As some of my readers will be aware, I am not a subscriber to the kidnap theory regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi. I am of the opinion that the story fed to us was spin because the White House Administration chokes on itself every time there is a terrorist attack. Look at how they demeaned the attack at Ft. Hood and called it a workplace accident, rather than be truthful and call it a terrorist attack. Now, with the White House Administration throwing Hillary Clinton and the State Department under the bus, and the release of further information about what happened during the attack, I need to rethink a lot of the information that made up that spin. I continue to not believe the kidnapping theory. In fact I think that perhaps those photographs are being misinterpreted…. I remain open minded on what those photos are in fact telling me… I have not decided one way or the other about whether or not the stories that Ambassador Stevens was dragged through the streets is in fact true…. if I see more official information then I will have a change of mind.
However, I have thought very hard about the story that was given by the White House and in particular by Susan Rice, that there had been a protest in the streets and that this was a spontaneous attack. By thinking about this, it has become clearer to me that there are missing details. I do not want to go there at this point in time, but I do wonder about who else was behind the attack.
For this reason, I will go back in time to the early part of 2011, and the protests in Tunisia, Cairo and then the activity in Libya. The meme has always been that each uprising was both inspired by the events in the other country. It is necessary to have a second look at these events because I am now of the opinion that this is where the White House got its idea that the Al Qaeda terrorist attack in Benghazi spontaneous.
I have always maintained that the Libyan situation was different from that in Cairo. I continue to have that belief. The Cairo and Egyptian uprising was not spontaneous but it was pre-planned and had been planned for a long time. The Tunisian uprising served as a trigger to those in Egypt to get the ball rolling. We do in fact see that there were other uprisings in Morocco, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and several other M.E. countries. The Syrian uprising came a little bit later than the others (and I am still very open minded on that situation because it continues to get very messy). What drew my attention to Libya in the first place was a news report that stated Gadhafi, who was visiting an African country at the time suddenly returned home. It is important to keep that in mind when reviewing what took place. As I read up on the subject, I discovered that Gadhafi had called one of the leaders of the rebellion to his office and had words with him as he was trying to avert a protest. I assume that after this point Gadhafi then got his minions to start hiring from overseas countries the snipers who were responsible for killing people in the streets. Gadhafi was extremely ruthless, and we must not forget that fact. He pretended to the West that he was a changed man, yet he was sponsoring terrorism in Africa.
So let’s look at what sparked the civil war in Libyan that ended with the death of Gadhafi. The situation was started by a small group of protesters. I do not believe that they were inspired by the situation in either Tunis or Egypt because their protest involved a situation that had a history going back to the 1990s when close to 1000 political prisoners were killed by the Gadhafi regime. The people involved in the protest were relatives of the deceased and they were still trying to find out what happened. They had gathered because a lawyer involved in their case had been called in by the regime. They were peacefully standing in the town square when they were fired upon and someone was killed. There was a funeral, and the “soldiers” fired upon those in the funeral procession. There were more protests, more people joined in the protest, more deaths followed, until the day that one man, a person who did not believe in jihad, decided to make a move – he turned his car into a bomb, and he then drove his car at the wall of the fort, the rest is history.
As you can see from this, there is a bit of a history and there is spontaneous protest involved in this part of the story. I am betting that the White House Administration seized upon these facts to cover themselves and claimed that the people in Benghazi were once more following Cairo by choosing to protest. Except that the protest never happened in the first place.
The debrief from agents who were on the ground at the time that all of this was happening made no mention of any protest in the square or anywhere else. The captain of the 17th February brigade who was a witness to what took place also makes no mention of any protest. In fact the 17th February brigade were loyal to Christopher Stevens, but they were also overcome by the attackers. Their barracks were set alight. There is no mention in this report about the dead and wounded Libyans, but according to one report that I had read after the terrorist attack, it was something like 10 dead Libyans and many others who were wounded as they fought against the insurgents.
Personally, I think that something is missing in the telling and re-telling of this story. What is bothering me is that in Benghazi there are pro-Gadhafi elements, as well as the Islamist elements. The people of Benghazi drove out Ansar al-Sharia. They did the same thing in Derna. There was mention of the people being tricked into attacking a pro-government group by people loyal to Gadhafi. That remains a possibility. There is an Egyptian connection because the leader of the attack was an Egyptian jihadist with links to Al Qaeda, and he was trying to shore himself up with this attack. I had seen an early report that drones had been keeping a watch on his activity in the desert, at his training camp. This report had tied Ansar al-Shariah to the attack, and to the military training camp in the desert. Since then I noted a report where Turkey arrested 2 Tunisians under suspicion that they were involved in the attack. One of the things missing in my view, is an explanation for those marks on the house walls.
After reading the agents’ statement, I have a clearer idea of the situation. Ambassador Stevens was not taken to the annexe at the other location. The safe house was a room within the building where he was located during visits to Benghazi. It was a safe room. The intruders failed to get into the room, so they doused the house in diesel and set it alight. I cannot see how Ambassador Stevens would have survived because of the dense smoke inside the house. The U.S. agents had failed to locate him before they evacuated and moved to the annexe where there was a further shoot out. They stated that Agent Smith had died in the original compound due to smoke inhalation. They found him and took his body with them. They failed to locate the Ambassador because of the thick smoke. Their story continues as they move through Benghazi and reach the annex. What is missing is what then took place at the compound after the Americans departed. This is a part of the untold story.
I am going to guess that members of the 17th February Brigade returned to the compound, and that they found Ambassador Stevens. I am going for now, to accept the story that they got him out of the building and that he was barely alive. I am going to guess, for now, that in fact the shouts of Allahu Akbar were as claimed a response to finding him, and a response to the information there was a pulse. Someone took Stevens to the hospital. The fact that Stevens was missing for 5 hours needs to be placed in context because the security team had evacuated to the annexe in a separate location. They had not been able to find Ambassador Stevens because of the smoke – simple as that. They lost contact with him… but it was not until someone used his cellphone that he was found.
I have looked at that photo that has been on display, and I do not see the same thing as most have been interpreting it. First of all, there is one man who is holding Stevens, and it looks like he has been dragging or carrying him from somewhere (it is not all that clear), but what I see is that there is a cell-phone in his mouth. He is not taking photographs with that phone. His actions are not the actions of a man who is intending harm. Again, I will remain open minded on this subject until further information comes to light. To my mind there is simply something missing in the telling of the tale. I have read nothing that indicates what some people have claimed and therefore I will continue to refrain from regurgitating what I consider to be rumor rather than fact.
With all of these facts, and even some of the conjecture, I do see that the White House has been playing the game of cover-up. They have changed their story because the notion that their had been a spontaneous protest has been proven false. The Libyan government was the first to denounce this story. It was an extremely foolish attempt at cover up and an attempt to bury the truth in the sand.