The US mission in Benghazi that came under attack by militants on September 11 was mainly
a secret CIA operation, the
Wall Street Journal reports, shedding new light on the deadly assault.
President Barack Obama's administration has faced a storm of pre-election questions about why there was not more security at the US consulate where four Americans, including ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed on September 11.
The
Wall Street Journal said on Friday the mission was mainly a CIA operation, adding that of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the assault, just seven worked for the State Department.
It also identified the two security contractors killed in the attack - former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty - as working for the Central Intelligence Agency and not the State Department.
In a break from tradition, it said CIA director David Petraeus did not attend the ceremony when the coffins arrived back on American soil in order to conceal the CIA operation in eastern Libya.
It said the nearly two dozen CIA operatives secretly worked out of a separate building known as the "annex", where officials at the consulate had retreated following the initial attack before coming under fire again.
The operation, which hit the ground shortly after the start of the February 2011 revolt that overthrew Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, was aimed at counterterrorism and securing heavy weapons held by the embattled regime.
The
Journal suggested that the security lapse may have been caused by miscommunication between the CIA and the State Department, with the latter assuming the annex security team was a sufficient backup for its own guards.
"They were the cavalry," it quoted a senior US official as saying.
The
Journal said that
the day after the attack, the CIA sent Libyan security officials to the annex to destroy classified documents and sensitive equipment while leaving the charred and ransacked consulate - which by design had contained no classified materials - unattended.
Comment: That this was a CIA command post goes some way towards explaining why they were more concerned with preventing documents from getting in the wrong hands than with protecting the civilian embassy staff. The anti-NATO resistance forces were obviously fully aware that the CIA was using the compound to direct its proxy war against the Libyan people, so they legitimately attacked it.
Incidentally, Sott.net called this last week:
Benghazi Attacks, Political Theatre and Wild Speculations
[...]
Let's take a look one-by-one at five theories circulating the net on who was behind the attacks:
1. Mossad-instigated at the request of Netanyahu in a bid to interfere with the U.S. election
2. Collaboration between the Neocons, Mitt Romney presidential campaigners and the CIA Mormon Mafia
3. Team Obama plotting a heroic voter-rousing rescue of a kidnapped Ambassador that went badly wrong
4. Libya's Green Resistance with NATO cover-up
5. Resistance fighters after documents containing names of Libyans who are working with Americans
[...]
Using [Occam's Razor] to select the simplest explanation, it would appear that a combination of 4 and 5 are most probable. The resistance force in Libya against the US-led NATO occupation is much stronger than Western powers would care to admit. Documents containing names of which Libyans are working with American occupiers and oil contracts would be highly valuable to those wishing to destabilise the occupying force. The Western mainstream media, a dubious video and political debates play their role in spreading confusion and disinformation to cover-up continued anger over the mass-murder of innocent civilians with 'humanitarian' bombing campaigns.
And J
oe Quinn was more or less the first to call it 6 weeks ago.
Almost surely, someone is trying to make hay on this story to influence the election in the U.S.
The CIA is ALWAYS involved in US diplomatic groups overseas. Isn't that well known?
So what is the revelation here?
On top of that, I believe it is widely agreed that the president really doesn't control the CIA, or at least not every part of it. So we can't assume he was involved in this attack, though he could have been.
And if the attack was done partly in the hopes of helping Romney, that doesn't mean that he would be aware of that fact, either.
I see this incident as some sort of maneuver organized by people that are part of no public entity for purposes that aren't that clear because they are one of the best sources of "leaks" (disinfo) about such incidents.
We are being played around with, and four Americans lost their lives in the process, They knew their jobs were dangerous, but someone in that position usually expects to be killed by the enemy, don't they?
But as far as I'm concerned, whoever killed them is the enemy. I just don't think anyone can agree on who that is.