The events in Benghazi should never have happened, and I am not placing any blame on the Libyans for the balls up that occurred on September 11, 2012. I am placing the blame at the very top of the tree in the USA. The buck stops in the Oval Office of the White House. The deaths of the 4 Americans was just as much the result of politics as it was of faulty reasoning based upon a wrongly held belief that Al Qaeda had been decimated.
Let’s go back to the end of the Libyan civil war because I think that how it ended is indeed critical with regard to later events, as well as ongoing events. The assistance given to the Libyans was never a problem as far as I was concerned because I always understood that there were more than just Islamists working against Gadhafi. Most of the fighters in Misrata for example were just very ordinary people who left their day jobs to defend themselves against a crazy man who decided to fire upon his people. The critical part is that towards the end of the civil war, the Islamists were given a more prominent role in the whole proceedings. How else can one explain the way in which Mr. Belhaj managed to end up in control of the militias after he waltzed into Tripoli. Granted, Belhaj, despite his reputation and his past has not been involved in any of the militia action in recent weeks (he has been in Syria training Syrians to fight against their government). The real problem happened to be that when the group who formed the rebel council moved from Benghazi to Tripoli they left an opportunity for the Islamists, and in particular Ansar al-Sharia, to get control of that city. (The people of Benghazi have since proved that they did not want Ansar al-Sharia to have any control over them – and more power to the people of Benghazi). My biggest reasons for criticism involves the death of General Younis (who was in fact still loyal to Gadhafi when claiming to have gone to the other side) and then the death of Gadhafi, as well as his son. I bring these issues up here because I believe that the people who were assessing the situation should have reported to their bosses about these deaths, and they should have known that there were Islamist implications in those deaths.
My other reason for mentioning this time period is that I believe that it is critical in understanding the need for tighter security, especially in Benghazi. Prior to the attack on September 11, a British convoy of vehicles had been attacked. On top of that there had been a bombing attack at the Benghazi consulate compound when a wall was breached. Those incidents should have been reported, and such reports should have been seen at the very highest level in the Oval Office…. oh I forgot, someone was too busy politicking to be bothered with security matters.
The people on the ground had reported on the situation as it existed. I feel certain that they never once set out messages stating that all was calm or that security could be slackened off. That means that security decisions made by people within the State Department were based upon politics and not on reality. Who refused the requests that came from Ambassador Stephens? Was it Hillary Clinton? Was it Patrick Kennedy? Was it Clinton’s Chief of Staff? (yes I deliberately forget her name). Or was the decision made at a much higher level?
Let’s for a moment take a look at the rhetoric in the period prior to the Al Qaeda attack on Septemember 11, 2012. That rhetoric was along the lines that Al Qaeda had been decimated because the US had been successful in taking out a few of the top dogs. The problem happened to be that Al Qaeda is in fact a very loosely knit group made up of other disparate groups that have allegiance because they have the same core Islamic values. By burying their collective heads in the sand, those at the top of the tree have failed to see the hidden dangers to citizens of the USA that is engendered by such attitudes.
The whistleblowers have given testimony that there were people ready to go into action but someone at the top refused permission and told them to stand down. I think this boils down to a meeting that was held probably at the beginning of the attack. The great prevaricator froze again. He has proven himself to be incapable of giving sane orders. On top of that the great prevaricator has as his chief of staff a woman who should be locked up…. Valerie Jarrett. Did Valerie Jarrett give the orders to stand down? The great prevaricator had gone to bed, so someone must have been acting upon his behalf (he was not playing golf this time). What was discussed in that early meeting?
I am going to partially debunk the kidnap plot theory on the grounds that those in charge in Iran are SHIA, not Sunni. The Shia do not back Al Qaeda but they do back Muslim Brotherhood. Those who are involved with Al Qaeda are known as Salafists. They adhere to the Wahibi teachings, which is Sunni in origin. For this reason, I doubt the theory of a kidnap plot. I do not believe that was the intention that night. I think that the intention was in fact to kill as many people as possible.
Now what could the motive be for the inaction? First I think that the great prevaricator and his minions had no idea what they should be doing. None of those in charge, other than David Petreus had any idea about how things should be conducted. I am not certain that Petreus was even called to the White House. It meant that decisions were left up to a bunch of incompetents.
According to one Rep, the only person who could have given that order to stand down was in fact the President.
Now let’s talk about the cover-up…..