Never mind the Snowden defection to the
Soviet Union Russia (which really is an old-style defection, with a decent interval to fool the American media); how about Obama’s obviously risible claim that “Al Qaeda is on the run.” Yeah, because one way you keep terrorists on the run is to . . . close 21 embassies. Riiiighht.
This warning is supposedly based on increased “chatter.” I expect this is true. I also suspect Al Qaeda isn’t stupid–especially if they’re getting advice from a first class intelligence service from someplace like–oh, I don’t know, how about Tehran–so they’ll work our chatter collectors for the purpose of misdirection. So I suspect if there is an attack, it will happen in a location somewhere else. More likely, there will be no attack at all; it will be used by Obama to claim a triumph of pre-emptive action, while Al Qaeda will use it to learn what works and doesn’t work in concealing their communications and planning from us. They’re patient. Next time the “chatter” will be our chattering class afterward wondering why we didn’t “connect the dots.”
Still another theory is that there is no threat at all. Benghazi is creeping back into the headlines. Coincidence?