Posted on | September 20, 2012 | 6 Comments
So, eyewitnesses are saying that not only wasn’t the movie the cause of the attack, but that there wasn’t any protest of the movie prior to the attack. Suspicion now falls on an al-Qaeda operative who was sent from Gitmo to Gaddafi in 2007, after Gaddafi agreed to keep him jailed. Instead, Gaddafi released Sufyan Ben Qumu to appease Islamists in 2008. When Congress was considering Obama’s strategy of engaging with the anti-Gaddafi rebels, NATO told them that there were al-Qaeda among those rebels . . .
What this means is that the primary target might not have been Christopher Stevens*, but rather retired Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was tasked with trying to get shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles out of the hands of militants. And it also prompts the question, “Who supplied those armaments?”
I’m not saying that the administration did. It would have been madness for them to have supplied shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles to rebels among whom were elements of al-Qaeda when US was engaged in enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya, in order to help those rebels get rid of Gaddafi. Still, given the variety of very obvious lies we’ve been fed by this administration, and given its fecklessness on other occasions, it seems to me within the realm of possibility.
Read the whole thing, because I think Dan’s definitely onto something here, and I’ll go him one further: It is not necessary for the U.S. to have directly supplied the weapons in order for the administration to be at fault for having indirectly supplied the weapons:
- U.S. supports rebels.
- Rebels capture weapons from Libyan military.
- Rebels use captured weapons to kill Americans.
It’s not exactly like shipping weapons to Mexican drug lords, but still the word “feckless” comes to mind. I mean, hey, let’s help some ragtag desert savages to overthrow their dictator, despite warnings that there are al-Qaeda terrorists among these ragtag savages — what could possibly go wrong?