The CIA-run 'Annex' was a warehouse for guns rounded up from the very fighters the US was supposedly allied with in removing the legitimate government of Libya, and the whole point of the CIA presence was to disarm 'al Qaeda' in Libya. In a move very reminiscent of the insanity of Iran-Contra, Stevens had arranged to send a boatload of these weapons to Syria by way of Turkey, where the ongoing worries about arming the wrong guys led to squabbles about moving the arms to Syria (the Americans were of two minds about having the weapons taken from 'al Qaeda' in Libya ending up in the hands of 'al Qaeda' in Syria). Is it irony that Stevens was in Benghazi, a place he knew to be dangerous, particularly around September 11, to meet with Turkey’s Consul General to Benghazi, possibly to iron this problem out? It was certainly convenient that he was in Benghazi, particularly as the people hired to protect him not only failed to do so, but may have turned him over to the crowd.
Of all the many lies about the incident, the most telling one is that there was some kind of long firefight. Actually, a crowd just walked into the compound without American resistance, and the American casualties were caused by the fires that were set or by a subsequent mortar attack. The entire story of what happened, starting with the lie about the protest over the movie and moving through every single detail, has been manufactured by American officials. It reminds me of September 11.
By far the most interesting theory of what happened comes from whackadoodle right-wingers way back in October:
"It was on July 31, 2012, about a month before the September 11 attack in Benghazi that a mortar ripped into the wall of the CIA occupied military intelligence building (research into ownership suggests a possible UK connection), now apparently designated as “the consulate in Benghazi.” The explosion did not cause any deaths or injuries and consequently, it did not make many headlines.
It is here that I rely on my well-placed intelligence source to help me understand the magic trick onstage. According to my source, our intelligence operatives noticed something unusual near that building. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent were milling about, almost like they were inspecting the damage. It was as if they were looking to see if the walls were reinforced, and assessing the response to that facility. The next instant, they were gone.
It was reported that the seven member contingent of the Red Crescent were inexplicably kidnapped by “armed men.”
Fast forward to October 6, 2012, about the time when Valerie Jarrett was reportedly meeting with Iranian officials in Qatar. The kidnapped Red Crescent delegation was suddenly, inexplicably and unceremoniously released unharmed in Libya after 65 days in captivity.
Rumors inside the intelligence community suggest that the Jarrett “October surprise” meetings with Iran were contingent on the release of the Iranian Red Crescent workers.
It is here that I needed to rely on my intelligence source to assist me in seeing through the clouded world stage. Do the dots connect?
Could it be that Obama’s “October surprise” was to announce that an agreement had been reached with Iran, that they would halt their nuclear ambitions much like the Kissinger “peace is at hand” announcement? If so, and if Iran had any involvement on a nation-state level in Benghazi, wouldn’t it seem logical that the truth about the attacks needed to be managed without any such mention of Iran? Who would be the best person to head such an investigation? And if Iran was behind the pre-planned and sophisticated 9/11 murderous attacks in Benghazi, could it be that the July 31, 2012 mortar attack was a probe of that facility’s defenses in advance of a future attack? That would explain the curious disappearance of the 7 member Iranian “Red Crescent” team, and their equally mysterious reappearance, unharmed, 65 days later."