25 January 2013 -
I
wonder what it will take before this Administration’s façade of integrity will
finally collapse? There still is a huge
cover-up of what happened on 11 September 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. The cover-up is not the administration trying
to hide a bungled and amateurish security process. I posit that the cover story of bungled
security is to deflect attention from and thereby hide a deeper cover-up. The Obama administration wants to hide
covert, ambassadorial-level actions in Libya that, if made public, may bring
down the administration and certainly would have lost the 2012 elections for
the President.
On
12 September 2012, I first heard about the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in
Benghazi and the death of Ambassador Stevens, and my career intelligence
analyst instincts perked up. I started to
list questions that needed answering, as if the United States were some other
country and I had to create an objective picture of events and intent. Three things immediately came to mind when
I saw the videos on television: 1) This was a heavily armed, organized attack on
already determined targets for already determined purposes; 2) This was done on 11 September, the 11th
anniversary of 9/11, a day when much of the Moslem Arab world sang for joy in
the streets, 3) My mind’s map of Libya showed Benghazi on the east coast of the
Gulf of Sitra and the capital, Tripoli, hundreds of miles to the west on the
Mediterranean coast. I then asked myself
the million-dollar question: What was so
important that U.S. Ambassador to Libya had to be in Benghazi, a known rebel
and terrorist stewpot, on the anniversary of 9/11, far from the protection of
the embassy in Tripoli? As an analyst, I
would scour all sources to find the answer to that question. The answer would lead me to the answers to
most all other questions about the attack and to why we failed to respond in a
timely manner. Without the answer to this
question, any analysis or subsequent conclusion would be worthless.
Why
isn’t this question being seriously asked and then the answer being
scrupulously examined for veracity? Why
are we accepting this flimsy cover story of bungled security practices in the
Department of State? As an intelligence
analyst, if Buglestan were to announce
that an attack on its consulate in Marseille on the anniversary of francophone
terrorists’ butchering of thousands of Buglestan citizens was a spontaneous response
to an expatriate French activist’s advertisement on the internet criticizing
French culture and religion, I would laugh out loud. My experience would immediately warn me that Buglestan
is hiding something important. I would
look for who was targeted and killed, where they were killed, and why.
I
repeat the question that has neither been asked nor answered in public. What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi
on the anniversary of 9/11, far from Tripoli?
My analytic experience tells me that
Ambassador Stevens was there doing something so wrong, explosive, clandestine,
or embarrassing to the Obama administration that if the truth were finally
revealed, President Obama would risk certain impeachment and, quite possibly,
conviction. Why else would an administration chock full
of clever political operatives come up with and stick with such an embarrassing
cover story as security bungling for its enemies to chew on if it didn’t want
to cover up something even more damaging?
What
could Ambassador Stevens have been doing without a security detail in Benghazi? Arms deals with governments or
terrorists? Covert oil deals? Organizing a coup d’état? Trying to help Libya counter French influence
in Africa? The list of possible
scenarios is as long as a screenwriter’s script for his next adventure/spy
movie. I fear that the Ambassador’s presence
in Benghazi was of such importance that the President directed or gave his personal approval for it and may have allowed the Ambassador to be killed when things
went to hell. If we let the
administration continue to guide the criticism of the events, then we deserve
to be fooled.
I am taking Sunday off.
Look for more on Monday, 28 January.
No comments:
Post a Comment