Replies

A lot of things burn holes in the coverup story. I don't buy the kidnapping theory though for these reasons. Sending 120 - 200 heavily armed jihadis to attack two compounds to kidnap someone doesn't make sense. A small team could accomplish that much better by taking the target in a car outside the compound. Or even in the compound.

When they got inside and couldn't break into the safe room they set the place on fire. If you're there to kidnap someone you don't try to burn them to death. You don't fire mortars and RPGs towards your kidnap target unless you know exactly where that target is and you can shoot at his security with confidence that you won't hit him.

I think the jihadis had two goals both of which fit with the kind of attack that occurred. One, they simply wanted to drive us out of Libya. They had been working on it steadily for over a year getting bolder and bolder every day. Two, there was a lot of intel on our people and operations there and the only way to get it was to completely overrun both compounds and thoroughly search them.

US Intelligence Suffers Major Compromise in Libya ("catastrophic intelligence loss" US official)

Sending 120 - 200 heavily armed jihadis to attack two compounds to kidnap someone doesn't make sense. A small team could accomplish that much better by taking the target in a car outside the compound. Or even in the compound.

That's the way we work. The jihadist MO has always been to do what they did, never to send in a small team of experts. Remember the "students" in the Carter hostage crisis.

When they got inside and couldn't break into the safe room they set the place on fire. If you're there to kidnap someone you don't try to burn them to death.

They used diesel fuel, not gasoline. IMHO, they assumed Stevens would unlock the gate and come out. They did not want to shoot inside for risk of even a richochet killing him. No shots fired, just a "smoke-out".

You don't fire mortars and RPGs towards your kidnap target unless you know exactly where that target is and you can shoot at his security with confidence that you won't hit him.

This I agree does not fit at first glance, but the mortars did not completey destroy the building. Could have been, in their wacky minds, just an attempt to scare him into coming out, and they selected firepower that would not be enough to flatten the entire building, just make a big bang to flush him out. Photos I've seen show a building with smoke damage on the top half, but other than that a building in surprisingly good shape (as on http://www.dailymail.co.uk).

As far as political appointees at State Dept / CIA are concerned, it's fairly well documented that State / CIA are working with jihadis to overthrow governments and that Libya was one such effort. The administration has publicly stated they supported the Libyan uprising.

For the administration to not then be forewarned by the organizers of the jihadi attack - on it's own Consulate - would mean that we are simply stupidly blundering through and the attack was a cowboy action by jihadi leadership on their own. Such an attack was against the very contacts who were helping them. This is like enlisting the aid of some mobsters, knocking over a few stores with their help, then turning on them and robbing the mobster's own business and killing a capo and three of their soldiers !

The "stupid State and CIA" theory is rather weak, I think, though plausible - except for a few other facts:

1) Soros organization involvement in Arab spring is clear

2) Hillery's ties to Soros and shared ideologly with him are well-documented

3) Soros ideology and intentions are well documented

4) There was zero attempt by State Dept / CIA to "clean up the mess" by going in and saving their guys and thereby lessening the fallout. There was far more fallout because the 4 men died than if the 4 men had been saved. Saving the 4 men would have made Obama and Hillary look like heroes. Makes no sense to me that the administration did not scramble a team given that they had hours to do so. For every other administration, this would have been something managed in the situation room until it was concluded.

In general, I find the "violent mob" scenario to be mythical. Americans and foreigners are in the mideast all the time, yet the attacks come here and there. It's not like every Westerner who sets foot in the mideast is killed. This, IMHO, points to a restraint on supposed "mobs" which shows signs that there are organizers with control over the "mobs". Attacks, as far as I can gather, always seem to be specific targets, sanctioned by leaders, planned and executed, most definitely not random events born out of uncontrolled rage.