WikiLeaks Partially Responsible For Ambassador Chris Stevens’ Death?
Was Stevens targeted for payback by al-Qaeda after WikiLeaks leaked his report? It’s a serious question that needs to be addressed. Hey Assange, you wanna sit down for a chat with us Americans anytime soon? No? Didn’t think so.
Maddow goes into some detail about the chronology in the following video, but skips over the possibility of reprisal due to WikiLeaks leaking Stevens’ report.
On her cable show Thursday night, Maddow described how Stevens, an Arabic speaker and “longtime student of Libya” who “understood the country well,” traveled to the coastal city of Derna in 2008. Stevens wrote a classified memo, later published by WikiLeaks, warning of growing al Qaeda militancy in Derna, “right there next to Benghazi,” Maddow said.
Stevens’ cable to Washington “actually used the Bruce Willis movie ‘Die Hard’ as an analogy for understanding how intense the local attitudes were there about jihad,” Maddow said. Not only that, al Qaeda documents seized by American troops in Iraq revealed that more holy warriors were sent to Iraq from Derna “than any other place in the entire Arab world,” Maddow said.
Maddow also pointed out how CNN reported this past June that al Qaeda sent one of its top operatives in Pakistan to Derna during the uprising against Gaddafi in early 2011 “to capitalize on that town’s legendary militancy.” (Yes — “legendary”. She says things like that).
Are we the least bit surprised that Maddow didn’t come to the conclusion that WikiLeaks could’ve been responsible? No? Didn’t think so.
There’s also this to take into account; I spoke with The Trenches’ own Justin Smith who, while he was in the theater of operations in Iraq, worked directly with the State Department. According to Mr. Smith, the State Department is apprised of all threats and leaks. This would mean that Stevens had to know that his report had been leaked by WikiLeaks and that he’d likely be on al-Qaeda’s radar for outing them. Did Stevens thumb his nose at potential danger in an area he was intimately familiar with as being dangerous?
There’s a lot of blame going around for Obama and Hilary Clinton for Stevens’ death, but consider Stevens himself as the guy who called the shots on the ground with respect to who his team members were and which buildings he decided to stay in. Why did Stevens pick such indefensible digs? I get that Stevens was a man who liked to be among the people, and that’s why the majority of locals liked him, but you have to have a safe base of operations for those times when the shit hits the fan. It’s a post 9-11 world, and our enemies are emboldened. Perhaps Stevens’ desire to be a man of the local people was more important than his own safety. That’s fine, if his decisions would only affect himself, but he had a team of men he was responsible for who also died. Perhaps the State Department can reassess their operational conduct in this area with a view to protect lives.
It’s clear that Stevens was targeted. But why? According to Libya’s president, the embassy attacks weren’t spontaneous responses to a very bad film, as the Obama administration still tries to contend, but were planned by al-Qaeda. What if Stevens was the primary target in all the fake protests over a bad movie? Al-Qaeda could easily use those fake protests as cover for a direct act of war against America by assassinating Stevens for his leaked report about them. If that’s the case, Julian Assange has a lot more to answer for.
As a bigger picture aside, here’s something else to consider… apparently, the Jihadis have had enough of America’s support for Zionists and have targeted America as being in league with them. As federalists, we at The Trenches are hopeful we can end all of America’s long-term entanglements in the region, and stop the failed policy of coddling “favorite nations”.
George Washington, the federalist’s federalist, said this about the folly in America choosing a favorite nation:
The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
Every year America gives billions in US dollars in total to Egypt, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Israel, etc. We believe it’s time to end the Middle East’s madness over the Zionism vs. Islam conflict. Let’s focus on trade and commerce and let Israel become autonomous without U.S. aid and interference – they’re big kids now, right?
We’re in no way excusing Assange and his criminal operation for their actions, but what would WikiLeaks have to peddle if America adopted a first-principles federalist foreign policy? The answer: not much.
