Friday, October 12, 2012

"Never Attribute to Malice . . .

That which is adequately explained by stupidity" (otherwise known as Hanlon's razor) should be the motto of the Obama administration regarding Benghazi and the death of our ambassador.  But I believe we may have a new variant - Obama = malice plus stupidity.  Allow me to explain.

The first response by the administration was that this was just an unruly mob that got out of control.  In fact, they used it for their political advantage when Gov. Romney decried the silly notion put out by the Egyptian embassy that the video was responsible for the unrest.  Milking the political advantage of Romney's so called gaffe, they continued with the meme of blaming the video for weeks after, even having the President go in front of the UN to apologize for the basic rights under the Constitution.  Our UN ambassador went on five different Sunday news shows to argue that it was all the natural reaction by the mobs to the video.  But things just don't make sense with the additional information that keeps coming out.

The Congressional hearings have let us learn that the State Department was watching the attack in real time and knew this wasn't a protest.  So, why did the head of Intelligence say more than two weeks after the attack that it was his fault that the administration was told that it was a mob that attacked the embassy?  Certainly it's possible that our intel was so incompetent that they forgot how to pick up a phone and let the White House know that they had the story wrong any earlier than they did.  That would certainly explain the incompetence, but it really does stretch the bounds of idiocy to make it go on so long.  Unless there is a reason that they needed to make it go on so long.

So, let's take a look at what we do know in order to form a basis for a different explanation of what happened.  First, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi, not the capital Tripoli.  While it is certainly possible that it was just a coincidence, the Ambassador's diary complaining about the lack of security and his concerns for his life make it curious that he would be there.  Especially on the eleventh anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks in our history.  Our next fact is that the two former SEALs who were killed in the attack were not there to provide security to the consulate but instead were there to locate and destroy antiaircraft weapons that had fallen into the wrong hands.  They apparently were off site from where the attack took place but responded when they heard it begin.  Last, there is the fact that there was a CIA "base" in Benghazi that was in operation looking for lost weapons.  This base had more fortifications as well as video surveillance which may be where the video came from.

With these facts in mind, Small Craft Advisory blog has come up with a theory on what happened.  His theory is that the Ambassador was in Benghazi in order to collect the weapons that the Obama administration gave to Al Qaida during the overthrow of Khadaffy.  Testing his theory against the facts, we have two former SEALs working under contract to procure the weapons otherwise known as MANPADS and the Ambassador on a special mission to make a deal for the weapons.  So let's assume that the Al Qaida version operating in Libya decides to set a trap that would also be a statement of their viability on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.  They arrange a meeting to supposedly hand over the weapons but only to the US Ambassador.  But Al Qaida wants more than just to kill the ambassador of the US, they want to also attack the CIA where they are tracking the weapons.  Perhaps they place conditions on the handoff that the Ambassador was not to have a security detail.  They then attack the consulate building and flush their prey into the CIA base which is where the video came from.  At this point, the contractors arrive and are killed and the base is overrun.

Certainly an interesting theory, and it probably explains the reasons for the Obama administration wanting to keep the story on the video as they attempted to ascertain how much they had lost in the attack.  Of course, it could also be as Small Craft explains it that they didn't want anyone knowing that they had armed Al Qaida, since that would make the whole arms for hostages deal of the Reagan administration look like a misdemeanor compared to what they had done, especially when the next airliner crashes outside of an airport thanks to weapons the administration had supplied.

Never underestimate the stupidity of this administration, but I think we can add malice in that they saw an opportunity to take Romney down a peg or two at the same time that they were trying to figure out where the MANPADS went.  Not very flattering for either their ability to work politically or in secret.

No comments: