It is no longer even plausible to believe that President Obama was not behind the denial of a rescue mission that would likely have saved at least two of the four Americans killed on September 11, and it could have saved all four, including Ambassador Stevens. Newest details emerging about this story demonstrate conclusively that the President has lied repeatedly since this incident and must be held accountable. Not only has Obama's lack of decisiveness cost four lives, his coverup has betrayed the trust the American people put in their President.
President Obama must go.
The events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi and the White House are emerging in sufficient detail to conclude President Obama's cowardly inaction is directly responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Either by the electoral process or by impeachment and removal, Obama must go.
What we now know:
Prior to September 11, all other foreign agencies and governments had pulled their administrative and/or embassy personnel out of Libya, following increased violence.
Despite two previous bombings at the Benghazi consular compound, and despite several requests from Ambassador Stevens, Obama refused to provide replacements for military security who had been removed a month earlier. Consequently, not only was there no enhanced security for Ambassador Stevens, he did not even have the benefit of normal security personnel.
President Obama was in the White House throughout the more then seven hours during which terrorists attacked the American Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya.
High-ranking government officials in the State Department and CIA monitored the attacks in real time.
Several pleas for immediate help were made by those under attack. At least two came from one of the former Navy Seals who was subsequently killed many hours after the attack began.
Procedure requires the State Department, the Department of Defense, the CIA and other intelligence agencies to report all incidents of this magnitude immediately to the White House. The attack threatening the life of the American Ambassador (the equivalent to the military rank of a four-star general) rises to the highest level of required reporting.
Highly trained military personnel and required equipment to launch a rapid response rescue mission from Italy were all in place.
Standing orders exist that rescue missions of this nature are to launched unless commanders are told otherwise.
The White House issued orders for rescue operations to "stand down." This included instructions for those in the consular compound to "stand down" and not come to the aid of the Ambassador.
After more than seven hours during which terrorists made several advances into the consular compound, setting fire to the main consular building, the terrorists withdrew, leaving four Americans dead, including former Navy Seal Tyrone Woods who disobeyed his orders to "stand down" so that he could rescue a number of people from the consular building during a lull in the fighting. He was killed when mortar attacks resumed after pleading for support to take out those mortar positions which were being laser-designated.
The direct action of the President is required to issue a "stand down" order to those tasked with security and rescue operations for situations of this magnitude. The lack of such an operation being launched is clear evidence the President denied help to those under attack by issuing the "stand down" order.
It is now evident that President Obama put greater effort into covering up the real nature and duration of the Benghazi attack than in trying to minimize the attack's damage. Had Obama allowed an immediate counterattack to be launched, American lives and territory in Libya could have been protected. Instead, a carefully constructed lie was delivered repeatedly over the next two weeks that claimed a YouTube video, online and barely seen since July, had triggered a spontaneous protest that led to violence. Federal officials acted on this lie in arresting and jailing the producer of the YouTube video. That individual is still in jail.
So what was the real reason President Obama followed the bizarre course of action he took?
You might ask, why would the President:
Deny permission to procede with a rescue mission by issuing a "stand down" order, despite the attack spanning at least seven hours during which numerous desperate pleas for help were received from those under attack?
Create a fiction about a non-existent spontaneous protest and repeat it for two weeks following the attacks?
Send his UN Ambassador to Sunday news programs five days after the attack to lie to the American people about what was known and the nature of the violence?
Continue to this date his steady stream of lies about what he knew, when he knew it, and why he denied a rescue response?
Common with all speculation about Obama's motives is the acknowledgement that his singular positive accomplishment was the Navy Seal operation that killed Osama bin Laden. We now know that Obama did not make the decision that launched that attack. It was made by senior administration officials who were concerned that Obama's aide, Valerie Jarrett, would once again convince Obama not to launch the raid -- just as she had on three prior opportunities during 2012. The raid was launched and then Obama was notified (he was playing golf at the time) so that he could come to the White House (and claim credit, of course). But what was Obama's contribution to that operation? He immediately blabbed the news to CNN, making it instant knowledge throughout the world. This made useless all the key intelligence information obtained from bin Laden's computers and papers that were retrieved. It is entirely possible that had this operation remained secret for several weeks or a month, that those Al Qaeda operatives who participated in the Benghazi raid might have been neutralized to the point the raid would never have happened.
There is a scenario that explains all. His plan for an "October Surprise" to boost his election chances. Such "surprises" have become routine practice for his party over recent Presidential elections.
What scenario explains the bizarre nature of Obama's actions?
Obama is supportive of The Muslim Brotherhood, having met with members of that organization at the White House.
Did Obama hatch an "October Surprise" during a recent White House visit by members of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Were demonstrations in Egypt triggered by the Muslim Brotherhood to provide cover for Obama to take the actions he took both during and after the attack in Benghazi?
Did the plan for a terrorist attack in Benghazi have as its purpose kidnapping the Ambassador so that the President could orchestrate a "rescue" of the Ambassador to help his sagging election prospects (the "October Surprise")?
Did the plan seek to avoid violence by meeting Muslim Brotherhood demands for an exchange of the "Blind Sheikh" (responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) currently serving time in jail in the US?
Nobody but Obama knows the real truth, but such a scenario explains the lack of security and the denial of a rescue mission, believing the Ambassador would be kidnapped and not killed. But, apparently, in trying to smoke out the Ambassador by setting fires, terrorists did not realize that Ambassador Stevens would not survive the smoke inhalation and that he would remain in a barricaded area they could not penetrate under the prevailing smoky conditions.
Consider what Obama must have known when he made his brief morning-after Rose Garden announcement before flying off to Nevada for an election fundraiser!
The circumstantial evidence is compelling that President Obama is not only a serial liar, but he was willing to jeopardize American lives for a cheap stunt to create an October Surprise.
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.