By: Garikai Chengu

Contrary to popular belief, Libya , which western media described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship” was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.

In 1977 the people of Libya proclaimed the Jamahiriya or “government of the popular masses by themselves and for themselves.” The Jamahiriya was a higher form of direct democracy with ‘the People as President.’ Traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.

The nation State of Libya was divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya ‘s democracy were Local Committees, People’s Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils.

Source: “Journey to the Libyan Jamahiriya” (20-26 May 2000)

In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. Even the New York Times, that was always highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.” The purpose of these committee meetings was to build a broad based national consensus.

One step up from the Local Committees were the People’s Congresses. Representatives from all 800 local committees around the country would meet several times a year at People’s Congresses, in Mr. Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, to pass laws based on what the people said in their local meetings. These congresses had legislative power to write new laws, formulate economic and public policy as well as ratify treaties and agreements.

All Libyans were allowed to take part in local committees meetings and at times Colonel Gaddafi was criticised. In fact, there were numerous occasions when his proposals were rejected by popular vote and the opposite was approved and put forward for legislation.

For instance, on many occasions Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and ultimately the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed. Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.

One step up from the People’s Congresses were the Executive Revolutionary Councils. These Revolutionary Councils were elected by the People’s Congresses and were in charge of implementing policies put forward by the people. Revolutionary Councils were accountable only to ordinary citizens and may have been changed or recalled by them at any time. Consequently, decisions taken by the People’s Congresses and implemented by the Executive Revolutionary Councils reflected the sovereign will of the whole people, and not merely that of any particular class, faction, tribe or individual.

The Libyan direct democracy system utilized the word ‘elevation’ rather than‘election’, and avoided the political campaigning that is a feature of traditional political parties and benefits only the bourgeoisie’s well-heeled and well-to-do.

Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic and economic policy themselves.

Several western commentators have rightfully pointed out that the unique Jamahiriya system had certain drawbacks, inter alia, regarding attendance, initiative to speak up, and sufficient supervision. Nevertheless, it is clear that Libya conceptualized sovereignty and democracy in a different and progressive way.

Democracy is not just about elections or political parties. True democracy is also about human rights. During the NATO bombardment of Libya , western media conveniently forgot to mention that the United Nations had just prepared a lengthy dossier praising Mr. Gaddafi’s human rights achievements. The UN report commended Libya for bettering its “legal protections” for citizens, making human rights a “priority,” improving women’s rights, educational opportunities and access to housing. During Mr. Gaddafi’s era housing was considered a human right. Consequently, there was virtually no homelessness or Libyans living under bridges. How many Libyan homes and bridges did NATO destroy?

One area where the United Nations Human Rights Council praised Mr. Gaddafi profusely is women’s rights. Unlike many other nations in the Arab world, women in Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. When Colonel Gaddafi seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today more than half of Libya ‘s university students are women. One of the first laws Mr. Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law, only a few years after a similar law was passed in the U.S. In fact, Libyan working mothers enjoyed a range of benefits including cash bonuses for children, free day care, free health care centres and retirement at 55.

Democracy is not merely about holding elections simply to choose which particular representatives of the elite class should rule over the masses. True democracy is about democratising the economy and giving economic power to the majority.

Fact is, the west has shown that unfettered free markets and genuinely free elections simply cannot co-exist. Organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. How can capitalism and democracy co-exist if one concentrates wealth and power in the hands of few, and the other seeks to spread power and wealth among many? Mr. Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya however, sought to spread economic power amongst the downtrodden many rather than just the privileged few.

Prior to Colonel Gaddafi, King Idris let Standard Oil essentially write Libya ‘s petroleum laws. Mr. Gaddafi put an end to all of that. Money from oil proceeds was deposited directly into every Libyan citizen’s bank account. One wonders if Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum will continue this practice under the new democratic Libya ?

Democracy is not merely about elections or political parties. True democracy is also about equal opportunity through education and the right to life through access to health care. Therefore, isn’t it ironic that America supposedly bombarded Libya to spread democracy, but increasingly education in America is becoming a privilege not a right and ultimately a debt sentence. If a bright and talented child in the richest nation on earth cannot afford to go to the best schools, society has failed that child. In fact, for young people the world over, education is a passport to freedom. Any nation that makes one pay for such a passport is only free for the rich but not the poor.

Under Mr. Gaddafi, education was a human right and it was free for all Libyans. If a Libyan was unable to find employment after graduation the State would pay that person the average salary of their profession.

For millions of Americans health care is also increasingly becoming a privilege not a right. A recent study by Harvard Medical School estimates that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually in America . Under Mr. Gaddafi, health care was a human right and it was free for all Libyans. Thus, with regards to health care, education and economic justice, is America in any position to export democracy to Libya or should America have taken a leaf out of Libya ‘s book?

Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa . However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa ‘s most prosperous nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands . Libyans did not only enjoy free health care and free education, they also enjoyed free electricity and interest free loans. The price of petrol was around $0.14 per liter and 40 loaves of bread cost just $0.15. Consequently, the UN designated Libya the 53rd highest in the world in human development.

The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya citizens were given the chance to contribute directly to the decision-making process, not merely through elected representatives. Hence, all Libyans were allowed to voice their views directly – not in one parliament of only a few hundred elite politicians – but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa ‘s most prospero us democracy.

It’s over a year now since the capture and killing of Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi.

In the intervening period Libya has been struggling to come to terms with his disastrous legacy, notably the lack of political, civil society or any other institutions, and the emergence of a small but vociferous and forceful coterie of Islamists that have moved to fill in the politically barren landscape he has bequeathed. Above all, there is the problem of the multitude of militias, some of which participated in the revolution that toppled Gaddafi while others have been created since his demise – altogether some 1,700 armed groups.

In other words, the story of Libya has moved on. Therefore, it came as a surprise to see that the question of the propriety of the UN-authorized NATO action to protect Libyan civilians has resurfaced and is being questioned. The trigger for reopening this is the plight of a Libyan women’s rights activist, Magdulien Abaida.

She had played an important part in promoting the image of the Libyan revolution among Europeans when it first started in February 2011, and she had also helped to arrange material aid for the anti-Gaddafi forces. However, when she travelled to the country’s second city and the cradle of the revolution, Benghazi, this summer to attend a conference on the status of women in the new Libya, she was abducted by Islamist gunmen who beat her up before letting her go. She subsequently fled to the UK, where she was given political asylum.

NATO’s intervention revisited

Ms Abaida’s story highlights the chaos into which Libya has descended – a problem that we have written about more than once (see “Libya on the edge of a precipice” and “The Arab Spring: was it worth it?”). But what it does not do is demonstrate that, just because Western intelligence agencies had information at the time of the NATO intervention that post-Gaddafi Libya was likely to go through a chaotic phase and that minority Islamist groups would try to take advantage of this chaos, the decision to intervene to protect Libyan civilians had been wrong.

It is an established fact that the US, in common with the UK and many other governments, is highly selective in the intelligence it chooses to act upon. We have seen this time and again, especially in respect of Israel and the Palestinians, and the countries where it chooses to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses – in the Arab world (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iraq, for example) and historically in Central and South America.

However, to go from there to the conclusion that NATO should not have intervened in Libya makes no moral sense. We do not doubt, and have never doubted, that the US and its NATO allies had ulterior motives when they intervened in Libya, but there is no question that they should have intervened (see “The West is doing the right thing in Libya”, written on the first day of the intervention, 21 March 2011).

As a Libyan (and a former supporter of Gaddafi) with relatives, friends and acquaintances in Benghazi, I am quite clear what the fate of the people of Libya’s second city would have been had NATO not intervened. Indeed, on the morning of the first NATO (French) air strike against Gaddafi’s forces, his armed thugs had reached the western outskirts of the city, approximately 15 kilometres from the city centre. In one street alone they began snatching and murdering passers-by at random, and in the spate of just 10 minutes, while they were making their way towards the centre, they had butchered more than 20 people. The assailants belonged to Gaddafi’s “Revolutionary” Committees and they were accompanied by T-72 tanks and other armoured vehicles. Gaddafi had promised to turn Benghazi into a bloodbath (he did so in a TV address which I listened to myself) and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he would have done so had it not been for the NATO intervention.

Misreading Libya

People who have never lived in Libya and do not understand the problems underlying the chaos that has become visible to Western eyes only after the demise of the Gaddafi regime often fall back on stereotypes and cliches in lieu of a well-informed reading of the situation.

One of these is the old chestnut of “tribalism”, a problem afflicting many Arab countries but which in Libya is by no means the biggest one. Rather than serving as a “centre of gravity” that “kept the centrifugal tribal forces in check” as some claim, the Gaddafi dictatorship in actual fact promoted tribalism to divide and rule the people and neutralize the armed forces and thus foreclose the possibility of a coup d’état. (For the best assessment of tribalism in Libya, see “Libya crisis: what role do tribal loyalties play?” – written in the early days of the Libyan uprising but relevant today.)

Nor is Islamism Libya’s chief ailment, as evidenced by the fact that, in their first free election for over 45 years, Libyans bucked the post-Arab Spring trend and gave their vote to relatively liberal coalitions, and by last September’s mass demonstrations in Benghazi against the Islamist militias.

Rather, our problem in Libya is sheer backwardness, and for that we have to thank Gaddafi. As I have said in my article “The Arab Spring: was it worth it?”

In contrast to Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Tunisia, Islamist parties had never put down roots in Libyan society either before or clandestinely during the Gaddafi era. The Muslim Brotherhood is, and always has been, very small and is seen by many people as a holier-than-thou cult rather than a credible political movement. The other Islamist organizations, such as Abdelhakim Belhaj’s Watan party, Muhammad Ali Sallabi’s National Gathering for Freedom, Justice and Development, and the armed thugs of Ansar Shari’ah, are alien forces rooted more in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where their leaders had spent time in exile, than in Libya…

Rather than Islamism, Libya’s problems are far more basic. Compared to Egypt and Tunisia, Libya is politically barren. It was neglected under the Ottomans and the Italian colonialists, who banned education for Libyans aged more than 10 years. During the monarchy that came after independence in 1951, political parties were permitted and an elected parliament existed, but with a largely illiterate population and no political culture, these acted more as vehicles for patronage and other forms of corruption than as bodies that reflected the popular will. Then came the military coup that brought Gaddafi to power in 1969, and on that date the country’s political, intellectual and cultural life was placed in a deep freeze that was to last for the 42 years of the Gaddafi family’s reign. That is, four decades of complete intolerance of any political ideas that did not emanate from Gaddafi, no freedom of speech or expression, no freedom to organize (e.g. a political party or trade union – or even a debating society), and no institutions other than the armed thugs and snitches of the “Revolutionary” Committees and the pillars of Gaddafi’s system of institutionalized chaos, the People’s Committees. In other words, no civil society whatsoever

That is where Libya has been since liberation in October 2011. Society is thawing out but, having been frozen in backwardness for decades, it will take many years before Libyans experience a real spring. In the meantime, Libyans will have to get accustomed to using their critical faculties. They will have to learn the art of persuasion, as opposed to violence and emotion, and each Libyan will have to accept that his or her opinion is not the only opinion worth listening to and that nobody, whether Islamist or liberal, holds a monopoly over the truth. Above all, Libyans will have to start thinking and behaving as responsible members of a wider society, and this will be the hardest task of all because society and community are precisely what Gaddafi had done most to destroy.

Flawed logic

We don’t have to look too far back to remember the shameful days in 1994 when the world sat back and watched as the Rwandan government incited Hutu thugs to murder their Tutsi compatriots, resulting in some 800,000 deaths. To be sure, the Tutsi leader, Paul Kagame, who is now the president of Rwanda, has turned out to be a sectarian killer in his own right, wreaking death and misery on neighbouring war-torn DR Congo. If we were to use the logic of “NATO knew post-Gaddafi Libya would descend into chaos and therefore should have let Gaddafi mass-murder his people”, then are we to conclude that the West’s failure to intervene in Rwanda back in 1994 was right, because in retrospect the side they would have in effect supported had they intervened was led by someone we now know is bad?

To most people, the answer would be “of course not”. But to some on the “left” and in the “anti-imperialist” camp who subscribe to the realpolitik logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, the answer is probably a resounding “yes”.

Glimmer of hope

To conclude, let us end on a cheerful note. The plight of women’s rights campaigner Magdulien Abaida is distressing but it is neither typical nor an indicator of what is happening to women’s rights generally in the new Libya. As the same BBC report that brought us Ms Abaida’s story says, other Libyan women’s rights campaigners, including London-based activist Sara Maziq, from Women 4 Libya, think women are achieving far more now than they ever did under Gaddafi:

“There are 33 women in congress [the Libyan parliament], there are now two ministers in the cabinet,” she says. “In a conservative society like Libya, as far as I’m concerned the overall picture is a miracle.”

By Philip Giraldi

The American Conservative

The various accounts of the Sept. 11 Benghazi incident in which four Americans died demonstrate that there is a profound misunderstanding of what the Central Intelligence Agency does and how it interacts with the State Department overseas. The U.S. ambassador in any country is the personal representative of the president of the United States, and he is nominally in charge of all the American officials posted to the country. But the key word is “nominally.”

The Chief of Station is the senior CIA representative, and he directs the activities of the intelligence personnel. His direct line of command is to the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia—not to the State Department—and that is the relationship that provides him with his authority. Normally, the ambassador has little desire to learn what the CIA is doing because he has no real need to know about the details of operations and is only interested in oversight relating to situations that might cause serious damage to Washington’s relationship with the local authorities. Apart from that, the CIA operates independently and only shares partial information on what it is doing if the ambassador seems interested and there is a good reason to do so.

To cite one example from my own experience, the agency had a hidden microphone in the office of a top Italian Communist official in the 1970s, which enabled Washington to know exactly what the Partito Communista Italiano was planning. The information obtained was shared through an unsourced “eyes only” memo to the ambassador, who assumed the source was a CIA agent present at the Communist meeting and asked how accurate the person’s recollection was. The Chief of Station answered that the information was completely reliable but there was no one else in the room—avoiding having to say that it was a highly sensitive technical intrusion and letting the ambassador work out the meaning of the reply.

Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.

Time for an international peacekeeping force

By Nureddin Sabir
Editor, Redress Information & Analysis

Another day and more bad news from Libya. This morning the Reuters news agency reported that a gun battle was raging between two rival militias around a security headquarters building in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. At least five people were wounded in the clash.

According to Reuters, residents in the south Tripoli district of Sidi Khalifa said the fight erupted just after midnight on 3/4 November when two militia units authorized by the official Supreme Security Committee got into an argument over a detained member of one of the militias.

“We called the police early in the morning to help us stop the shooting, but no one came,” a resident said.

A bullet shot through the nearby Tripoli Central Hospital, causing doctors and nurses to run for cover. One doctor, Khalid Bin Nur, said that five casualties from the fighting had been brought in, adding: “We have real patients with real needs. These rogue militias need to leave us in peace so we can do our jobs.”

Meanwhile, in Libya’s second city, Benghazi, and cradle of the revolution that toppled the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi, a car exploded outside a police station, wounding four police officers.

According to the French news agency AFP, two unknown assailants drove past the station and lobbed a bomb under one of the police vehicles parked outside. The blast occurred before dawn, destroying the entrance of the building, unhinging a door and shattering windows, an AFP photographer said.

This kind of gangsterism has become the norm in Libya. Almost everyday incidents similar to the ones described above take place across the country.

It may be foolhardy to predict anything in a situation such as that prevailing in Libya, where the main actors are wild and irrational, but I am prepared to predict that the violence and anarchy will not only continue but will get much worse. Unless it is checked as a matter of urgency, it will reach a point where it will no longer be possible to contain and extinguish it.

There are plenty of countries where lawlessness has been allowed to escalate beyond control. Somalia and the DR Congo come to mind. Libya is not there yet and, to media correspondents, diplomats and other outsiders temporarily visiting the country, comparing it to Somalia and DR Congo may seem far fetched. But to those who understand Libyans and the Libyan psyche well, the prospect of a complete breakdown of society is a real one.

The fact that Libyans have managed to get rid of the Gaddafi tyranny is no small achievement. Years of repression, betrayal and frustration finally boiled over on 17 February 2011 when, encouraged by the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Libyans finally overcame their fear and began the fight that eventually resulted in the overthrow of the Gaddafi family.

However, this was all done in a characteristically chaotic Libyan way. Foreigners got a glimpse of the chaos on their TV screens – the to’ing and fro’ing of men in pickup trucks and the imbecilic firing into the air by fighters short of ammunition – but the reality on the ground was much, much worse. As I have said previously, Libyan society is chronically backward, with no political culture, civil society institutions or history of tolerance or political participation, and this state of backwardness was put in a deep freeze for the 42 years of Gaddafi’s reign. It will take time to move on but, in the meantime, with the country flooded with weapons and up to 1,700 militias wreaking havoc and lawlessness, it is time to take drastic action.

Libya is now Mad Max country and the Libyan people will take many years – perhaps generations – to recover from the years of stagnation under Gaddafi. But as matters stand right now, we need help and we need it urgently.

Libyans have never had an opportunity to learn how to organize themselves and this has left its mark on the psyche of virtually every Libyan. I am reminded of an incident in the mid-1970s when Gaddafi sent two secret service agents to murder an opposition figure who had taken refuge in Egypt. The agents managed to find Cairo but instead of tracking their target decided to make their way to a bar, got drunk, started shouting Allahu akbar (God is the greatest) while inebriated and discharged their pistols into the bar’s ceiling, upon which they were disarmed and arrested.

As a Libyan, I am sad to say that my compatriots cannot organize a piss-up in a brewery, to use an English colloquialism. But we are now on the edge of a precipice and dire situations call for drastic solutions.

Libya will continue its inexorable descent into chaos and violence, unless the international community – the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations or even the devil himself, it no longer matters – acknowledge our lamentable reality and dispatch a sizable peacekeeping force to establish law and order, disarm the militias – by force if necessary – and give the nascent Libyan authorities a chance to grow up, look in the mirror and live up to their responsibilities.

The post-Gaddafi Libyan authorities, from the National Transitional Council to the recently formed government of Prime Minister Ali Zidan, have a uniquely idiotic security concept: building an army composed of a coalition of “approved militias”. This will not work. WIth 1,700 militias plaguing the country and respecting no one, it is a recipe for endemic violence and a complete breakdown of society.

When Gaddafi came to power in 1969, he inherited from the monarchy a small but fairly well trained army and a respectable, professional police force. His was a bloodlesscoup d’état, not a revolution, and he was able to govern the country using the security apparatuses of the regime he overthrew. But from the 1980s he set about dismantling the armed forces, which were replaced by “security brigades” – praetorian guards of mercenaries – and demoralizing the civilian police, who were disempowered and critically undermined by the armed thugs of the “Revolutionary” Committees. Then came the revolution of 17 February 2011, which eventually resulted in the destruction of the praetorian brigades and the disappearance of most of what was left of the police, which collapsed along with other state structures.

If Libya is to survive as a state, then steps must be taken right now to mobilize an international peacekeeping force and authorize it to intervene to disarm the militias, bring about security and train an army and police force. It is better to bite the bullet, swallow our pride as Libyans and do this now before it is too late.

I realize that by calling for this I will bring upon myself the wrath of the faux leftists and many of my compatriots alike. This does not worry me. I am a patriot and a pan-Arab nationalist. I would not be advocating such a radical course of action if I did not sincerely believe that the alternative is my country’s self-destruction.

By Victor Thorn

Timeline of Deception

On the 11^th anniversary of 9-11, when four Americans were slain in Benghazi, a Predator drone equipped with cameras hovered over a safe house that was under attack and beamed images—via satellite in real-time—to the United States State Department, the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Also, during an October 11 radiointerview with Howie Carr of Boston’s WRKO, Colonel David Hunt stated that over 100 people watched this feed in the White House Situation Room.

All of these entities witnessed firsthand that the onslaught did not result from protests over an anti-Mohammed video. The “fog of war” didn’t blur what they saw, as Hillary Clinton asserted, nor were the details sketchy, as administration officials claimed. Moreover, the State Department’s Charlene Lamb admitted during Congressional hearings that they watched the attacks in real-time.

To reinforce that this assault did not arise from a “spontaneous uprising,” at 4:05 pm EST on September 11, Clinton’s State Department Operations Center issued an urgent e-mail alert. “Approximately 20 armed people fired shots. Explosions have been heard as well.” At no time did they mention protests or a video. Two hours later, at 6:07 pm EST, the State Department transmitted another e-mail. “Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack.”

The blame placed on Ansar al-Sharia—a group the U.S. government says is affiliated with al-Qaeda—did not emanate from the Mossad, Dick Cheney or The Weekly Standard. Rather, it came directly from the Obama administration’s State Department. In this light, every party involved knew with certainty from day one that the attacks did not arise from some type of protest.

Yet, for the next two weeks, Barack Obama and his cronies outwardly lied about the circumstances surrounding this attack against American personnel. Beginning with a September 12 Rose Garden statement, Obama generically referred to “acts of terror,” but never called the murders themselves terrorism. However, on September 12, Libya’s deputy ambassador to London stated that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attacks, while on September 13, Libya’s ambassador to the U.S. specifically referred to the ambush as terrorism.

Below is a damning timeline of deception emanating from the Obama administration:

September 14: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. “We don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

September 16: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows to say, “In fact, it was a spontaneous—not a premeditated—response to what transpired in Cairo.” [i.e reaction to the video]

Sept. 18: Jay Carney reiterated, “Our initial information, and that includes all information, we saw no evidence to backup claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack. We saw evidence that it was sparked by a reaction to this video.”

September 18: Obama to David Letterman. “Terrorists used this [the film protests] as an excuse to attack.”

September 19: Jay Carney, as questions surfaced about the attackers carrying shoulder-launched rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). “We have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack.”

September 20: Obama during an interview with Spanish-language television network Univision that took place in Miami. “What we do know is that the natural protests arose because outrage over the video was used as an excuse by extremists.”

September 24: When asked while appearing on The View if the Benghazi attacks were terrorism, Obama referred to them as a “mob action.”

September 25: During his United Nations speech, Obama was still beating a dead horse, citing the anti-Mohammed video six separate times.

The Attack: What Really Happened?

In a September 24 analysis of the Benghazi attacks, former CIA clandestine operations officer Claire Lopez wrote, “They let our ambassador and others die, in real time, watching it happen, and they didn’t do anything about it.” Elaborating further, Lopez stated that after Navy SEALs were told to stand down three separate times, such an order not to assist fellow Americans had to reach, at a minimum, Hillary Clinton at the State Department, or higher.

At a time when every American embassy should have been on high alert—especially since former U.S. Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens had repeatedly requested additional security for months—how could a CIA safe house be attacked for hours on end without a response from the most powerful military on Earth? Incredibly, two of the four murdered Americans were killed seven hours after the attacks began. It should be noted that Israel’s assault on the USS Liberty lasted for two hours. Such amateurish incompetence on the part of this administration is difficult to fathom.

As evidence undeniably shows, the attacks were premeditated and well planned. Spontaneous mobs supposedly angered by a YouTube video don’t carry RPGs, mortars, machine guns and AK-47 rifles. After attackers doused the mission with diesel fuel and set it on fire, Stevens ultimately died of smoke inhalation in a safe-room. His bodyguard Sean Smith burst through a window, only to be killed moments later by a volley of grenades.

These men undoubtedly knew their lives were in danger, as Stevens’ frantically issued e-mails to the Pentagon warning of increased violence. Months earlier he pleaded with the State Department about being on a hit list. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted discriminate attacks.” Indeed, their Benghazi compound had been bombed twice prior to September 11. Likewise, shortly before his death, former Information Management Officer with the U.S. Foreign Service Sean Smith posted a message on a gaming site, “I hope we get out alive.”

Tragically, as the White House, CIA and Pentagon watched the attacks as they unfolded, Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at 5:00 pm EST. No rescue troops were sent to directly assist these Americans, and later—as the carnage continued—Obama went to bed. The next day he callously flew to Las Vegas to attend a fundraiser.

Barack Obama: The Coward

On October 11, Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith who was slain in Benghazi on September 11, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the reaction she received at his September 19 funeral. “I look at TV and see bloody handprints on walls thinking, my God, is that my son’s? They [the Obama administration] haven’t told me anything. They’re still studying it, and the things they are telling me are outright lies. Susan Rice talked to me personally and said, ‘This is the way it is, it was because of this film that came out.’”

On top of Rice’s unmitigated duplicity, Mrs. Smith described our commander-in-chief as unsympathetic beyond words. “I cried on Obama’s shoulder, and then he looked off into the distance, so that was worthless to me.”

Racked with grief, she relayed more of her encounter. “I said [to Obama]: You screwed up. You didn’t do a good job. I lost my son, and he said: We’ll get back to you; trust me. Well, I don’t trust you anymore.”

On October 24, Charles Woods, father of slaughtered Navy SEAL Tyrone S. Woods, spokewith conservative radio talk show host Lars Larson about his encounter with Obama at the funeral. “When he came over to our little area, he kind of mumbled, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he couldn’t look me in the eye. It wasn’t a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry that your son died,’ but it was more of an insincere, whining ‘I’m sorry,’ and it was like shaking hands with a dead fish. It just didn’t feel right. Now it’s coming out that, apparently, the White House Situation Room was watching our people die in real time.”

Likewise, he explained the Secretary of State’s cold-heartedness. “[Hillary] came over separately and talked. I gave her a hug, and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all.”

Lastly, during an October 26 televised interview, Woods said of the president. “Was [Obama] one of those cowards in the White House watching my son being murdered on TV and refusing to do anything? That’s a question he probably won’t have the courage to answer publicly.”

Obama  Gunrunning:  From  Fast  &  Furious to  Libya & Syria

Continuing in the tradition of U.S. arms trafficking to Afghani Mujahideen, the Contras in Central America, and the agitators that overthrew Muammar Qaddafi, it appears as if Ambassador Stevens’ primary role in Benghazi was as a liaison to dispatch weapons from Libya through Turkey into Syria. There, rebels used this firepower in a continuing campaign to topple President Bashar Hafez al-Assad.

During an October 24 interview, Scott Creighton, a blogger touting himself as an “American Everyman,” told AMERICAN FREE PRESS, “Stevens was a gunrunner and paymaster whose job was to destabilize Libya so that the U.S. could control the aftermath.” In a September 24 article, Creighton wrote, “It was the CIA and Stevens working together in Libya since early 2011 who created and ran the fake revolution in the first place.”

Former CIA asset Claire Lopez expanded on this operation in the September 24 analysis: “Earlier in 2012 President Obama signed an intelligence finding to permit the CIA and other U.S. government agencies to provide support to Syrian rebels.” She continued, “Reports that those rebels now have surface-to-air missiles call to mind the thousands of such weapons looted from Qaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the revolt that ousted him in Oct. 2011.”

Not only did Stevens use Benghazi as a stronghold for his gun-walking mission and to recruit mercenaries that fought against Assad, on September 6 a Libyan ship hauling 400 tons of cargo docked in Iskenderun, Turkey. Among the freight later smuggled across the border were RPGs and heat-seeking missiles that were subsequently used to down Syrian jet-fighters.

On October 24, Russian General Nikolai Makarov weighed in on this tense situation. “We have reliable information that Syrian militants have foreign portable anti-aircraft missile systems, including those made in the USA.”