so complicated that you’ve lost control of it, any statement you make is going to contradict something you said in the past.  Therefore, you say nothing and hope that the whole thing will go away, or at least wait until after November 6 to come out.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, pictured here in a wanted poster below Osama Bin Laden after September 11, 2001

On October 27, 2012 Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called for Muslims to kidnap westerners in an effort to force the release of the Blind Sheik. http://tinyurl.com/8skw4op.  It seems that Al Qaeda decided that the kidnapping plot would be more successful if the list of potential targets was drastically expanded.  Zawahiri’s message is exactly what we think the Muslim Brotherhood was planning to do in Libya, just on a larger and less controlled scale.  Ultimately the goal is the same, the release of the Blind Sheik.  This is also a common practice with Palestinian terrorists.  Israel has actually had to release packets to its citizens about how to prevent being kidnapped.  http://tinyurl.com/9cvdq4e In one case, an IDF soldier who was kidnapped in 2006 was traded for 1027 Palestinian prisoners.  So, there is precedent to show that this strategy would be effective in getting the Blind Sheik released.


Once again, we here at the Tavern Keepers only aim to provide you with the facts.  We have of course inserted our own hypothesis, but it is up to our readers to make their own informed decision as to what they believe.
As with our initial report, we believe that we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that things just don’t add up.  Even if the administration is only trying to hide what some are calling the Fast n’ Furious of the Middle East, why was the consulate left virtually unprotected?  Why would our men on the ground be told to stand down?  Why was it important that Ambassador Stevens meet with anyone on September 11th?
Many will point to incompetence or “fog of war”, but that seems unlikely, as what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was not a single event, but a long drawn out battle that lasted hours.  Incompetence and confusion are one thing; telling experienced men to not defend their fellow Americans is something else entirely… unless there was a plan.

Image of Glenn Doherty credited to Glen Doherty Memorial Foundation
 Image of Tyrone S. Woods: Family photo

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s