Skip to comments.Gunrunning in Benghazi. For and Against Whom and Why the Attack?
Posted on 10/24/2012 3:49:45 PM PDT by DanMiller
Earlier today, I re-blogged a post from Arizona Conservative on U.S. gunrunning in Benghazi. It now seems clear that that is what we were doing. In the re-blog, I asked who conducted the organized military operation against the American compound in Benghazi: were they radical Islamist anti-Assad Jihadists, "moderate" Islamist anti-Assad Jihadists, pro-Assad fighters or what? If, as seems apparent, we were transferring former Libyan weaponry, who stood to benefit by killing Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans who seem to have been there to facilitate the transfers?
Four videos are provided below (thanks and a tip of the hat to Let Freedom Ring) that may shed a little bit of light, although they hardly begin to provide even foggy answers to my questions.
The first two videos involve an interview with a former CIA agent who had found herself in comparable situations elsewhere; then, the U.S. responses were prompt and effective. No comparable response to the situation in Benghazi was made despite warnings from Ambassador Stevens prior to the attack and real-time drone coverage during the attack -- available in the White House situation room, at the State Department, at the CIA, at DOD and elsewhere.
That's bad, but perhaps even worse from the standpoint of national security are that questions of what we were doing there have been only partially asked but remain unaddressed and questions of why and for whom we were doing it remain largely unasked and unaddressed. There has been no administration clarification or even attempt at clarification; perhaps because the administration still sees no need for it or because it thinks that clarification would be politically disadvantageous.
The need to keep some information secret may be based on national security, and that is understandable. However, this is beginning to smell more and more like pre-election political security for the Obama Administration. Although understandable, that is hardly acceptable.
Link to video
Link to video
Link to video
Link to video
What we were doing in Benghazi, why, for whom, against whom and who were the attackers?
Who took the ambassador to the hospi tal and why bother? Regret? Friendship? As you say, countless questions.
Yep. And until there are some credible answers, the questions will continue.
Who took the ambassador to the hospi tal and why bother? Regret? Friendship? Wrong guy? Hell to pay if he died? Hell by whom? As you say, countless questions.
What happened to the American peacekeeping force in the Sinai? They were under attack and then....nothing. Did we buy their lives with weapons? What happened?
Already answered on another post.
I see no evidence that there was any honest defence of the Consulate staff during this attack; they left the people in Benghazi to their own devices.
This can only mean inside job. If you are a bank manager who’s part of an inside robbery of your bank, and the alarm goes off and you’re watching the video in your house - you don’t call the police ! If you are NOT an insider - you call the police !
This does not require State Dept / CIA to know anything other than to pull back most staff in light of recent attacks (which was done over this year), leaving only a skeleton crew. Such a pullback is a defensible action if it ever had to be defended, because there was increased violence.
The Arab spring and all this mideast unrest in done under the organizational umbrella of the New Left, which is partnering with (using) muslims to defeat Americanism, i.e., traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, and America itself. These folks, as a third party, i.e., not the jihadists and not the State Dept, can easily have set this up and tell each side only what they needed to know to get the job done. Some of the leadership is Soros, Aryeh Neier, etc., and all of their vast organizations, businesses, etc., which span many nations.
My hunch is that this was a setup where Ambassador Stevens was to be taken hostage. Negotiations were to have taken place during Sept-October, at which time a final “apology” could be made by Obama to muslims for America’s “wrongs”, and the hostage ambassador could have been returned. Obama would not even have to know what was going to happen beforehand, just to say the video was the reason. Everything could be planned by the “3rd party” “organization”. If Stevens had not died, a hostage situation could easily have taken shape - since no one at State Dept / CIA knew where the Ambassador was for hours after he was taken ! Had he lived, we would have awoken the next morning to 1979 all over again, with islamic networks broadcasting a video with the jihadis “demands”, as a blinfolded Ambassador was trotted out in front of their camera.
It explains State / CIA / WH all sitting their frozen, not doing anything, sticking to the same story that made no logical sense. IMHO, those were about the only “instructions” they had from their “real boss”.
Just a hunch.
I agree. Doubtless our Commander in Chief had many things of greater immediate political significance, and hence more important, with which to deal and couldn't be bothered with such trivia.
My hunch is that this was a setup where Ambassador Stevens was to be taken hostage.
That hunch may be correct and it has certainly been talked about in the blog sphere. Should it turn out to be accurate, that will answer many questions. It won't answer them satisfactorily, but that's another matter.
I agree this was a setup.
My theory is that Stevens had to die - probably for the same reasons that Vince Foster had to shoot himself and then carry himself across town in a carpet to Fort Marcy Park. He knew too much.