NOTE: All of the following is a “theory” parts of which may (or may not) have a basis in actual fact.

I have noticed several people on here echoing a constant unrelenting theme – aired virtually non-stop on the Fox News Channel - to the effect that the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th is a scandal “… worse than Watergate.” The news coming out in the past several days concerning General David Patraeus has only served to heighten this belief (on the right) that a huge sinister plot – a Watergate style “cover up” - is underway and President Obama and his administration are “hiding something” from the American people. With respect to a cover up, there may actually be some truth to such a charge, but it’s not what most of the conspiracy zealots and Fox News commentators are thinking.

I listened to an interview with former CIA agent (and author) Robert Baer on CNN. Over the span of a 21-year career working in foreign intelligence, Robert Baer had quite a bit of covert operational experience in the Middle East – especially in Arab countries. (The movie “Syriana” starring George Clooney is loosely based on Robert Baer’s career.) I’ve also read a book – “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA” by Tim Weiner – that goes into great detail on how the CIA operates - especially on how the CIA conducts covert operations. Reading between the lines of Robert Baer’s interview last night with Erin Burnett along with a similar recurrent pattern that kept coming up in Weiner’s book, it is very possible that Benghazi, Libya was a covert forward operating base being used as a staging area for sending weapons and arms to the anti-Assad Syrian opposition forces. This is mere speculation, but it’s the only scenario that makes sense.

Since the United States is officially “neutral” with respect to the rebellion currently underway in Syria, any shipment of arms by the United States to the Syrian rebels would have to be conducted covertly in order to maintain an aura of deniability. Covert operations in foreign countries are exactly the type of activity the CIA engages in. Next to gathering intelligence, it’s the main reason the CIA exists. If this is actually what was going on at Benghazi, it fools no one since both the Russians and the Iranians, (Bashar al-Assad’s two main allies), know exactly – courtesy of their own intelligence services - who is supplying arms to the rebels. Since President Obama wants to support the Syrian rebels and overthrow another authoritarian Middle Eastern dictator, (while simultaneously avoiding the commitment of American combat forces to another potentially protracted and costly ground war on foreign soil), the only alternative was to have weapons funneled to the rebels through the CIA. In other words, another proxy war.

Occasionally, things go wrong – an operation gets blown or something tragic and unexpected occurs. That appears to be what happened in Benghazi on September 11th. If this “theory” is correct, President Obama cannot openly acknowledge that the United States was engaged in a covert operation, (which he probably approved with an executive order), since that exposes methods and means. This is roughly analogous to the tough spot President Eisenhower found himself in on May 1, 1960 when the Russians shot down CIA U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers over the Soviet Union. Assuming that Powers died when the plane went down, (Powers was under orders to swallow a “suicide pill” if he was shot down over Soviet airspace), President Eisenhower invoked the CIA “cover story” to be used in just such a circumstance: The President (falsely) told the American people the plane was a NASA “weather aircraft” that had inadvertently drifted into Soviet airspace. When Nikita Khrushchev paraded Gary Powers on nationwide television in Russia, President Eisenhower was humiliated. He was forced to admit the obvious truth: An American spy plane had been shot down in the act of violating Soviet air space – a blatant violation of international law.

President Obama now finds himself in a virtually identical situation. He can’t come out and tell the terrible truth, (i.e. that he [probably] ordered the CIA to covertly smuggle arms to Syria via Libya), so he has to go with the cover story: That the tragedy on September 11th was a terrorist attack. It may be years, if ever, before this is confirmed, but this would fit the pattern with respect to other blown CIA covert operations.

I don't really see the value, beyond entertainment, of such conspiracies. While one or two of the pieces you mention may (or may not) turn out to be true, there is certainly no basis to weave such an elaborate account.

OP is awesome, let's just totally make **** up, Mitt obviously personally wrote the horrible software program, that's why he lost, now this TLDR, good stuff.

Your thoughts on Obama's high school science fair project?

simplicitus:

I don't watch the Fox News Channel, but if "there is certainly no basis [for me] to weave such an elaborate account," then what basis do the FNC folks have for weaving their elaborate account - or whatever it is they're attempting to assert as gospel fact? As best I can tell, all those great pundits and "experts" over at FNC keep insisting - without citing any specific proof or evidence - that President Obama is engaged in some type of massive conspiracy or cover up that is "worse than Watergate." Presumably Obama is engaging in this "Watergate style" coverup to avoid being impeached since a cover up of that magnitude would certainly rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The right wing folks are making serious charges and allegations (lots of smoke) but so far I see no fire.

As for "one or two" of the pieces I mention being true, the information regarding Francis Gary Powers and the U-2 being shot down in 1960 ... that's a fact. You can read about it on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident

or look it up in any history book. My elaborate account makes more sense than the "elaborate account" being trowled by the FNC folks since the narrative I'm alleging does tie in with actual events currently under way. (From just where do you suppose the Syrian rebels are getting their arms and weapons? Those things don't grow on trees.)

By "one or two pieces," I mean the CIA may be helping Syria. I wasn't challening your history. Also, rumor has it the CIA did have some prisoners in Libya, which may have helped instigate the attack on the compound.

As far as fox news, I think your more likely to get truth from reading chicken bones than from watching fox.

More generally, I an anti-conspiracy. To me it is a form of thought with little discipline, very much akin to religious thinking. The mind likes conclusions, but it's generally best to withhold judgement if one wants to get at the truth of something.

In fact, with this whole Patreaus thing, my position is that things are likely to be pretty much exactly as they appear and there is no conspiracy whatsoever. Really, I could probably write an essay on why I hate conspiracies. For one, I think people are very bad at predicting the outcome outcome of actions (see each person in the Patreaus affair), people cannot keep secrets, and anything that requires more than three people to work together surreptitiously will generally fall apart.

Also, the syrian rebels are probably getting their arms from Saudis and Egypt, who we are probably encouraging, but not so strongly that we'll be blamed for the blowback if they are later used against, e.g., Isreal.

How does your conspiracy theory fit in with the fact that the CIA were based in a different building a mile away from the consulate?

no matter the final outcome, the foxtards would have found a reason to attack the sitting administration. if military action had of been dispatched (the jet fighters the tards bleated about) then the over use of force by a poor commander (potus) would be the focus.

As for the death of the 4, was it ever proved it was an assassination, and not an attack on the premises. The 2 marines were killed in what happens to combatants, the aim is to kill the other side. You shoot, you get shot.

Benghazi + conspiracy = lock. Apologies.