Hmm. Sen. Coburn Hints that Another Benghazi Shoe May Drop

Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn revealed that he believes “the State Department has real trouble” after yesterday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi, but said this morning that, at the moment, he can’t reveal why.

“Having sat on the Intelligence Committee and seen the review of e-mails that went back and forth as they developed the list, there’s a glaring problem there that will eventually come out — and I can’t talk about it now — but there was an omission that was given to the intelligence committee,” Coburn said on Morning Joe today.

Ed Morrissey speculates that it could have to do with Greg Hicks’ conversations with Hillary Clinton and Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones. Hicks testified that he briefed Clinton during the attack and never said anything about a YouTube movie. The movie was, in his words, a “non-event” in Libya. Clinton, Rice, et al blamed the movie starting on September 12, and Hicks asked Jones why. She answered that she didn’t know, and soon after that she went on the bureaucratic warpath against Hicks resulting in his eventual demotion. But an email produced by Rep. Trey Gowdy showed Jones telling the Libyan president that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. That email was from September 12, before Ambassador Rice went on her magical Benghazi movie tour on five Sunday talk shows, so the State Department was already aware that the movie had nothing to do with the attack. Yet they blamed the movie, from the top down. They even cut a PSA in Pakistan apologizing for it, one of the more craven acts ever undertaken by a US administration, even if the movie had caused the attack. Which it didn’t.

The email is significant in addressing the state of knowledge at the top level of the State Department during and immediately after the attack. I don’t think that that email is the omission, unless State failed to provide it to the ARB. If State did fail to provide it to the ARB, that in and of itself would be significant, and open up obvious questions about what else State omitted delivering to its hand-picked internally controlled “investigation” that failed even to interview Clinton herself.

One theory I heard relies on the Blind Sheik trade theory. The ad was a payoff. The jihadis were originally going to have an easy night going up against an intentionally defenseless embassy, hold Stevens until they got the Sheik back. Probably the YouTube video was prepared in advance as a pretext for staging the riot. Then Obama was supposed to make this into a big world peace moment, where he could resolve the big crisis while also blunting criticism of Islam (”see how dangerous that free speech thing is? Just like guns, we must regulate all danger out of existence”)

But then a couple of ex-seals messed up the big plan, actually had the temerity to think for themselves and do the right thing in spite of overwhelming odds against them, including the stand down order. I hear Ty Woods was picking them off at will. Lots of jihadis sent off to their 72. They were getting pissed. This is not how it was supposed to go. Perhaps they even felt it was an intentional betrayal by Obama. Now it was about revenge. That’s when Chris Stevens’ fate became much bleaker.

Anyway, the theory goes from there that the ad campaign was compensatory for the failure of the trade deal. They still got something they wanted, a well publicized attack on any who would dare slander the prophet, led by the “Submissive” leaders of America. Great encouragement to jihadis, who look to such things as proof Allah himself is driving the enemy into “Submission.” A great recruiting tool for would-be martyrs. But no sheik, so they’re still pissed.

Well, it’s just a theory, a way to try and integrate the known facts. And it could be completely wrong. But if true, I’d expect to find, eventually, some chain of contact between the video maker and the administration predating the crisis. Yep, I know that’s a long shot. But what could it hurt to ask Nikoula a few thoughtful questions? Oh wait, he can’t be reached right now ...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.