Allen West’s recent claim that what happened in Benghazi had nothing to do with a kidnapping attempt may not be accurate according to Walid Shoebat. He believes that the evidence points to two agendas that night, two agendas he says that don’t have to be mutually exclusive:
That account comports with our findings as well but West is also a bit too presumptive in dismissing another allegation, that Stevens was to be kidnapped and exchanged for Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”):
No, it was not about a kidnapping scheme, it was about something, as I’ve stated, that will make Iran-Contra look like Romper Room. The web of lies spun is coming apart, and all other committee hearings on this matter should be shut down.
That Benghazi included a kidnapping operation should not be dismissed simply because of a confirmed weapons trafficking operation. Could not both be true?
We’ve all heard by now the infamous video of some of the 9/11/2012 attackers admitting they were sent by Morsi. There’s also a Libyan intelligence document that shows that Egyptians arrested in the Benghazi attack admit they were sent by Morsi.
But do you remember the protest at the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt earlier that day? It was a protest started by the brother of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and it was about freeing the Blind Sheikh. Indeed, the brother of the Blind Sheikh was also there. The protest wasn’t about a stupid anti-Muhammad video. It was about the Blind Sheikh. Watch the beginning and then skip to around 2:24 if you are in a hurry:
Walid Shoebat says that we do not know the motive of the attackers, such that we can rule out a kidnapping attempt. Clearly it seems we were in Benghazi because of weapons trafficking. But Walid believes that a kidnapping attempt by the consulate attackers makes far more sense, given the evidence, than an attack on the consulate over weapons being trafficked.
And he provides several other evidences that lead him to this conclusion as well, and you can read about them at his site.