Thursday, November 8, 2012



THINK-ISRAEL features essays, analyses and commentaries that provide context for current events in Israel. The war Islamists are waging against Israel and the West is a top priority.



A. Was it a riot due to Muslim anger at a movie called the Innocence of Muslims?
This is actually two questions.
  1. Was it a riot? No, it was a terrorist raid.
  2. Why is the Obama Administration directly implicated? The riot story was certainly not concocted by the terrorists. The Administration started calling it a riot almost immediately. The Administrations knew two hours into the attack that it was unmistakeably a terrorist raid, yet for almost two weeks, they continued to mislead the public by calling it a spontaneous riot.
  3. Was it due to anger about a movie about Muhammad? No. We aren't sure why the terrorists attacked. Possible motives that have factual basis are:

    • to kidnap the Ambassador and swap him for the Blind Sheikh, who is sitting in a U.S. prison

  4. the local band of terrorists, Ansar al-Sharia, were celebrating the first 9/11

  5. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was engaged in gathering up weaponry left loose after Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi was killed. The local terrorists have a competing interest in obtaining and keeping the weaponry. This sounds incredible but actually has the most credibility.

Why is the Obama Administration directly implicated? Other such weapons from Gaddafi's warehouses have shown up in Sinai, Mali and Syria. It suggests that after the massacre the Administration has tried to prevent it from becoming more widely known that the U.S. is supplying weaponry to the rebel groups fighting Syrian President Assad. Seasoned Al-Qaeda members are a major rebel asset. The Administration can not be seen to be associated with al-Qaeda.
B. Did officials in the Obama administration prevent people going to aid fellow Americans in danger?
This also breaks into two separate issues.
  1. Did the Administration refuse to allow trained fighters located within a mile to go help the Americans rebuff a terrorist attack.The former Naval SEALS who volunteered to go to the rescue of the Americans under siege were been told to stand down. They went anyways -- against orders.
  2. Did the Administration deny pleas from the Americans for help?Yes.

Why is the Obama Administration directly implicated. We know Ambassador Stevens and others had warned that security arrangements in Libya were inadequate. They were allowed to deteriorate further. We know the White House knew within an hour that the worst case scenario had come about and American officials were in danger and desperately needed help. No one other than a very high echelon official could have sent help or withheld help. We know none was sent, despite pleas from the besieged Americans. We know trained fighters were on the ready, waiting for the President to push the GO button. He went to bed, instead. By doing nothing, he denied help to a group of Americans, a group that included an American Ambassador.
Unlike Watergate, this isn't a question of what did the President know and when did he know it. Ordinary protocols and procedures would ensure that the President knew within the hour that the Americans were under siege. The questions are: Who let the massacre run its course? And why?
Because of the nature of the events, the cast of possible culprits is small: the only ones with the authority to order the appropriate personnel either to stand-down or to set in motion the actions required to send help are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA David Petraeus, and the White House, primarily President Barack Obama and possibly his Grey Eminence, Valerie Jarrett. For some actions, only the President could initiate them.
Additional Material is available here on the front page of Think-Israel.
Bernice Lipkin
Editor, Think-Israel

1 comment: