There is no question that American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was murdered in Benghazi. The question I have been dealing with in two previous posts is whether or not Stevens was placed in Benghazi so he would be killed much like Israel's King David ordered his general to have Uriah the Hittite assigned to a place in a battle where his death was virtually certain.
I don't expect to prove who was responsible if Americans
assigned Stevens to Benghazi to be killed. Such proof might
require the investigative skills of a real life Sherlock
Fleming once observed: "Once is happenstance. Twice is
coincidence. Three times is enemy action." Prior to the
2008 presidential primaries two known homosexuals who were
acquainted with Barack Obama died
violent deaths. In November, 2011, Larry Sinclair
who wrote a book claiming to have had an affair with Obama, was
killed by a hit and run driver. Chris Stevens who was
murdered by terrorists at Benghazi was also a known homosexual.
[Correction: Larry Sinclair is alive. A rumor about his death was posted on the Free Republic possibly as part of a pattern of intimidation reported by Kevin Dujan who had scheduled a radio interview with Larry Sinclair to discuss Sinclair's allegations about Obama being homosexual and using drugs.]
Stevens wouldn't be the first high American official whose
assassination was approved by someone in the United States
government. Military historian Robert Wilcox in his book "Target
Patton" claims that in December, 1945, OSS
head "Wild Bill" Donovan ordered OSS marksman Douglas
Bazata to kill Gen. George Patton because Patton was
threatening to expose what Patton considered allied collusion with
the Soviets that cost American lives. The World War II era OSS
was the predecessor of the CIA.
Some believe Ambassador Stevens might have been killed because
he was about to blow the whistle on a questionable "gun
running" scheme to send old Libyan government weapons to
Syrian "Contras" [or whatever Syrian rebels are called] or some
other group. A problem with this explanation is that an attack
on Stevens in Benghazi would draw attention to whatever the CIA was
doing there. The fact the CIA facility was located so
close to the consulate could indicate that the "intelligence"
officials involved weren't very intelligent. If the CIA
had an operation going in Libya, locating it in the same city as a
diplomatic facility would severely hamper keeping the operation
secret. The attack on the CIA compound indicates the
terrorists suspected what the CIA was up to. Their abuse
of Stevens' body indicates they knew he was homosexual.
Those who don't understand government would likely say if the
government wanted Stevens dead, President Barack Obama would have
ordered the killing. However, unless the situation was
similar to the murder of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Obama probably wasn't involved. Archbishop
Thomas Becket was killed in 1170 by followers of King Henry II of
England who believed the King wanted him killed.
President Harry Truman probably did not know about the killing of
Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been
responsible, but I doubt she's intelligent enough to come up with
such a plot. It would be more likely that she went along with
a plan developed. by someone else. Her behavior
before and after the incident implies she is guilty of
something. Her use of a private
email service implies she was doing something improper, if not
illegal. Her attempt to avoid responsibility for the incident
by inventing a easily disproved story about a riot caused by an
anti-Muslim video implies she was covering up something,
particularly considering that she came up with the story so soon
after the incident.
Clinton's use of a private email server could have allowed
terrorists to monitor her email. If so they would have known
the United States wouldn't protect its diplomats in Benghazi.
They might have also learned Stevens was homosexual which could have
provided an added incentive to want to kill him.
If the murder of Stevens was part of a pattern that included the
murders of Obama's homosexual acquaintances, the person in
charge was probably someone associated with Obama's financial
backers. They might have assigned someone to "protect
their investment" by eliminating those who could pose a threat to
Obama's election chances by raising the homosexual
Before I started this series I thought it was more likely that
Stevens' death was the result of incompetence. Now, I
think it is more likely someone wanted him to be killed.
I believe the test Sen. Saw Erwin used for President Richard Nixon
and Watergate applies to Secretary of State Clinton and
Benghazi. If she knew Stevens was likely to be killed she is a
crook. If she didn't she is incompetent.