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.