Why Was Ambassador Stevens In Benghazi?
September 21, 2012 21 Comments
Something doesn’t add up in the Libyan attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. We know that this was a planned, staged attack as opposed to a spontaneous riot. Even CBS acknowledges this. Libya says they warned the US three days before it occurred. We all know the results, Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed along with three others. On the anniversary of 9-11, why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi rather than Tripoli? We have an Embassy in Tripoli which is secure, it has a security team. From all accounts Benghazi is a very dangerous city. Why was our Ambassador there without a security team?
If we step into coverup land, we could note that ABC had just three weeks before the attack reported that one of the guys killed with the Ambassador was in Libya to recover Gaddafi’s arsenal of weapons. If we want to go into Glenn Beck land the attack on our Ambassador was an undercover arms deal gone bad. This is a plausible explanation, in the very least it explains why the Ambassador may have been at an unsecure consulate without security in Benghazi as opposed to the bunker Embassy in Tripoli.
There could be other reasons why he might be in Benghazi ranging from undercover actions to shear stupidity. We have yet to be told why Stevens was in Benghazi, the government has said nothing. In fact, until the other day the Obama administration wouldn’t even call this a terrorist attack. Whether these guys, presumably al Qaeda, had it in for Stevens or whether Stevens was up to something that didn’t work out remains to be seen. What we’re not getting is information from the administration. They appear to be slow to respond or they appear to be covering something up. How does it take eight days to declare this a terror attack? Remind me again why our Ambassador was in Benghazi.
Meanwhile there are reports out there that Obama is negotiating with Egypt for the return of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman. The Blind Sheik is responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He’s in the slam for life for the terrorist attack. Several media outlets have reported this and Rep. Peter King has confirmed it. The Justice Department issued a statement calling the reports “utter garbage.” Such a term is a little odd coming from the Justice Department. But let’s be honest, this isn’t a Justice Department issue, it’s a State Department issue. So the ‘utter garbage’ comment is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Something is up in the middle east. This entire situation is fishy. These people were not rioting over a meaningless, poorly produced video on You Tube. After all, there are much worse attacks on Mohamed on You Tube and elsewhere. We’re not being told the whole story. It makes no sense for our Ambassador to be in Benghazi, especially if he’s supposedly on an al Qaeda hit list. Unless of course he’s up to something and the hit list isn’t real. Why are the Egyptians rioting in the street with seemingly no opposition from their government? Could it be a demonstration meant to provoke (read: intimidate) Obama into releasing the blind sheik?
We need journalists who are willing to do some real investigative reporting. Something isn’t right here, none of the official explanations for what’s happened make any sense. In fact, they continue to shift as their official explanations get shot down with facts. The big key though is why was Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous city like Benghazi without adequate security? Why was a member of his security team quoted by ABC as being some sort of arms investigator? Something isn’t right her. When we discover why Stevens was really in Benghazi this whole episode in the middle east will start to make sense.
About Steven
Indeed, there are a lot of unanswered questions that stem out of this situation. One thing for sure, we are not being told the entire truth. I can understand that, to a certain degree. Some information may be too sensitive to release to the general public, but I get the feeling we are being lied to.
I think you hit the nail on the head, we’re being lied to.
Good question. There are no official listings I’m aware of for an American embassy in Benghazi, not on the US Department of State site or anywhere else. The Guardian claimed in an article on 13 September that Stevens had been expected in the area the morning of that Wednesday to “inaugurate a landmark medical exchange project between the (Benghazi Medical) centre and Harvard Medical School” and the medical staff was surprised when he showed up early as a patient. That may have been part of the reason why he was there and it may have been a plausible innocuous reason for his presence that evening that a Baghdad Bob-like Jay Carney could have used to appease the inquiring masses. The “embassy” may have been more of a safe house for performing such functions locally than anything else. But it’s totally weird and certainly inept that the US government wouldn’t at least confirm that as part of their cover story since it was claimed early on.
Another question is did the US supply insurgents with heavy weapons and what kind? Sure many of the ones out there now came from Gadhafi’s abandonned ammo depots after the regime fell, but how many others were sold to rebels specifically to help them overthrow the government? The new Libyan government would be interested and actively involved in getting those back into their arsenals to secure their reign of power against other insurgents who were left out of the power grabs, so why the US involvement? I can only imagine it’s to get our own weapons back that they don’t even want the Libyan government to have.
It’s looking more plausible the attack could have been fallout from the efforts the clean-up of the secretive arms deals to depose of Gadhafi gone wrong as indicated by the secrecy and buffoonery of official statements intended to obfuscate the truth. Militants sure don’t want to give up their weapons once they have them as evidenced by the many futile attempts to get back arms supplied to the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Also, the attacks may have had other specific objectives such as gathering sensitive information such as the list of Libyans working with the US and the oil contracts that were allegedly stolen. It begs another line of questions as to why was Stevens found alive and could he have been tortured and grilled to try to get such information?
Lastly, the two security guys were former Seals. It’s unimaginable with their level of combat training that they got separated from Stevens which only serves to invite more questions.
Good luck figuring this one out.
There are a ton of questions one could ask about Stevens being in Benghazi, the people killed with him and this entire situation. We could also ask why it took over a week for the administration to admit this was an act of terrorism. Nearly everything the Obama administration has said about the attack has turned out to be wrong. So they’re either incompetent or they tried to mislead everyone. I could go either way on which one it is.
The Seals served in the cover up, while they looked the other way to allow the Libyans to do what they needed to do. Stevens was sacrificed, and those that were with him were cleaned up too. I really like the questions you posed…
Welcome to Obamaland. This man is the most dispicable man to ever hold his office. Last one out the door, gets shot in the back.
I wouldn’t take it quite so far. FDR and Wilson were pretty dreadful.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice, and Powell can easily be added to that list.
Those guys haven’t been in power for four years and as such they have nothing to do with Benghazi.
Pingback: suspect named in Benghazi killings
It was reported that Stevens was sodomized the night he was killed. There are reports that Stevens was a homosexual. If he was an open homosexual as an Ambassodor for the US in a host nation that does not accept, or respect that lifestyle…one has to ask… What on Earth was Stevens doing in a nation that actually has a degrading, violent, tragic ritual for men in their country who are “outed”.?They were defininely out for Stevens, partly based on his sexual lifestyle. He may have been on to something, but what is clear is that the news will not ask the hard questions that could lead to the connection of the dots.
OBAMA woes to ponder:
1)Fire Hillary… lose the Clinton Follower’s votes
2)Let this slide based on a host country belief system, lose the gay and lesbian vote
3)Lose the Hollywood vote based on backlash from the gay rights group
Stevens asked for help and was put off, he died a horrific, degrading death, but the truth won’t come out until after the elections. If Hillary knew there was trouble over there and discussion of the US placing an Ambassador in a country that does not accept or respect an alternative lifestyle… then she and the administration put his life at risk. The Seals that were killed were in my opinion sacrificed or “cleaned”. It was in part, an inside job. Look online about Stevens personal life. It was not a secret… so the host country would have been very aware of his sexual orientation. Not so smart for the US to have put this man in a “homophobic” country. Ambassadors are given some diplomatic immunity from their host country, but in this case I believe that religious laws that have been in place for centuries would override any immunity or courtesy that the host government could extend.
Stevens was murdered… but the US turned their back… It’s odd that little is said now on what was done to Stevens that night, but the report stated that he was sodomized… confusion on his whereabouts… Why were’nt the others treated the same way? Watch the time line of accounts that took place that night done by Brett Beir in a Fox News Channel special… it really makes you see the holes in the time line.
None of what Obama has said about Benghazi has made sense. The most sensible thing for the nation to do is to fire Obama on November 6th.
I have been asking the same questions. That night, Ambassador Stevens was having dinner with the general council of Turkey. Reports have said that they knew that the CIA safehouse was being watched. Watched by who?? The general council of Turkey leaves unscathed. An hour after his leaving the CIA safehouse is attacked and Abassador Stevens and the other three Americans are killed. Why was Stevens having dinner with the general council of Turkey and why was it there at that CIA safehouse with so little security? Why not at the Embassy in Tripoli? As you said….why was Stevens in such a dangerous city if he feared for his life and just days before his death asked for more protection? I am not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch but you can’t help but ask these questions and more and wonder why our mainstream media isn’t doing the same. There is so much more to this then what we are hearing and seeing. When will the American public get sick of the lies and finally demand the truth?
I think it’s going to be a long time before we get any answers on this matter. If we get any answers at all.
There is more revelations in this blog than any other. These are the right questions to ask. The reply’s seem to be a plausible account of what really happened..
complaining about lack of security and going to Benghazi? I have been asking why he went there since the first day and people just give me blank looks. I think he was probably lured there for ‘meetings’ and he thought he was Lawrence of Libya and could handle it his damn self! After all, he is so trusted and admired at embassy receptions. And everyone is so shocked and amazed that we couldn’t magically go and rescue him like in the movies. comic book minds now wonder why we didn’t send J.I. Joe. Those guys in Benghazi are terrorist specialists. They trained everybody in their camps including the IRA, the Bader-Meinhoff and god knows who else. I’m quite sure any rescue attempt would have been another kind of disaster.
I’ve also wondered why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi. I’ve speculated that the government is running guns to Syria and the Benghazi visit had something to do with that.
well known in the diplomatic circles ,ambassador Stevens made a miscalculated decision to go to Bengazi when he knew full well that trouble awaited him. this often happens on the battle field with the same horrific results.his decision was based on the feeling that he could somehow change what was going on at the time due to his own personnel knowledge of the area. His well intentioned bravado proved to be a costly miscalculation which resulted in not only in his death but in the death of three other brave americans. . the mistake and it`s results falls directly on Ambassador Stevens head.
This is an issue that hasn’t been fully examined. Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi and did he know trouble was waiting? He may bear some responsibility in this mess. Regardless, Obama and Hillary had chances to protect him once the attack began and they chose not to. They then made up a story about why the attack happened, lying to the public for two weeks about it. It’s possible that the administration is involved with the Ambassador’s reasons for going to Benghazi, in which case they’ll stall releasing any information.
Thank you for broaching this topic. It speaks volumes about the lack of transparency in “our” government. It also shows how awful “our” media is: I have not heard any questions about this from the media. Also, why didn’t the Republicans on the Oversight Committee ask this?
On another matter, how much time elapsed between Obama’s awareness of the attack and the death of Ambassador Stevens? What evidence do you have to back your assertion that Obama had “chances” to protect Stevens AFTER the attack began?
My understanding is that the attack happened over the course of seven hours. Special forces could have been called but were told to stand down. We also had drones in the area whose operators were ordered not to fire. I take these to be opportunities for the administration to protect those within the consulate.