Monday, November 5, 2012

Was Benghazi a Set-Up?

Justin Raimondo hoists a very intriguing theory that the attack on Benghazi was a failed attempt by certain operators to throw President Obama off track in his re-election bid.

The shadowy figures that Raimondo identifies as buzzing around Benghazi certainly support his case, including an Iran-Contra defendant, Duane Clarridge, who was indicted and later pardoned by George H.W. Bush.

Raimondo quotes NYT:
Typical of [Claridge's] pugnacious style are his comments, provided in a 2008 interview for a documentary now on YouTube, defending many of the C.I.A.’s most notorious operations, including undermining the Chilean president Salvador Allende, before a coup ousted him 1973. 
“Sometimes, unfortunately, things have to be changed in a rather ugly way,’ said Mr. Clarridge, his New England accent becoming more pronounced the angrier he became. ‘We’ll intervene whenever we decide it’s in our national security interests to intervene. Get used to it, world. We’re not going to put up with nonsense.'
Raimondo concludes:
Was the Benghazi attack an “October surprise” intended to ambush the Obama administration — and what part did the shadowy Eclipse Group play in all this? In this context, Clarridge’s words take on a rather ominous aspect: 
Sometimes, unfortunately, things have to be changed in a rather ugly way.
Raimondo outlines his complete theory, here.


  1. Probably not. The consulate itself sent multiple pleas for extra security due to being in a neighborhood where they were surrounded by multiple militant/pro-AQ camps...and uncertain of Libyan central gov't support.
    The press is determinedly NOT covering this story, perhaps an accurate timeline and the details of US reaction will surface after the election. Let's get some basic facts on the table, then start the conspiracy theories :)

  2. Interesting, but wouldn't the hit on Stevens have more to do with the gun ring he was involved with than the election?

    1. Very good point.

      There aren't enough facts out to say one way or another if Stevens was a specific target, but his gun running, combined with the lack of US quick response to the attack, makes one pretty suspicious.

    2. If this proves to be accurate (Stevens + CIA running small arms + man portable missiles into Syria)I think this was a hit orchestrated by another power in the region.

      Of those with an interest in the region there are many and I can't even begin to start listing them. Possibilities range from the ashes of what remains of Libya; Russians telling the west to back off; the Iranians (doubtful based on the current climate) helping their ally Syria; a Syrian operation to stem the tide of weapons into the country; Israeli operation to further escalate US involvement in the region.

      I don't think we'll ever know for sure who was behind it but I have little doubt Stevens and the facility where the fighting took place was an arms trafficking site destined for Syria.

      Regarding the lack of a US response is puzzling. The possibility exists that the US didn't respond from fear of escalations with a larger power at an inconvenient time.

      Or as Wenzel points out, another October Surprise in the tradition of the Iranian hostage deal of 1980.

    3. "makes one pretty suspicious"

      RW: Please don't use the indefinite "one". That's how terrible MSM pundits talk when they don't want to admit they're opining.

      Just say "makes me pretty suspicious"

  3. Facts are the one thing least likely ever to come to light, here, Anon. Everything about this incident reeks of spook stink. The confusion, the conflicting stories (there is no central office of cover legends amongst the 17 officially recognized US intelligence agencies*), the ham-fisted whitewash attempt, the transparent grayman-on-grayman press leaks, the NYT pretending to be authoritative, the abandoned crime scene, even the bereaved parents sincerely pleading for dignity -- it's all dripping with spook s%^t. The spectacle of the parents is the most offensive aspect of the whole thing - if Stevens was in fact working with or for the Clandestine Service, his parents would be and will remain the last to know.

    Though the motives will likely remain blacked out for life-plus-50 years, what is not in doubt; the US intelligence presence in Libya, its role in aiding and abetting yet another ME war, and its jejune naivete (playing video games on watch -- how first world is that) all reveal the nature of the psychosis and sociopathy inherent to the force model of government.

    *BOH is not the first incompetent prez to bungle such a moment. No less a 20th century icon than Dwight Eisenhower fumbled the first rule of international espionage flaps when he ordered NASA to execute the most incompetent cover legend in US history, that Francis Gary Powers was on a weather mission. Complete with a mocked up U2 plane with cartoonish NASA markings on it. The timing and phrasing of Ike's blunder not only confirmed to the Soviets that FGP was a spy (already a "duh" moment for them), it escalated and aggravated tensions in US/Soviet relations by publicly rubbing their noses in the US' ability to perpetrate at will the program that just got flapped; an escalation of tensions that led directly to the Cuban missile crisis. The first rule, BTW, is well known to all of you: You do not talk about spy club.

    Aside from the baseline immorality of clandestine warfare in the first place, BOH has similarly mucked this up for all involved. Now all the belligerents in the region have verified times, dates, and inventory estimates for exactly what the US was doing with heavy arms in the region. Anyone who suspected the various loyalties of locals dealing with Stevens and crew will now be confirmed (rightly or wrongly) to be traitors/loyalists, and executions, disappearings, and diplomatic back-channel recriminations, resulting in deterioration of relations and blowback will all certainly follow. If the whole apparatus had kept its collective mouth shut (ask the British, who even to this day maintain sufficient worldly awareness of humiliation as the prime motive of international violence not to even so much as whisper "how many times in the post WWII era do we have to tell you to shut your trap when you get caught" to their US cousins), a small modicum of face could have been saved among the combatants, and the dim hopes of the diplomats might have stood a dark horse chance. Dear Mr. next best actor in the supporting role of president: The second rule is, you do not talk about spy club.

  4. Uh, if the Benghazi affair was an attempt by people opposed to the current admin to perpetrate an Oct. surprise than how come the current admin stood by comatose and let it happen?
    Oh, he wasn't really an ambassador.
    But in that they already brassed over the fact that we deposed Gaddafi, covering for a pseudo ambassador is small change.

  5. Gosh Robert,

    Who Knows? They're all dirty rotten scoundrels.

  6. Jeez the libertarian team would be a lot more successful if their propaganda mouthpieces such as Justin Raimondo did not sound like all the other 2bit leftist in the world.

  7. Im disappointed by the conclusion in this article, not the investigating. It would seem instead as if the Obama admin was perfectly willing to standby and let it occur as if nothing bad would happen, while the neocons only managed to claim "incompetence" as a minor potshot for their side to maintain the false paradigm.

    which is unsurprising given that they are a bunch of ex trotskytes and that they never intended for romney to win, probably so win shtf economically before 2016 they can get Jeb(or whoever) elected. This is why Romney bungled the topic in the debates. I wonder if he was coached on how best to argue over terms and look silly.

    More to the point, all those 2bit leftists would probably be more successful if they were as good as Justin.

    And Eve Online is an awesome game, although Goonswarm are a bunch of a-holes