This whole thing makes no sense, and it makes even less sense that the Obama administration would play it the way they have. Something is obviously going on that they don't want to talk about. So...
Try this theory on for size. It is known that Ambassador Chris Stevens was fluent in Arabic and that he was the chief U.S. laison with the rebels when they were fighting Qadaffi. He negotiated the agreements by which the U.S. supplied arms to the rebels. That is not the role of an ambassador, and he was not the ambassador at that time. That is a role that is normally played by CIA. This took place in Benghazi. Now, Stevens was once again in Benghazi along with other men who were first said to be "marines" but then later were identified as "former Navy seals". They flew in with Stevens to Benghazi (a very dangerous place, and not where the embassy is located) and were picked up at the airport in an unmarked non-armored vehicle. One of those "former Navy seals" had been interviewed by ABC news three weeks earlier and he told them his job was to track down all the shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles that had gone missing when the Qadaffi regime fell. The fear was that al Qaida would get them (which they almost assuredly have). People who do that kind of work are not the security team for ambassadors, they are... you guessed it, CIA. Why would an ambassador (who was clearly CIA) go with others to Benghazi, a place that is as hot as a firecracker with Muslim extremism, with other CIA who were trying to destroy these dangerous weapons? Okay, the rest of this is just speculation. Imagine that they got a tip that there was a large cache of these shoulder-fired missiles, which could take down a 747 airplane anywhere in the world, and a meeting was set up. Imagine that this was a carefully planned ruse to get the ambassador and assassinate him on 9/11, the anniversary of the WTC attack.
Now does the whole scenario start to make sense?
Now that you mention it, I do remember reading bits and pieces of information that verify the facts as you state them. I did not know that Stevens was CIA, but am not surprised to learn of it. Neither do I doubt it. Your particular reasoning fits the facts as I know them too.
The facts are dots, but connecting the dots is tricky.
Other stories I've read include a Libyan warning to the US three days in advance of the 9/11 demonstrations. Could it be that the Libyan incident was a retaliation for a blown cover? I suppose we won't ever learn. Even if it did come out, would anyone care? Would there be an investigation? Would heads roll in DC? I seriously doubt it. Perhaps the Libyan thing was a side issue. All the Muslim demonstrations could simply be a bad temper that got out of hand. When you play with matches and ignite demonstrations, you risk getting burned.
The fact that the United States CIA has a relationship with al Qaeda is well known. When one holds a tiger by the tail, one risks getting mauled.
Do I still believe that the Egyptian demonstrations play into Obama's hand as far as generating support? Look at the polls. They did indeed reflect a momentary rise in support for the president, at least as far as CNN is concerned (and we all believe everything CNN says, don't we?).
Political bias? Of course there is political bias. We all speak from what we know. But if what I'm reading in the other posts in this thread is any indication it seems that the majority of writers here (who also keep up with news/propaganda), all have a serious 'bias' against swallowing every tid bit that comes out of the White House press announcements. The only real debate I read here is how much is swallowed. Not much if I read posts rightly.
As an aside, a reflection on the media news....
One of my news/propaganda sources is Pravda. I recently read a good column there. Pravda, as you know, is the Russian word for 'truth'. In the days of the old Soviet Union, Pravda was a public release of Communist party 'truth'. Another information source was called Isvestia. Isvestia in Russian means 'news'.
Anyway the article I read recently stated that in the old Soviet Union, Russians used to say "there is no truth in Pravda and no news in Isvestia".
I suppose the same may be said for much of what passes for media release these days in America. For most of us here, I believe that our personal 'bias' is based upon something more solid; the Word of God. Everything else is measured against it, and sadly is found lacking. Be that as it may, we do the best we can with what we have.
but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
