The Big Picture

The WaPo has a headliner this evening detailing the government's version of events in Benghazi.  For being an official account it's startlingly empty of new information--we already knew the Tripoli folks sent a team to the consulate--that's how one of the lost ex-SEALS got there.  We didn't know whether the drone was armed--it was not--but the CIA report doesn't seem to mention any C130s, which could have been armed and nearby but would be military assets. 

Again though, focusing on 20/20 hindsight and minute details about decisions during the raid misses the larger point of Benghazi.  While this CIA report cobbles together a few more bits of information what hasn't been pieced together is a picture of the Obama doctrine.  Remember Charlie Gibson asking Palin about Bush's doctrine in the 2008 season, which was an attempt to tie her to Bush, but nobody asked anybody about the Obama doctrine, including Obama.  Part of the mystery lies in the CIA presence of an 'annex' in the first place.  Are we working with Islamists now in this global war on terror?

James Lewis of the American Thinker has some good thoughts on the matter, bouncing off  earlier reports suggesting Libya was being used as a forwarding base for Gaddafi's old weapons to given (or sold) to the Free Syrian Army in an effort to bring down Assad.  From one of Lewis' links:

It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what "between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood."

Yes, that would be the same Muslim Brotherhood that incubated bin Laden, Zawahiri, and KSM.   And yes, we've not heard as much whining from the Syrian rebels of late after they threatened to bring AQ forces into the mix to fight Assad.  So is that what they are really hiding with these crazy narratives and McGuffins? 


International politics is complex, especially with Islamic radicals in play, but if it's the weapons thing that itself sounds a tad scandalous.  Something known as Iran-Contra dogged president Reagan during his second term, which was a clandestine operation where his men tried to sell arms to the Mullahs (prohibited) in exchange for hostages and cash to be funneled to the Contras in Nicaragua (prohibited by Congress as well).  The Gipper was trying to stop Soviet meddling in Central America and get American hostages released, a noble cause.  

If this whole thing isn't what it seems on the surface--a stall tactic designed to keep the "I killed bin Laden and have AQ on the ropes" meme from dying before the election, then the lack of sunshine might be related to an overall scenario where Obama helped knock off Gaddafi (in an illegal war), took his arms, and is giving them to the FSA to help knock off Assad (no Congressional approval for involvement in Syria) with the goal of knocking off another dictator and keeping the SAMs out of the hands of the real jihadists.  Another noble goal.  That is, unless we are being double-crossed.  


There's some irony--Obama went to Cairo and apologized for American meddling in the region and promised change only to meddle in the region like everyone else, catching the "blowback" (or as Obama called it, a bump in the road) liberals and Ron Paul always warn about.  We know AQ in Iraq fighters were involved in the attack and they've also been involved in Syria against Assad, so was that the double-cross as Lewis suggests?  Can Americans handle the truth? 

Hard to say.  If Romney had engineered such a thing the Dems would be drawing up impeachment charges. But with a cool liberal in the White House don't expect to see Seymour Hersch exposes or Pulitzer-winning New York Times leaks.  Or Jay Carney explanations.  Or even any lengthy debate discussions.  No questions will be taken.  Just tune in to the Discovery Channel and watch the UBL takedown movie and be satisfied that we whacked the big mole, so it's over.  Time to come home and do some socialism nation building.