This is close to what went down.
No. The violence was a direct result of the video. Arms trading and the CIA are not involved.
Doesn't the administration know this already? Doesn't he have a powerful organization. . .like the CIA. . .to tell him these things? And at what point does a "grass roots" terrorist group of chums become an al Qaeda franchise?
And were we REALLY that careful when we bought and distributed those arms to the rebels? I mean, did we ask them for an aQ membership card and when they didn't produce one did we say, "Good enough"? The dimmest bulb in America could see how this was a bad idea when it was presented. And the administration ain't ignorant. Foolish for sure but not ignorant.
Stevens believed he had been marked for death for months by Al Qaeda.
Sorry, I didn't read everything yet so I don't know if this was mentioned....
Deputy Secretary of State attends Libya memorial for slain U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens* - NY Daily News
This doesn't make sense.
Stevens was instrumental in lobbying the White House to send aid to the resistence in Libya, and he was instrumental in getting the aid to the anti-Ghadaffi forces.
That's not controversial. That's basically 'the book' on Stevens' position during the conflict in Libya. It's what he's said, what' Libyans say and what the White House says.
As anyone who's honest will agree - the only story ever told about the attack that killed Stevens was that it was planned, that it involved impressive logistics, knowledge and organization, and that it was most likely unrelated to the movie protests.
That's all I've ever heard from the media, the White House, and anyone else. It's easy to say "obama bin lyin" or shout out about imaginary things in order to mock Obama but the only reports I've ever heard on this said "we have no comment until we know the facts" and then "we've looked at the facts and we believe it was a terrorist attack".
Obama administration investigating Benghazi "terrorist" attack - Yahoo! News Canada
Of course dumb-ass political opponants and people who have neve rbeen in professional environments will spin their heads around and call that waffling or indecision or flip-flopping but every honest person knows that that's just common sense ... not commenting until you know the facts and then commenting once you know the facts.
So the attack on the ambassedor was paramilitary and most likely separate from the protests. I've never heard the White House say that the two were related.
Now you guys are saying that the weapons and aid for the anti-Ghadaffi forces went to Al Quaeda, and now Al Quaeda has killed Stevens.
If Al Quaeda were the ones that got the aid and weapons, and Stevens was the man who HELPED them get the aid and weapons...
Then why would Al Quaeda kill Stevens?
I would think pro-Ghadaffi or anti-foreign (or Russian cough cough) forces would kill him... not the exact people he most helped to acheive their goals.
or maybe Syria or their "supporters" (cough cough)
CNN is just reporting now on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer that the attacks were revenge for the drone attacks. Getting interesting as more info is coming in..