[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV]Chris Stevens had worked for the US foreign service for more than 20 years. Whether or not he really was a spook, we’ll probably never know. But he was privy to the intel. Every bit of it concerning what was going on in Libya. And if the intel said there was going to be an attack on that day, he wouldn’t have been there. It really is that simple.[/quote]
So, the Obama Administration was left in the unenviable position of having to play the “plausible deniability” card, which is at the heart of this entire mess.
As to Stevens “not being there” if there were credible intel reports concerning threats to his safety, well, that doesn’t really pass the sniff test, given that he did request help, repeatedly, and it was denied. At that point, it ain’t like he could’ve loaded up the whole group in the family truckster and just headed off into the sunset. Inside the wire at that point is infinitely better than outside the wire.
Bottom line: There was an on-going CIA operation to move heavy weapons to Syria and Stevens was providing diplomatic cover for same. Operation was put at risk and Stevens was sacrificed to prevent potentially larger blowback if evidence of this operation came to light. Now, all involved groups and agencies, including DepState, CIA and the WH are dancing as fast as they can in the hopes that this thing mercifully sinks beneath the waves and the public at large forgets.[/quote]
There’s a disconnect here Alan. I agree with all of it, it’s pretty consistent with what I said. But I can’t figure out how you came to your conclusion that Stevens was sacraficed. In order to get there, you have to beieve that either a: the intelligence community knew the attack was going to happen on that day and did nothing to keep stevens away, or b: a rescue attempt after the attack began would have exposed the Benghazi facility for what it was. Neither of those scenarios would have served any purpose.
A more likely scenario is a combination of two problems. A failure on the part of intel. And the inability of the CIA to deal with the security of their own agents acting under diplomatic cover. It’s sounding more and more like the Benghazi facility had no diplomatic mission and was purely an intel outlet. State provides for security at their facilities. The CIA doesn’t provide that kind of security even for themselves. So I’m guessing the problem was that nobody was in charge of security. Most of the direct quotes alluding to the requests for additional security in the region don’t mention Benghazi specifically. I think this explains why.
