As for the attack, with Stevens out of the way and Benghazi in turmoil it might be easier for AQ to take control of those weapons and send them through their channels instead of the CIA's chosen group. Perhaps through Egypt?
As for Zero, I'd bet he's just hell bent on claiming that these are small things in his "big picture" approach to the liberation of the Arab world. Perhaps he thinks that North Africa (supposedly) "at peace" would demonstrate what he remembers so fondly from his Islamic childhood in Indonesia. White European capitalist greed is what causes all the instability in that region you know. ;-)
Title is not very descriptive....so easy to miss:
Fiasco-- The John Batchelor Show
**************************************EXCERPT*********************************************
Posted on Sat 27 Oct 2012 14:55:17 PDT by Hojczyk
My fresh information is how to explain the surprising scale of the errors at Benghazi. It is useful to stipulate that the building where Ambassador Stevens was attacked was not a consulate.
It was a State Department residence that was maintained to provide an explanation for the presence of the CIA station that was about a mile distance --
The CIA station "annex" was responsible for recruiting and training Libyan assets in Benghazi, many of whom were directed to the so-called "Libyan Brigade" that is serving in Syria under the supervision of Turkish Military Intelligence. (This is part of the operation aimed at removing the Assad regime and replacing it with Jihadist/Islamists sympathetic and beholden to the Sunni lords at Cairo-Ankara-Riyadh-Doha.)
The attackers were fully informed of these facts, as they are part of the Cyrenaica networks of Jihadists/Islamists that have dominated the province for decades. (The attackers are commanded by the tribes/authorities of the province.) Why was the US dealing with treacherous gunmen?
This is the infamous big picture of Libya and the Obama administration. I am told that, following the fall of Tripoli in the fall of 2011,
Benghazi: No Other Explanation Fits
*********************************EXCERPT******************************************
Canada Free Press ^ | Saturday, October 27, 2012 | Erik Rush
Posted on Sat 27 Oct 2012 17:04:07 PDT by Snuph
A Mideast “Fast and Furious” emerging within weeks of the election would be devastating
On October 4 in Canada Free Press, I wrote a column entitled Was Ambassador Stevens’ Death a Hit?, so suspicious did I find the circumstances surrounding the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya at that time. On October 25, I followed up with Obama’s Feet of Clay, in which I discussed the likelihood that President Barack Obama failed to react to the attack despite real-time knowledge of developments in Benghazi because he wished to obscure or bury evidence of the administration’s gun running activities to Libyan and Syrian rebels.
The reason for Obama’s desire to do so, in this scenario, would be twofold. One, because weapons were not only being provided to Libyan and Syrian rebels, but were in fact being provided to jihadists across the Middle East with whom Obama sympathizes, but who are enemies of the US. Two, because Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself may have become a liability for reasons still uncertain (although my first column outlines one possibility). The fact that Stevens’ mission, and that of other US operatives in Libya was a clandestine one has been established; this is certainly a likely reason for Obama to want a lid kept on it. If revealed, obviously this would substantially threaten his re-election chances.
As I indicated early on, not only did I see Obama’s pre-September 11 actions as being executed in order to cultivate plausible deniability on his part, but I suspected even then that he might have employed rebels or jihadis to eliminate Stevens. It does bear mentioning that Obama’s cavalier dismissal of intelligence briefings leading up to Sept. 11, 2012 was widely reported prior to that date.