What I think happened in Benghazi | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN

ANNOUNCEMENT!PayPal has just canceled my account.

My new GoFundMe link is HERE PLEASE DONATE NOW!
I am looking for a new payment system that supports recurring payments.

ANNOUNCEMENT! Tune in to today's radio show. 3PM Central Time.

If you cannot use the RBN player, you can listen to my show HERE


"True sweeping, incisive spiritual logic pours only confusion and dismay upon head and heart of all who set themselves up for pillars of the church without practising the first principles of the doctrine of Christ--men who, professing to gather their fellows together in the name of Christ, conduct the affairs of the church on the principles of hell--men so blind and dull and slow of heart, that they will never know what outer darkness means until it closes around them--men who seek gain first, safety next, and the will of God not at all--men whose presentation or Christianity is enough to drive the world to a preferable infidelity." -- George MacDonald



Paid advertising at What Really Happened may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied. While we try to avoid advertisers of fraudulent products, What Really Happened assumes no liability for such fraud. Caveat emptor.

What I think happened in Benghazi

UPDATE: It is known now, through the subsequent email and cable releases, that the responsibility for the attack was claimed by Ansar al Sharia, al Qaeda's affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula.

Not a spontaneous mob protesting a YouTube video. But a planned attack by group which has already been exposed as having deep ties to the United States intelligence agencies.

In Hillary's testimony before the Benghazi Committee, it has been confirmed that the State Department and the White House knew the attack was not a spontaneous protest over a video, even though that was the lie told to the American people.

The next obvious question (pointedly not asked by the Benghazi committee) was why this terror attack was concealed from the American people? Terror attacks are very useful for the US Government to justify its aggression against other countries. So much so that the FBI has devoted a large amount of resources to setting up patsies as news-worthy terrorists! So, why was Benghazi claimed to be a spontaneous protest over a video? Perhaps to avoid the question of just why the terrorists attacked that particular target?

We already know that the consulate in Benghazi was a hub for running guns from Libya to ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria, a fact the White House would not want the American people, told that ISIS and Al Qaeda were our enemies, to catch wind of!

But more recently, Paula Broadwell, former CIA Director David Petraeus' biographer/lover, has blown the lid off another secret buried inside the consulate in Benghazi; that it was one of the CIA's clandestine torture dungeons! This means that the attack on the consulate was a rescue mission, to free Libyans being tortured by the CIA. and that too is a secret the White House would not want the American people to catch wind of!

The Consulate in Benghazi was never an official US Consulate. It was never listed as such on the State Department websitem, which chows only the US Consulate in Tripoli.

As we watch the Congressional Hearings and news coverage on the attack on the Benghazi consulate, we see the usual signs of yet another official attempt to generate a highly fictitious official version of events. We see the blame shifting and the pointed fingers as everyone dances the "Potomac Two-Step" to the beat of nervous pulse rates.

What Really Happened?

We may never know, but after some consideration and application of Occam's Razor, this is what I think may have been going on.

First, there are numerous reports that US weapons that had been used against Gadaffi in Libya were being funneled through the Consulate in Benghazi to the mercenary forces fighting the US' proxy war against Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. But many of those mercenary forces were Al Qaeda and ISIS, the declared enemies of the United States' "War on Terror!"

Exposure of this covert gun-running threatened to reveal to the American public that the entire "War on Terror" was a hoax, covering up what was actually a program to conquer and control the oil nations of the Middle East (as General Wesley Clarke had revealed in 2003).

The Consulate in Benghazi, as the operations hub for the gun-running, contained all the records that might prove embarrassing should they be revealed, and at some point in late 2012, with Obama looking like a one term President, the decision was made to destroy those records to erase all evidence of the crime and blame terrorists for it.

The official story is that on the night of 9/11/12, coinciding with the anniversary of the false-flag attacks in New York City, "Al Qaeda", enraged over a trailer for a non-existent Mohammed-bashing movie, attacked the Consulate, killing the Ambassador. Bad Muslims, no cookie!

But there are some interesting facts to consider.

There is ample evidence that the US Government knew something was going to happen days, maybe as much as a week, ahead of time. Yet they did not increase security at the Consulate or remove the Ambassador.

There were CIA and SEALS nearby who heard the gunfire but were ordered to stand down. Just where that order came from appears to be the White House, despite an early effort to pin the blame on CIA, which was denied by Patraeus, leading to exposure of a sex scandal and his forced retirement on November 9th.

There are reports that a Predator drone was overhead, "real timing" the video of the attack back to the White House situation room. Given that the Predator only has a top speed of 137 miles per hour, the drone had to be en route to the Consulate long before the violence started.

So here is what I think was going on, over and above erasing the records of gun-running. Since there had to be a "Terror attack" to destroy the evidence of treason, why not also use the attack to boost Obama's re-election campaign?

"He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can't think of how he could do that." -- Robert Shapiro, former Clinton official and Obama supporter quoted by Financial Times in July 2010

Polls in September 2012 showed the Presidential race neck and neck. Many media outlets were openly predicting a Romney victory. Obama had failed to garner public approval over the killing of a man claimed (but never proven) to be Osama bin Laden, mostly because of the manner in which the body was disposed of and the obvious faked photos leaked onto the internet.

Obama needed a publicity stunt.

A small team of "Al Qaeda" terrorists, or someone playing at being Al Qaeda terrorists, were supposed to enter the Consulate and take the Ambassador and his staff hostage. Obama would let the drama build for a few days, allowing the media to hype the story, then send in the SEAL teams to "rescue" the hostages, then campaign on how he did not let the situation turn into a repeat of the Iranian hostage crisis, which would have dovetailed with the Iran bashing (and Argo).

But the best laid plans of mice and men (and Candidates) gang aft agley, as they say. We know that the CIA operatives at the annex could hear the gunfire from the Consulate. Looking at the consulate through Google Earth, one sees heavily populated residential areas less than half a mile to the east and southwest, who no doubt heard the gunfire coming from the consulate as well. Given how quickly sympathetic protests erupted across the Middle East during this incident, it is clear that the region is an anti-American powder keg awaiting a spark, which Obama inadvertently provided with his staged terror attack.

The initial "Al Qaeda" (or reasonable facsimile thereof) was a small group, but were quickly joined by Libyans pouring in from adjoining neighborhoods. What was a planned and rehearsed operation to "kidnap" the Ambassador triggered a spontaneous riot with at least 200 participants on the ground, and spun out of control, leading to the deaths of the Ambassador and others.

Obama's carefully prepped operation to make himself look like a hero instantly turned into an epic fail.

Then the "cleanup" began, first with the assassination of one of the main "terrorists" in Cairo on October 25th, an explosion at the Benghazi Police Station on November 4th, and the assassination of the Benghazi police chief on November 20th. Facebook even went as far as to censor the Navy SEALs to prevent anyone there on the ground from speaking out to the net. And the man who made the YouTube trailer for the non-existent film on which the riots were blamed was sent to prison!

This explanation fits all the available facts.