One of the skills I’ve learned over the years dealing with people, insurance, and healthcare is problem solving and one of the best ways for me is to make things fit ALL available information to get a starting point for confirmation or further questions. This in no way means that I know what exactly happened but from that point on what happened is changed only as the facts change. What follows is information and questions I have to try and make sense of administrations response to Benghazi. Next post I’ll try and write a theory.
There is a Major CIA annex in Libya doing something. According to Dempsy and Panetta a plan to arm rebels was proposed and nixed by Obama. Then did they do nothing or go another route? If they went another route was the plan of action direct or indirect? If indirect what is the definition of gun running or arming the Syrian rebels? Didn’t Obama say at foreign policy debate when Romney indicated need for making sure the rebels have the arms that they need and need for coordination with Turks and other allies that that’s exactly what he was doing? Is indirect assistance the facilitation of the transfer of weapons through Turkey. Considering we are dealing with an administration who has a history of perverting plain language, a SOS who has years of deflecting answers to questions that would result in negative press, and intelligence specialists let me ask another simple question: Was Obama facilitating Turkey gun running?
Prior to Gaddafi’s eventual fall did Steven’s play a role in arming the rebels. If he did then did he have contacts? Did he have knowledge of resources? Did he have knowledge of weapons needed and acquired by resistance? Lets assume he did IF he assisted prior to Gaddafi fall.
Stevens forwarded lots of information on the worsening condition of Benghazi. Members of annex assisted with attack on Brits so they were aware of worsening condition and would have/should have forwarded reports on their assistance with attack. Hazard pay was increased for DOS employees in Benghazi. Benghazi reported attack, ambassador missing/assault alert made. Steven’s even made a cell phone call indicating facility under attack see link ( http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/ambassador-chris-stevens-called-out-for-help-from-the-consulate-on-9-11-video/) Brits in the area able to assist? Brit assistance availability not confirmed only remember reading one or two articles on this.
Obama was in the midst of a heated campaign battle pushing the meme that al-Qaeda was on the run or decimated. Middle east was undergoing extreme changes and Obama was making all the right moves and its not the time to change to a novice. Romney indicated Obama’s ME was unraveling and because of our generated power vacuum, extremist were moving to fill the gap.
Egypt generated outrage by playing an obscure video on state TV for days. Egypt planned and allowed protestors ( after warning US staff ) to scale the embassy walls. This act and the generated outrage( assisted by MSM, social media and lack of projection of values of free speech and actual apologies for offense) spread like a fast moving virus. The continued apologies for free speech gave cover to express anger over anything from the west.
What is the protocol for ambassador being attacked? Was it enacted? What is the protocol for losing contact with ambassador being attacked? Was it enacted? Did Obama give cross border authority? What is the definition of secure and how does it differ from rescue? What plans over and above routine were made to station assets at strategic positions for 9/11. Did the admission that Hilary was aware Libyan government had no capacity to respond while other ME countries did affect the positioning of assets? Did Major Ham have an armed drone available from one of the navel vessels? Does the response vary based upon designation of protest out of control versus designation of outright attack. Did the communication with Obama change the status/designation of of Benghazi events as the information evolved.
I’m done for the night and still have more info or questions to lists before I propose something that fits.My Theory third in the series instead of second.
I love a good story. A good story can give hope. It can lead to action. It can unite. And it can provide a brief respite and escape; but it can also lead to hopelessness, chaos and division. A story can provide a perspective on the true state of things. The last few days have been significant in that a story has provoked offense, outrage, violence, and even the attack and murder of fellow countrymen and others within various other countries. A leader can use a story to weave a perspective of what a country is capable of or to lay blame. A leader can use a story to compliment a plan or to show effectiveness of leadership. A story cannot lead. A story fills a void or a longing but does not shine a light or lead a nation.
What we need are not more stories and acceptance of stories of moral relativism justifying chaos but clear truths about the values that once embodied a great nation. We need a statement that the United States is made up of individuals with God given rights, one of which is free speech. Because we value the right of speech, we are willing to allow the offensive to uphold the principle of freedom. Free Speech is a principle that the nation upholds to the highest standard of protection and limits only due to direct tangible consequences. We need a statement that intangible, the immeasurable, the moral relative of offense while significant cannot be used as justification for tangible and measurable reciprocity. We need a statement not only of condemnation for the attack but of the significance of embassies being sovereign soil. We need not retributive violence, not a storyteller filling a void but a leader shining a light and leading on principles. That’s my story.