I don’t think the Islamist militias that attacked the cosulate on 9/11 did so to kill Stevens and the other personnel there. I think they were looking for something.
I think that rumors had filtered out that Stevens was assisting with the transport of shoulder-fired SAMs and other goodies on to Turkish vessels that then transported the weapons to Syria. I think it was understood that the US had a stockpile of those weapons secured in the days after Qadaffi fell, and were disposing of them to “friends”. I think that was the primary business of the so-called “consulate” and especially the CIA safehouse compound a mile away. I think those militias wanted those weapons for themselves and went after them.
This would also explain the reluctance of Panetta, Hillary and 0’s Nat. Security team to intervene. I think they had a pretty good idea what the militias were after, and I think they were afraid that they had succeeded. It’s one thing to deny help to an ambassador and some CIA guys while Muslim fanatics shoot up the place. It’s another to have US combat aircraft shot down by SAMs during a fire fight. During an election. On the 9/11 annaversary. I think Panetta and Petraeus thought the militia men had the SAMs and decided that they weren’t going to give them a target to shoot at.
And if that meant a few dead Americans, so be it. They could always cook up a story about a video and mobs out of control. It wasn’t “optimal,” but it was the best they could do.
Yes, that is very plausible, and could have lots of variations too. I read that the CIA also had stashes of cash.
In addition Putin had made clear that he did not want these heavy armaments given to the Syrian rebels. Always possible the Russians co-ordinated with Iranians to make sure that those weapons stayed in Libya.
Many variations on your theory. I have felt from the start that the CIA mission is an important part of the story, and that every effort will be made to hide it from the public and the world.