Skip to main content

View Diary: Benghazi Blowback Confirmed: US Intel Confirms Attack Linked to Pipeline of Libyan Jihadis to Syria (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have no alternative facts (0+ / 0-)

    I was just questioning how your rather sparse set of facts, means that the attack is blowback.   You keep saying that these particular people attacked in response to US policy.

    Because the US isn't funnelling arms to them?   Because the US won't coordinate with them?  Or because totally unrelated to to Syria, they represent a destabilizing influence in Libya itself?  Or because they are targeted in the war on terror in general and they know it.

    You keep wanting readers to believe that Benghazi occurred because of Syrian policy and CIA involvement with the Ambassador related to that policy.  I asked you to defend the conclusions, I didn't dispute the limited facts.

    •  Stevens was in Benghazi to do something that Fran (0+ / 0-)

      Townsend, Bush's Homeland Security Director, could help him with.  She declined the Ambassador's invitation a couple weeks earlier to accompany him to Benghazi, citing other commitments.  That's also on the record.  What else could that mission have been other than to deal with a pressing matter involving or related to terrorism?   In Benghazi, terrorist threats likely involve Jihadis and MANPADs.  I think the Townsend connection is significant.  She wasn't invited there to tour reopened hospitals and schools.

      I can't tell you the exact motive that these particular assailants had for attacking the US Mission and the CIA post.  The motive could have been any of the possibilities you mentioned, or a mixture of all of them.  Each possibility needs to be weighed, but that will not be done in public, because each implicates a different policy problem, and unfortunately much of US policy in the region is not being made publicly.

      Based upon the details and facts that we have at this point, including the latest reports, nonetheless, the flow of weapons and arms out of Benghazi to Syria and elsewhere seems to be the best fit.  

      The violent death of the Ambassador Stevens is blowback, as it was neither accidental nor an isolated event, and it was an unintended consequence of US policy in the region.   There is a definite set of US policies and actors that the assailants attacked, and they had their reasons.

      I don't yet have 100% confidence in my conclusions, which are incomplete and contingent, but they fit better than the other possibilities you mention.

      •  so you don't really know anything (0+ / 0-)

        except ambassadors do what ambassadors in dangerous areas, which is make contact with people who  are players,  because he also met with other consular/embassy folks while there,  all of whom have an interest in Libya, Syria, Egypt etc., being stable, and of course, that includes most of the world given oil production, threats of war with Israel, Iran's nuclear ambitions, etc.    That's not anything except normal.  No secrets, no big questions about what's going on, except the things that are normally secret.

        No one is denying the threat of Islamic fundamentalists to US property and people, they have made it clear that they want to harm us.  The current administration has been as aggressive as any, and more so than some, in actually purusing terrorists world wide.  That makes everything and everyone with connections to the US a potential target every day.

        There is no need to look for extra special reasons for the Benghazi attack, it is part of an ongoing and well recognized pattern of behavior.  That the Obama administration has suppressed these kinds of incidents more effectively than the Bush administration is the only thing that makes Benghazi stand out.  A successful attack was and remains a matter of when not if.

        •  There are 2 different questions raised here. (0+ / 0-)

          This diary addressed the question, "Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi?"  That is very different question from the one raised by others in the thread, "Why did the militias kill Amb. Stevens?"

          I can only begin to address the former question. I do this assembling as much of the open source material as I could find in the time I had.  The picture that emerges is that the primary focus of his mission there was militias and MANPADs.   That aligns generally with what I perceive to be the operative assumption of some journalists and their IC sources.

          That raises the equally important issues of "what did Stevens intend to do about them?"  There's a range of potential answers, but not enough facts to begin to fill that in sufficiently to come to a conclusion that I would be comfortable sharing at this point.

          P.S. But, there is more to this.  It's now been reported that Stevens was in Benghazi and his last meeting was with the Turkish Ambassador.  The subject of that meeting, according to this report was the SA-7 missiles.  See, http://www.foxnews.com/...   I hate to see this turned into a partisan parade, particularly at this point, but the Administration should have been more forthcoming about what's going on and appears to have been protecting its regime change policy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site