I have never had anything short of a high regard for The Western Center For Journalism. I am a subscriber and have often used the site as a reference link to my own efforts. In general I would rate the journalism there as good to excellent, but this time they have really dropped the ball, and some misinformation is now being spread about the internet.
Far be it from me to defend Obama The Destroyer, but now I cannot help but feel that he is getting a bum rap with this bit of expose journalism, and since misinformation is always dangerous, it is time to instill a little bit of common sense into a very shabby narrative.
First off, the proposed plot: WCJ normally provides good documentation to support their views. This is an exception, the only source referenced was "source connected to the White House". Unnamed and unverifiable, therefore inappropriate to build such a complex case on. The case being built is that Hussein Obama was involved in a nefarious plan to have Islamists kidnap the Ambassador and then he, Obama, would negotiate with them, thus freeing the ambassador and moving his own rating to hero first class. The plot thickens as the terrorists get greedy and decide that in return for the ambassador they want to incorporate a prisoner exchange for The Blind Sheikh.
Next, everything totally goes south and the Ambassador is killed, along with three of his support team, Obama faces a mounting attack for negligence, Hillary accepts the blame, thus allowing Obama a way off the hook and back into the campaign. This scenario would make for a first rate thriller movie but is no where near to being a credible theory.
The first two things wrong with it is Obama's involvement and his goals. Lately we have all seen Obama's efforts to calm troubled waters and avoid making waves until after the election. He actively discourages Israel from making any moves against Iran, Greece from leaving the European Union, and any obvious U.S. involvement in the toppling of the Assad government of Syria. Then there is the cryptic statement about Russia giving him time and that he would have more flexibility after the November elections.
The second flaw to the Obama inspired kidnapping agenda is that he wants Islam to be wearing their best face, again at least until after the elections. He expends a great deal of effort in convincing us that the Arab nations are a benevolent force. Them kidnapping an ambassador would not enhance the image he is trying to create.
Still another flaw to the theory are the terrorists themselves and their tactics. Common sense would dictate that if the goal is to capture a valuable political figure you do not go lobbing mortars and RPGs into the area he occupies. A mortar is subject to take out the gate, blow our part of a wall and kill the precious occupant inside. No, this is not the way to kidnap an ambassador.
The terrorists love to kill. They love explosions and blowing things up, but rest assured that Al Qaeda have a more elite group of stealth operatives for a mission as important as capturing an American representative There is nothing more worthless than a dead ambassador unless the primary goal was to kill said ambassador, as it obviously was.
The men who took the lives of Ambassador Stevens and his support team knew exactly what they were doing. This is proven by the fact that they knew not only of his presence in the consulate but also had access to classified information as to the whereabouts of the safe house.
Those men of Al Qaeda set forth to make a point: It is 911 and we're back, and as far as politics, go Stevens was the most valuable target available. They attacked with the intent to kill HIM and show another victory over "The Great Satan", and we still send them money to fund their terrorist operations. Now that, is a conspiracy worthy of writing about.
Our Next War...Syria
The Coming Caliphate
Never, Ever Let Your Guard Down