Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

seafan

(9,387 posts)
48. On Benghazi, just as Seymour Hersh wrote in 2014
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 05:11 PM
Oct 2015

From Seymour Hersh in April 2014, in a post I put together on October 3:

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)


The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Washington abruptly ended the CIA’s role in the transfer of arms from Libya after the attack on the consulate, but the rat line kept going. ‘The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,’ the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels.


Barring a major change in policy by Obama, Turkey’s meddling in the Syrian civil war is likely to go on. ‘I asked my colleagues if there was any way to stop Erdoğan’s continued support for the rebels, especially now that it’s going so wrong,’ the former intelligence official told me. ‘The answer was: “We’re screwed.” We could go public if it was somebody other than Erdoğan, but Turkey is a special case. They’re a Nato ally. The Turks don’t trust the West. They can’t live with us if we take any active role against Turkish interests. If we went public with what we know about Erdoğan’s role with the gas, it’d be disastrous. The Turks would say: “We hate you for telling us what we can and can’t do.”’



CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya, WSJ, Nov. 1, 2012 9:05 p.m. ET

When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.


The coordinated attacks stirred up a political hornet's nest over whether the administration provided adequate security and whether it was forthcoming with its assessment of what happened. In the election season, that cast a shadow over the Obama administration's foreign policy record.



Well, THAT seems to be a calculated strategy by those who wanted to torpedo Obama, no? Seymour Hersh warned about that as well.


More from the WSJ:

Nearly eight weeks after the attacks, a complete accounting hasn't emerged in public view. The brunt of the public criticism for security lapses has so far been directed at the State Department, rather than the CIA, which, by design, operates largely in the shadows. Critics in Congress say the CIA has used secrecy in part to shield itself from blame—a charge officials close to the agency deny.

This account of the CIA presence in Benghazi sheds new light on the events, and how the essentially covert nature of the U.S. operations there created confusion. Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate.


The spy agency was the first to set up shop. It began building up its presence there soon after the Libyan revolution started in February 2011. The uprising overturned what had been a tight working relationship between the Gadhafi regime's spy services and the Americans, creating a gap that the CIA presence sought to fill, officials said.

The CIA worked from a compound publicly referred to as the "annex," which was given a State Department office name to disguise its purpose. The agency focused on countering proliferation and terrorist threats, said an American security contractor who has worked closely with CIA, the Pentagon and State. A main concern was the spread of weapons and militant influences throughout the region, including in Mali, Somalia and Syria, this person said.

Libyan officials say they were kept in the dark about what the CIA was doing in Benghazi.


This whole sordid story is also described here:

Benghazi consulate that came under attack by Al Qaeda militants was being used for CIA operations, 2 December 2012 (From the UK, of course.)


This whole nest of traitorous snakes needs to be flushed out. General 'Betrayus' was a highly accurate characterization, way back when.

Incalculable opportunities to make the world a more humane place, and they have repeatedly been forfeited by those at the pinnacle of power.


Thanks for helping get the word out, blm.





Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I agree sandyshoes17 Oct 2015 #1
Is there a way for Hillary to trip them up and make them reveal that it was a CIA op that went bad? kelliekat44 Oct 2015 #28
at the very beginning The Tortoise revealed that there was a CIA presence there Angry Dragon Oct 2015 #32
Yet NONE of that comes out at these bullshit 'hearings'. blm Oct 2015 #55
I think it possible that both sides could be trying to lay that bait blm Oct 2015 #42
This isn't your fault but I hate it when a link directs me to an article behind a paywall tularetom Oct 2015 #2
Sorry - it wasn't behind a paywall when I posted it previously. blm Oct 2015 #3
There's a simple way to get around the WSJ paywall starroute Oct 2015 #5
Daily Mail picked up on WSJ report: blm Oct 2015 #6
Here's some links with info Ichingcarpenter Oct 2015 #7
Notice the absence of broadcast 'news' networks who ignored these facts blm Oct 2015 #8
I called it a CIA clustefuck from the beginning Ichingcarpenter Oct 2015 #9
Remember to thank our BFEE overlords for over 5 decades of Mideast madness. blm Oct 2015 #11
Yep. H2O Man Oct 2015 #12
And also know State cannot publicly admit it concedes to CIA on these matters blm Oct 2015 #13
Right. H2O Man Oct 2015 #14
+1 mmonk Oct 2015 #26
Aren't most State Department operations really just fronts? erronis Oct 2015 #25
Truth being that all 4 men killed knew they were acting with/for CIA. blm Oct 2015 #33
YEY YES YES SoLeftIAmRight Oct 2015 #4
Recommended. H2O Man Oct 2015 #10
Well, assuming it was a big gun-running operation, did the State Dept. know about it? TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #15
I'm with David Talbot - No prez has crossed 'Deep State' since Kennedy. blm Oct 2015 #16
I'd like a REAL investigation. Because something illegal/unethical may have occurred. TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #17
"This is blowback from CIA Bullshit run from a backwater embassy." bvar22 Oct 2015 #18
That secret CIA operation is the real Benghazi scandal. Comrade Grumpy Oct 2015 #19
Yes - further proof that GOP has NO INTEREST in the truth about Benghazi. blm Oct 2015 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author Comrade Grumpy Oct 2015 #20
They keep repeating that it was an "embassy" too. Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #22
consulate with an annex being used by CIA just doesn't fit the GOP's storyline blm Oct 2015 #23
It was the size of a mini-mall too. Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #29
Gowdy wants America to believe that Blumenthal is more relevant than Petraeus' blm Oct 2015 #34
He wants to prove there was a political motive to cover it up prior to the election.... Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #39
LOLOLOLOL!!!! blm Oct 2015 #41
Petraeus' game was to make more war a go-go. Octafish Oct 2015 #24
Salute blm Oct 2015 #38
It was more of a CIA operation than a State Department operation... kentuck Oct 2015 #27
They are, but, they have to make the narrative they adopted for political reasons blm Oct 2015 #31
Yep. kentuck Oct 2015 #49
hey, old buddy…. blm Oct 2015 #52
That is EXACTLY what this is about, actually. joshcryer Oct 2015 #30
Dems are always at a disadvantage as they won't out CIA operatives while Republican blm Oct 2015 #36
Yup. K&R! nt riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #35
Perhaps some crowdsourcing action on the side too .. MinM Oct 2015 #37
They were running guns to al nusra in Syria AngryAmish Oct 2015 #40
Call me stupid, but if that's the case (and I believe it is) ... Myrina Oct 2015 #43
They know that DEEP STATE CIA answers to no president. Making it an issue would blm Oct 2015 #44
Saving link, thanks! Myrina Oct 2015 #45
Once its understood it can never be un-understood. blm Oct 2015 #47
Good article. ronnie624 Oct 2015 #58
Abso-fvcking-lutely!!!!! blm Oct 2015 #62
K & R !!! WillyT Oct 2015 #46
On Benghazi, just as Seymour Hersh wrote in 2014 seafan Oct 2015 #48
Hey, seaman……. long time. blm Oct 2015 #63
But why won't the administration jamzrockz Oct 2015 #50
LOLOL - You think a President Rand Paul would throw CIA under the bus on a matter blm Oct 2015 #51
President Paul jamzrockz Oct 2015 #53
Baloney on Paul - the entire point of Deep State is that no prez actually controls blm Oct 2015 #57
Pm Kick!! nt riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #54
kick for people to wake up and smell the capuccino librechik Oct 2015 #56
i assume this is why petraeus hasn't been called in front of this committee. spanone Oct 2015 #59
Exactly, their vote-getting storyline would be shot to pieces. blm Oct 2015 #61
.. which happened to take place on 9/11. ucrdem Oct 2015 #60
k&r nt Electric Monk Oct 2015 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»ONE simple fact: Benghazi...»Reply #48