Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 10, 2012

When Did The Pentagon Know About Benghazi?

Did the editor at the very recommendable Al-Akhbar read the piece s/he headline?

It is just a Reuters piece but headlined by Al-Akhbar as: Pentagon knew of Sept.11 Benghazi attack before it began. Before??? Before!!!

Yes, but before we jump into conspiracy theories let's read the first lines:

Pentagon leaders knew of the Sept. 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi an hour after it began, but were unable to mobilize reinforcements based in Europe in time to prevent the death of the US ambassador, according to a timeline released on Friday.


Puh. So after reading that we can be assured that everything that the government said to have happened in Benghazi really happened the way we are told it did. BTW - The original Reuters piece at the Reuters Canada site is headlined Pentagon releases Benghazi timeline, defends response.

Al-Akhbar only changed the headline but either the editor did a poor job or those folks put this up as a hint that they know something we do not yet know.

Any speculation what that might be? And how does this fit with the timing of Petraeus' resignation over the "All In" biographical research Paula Broadwell did in "The Education of David Petraeus"?

Posted by b on November 10, 2012 at 12:47 UTC | Permalink


well, the 2nd link is scubbed but the url says "pentagon-knew-sept11-benghazi-attack-it-began" which means something else altoghether.

Posted by: annie | Nov 10 2012 13:37 utc | 1

whoops, should read scrubbed.

Posted by: annie | Nov 10 2012 13:39 utc | 2

Must be read in broader context, of what compound actually was. Day after attack it was already reported that "The Facts of the Attack in Benghazi Are Far Worse Than Reported" , there being no US consulate/embassy/diplomatic outpost in Benghazi but a secret (from who?) CIA center to co-ordinate first NATO regime change and occupation of Libya, and then to continue game plan by smuggling arms and jihadists into Syria, gone awry when some jihadists turned out (again) not to be so much on our side after all.

It has been widely reported that Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin left compound at 8:30PM, and that the blockade of 100-150 well armed and clearly marked (on pickups) was in place by 8:00 PM. Hence Turk had to know what was going on when he safely left, before ~9:30 Pm attack, going through the blockade.

Keep plugging away folks, and connecting the dots. It smells to me like this nut will crack. Seems lesson from Watergate that the coverup is worse than the crime still needs to be learned.

Posted by: erichwwk | Nov 10 2012 14:08 utc | 3

Since most of the US foreign policy is a lie, why would a small scale attack, and the fact someone lied about the details be a revelation? Because an ambassador died? The US kills hundreds of innocents monthly, but that's not a problem. If we have a problem with innocent folks dying, maybe the US should quit sticking it's nose in other countries business. Just a thought.

Posted by: ben | Nov 10 2012 15:07 utc | 4


I think these are the reasons why this attack happened:

The CIA was task with acquiring weapons and to distribute those to "reliable" forces in Syria.
There are other forces in Syria and Libya, mostly Jihadis, that are not deemed "reliable". Some of these have support from the Saudis and Qatar. (There are also likely some special operation forces on the ground in Syria. Do we know with what groups those are working?)

Fact is the CIA was between some of the fighters and the weapons (MANPADS) they urgently wanted.

The attack (and the diversion sideshow at the embassy in Egypt) was to remove the CIA as the weapon filter. Those who attacked were tacitly supported by the militias the CIA was working with (Explains the four hour hold up at the airport and other things).

A day after Stevens died there was a move to push Ansar al Islam out of the barracks they used. But that was not the only one. There was another move to push another militia out of military barracks. Several people got killed when they were overrun. That group though was working with the Libyan government and was actually guarding a big bunch of weapons. We never learned what happened to those but my bet is that some of those weapons are now in Syria (and others in the Sinai).

One wonders why the CIA thought it could hold back weapons from certain groups without being attacked by those groups. A major failure of preemptive analysis.

I started to write a bigger piece about this but have not had time yet to finish it.

Posted by: b | Nov 10 2012 17:30 utc | 5

One wonders why the CIA thought it could hold back weapons from certain groups without being attacked by those groups.

i think that person sean smith(is that his name, the online gaming expert who was killed?)could be the key in answering that phenomena. spend too much time in that reality and it all becomes some mental headspace where anything is possible if you're faster than the next guy. too much sense of power and invincibility.

Posted by: annie | Nov 10 2012 17:42 utc | 6

b, i have not been following this closely but fox news (maybe others for all i know) has previously reported the consulate called for backup earlier in the day when they intercepted their guards photographing the compound and something about weapons caches. perhaps that's what's meant by Pentagon knew of attack before it began.

Posted by: annie | Nov 10 2012 17:46 utc | 7

b's conjecture is interesting to be sure. what I find difficult to understand is why one of militant factions fighting in Syria would attack the US now. That has to be extremely self-defeating. As we see the US seems to be backing away from supporting the Syrian war. It will also make that faction a target in Libya -- the US can bribe other militias to unite against this one. That would have to be extremely shortsighted on their part.

I am wondering if the Syrians managed to penetrate one of the local militias and succeeded in convincing them to do the deed. At this point the major beneficiary of Stevens death is the Assad government.

Posted by: ToivoS | Nov 10 2012 18:03 utc | 8

(Neither links worked for me so I can’t address them.)

As I wrote before, with modern communications, many know instantly what is going on. Pretending to lack info is ridiculous. From the US top levels? Give me a break. If not, then they don’t even watch Twitter! (not that twitter afaik was important in the Benghazi matter.)

Whenever some atrocity happens there are ppl who ‘knew’ or ‘felt they knew’ or ‘predicted’ and so on. Some will have had intuitions, or even some info, either appearing solid, or rumors which can be dismissed, but which prove true post hoc. etc.

Others will have seen nothing coming. The predictors, even if not attested to as expressing themselves, gain kudos. That is a sort of ‘general’ case which applies for ex. to established serial killers, one person. (e.g. Harold Shipman.)

So-called ‘terrorist’ attacks are much murkier, as after the fact, it always appears that many different factions, ppl, collaborated to effect them. The Madrid bombings are a case in point. Or 7/7 in London. Too many have a stake in false flag terror: police, para-military, special services, security sellers, Gvmt, politicans of very stripe, arms and defense, even bus drivers, local vigilantes, hysterical mothers at the PTA, racists, low-lifes who demand a wad of cash, and on and on..

Stevens being killed in Benghazi was surely due to unforeseen circumstances. He was the charismatic point-man. The US took its presence in Lybia very casually, and did not pay attention to ‘intl. law’ or what one might call proper procedure, neglecting relations that should be documented and accounted for, following some principles, accords, etc.

The point man went round with his blond charm to effect this or that.

Superiority can claim privileges and ignorance. Doesn’t work out too well, sometimes.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 10 2012 18:38 utc | 9

Thanks, b. Pretty much how I see it, with exception that Stevens may already have become aware that one cannot micro-manage weapons and jihadist whose agendas vary from self selected king, and may already have started a general pull back to prevent a scale of weapons in uncontrollable hands. Clearly, the events unfolded in a much bigger way than was controllable from US.

In any case, good stuff here, helps us all. Thank you, b etal

Posted by: erichwwk | Nov 10 2012 19:03 utc | 10

An interesting twist... Anonymous May Have Hacked Petraeus Mistress

Broadwell's personal email appears on a list of compromised accounts of the commercial intelligence firm Stratfor.

Posted by: CTuttle | Nov 10 2012 21:16 utc | 11

Another Turkish helicopter crashed, killed 17 Turkish soldiers.

Posted by: nikon | Nov 10 2012 21:55 utc | 12

David Petraeus was inbedded with Paula Broadwel so the DICK protocol became relevant [Doing Insane Coitus not Kraftwerk]. Throughout history many instances of coincidence turned out to be carefully planned accidents.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 10 2012 23:37 utc | 13

@ Noirette,

Q: Stevens being killed...

R: Stevens died of smoke inhalation in a secure room inside the compound of Benghazi, that's as far as it can possibly get from 'being killed' on purpose.

'If you want to use propaganda, spread it wisely." Sam Tzu - The Art of Words

[fwiiw: 'Benghazi' is local Libyan slang dating back to WW II and actually means 'When geht die Nazi?']

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 10 2012 23:51 utc | 14

I agree with you b. on part of it, however there is much more connected to Benghazi

- 9/11 protests because of the movie were not just in Egypt and Libya they were all over the Middle East - notice the strange spin of the Guardian article

While across the Middle East and wider Muslim world Friday was a day of demonstrations, burning and violence, in Benghazi tears were shed. They came from Yousef al-Magariaf, president of Libya's new parliament, as he described the death of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his colleagues.

"Definitely, it was a deliberate attack," said al-Magariaf as the city braced for further protests over the crude video, the Innocence of Muslims. He insisted it was an assassination, and not a riot gone wrong.

"It was a prepared attack in every sense of the word. I was given details of this by witnesses and this makes me 100% sure that this was pre-planned to hit at the core of the relationship between Libya and the United States."

While events in Libya were relatively peaceful, that was not true for other cities that saw violent clashes – among them Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, where the German embassy was burned and the British embassy attacked. Last night, US Marine were reportedly on their way to Sudan.

- the translation into Arabic and the promotion of the movie in Egypt - timed for 9/11?

- the way Romney did / did not use events in his campaign - the way Republicans in general tried to use it - it fell flat

- the way Israel and Gulf countries wanted the Republicans to win7
- the way Shia and Sunni were united in the protests
- there are drones flying over Benghazi - the Benghazi CIA station presumably was involved there too
- the Iranian Red Crescent hostages
- the way the CIA trusted a local militia
- the way nobody in the US seems to want to fight al Qeida any more

I guess a lot of different actors with different motives contributed to this and/or used this as cover

Posted by: somebody | Nov 10 2012 23:53 utc | 15

At this point the major beneficiary of Stevens death is the Assad government.

that's one of the strangest things i have heard about the benghazi attack.

Posted by: annie | Nov 11 2012 0:18 utc | 16

I agree, "At this point the major beneficiary of Stevens death is the Assad government." A month later Wissam Hasan was killed in Lebanon. He may well have been involved with Hariri in getting weapons into Syria via Lebanon. Here again, the major beneficiary would have been Syria, although his death removed a person that helped hold together the US-allied opposition in Lebanon.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that Syria or its friends have been working to identify key individuals involved in the shadowy networks that the "international community" uses instead of direct intervention and gives them plausible deniability with the public.

Obviously these shadowy networks are not robust, precisely because they need to remain under cover. And elimination of some key individuals can set back the anti-Assad program.

Posted by: JohnH | Nov 11 2012 0:37 utc | 17

It looks like someone doesn't really want these so called 'Syrian Freedom Fighters' to actually win. Now, who could that be and who has the means to covertly do this?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 11 2012 0:46 utc | 18

Was Chris Stevens tortured/killed the same way Gaddafi was -- the photos were graphic and gruesome -- and was that a message to Hillary Clinton, who cackled at news of MQ's death, "We came, we saw, he died, Hah hah hah hah ha."

Posted by: Landon | Nov 11 2012 0:52 utc | 19

fetish over 9/11 is an American thing, a form of auto-eroticism Americans need to feel righteous about killing 'em over there. Hard to imagine Muslims/Middle Easterners make a big deal about 9/11. How many Americans can name the date the Israeli attack on Gaza started?

Posted by: Landon | Nov 11 2012 0:59 utc | 20

@Daniel Rich #14, who wrote:[fwiiw: 'Benghazi' is local Libyan slang dating back to WW II and actually means 'When geht die Nazi?']

What is the basis for this allegation? (Don't have ANY knowledge of Arabic.) But "Placenames of the World" claims the name derives from "bani"- plural of ibn, sons, and ghazi (conqueror)and specifically to a monk whose tomb is north of the city

Posted by: erichwwk | Nov 11 2012 1:15 utc | 21

annie wonders: that's one of the strangest things i have heard about the benghazi attack.

Well I am basing my statement on the evidence that the US is starting to get cold feet on supporting the Syrian war. I am assuming that we are because of the blow back in Benghazi. Perhaps I am over-interpreting our recent actions towards the Syrian rebels but it looks like we do not want to escalate that conflict and may be looking for a way out. If so, then that would have to be something Assad would find in his favor.

Posted by: ToivoS | Nov 11 2012 1:20 utc | 22

#ANKARA, (SANA) – Abu Abdo, weapons smuggler who channels weapons and money from Turkey to Syria, said that the government of Development and Justice party (AKP) is playing the major role in facilitating weapons smuggling and opening the borders for terrorists to cross to Syria.

AFP quoted Abu Abdo as saying that "If Turkey tightens the security on the Syrian-Turkish borders, then the 'repels' will lose in ten days."

Abu Abdo added that he has information that confirms that Turkish weapons have been purchased by Saudi and Qatari money as to be smuggled to Syria.

Abu Abdo confessed to smuggling communication devices, vests, weapons and munitions to the so-called 'free army', adding that lots of goods, including food, medicine and other basic materials, are being brought to Syria from abroad because of the international sanctions imposed on the county.


Posted by: brian | Nov 11 2012 1:52 utc | 23

@b 5 -

One wonders why the CIA thought it could hold back weapons from certain groups without being attacked by those groups. A major failure of preemptive analysis.
there was a piece somewhere describing militia leaders swearing their loyalty to the Us and dead Stevens, and implying there was some kind of mutiny in their ranks

maybe "the blockade of 100-150 well armed" (erichwwk #3) wasn't a blockade, they were militias waiting for the delivery of the manpads, who rioted when the Turkish consul general told them the americans wouldn't hand them over, and decided then and there to get them by force, and then also to seek revenge, probably enticed by AQ-type groups; maybe the later attack with mortars against the "safe house" was exclusively done by AQ

so the CIA were sure of the leaders' loyalties, but failed to judge "the mood on the ground"; but apparently Stevens was aware of AQ infiltration in the militias and asked - belatedly - for more security

but I read elsewhere (the interview of an eyewitness) that those men showed up unexpectedly, which is contradictory with the blockade account

Posted by: claudio | Nov 11 2012 2:29 utc | 24

@ erichwwk,

That was my attempt @ being funny [When do the Nazis leave/go home?]. Well, back to the drawing board.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 11 2012 4:25 utc | 25

@ Toivos

Q: At this point the major beneficiary of Stevens death is the Assad government.

R: Explain this thesis in full detail, please.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 11 2012 7:05 utc | 26

@Daniel Rich

See my response to annie @22. It may not be full detail but it is logically coherent.

Posted by: ToivoS | Nov 11 2012 7:45 utc | 27

maybe we are making too much of Stevens' role in Libya; CIA special operations probably weren't under his control; this might help understand certain mistakes committed; also his request for stronger security sounds strange, it makes him look as a subordinate in an operation, not someone who controls resources

Posted by: claudio | Nov 11 2012 12:51 utc | 28

oh, so the CIA in Benghazi took prisoners and the militia tried to get them out ...

It is in question time at the end of the video around 35, the whole video is worth watching ...

Posted by: somebody | Nov 11 2012 22:23 utc | 29

@ ToivoS,

Q: It may not be full detail but it is logically coherent.

R: To you perhaps, but I don't find any logic in why this act benefits Syria. It is obvious that Russia will do anything to keep its base/harbor facility in Syria and also Iran doesn't want to lose an ally. Strangely enough you do not mention Israel, a country that doesn't want Wahhabi neighbors. You must have your reasons... There are various if not endless options in this murky wheelin' and dealin', so I'm very reluctant to start pointing fingers in one direction or another. Facts..., what do we really know?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 12 2012 0:48 utc | 30

"...Israel, a country that doesn't want Wahhabi neighbors."
Why would it not want them? It seems to get on very well with the Saud family's spiritual counsellors.

Posted by: bevin | Nov 12 2012 3:30 utc | 31

@Daniel Rich

I am not sure why you don't see my argument.

Let's break it down. First, I think there is some evidence that the US is backing away from supporting the Syrian war. That assertion can be disputed and I will admit that the evidence we have is quite meager. I further admit that this might be wrong. However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is true and the US is working to "walk back" its policy of escalating the Syrian war then it is indisputable that this would benefit the Assad regime.

Second, assuming my first point is true then we can wonder why the US is now becoming more cautious in Syria. My hypothesis is that this relates to the fiasco in Libya. Namely some of those forces that we supported in Libya are the same forces that killed our ambassador. It is not a big stretch that those terrorists in Libya that killed our ambassador are ideologically and operationally linked to the rebel forces that are fighting Assad.

Hence it would be logical for the US to maybe step back and realize that we shouldn't be giving active support to these terrorist organizations.

That in a nut shell is my argument supporting the statement that "the major beneficiary of Stevens death is the Assad government". That should not be a difficult idea to accept.

Now going back to my major conjecture that Syrian intelligence was involved in the attack I will have to admit that this is pure speculation and without any evidence
at this point.

Posted by: ToivoS | Nov 12 2012 5:30 utc | 32

japanese regime servants of empire and supporters of terrorism,...youd think with their history theyd know better!

theyre only doing it because of pressure from the US....syria can retaliate by supporting China in the fracas over certain islands

Posted by: brian | Nov 12 2012 5:53 utc | 33

It looks like someone doesn't really want these so called 'Syrian Freedom Fighters' to actually win. Now, who could that be and who has the means to covertly do this?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 10, 2012 7:46:34 PM | 18

thatd be the syrian government and people....

Posted by: brian | Nov 12 2012 5:54 utc | 34

@ ToivoS,

Q: ...then it is indisputable that this would benefit the Assad regime.

R: Question - who benefits if the Assad regime stays in power? Everything points at an accidental killing of Stevens, so why are you so sure the Syrians were behind it?

Iran, Russia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon all can do without raging trouble across their borders. In the shady world of mercenary wars, pawns are very expendable. Who tells you it wasn't a US special ops to get the US pop. behind more spending on mindless wars?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 12 2012 6:06 utc | 35

Russia as in their precious harbor.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 12 2012 6:07 utc | 36

Daniel Rich asks: R: Question - who benefits if the Assad regime stays in power? Everything points at an accidental killing of Stevens, so why are you so sure the Syrians were behind it?

Groan you are not listening. I am NOT sure the Syrians were involved. What I said is that the Assad regime is the probably the beneficiary.

Try this as an analogy. Iran benefited from the US war against Iraq, that toppled Hussein and put a Shiite government in its place. Does that mean that Iran was behind Bush's decision to attack Iraq? No, not at all. That decision was made in America by many deluded officials. Rational people people can and should criticize the Bush admin for its stupidity but it does not mean that we think Iran is responsible.

who benefits if the Assad regime stays in power? I was not addressing this point at all. Personally I think the world would be better off if he dropped dead tomorrow but what I think ought to happen is not important. What seems to be happening right now in real life, not what you or I wish to see happen, is that Assad's position today is stronger then it was a few months back.

Finally my comments here did not deal with Iran, Russia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. They are all players in this conflict and are pursuing their own perceived national interests. I am sure that they have a much better understanding than I do of the importance of the Benghazi attack on our consulate. MoA is a place where nonplayers like myself can speculate on what might be going on behind the scenes.

Posted by: ToivoS | Nov 12 2012 7:37 utc | 37

but tovio, i'm just not clear why you'd choose syria as opposed to any other adversary of the current US admin. this was a down for the US. so basically any adversary of the US (or the US admin) could be seen as benefiting.

now who has access, motivation, and the most to lose? assad? libya? iran? as a matter of fact isn't the US currently involved in backing away from the SNC and backing the SNL? by assuming assad has the most to lose you are presuming what happens in syria means the most to...syria or assad. but the empire's primary interest in syria is what? who is the regional threat wrt hegemony?

daniel 35 Who tells you it wasn't a US special ops to get the US pop. behind more spending on mindless wars?

Who tells you it wasn't a US special ops to get the US pop. behind dumping obama? now who had the access, motivation, and the most to lose by his second term?


Posted by: annie | Nov 12 2012 8:46 utc | 38

Here's a theory for you - there is no conspiracy.

Stevens died in an attack at the hands of a group of irate Libyans - taking out their anger towards an American film ridiculing Islam by targeting an American. One might push this analysis of events to say that former Gaddafi supporters used the ill feeling as cover for an act of revenge.

This could have been disastrous for Obama in the run up to the election - so the administration couldn't decide on who best to use as a scapegoat.

Their hesitation over who to blame, coupled with speculation about Stevens' role in Libya has fuelled the conspiracy theories, but I see little logic in them.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Nov 12 2012 9:47 utc | 39

@ annie,

My point was that any theory is valid, because we don't have access to the [real] facts. Without ppl on the ground and/or at the scene/s we're all second-guessing, so much so, that we'd almost forget that we've no right to keep changing regimes left and right or look the other way when our 'friends' our 'bastions of freedom, democracy and equality' do the bidding. Wasn't Petraeus critical of Israel back in 2010 [or 11]? Everything I've seen and heard points at an accidental death [Stevens]. Does anyone know how the other 3 died?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 12 2012 10:51 utc | 40

@ Pat Bateman,

If theory =

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

why would conspiracy theory be a bad thing?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Nov 12 2012 10:54 utc | 41

Stephen died because of his open homosexuality. His disregard for Islamic sensitivity. He thought he was invincible. In 2010, Petraeus did write some criticism of the US-Israeli ties in his written testimony to Congress. Let me quote briefly: "the enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests" in the Middle East". See this about a close confidant of Petraeus. Watch out Dempsey, the Zionist will be after you! Is there any connection with what is happening in Russia the taking down of the defense minister and the chief of staff after a visit of the war criminal Peres? Is Russia going to change it's stand on Syria to neutral. Could it be the reason why Israel is so cocky sure that it will get away with bombing Syria and attacking Gaza?

Posted by: hans | Nov 12 2012 11:28 utc | 42

'i'm just not clear why you'd choose syria as opposed to any other adversary of the current US admin'

syria is not US's adversary....US regimes are syrias adversaries

Posted by: brian | Nov 12 2012 12:45 utc | 43

Maximilian C. Forte’s new book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa (released November 20) is a searing indictment of NATO’s 2011 military intervention in Libya, and of the North American and European left that supported it. He argues that NATO powers, with the help of the Western left who “played a supporting role by making substantial room for the dominant U.S. narrative and its military policies,” marshalled support for their intervention by creating a fiction that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was about to carry out a massacre against a popular, pro-democracy uprising, and that the world could not stand idly by and watch a genocide unfold.

Forte takes this view apart, showing that a massacre was never in the cards, much less genocide. Gaddafi didn’t threaten to hunt down civilians, only those who had taken up armed insurrection—and he offered rebels amnesty if they laid down their arms. What’s more, Gaddafi didn’t have the military firepower to lay siege to Benghazi (site of the initial uprising) and hunt down civilians from house to house. Nor did his forces carry out massacres in the towns they recaptured…something that cannot be said for the rebels.

Posted by: brian | Nov 12 2012 13:01 utc | 44

wouldn't our airbase at Tamrasset be closer than Europe? Do we have bases in Italy, or points South/East that could more quickly accessed?

Posted by: scottindallas | Nov 12 2012 14:29 utc | 45

I agree that in the absence of the complete story, others are valid. Speculation is warranted when it's obvious that the government, which constantly lies, is caught spinning yet another yarn.

So, if elements of the US government have decided to step back from supporting jihadis in Syria, they could be attacking groups supported by other elements of the US government who do support the jihadis...

I doubt that anyone in Washington knows what everyone on the payroll is doing. Case in point: in addition to Operation Fast and Furious, a drug hitman recently testified that the US Border Patrols sold weapons to cartel hitmen.

The left hand may not know what the right hand is doing, but it's certainly good business for merchants of death.

Posted by: JohnH | Nov 12 2012 15:57 utc | 46

so yes there were prisoners and yes the CIA was not supposed to do this

In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIA’s Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of Sept. 12.

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.

The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.

The CIA, though, categorically denied these allegations, saying: “The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”

Posted by: somebody | Nov 12 2012 16:14 utc | 47

@ Daniel Rich

Conspiracy theories are no bad thing, but I prefer those that are logical, with supporting evidence...otherwise they're just paranoid ramblings.

Generally, the quality on here is good

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Nov 12 2012 16:43 utc | 48

The comments to this entry are closed.