The Benghazi Cover-Up

Written by Kevin Webb

The Benghazi Cover-Up

I’m getting ready to blow a hole in every single lie that has been fabricated by the media and the Obama administration in regards to the Benghazi, Libya attack that killed Ambassador Stephens, another diplomat, and two Navy SEAL/CIA operatives. Nobody knows what to believe right now – because we either have dangerously incompetent leaders in the White House, or we’re looking at one of the biggest cover-ups in U.S. history. Regardless of what the truth actually is, the American people are being lied to.

Preface: The Benghazi Embassy Attack In A Nutshell

There is a complete timeline of events that can be viewed here, but I’m going to just give you the bottom line up front (BLUF). On April 6th, 2012 there was an improvised explosive device (IED) thrown over the fence of the embassy in Benghazi, Libya. This event would become the initial spark that would lead to almost a dozen more security threats and local attacks that would take place even BEFORE the September 11th, 2012 embassy attack that killed Stevens and three others. On September 11th, 2012, the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, killing Ambassador Stephens and another U.S. diplomat. Two Navy SEALs were killed at a separate adjacent annex – which was a CIA intelligence field office. At least one of the two Navy SEALs was found dead on the roof of this annex with blood covering a single machine gun on the roof. There are not details on this weapon yet, or if it was mounted/dismounted on the roof.

On September 12th, 2012, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama issue statements condemning the attacks on the embassy, as well as condemning a 14-minute amateur YouTube video titled “Innocence of Muslims,” now renamed to “Muhammad Movie Trailer” that was published on July 2, 2012 – 2 months before the Benghazi attacks. On September 10, this video had 17 views. For two weeks, this YouTube video was at the center of blame for the “spontaneous” protests that fueled an attack on a U.S. embassy as well as an attack on a CIA intelligence annex. The attacks included direct fire (assault rifles) and indirect fire (mortars & fire bombs). The fact that mortars were used in and by itself is evidence that the attack was not spontaneous. Protesters (even in Libya) don’t walk around with mortars, cannons, bi-pods, and base plates in their pockets.

For two weeks after the attacks, the story from the White House, Barack Obama, Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice was shifted from spontaneous protests to blaming YouTube videos, some mentions of terrorism, and then right back to the YouTube video. Even after the Libyan President, Mohamed Magarief, said that he had “no doubt” that the attack was pre-planned, the YouTube-video-spontaneous-protest narrative continued. For two weeks there was no consistent story, and for two weeks the President of the United States of America refused to call the attack on Benghazi a terrorist attack. Fact.

I want those reading this to put on your analytically thinking caps on for 5 minutes, and think about the following questions.

The Video

[box type=”success”]FACTS: Based on the recently released emails sent to the Pentagon and the State Department the night of the attack, we know unequivocally that this was a planned al-Qaeda terrorist attack (Ansar al-Sharia), and not the result of a video, but the video does play a role.

On September 10th, the YouTube video being blamed for the attacks (that was uploaded two months earlier) only had 17 views. Yes, a mind-boggling, record-shattering 17 views. After news broke of the attack on September 11th, that same video had an enormous increase in views… to a WHOPPING 328 – Not even remotely close to being considered viral by any stretch of the imagination. Despite its non-existent popularity, the video somehow sparked violent protests… that somehow remained isolated to the Benghazi embassy area. Remember, the “unrest” did not spread until the U.S. successfully marketed the video all over U.S. news in the following weeks. To date, the video, from all of its sources, has had more than 100 million views… up from 17 before news broke.[/box]

QUESTIONS: Where did the YouTube video narrative start, and who started it? How did a video with 17 views become a focal point of U.S. murders? If a two-month old YouTube video did, in fact spark the outrage of the attacks, then why were the attacks isolated to the Benghazi embassy? Why did it take 3 months for the Innocence of Muslims video to spark outrage, which coincidentally came to fruition on September 11th?

ANSWERS: On February 11, 2011, Hosni Mubarak resigned from office as Egypt’s president, in what basically equated to a coup de ta. Power was handed over to the Egyptian military until the next ‘democratic’ election would take place. As soon as this occurred, concerns grew over the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt. This concern of a Muslim Brotherhood elected president was eye-rolled as a “crazy conspiracy” by most U.S. media outlets. On June 30, 2012, Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood candidate for president, Mohammed Morsi, was elected into office. So much for the conspiracy.

There’s more. While most journalists were watching the shifts in power that Morsi was making after the election, they focused primarily on political and military position changes that were taking place. What they neglected to see was that in August, the Brotherhood-led upper house of parliament, the Shura Council, appointed several Brotherhood loyalists as chiefs of the state-run media outlets. To put it into perspective, it would be like Barack Obama appointing Jay Carney, Van Jones, and Jeremiah Wright to take over Fox News, CNN, and CSPAN. Obama already runs MSNBC, so that one didn’t make the list.

Throw everything you’ve heard about the video in the trash. Here is how the video actually comes into play. On September 10th, 2012, at the direction of Morsi, the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims” was broadcast into the targeted region of Benghazi for the specific purpose of creating a smokescreen for the embassy attacks that would take place on September 11th. You can read a little bit about this here. How this information was then relayed to the White House escapes me. Draw your own conclusions there.

The Ambassador

[box type=”success”]FACTS: Before reading this next section, it is critical that you read this article that presents claims that this attack was a failed attempt at kidnapping Ambassador Stephens. Put your conspiracy goggles away for a few minutes and read this information as objectively as possible. I do not want to provide credibility to some random conspiracy that the attack on the embassy was an attempt to kidnap Ambassador Stephens simply by quoting some random, unnamed source. I’ll leave that to Harry Reid. However, I will give it credibility by presenting a few more facts, and answering some more questions that NOBODY is asking. Ignore the claim that Obama is involved for now, and just Focus on it being a kidnapping. It will make a lot more sense.

After the news broke that Ambassador Stephens was dead, a video circulated of terrorists peaceful locals trying kidnap save the Ambassador. The video (shown below) shows a group of men aged 16-24 with flashlights raiding the embassy and dragging out Ambassador Stephens while yelling “allahu akbar,” which just happens to be the same phrase that terrorists shout after they attack Americans. They can also be seen doing fist pumps into the air in joy and excitement. Somehow, the below video was translated into “locals try to save the Ambassador” by U.S news outlets. The consensus was that they were working effortlessly to get the Ambassador to a hospital in order to save his life. Okay… time for the questions.[/box]

QUESTIONS: Are the people in the video good guys or bad guys? Are they locals trying to help or terrorists that conducted the attack? If they are locals trying to help, then why were there dozens of non-militant locals present during or after the attack on the embassy? Why would they risk their lives to save the Ambassador, knowing that mortar fire could potentially hit (again) while they were inside the embassy dragging the Ambassador out? Why did they all have flashlights? Why did they yell “allahu akbar” after dragging the Ambassador’s limp body out of the embassy and then leaving him laying on the ground? If they were trying to save him, then that doesn’t make sense.

What if they were the terrorists that attacked the embassy? If they were the attackers, it still doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t they have strung up his body like terrorists usually do after killing a high-profile American? If the video is showing us the attackers, then why did they take the Ambassador to the hospital in efforts to save him? Did they need him alive? An embassy was attacked, so the attackers had to know that a rescue team would be on the way (or did they?), yet they stuck around for 9 hours while a drone watched them? Why is NOBODY asking these questions?

ANSWERS: We still do not know the truth about this attack/kidnapping/protest/angry box office attendees… or whatever it was. The administration has flip-flopped, the media has covered, and the journalist have ignored all of the right questions. The answer here is that none of the stories we’ve been told make sense.

The reports show that Ambassador Stephens dies of smoke inhalation (asphyxiation). He wasn’t shot, or stabbed, or hung. They tried to smoke him out. If they wanted him dead, why were they trying to smoke him out? If they were trying to save him, then the video of him being pulled out of the embassy doesn’t make sense. The Global Dispatch reports that “Attackers eventually managed to enter the building where the ambassador was hiding and attempted to open the door to the safe room, but to no avail. Instead, they dumped jerry cans of diesel fuel in the building, lit furniture on fire and set the exterior of the building on fire.”

I am still baffled why dozens of attackers remained comfortable attacking the embassy for 9 hours confident that a rescue team wouldn’t show up and wipe them all out. Where we’re the Libyan security forces during the attack? Reports stated that the Libyan security detail “dispersed” once the attack started.

The Security

[box type=”success”]FACT: The complete lack of security at the Benghazi embassy is the one piece of factual detail that just doesn’t make sense no matter how you look at it. Libya is one of the single most unstable regions in the Middle East, yet there was no Marine Security Guard presence. Not only had Ambassador Stephens requested more security at his embassy for months prior to this attack, but there was also a drone flying over the embassy at the time of the attack recording the attack as it took place, and still… there was a decision made to NOT send in a rescue team. Furthermore, there are unofficial reports that a Marine FAST team was actually on its way to Benghazi on September 10, before the attack even occurred… and that the FAST team was “called down” at the last minute. Marines in that FAST team said they were literally playing cards and watching movies as the attack in Benghazi started instead of providing security.[/box]

QUESTION: Why was an embassy located in one of the most hostile regions denied requests for more security? If there was a drone present during the attack, why did the Obama administration continue to not understand what took place? Why was there a drone present, and who ordered the drone? Why was the decision made to not send in a rescue team AFTER the attack began? Was the State Department expecting for the Libyans to rescue our U.S. AMBASSADOR???

ANSWER: This isn’t some random tourist in Libya. Ambassadors are the direct representation of the president of the United States of America, and the fact that Obama’s second tier White House staff gets more protection on vacation in the Bahamas than an Ambassador serving in Libya is mind-blowing and scary for anyone that depends on the DoD or the State Department for their security needs.

There is not an explanation on earth good enough to justify why the security at the Benghazi embassy was not even up to par for a middle-class strip mall. It simply does not make sense in accordance with what we’ve been told. It doesn’t make sense at all.

The Attackers

[box type=”success”]FACT: Here is another piece of information that doesn’t make sense. Reports show that the attack on the embassy last for 9 hours, and that there were Navy SEAL/CIA operatives stationed at an adjacent annex. They were reportedly armed. The embassy was attacked with assault rifles, mortars and rocket propelled grenades, hours of fighting, and SEALs present… yet not a single report of an attacker being killed.[/box]

QUESTION: How is it possible that so many attackers were present, yet none of them were injured or killed by returned gunfire by the SEALs? No civilians were injured? No Libyan security officials were injured?just 4 dead Americans?

ANSWER:Either the security detail at the embassy was refrained from being able to protect themselves due to the Rules of Engagement (ROE) for that embassy, or the little security detail that was present had no “hot” weapons – no live ammunition. the “no live ammo” scenario doesn’t make sense, and neither does the ROE because from my understanding, Ambassadors set the ROEs for their embassy. Stephens had been requesting more security due to increased hostility, so I am assuming that he allowed his embassy to be armed, but we’re still only left to believe that only two men on-site were capable of defending the Ambassador… And they weren’t even assigned to him.


[box type=”success”]FACT: There were somewhere between 11 and 35 CIA officers, operators, or sub-contractors on the ground near the attack that night. Despite the fact that several CIA personnel were eye-witnesses to the events that took place that night, NONE of them have testified or come forward to testify.[/box]

QUESTION: Why such a heavy CIA force in an area that was not even an official U.S. operating zone? Were we illegally providing weapons to Libyans? Historically, the CIA has a track record of being involved in Islamic power structure engineering.

ANSWER: It’s likely that the CIA was conducting a top secret (at the highest level) operation to illegally provide weapons to Libyans, with Ambassador Stevens acting as the chief liaison.



We may not know what really happened in Benghazi for years to come, or we may never know. There is no doubting that the information that we have been fed is not true, and that a false story has been fabricated in order to distract the American people from the truth. It is a sad day in American when our president is willing to cover up the death of U.S. diplomats in order to protect his reelection… but that is the only answer to the biggest question that remains…

What really happened in Benghazi?



October 24, 2012: Emails sent to the Pentagon and the State Department the night of the attack state unequivocally that this was a planned al-Qaeda terrorist attack (Ansar al-Sharia), and not the result of a video. The cables cite groups claiming responsibility for the attack, proving that it was not the result of a spontaneous protest.

October 21. 2012: More evidence continues to pore in with no end in sight. We just recently learned that Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation.

About the author

Kevin Webb

Leave a Comment