Someone in Libya said he was a Muslim.
So you have at least 3 possibilities
A gay tryst (doubtful)
Traitor
CIA
Someone wanted that diary to get out. The question is who. For all we know, it wasn’t even in Stevens handwriting.
The diary sounds like a plant.
If he was a traitor he might write about being a target of the terrorists to give him cover.
If he was following a mission he might write about being a target to give him cover.
This whole thing is bizarre.
It is so bizarre I am wondering if the CIA is out to get Obama voted out.
Personally, I think the gay tryst thing is probably the best answer.
And I did not really care that he was gay.
Here is my thinking: If he was working for the CIA he would have had some security around him. I doubt if the Ambassador would be involved directly with the CIA outside of the embassy—only because it would be too much of a risk. He would have “people” who would do that.
But if you think about a man having an affair, this fits perfectly. Whether it be a gay affair or hetero affair.
1. You go to an out of the way place.
2. You go someplace where you have been before, where your presence can be explained.
3. You go some place where you feel safe—and where your partner can get to without raising suspicion.
4. Once you get comfortable, you drop your paranoia and create routines. And that is where people start to track patterns.
In this case my guess is that he had built a pattern of behavior over time that allowed his killers to lie in waiting. Once he showed up on the scene, it was a matter of getting into the truck and drive on over to the house. No one needed to “rat him out” because he had done this over and over.
And really, a journal? Really? With only a few pages in it? Come on. We are supposed to believe that?
Did you see pictures of the building? It had been ablaze for hours. And his seven page journal made it through?
If one stops listening to the stories, and starts thinking about what actually happened and ask yourself why something happened...you can only come to a few conclusions. And then ask yourself which of those conclusions makes the most sense. It doesnt have to be complicated at all. And, he would not be the first man to make a stupid mistake over a secret relationship.
I am open to other theories. And I am not passing judgement on his proclivities. I am passing judgement on his brains.
My take: Stevens had “gone native,” always a risk with “Arabist” Foreign Service Officers.
He honestly believed he didn't need USMC security, because the “Libyan freedom fighters” loved him so much for his help during and after the uprising. He was known to travel around Behghazi SOLO for God's sake, driving himself to meetings with locals!
IOW, he believed the gentle words of his Libyan sycophants, and he believed he was a modern-day "Lawrence of Libya."
This made him low-hanging fruit for hardcore Muslim terrorists, anytime they wanted to kill him in a splashy way. They could have killed him on any given day in the past months, but chose to make it a splashy high-profile attack on 9-11.
In effect, Stevens committed suicide-by-hubris. Too bad the others died with him. Too bad they didn't just shoot him on the street, while “Lawrence of Libya” was traveling unescorted.
But that would not have been the global spectacle the terrorists were seeking.
Even if he were to do that it's doubtful the economy would recover.
It's better for the dems to have a repub in the WH when the economy crashes so they can lay the blame on them.
It appears there was no security for Stevens because with security offering resistance it's more likely he would be killed instead of captured and held hostage.
Stevens being held hostage by terrorist and Zippo becomes Peanuts Carter II.
What a coincidence, repubs compare Zippo to Peanuts, dems embrace Peanuts at their convention, and then there is an incident to make Zippo Peanuts II.
I believe the intent was for Stevens to be taken hostage to paint Zippo as Peanuts.
The terrorist would keep Stevens hostage until the day Romney is sworn in, just like with Peanuts and the Iranian hostages.
The dems would then claim Romney was behind the terrorist attack playing off Reagan and the “October Surprise” with Carter and “Bush Knew” after 9/11.
This would then set Hillary up for 2016 as all the problems of the Zippo years would be blamed on the repubs.