...He spent most of his career in the Middle East and North Africa, including postings to Israel, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, in addition to serving as the deputy chief of the U.S. mission to Libya from 2007 to 2009, during the rule of Moammar Gadhafi, according to the State Department.
In May, one year after arriving aboard a cargo ship to work with those involved in the upstart rebellion, Stevens was appointed U.S. ambassador to Libya.
Sounds like he helped arm the rebels (Al-Qaeda) . Probably had enemies on both sides. Maybe the bigger question is what was his purpose of being there with very little security on 9/11.
Based on the excerpts from the article you posted in #60, Stevens knew what he was dealing with, took huge risks, which ultimately & unfortunately ended in his own demise.
There is no way, I’ve said before, the U.S. can protect, even its top officials, every time & all the time, in hot spots such as Libya, even with armed security.
My take would be that Stevens was not risk averse. But what reward, recognition, or incentive was Stevens looking or hoping for as compensation for such a tremendous risk?
The rebellion began as anti-Gadhafi, not pro alqaeda. He was well liked and respected among most of the rebels. As time went on, the alqaeda-types joined more and he was not liked by them.
Supposedly, he was invited to Benghazi for a dedication of a cultural center and to sign some papers relating to other business.
The reports now are saying that there were about 100 militants attacking the consulate with some heavy arms. They used deisel fuel to set the buildings on fire at the beginning of the attack. I don’t know how many consulates in the world could withstand an attack like that. This wasn’t a fortified embassy.
Somebody (a Libyan) on the ‘inside’ with sympathies to the militant alqaeda types, tipped them off.