Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 16, 2016

Clinton Lied - Benghazi Attack Was Part Of A Larger Operation

The conservative group Judicial Watch has FOIAed documents of then Secretary of State Clinton related to the September 11 2012 attack in Benghazi which killed a U.S. ambassador and several CIA honchos. The documents prove that the Obama administration knew that the attack in Benghazi was part of an Al-Qaeda operation. Clinton and the Obama administration have publicly claimed the attack was in reaction to some anti-Muslim movie that was circling on the Internet.

That was obviously nonsense. My post about the incidents written in the early morning of September 12 was headlined: U.S. Ambo in Benghazi Killed In AQ Operation. All known facts pointed to that conclusion.

The documents Judicial Watch got released through several Freedom of Information court decisions confirm that my take was correct and that Clinton and the Obama administration knew that the attack in Benghazi was part of a well organized al-Qaeda operation.

From the Judicial Watch press release:

Judicial Watch announced today it has obtained new documents from the Department of State containing the telephone transcripts from the evening of September 11, 2012, in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informs then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi “had nothing to do with the film.”
Similarly, Judicial Watch litigation also forced the release of the September 11, 2012 email in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed her daughter by email that the attack had been staged by an “Al Qaeda-like group,” rather than as the result of “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier.

In her phone call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Clinton also said:

Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for these is associated with Al-Qaeda.

The known facts let me believe that the group who planned and initiated the attack was not only "associated with Al-Qaeda" but the Al-Qaeda leadership itself.

September 11 2012, U.S. Embassy Cairo

Consider again the circumstances as detailed in my earlier piece. On September 11 2012 three things happen:

- Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri releases a video, coinciding with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, in which he for the first time confirms that his deputy Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed in on June 4 in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan. The name affix "al-Libi" means that the man was from Libya.

- The brother of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri attends the storming of the courtyard of the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The "protesters" take down, ripp (vid) and burn the U.S. flag and raise the Al-Qaeda flag. - A pre-planned attack takes place at the U.S. office in Benghazi (which is near to the Egyptian border) in which the U.S. ambassador gets killed. Later that evening another attack, with pre-registered mortar fire, takes place against a CIA house in Benghazi.

It was obvious that these three incidents were intimately related and part of one plan.

So why did the Obama administration lie about that?

Since at least 2011 the U.S. has allied with Al-Qaeda in regime change operations in Libya and in Syria. Killing al-Libi while being allied was out of bounce and the Zawahiri operation reminded the U.S. of that. The U.S. was also involved in the transfer of weapons and Al-Qaeda aligned militants from Libya via Turkey to Syria. Hours before he was killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi had talks with a Turkish consular official who played an organizing role in the operation.

Both issue could not be revealed to the public. They would have embarrassed the administration and the operation would have to be shut down. Thus the lie of the "spontaneous demonstrations against a movie" in Cairo and Benghazi was put forward as a cover up for the ongoing U.S. alliance with Al-Qaeda in the common attempt to destroy the state of Syria.

Posted by b on April 16, 2016 at 17:00 UTC | Permalink


Now to force these facts into the political discourse and further discredit Clinton by proving yet again she lacks "competence."

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 16 2016 17:10 utc | 1

My guess a lot of voters will just ignore, or absorb, it. Something along the lines of 'Well if you're dealing with the likes of AQ why be honest?'

Posted by: dh | Apr 16 2016 17:17 utc | 2

This to me was the big story (and thank you b for your earlier report and this timely continuation) which was obfuscated completely during the Congressional investigation. Benghazi has remained an open wound because of the clandestine operations underway there - I remember a reporter standing at the scene among scattered documents of questionable character.

A pair of congressmen have introduced a bill to have arms shipments to Saudi Arabia more carefully scrutinized because of how they are being used to slaughter Yemeni citizens buying food. Why not completely prohibited? is my question. Benghazi was all about arms shipments. I know it's a tall order, but could we not build wind farms instead?

Posted by: juliania | Apr 16 2016 17:26 utc | 3

dh @2

Except that the official Outlaw US Empire line is that al-Ciada is a primary terrorist threat, not the clandestine ally it's been since its inception.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 16 2016 17:35 utc | 4

Clinton lied, yes she is a compulsive liar, in fact she lies when it would serve her purposes better to tell the truth. Steven Lendman has her measure with this quote "Clinton appears unstoppable for her party’s nomination. Americans should be terrified about the possibility of a power-crazed lunatic as president - her finger on the nuclear trigger.
Possible global war with her in charge with weapons able to kill us all should scare everyone. Forget her gender. She’s a Wall Street supported war goddess, the most recklessly dangerous US presidential aspirant in modern memory.
Francis Boyle calls her “a certified psychopath and a war criminal.” Electing her president is unthinkable. She supports endless wars of aggression, Wall Street looting the nation’s wealth and ripping off investors, as well as unrestrained predatory crony capitalism.
She’s ideologically opposite what people should support - anti-populist, anti-labor, anti-rule of law principles and anti-democratic values.

Posted by: harrylaw | Apr 16 2016 17:44 utc | 5

Was the Benghazi op put forward as a cover up for U.S. alliance with Al-Qaeda in the common effort to destroy Syria or was it Libya that was being wrecked at that time?

Was Qadafi murdered before or after Benghazi op?

Posted by: fastfreddy | Apr 16 2016 17:50 utc | 6

@4 True. There's plenty of evidence to show that the US has been working with AQ especially in Syria. But I think a lot of Americans are incapable of accepting that. It gets filed with conspiracy theories.

Clinton should have been dumped by the Dem party by now.

Posted by: dh | Apr 16 2016 17:52 utc | 7

Here's CIA approved wiki:

Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed leader of Libya, died on 20 October 2011 during the Battle of Sirte. Gaddafi was found hiding in a culvert west of Sirte and captured by National Transitional Council forces. He was killed shortly afterwards. The NTC initially claimed he died from injuries sustained in a firefight when loyalist forces attempted to free him, although videos of his last moments show rebel fighters beating him before he was shot several times.[2]

National Transitional Council - yet another name for AlQaida?

I thought the video showed Gaddafi being knifed.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Apr 16 2016 17:56 utc | 8

Ans. no.6 Gadaffi had been murdered nearly one year before Bengasi on October 20, 2011. This was all about Syria.

Posted by: BrenWils | Apr 16 2016 18:02 utc | 9

If Sanders is out, the American will have to choose between Donald Duck and Pinnochia.. Such a unique country indeed!

Posted by: virgile | Apr 16 2016 18:03 utc | 10

I really appreciate this further information, dot-connecting ... thanks!

Obama administration was in full amateur hour, "let's put on a show" mode ... they fabricated the cover story they thought they could sell to the American public ... they recycled Condi Rice's "no one could have imagined" and shamelessly blamed it on crazy Muslims (the media had been playing up the street demonstrations as if they endangered America, fueling "islamophobia" while rarely mentioning that "riots" are free-speech and business-as-usual and that many more had recently died in much worse soccer riots) ...

They tried desperately to make Chris Stevens into your local Eagle Scout and emphasized that the killing of an ambassador was a blue-moon unprecedented event ... and an OUTRAGE ... which was quickly debunked (list of embassy attacks) and Greece and Lebanon (covert CIA operations) were awkwardly mentioned ... and they didn't get the funereal motorcade and national cathedral photo-op they were going for.

The news blackout and heavy-handed muzzling of the CIA survivors obviously fueled the conspiracy minded ...

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Apr 16 2016 18:18 utc | 11

Trump “the Fascist”: Backdoor Backing of a Political Psychopath Named Hillary Clinton

The commonsense explanation of their ruffled bluster is because they are setting up ‘Trump-the- Straw-Dragon’ in order to promote the poisonous Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton as the ‘lesser evil candidate’ for President of the United States.

No serious observer minimally aware of Clinton’s carnal embrace of multiple simultaneous disastrous and destructive wars in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and Libya, could possibly support her – unless if they are convinced that a greater danger looms on the horizon and “we have to defeat fascist Trump at all cost”? No serious democrat or wage and salaried employee can ignore Madame Clinton’s role as Wall Street’s most shameless pimp unless they ‘believe’ that a loud-mouth New York ‘fascist is worse than Wall Street’.

The phony scaremongering about Trump’s “fascism” just serves to cover up Clinton’s most servile promotion of traitorous wars for the benefit of Israel.

Posted by: virgile | Apr 16 2016 18:37 utc | 12

An OT note to inform those unaware that Tom Feeley of ICH is out of the hospital and trying to resume publication after his stroke. His explanatory note is here,

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 16 2016 18:55 utc | 13

Looking ahead, does Hillary and/or Obama have any "plausible deniability" to use for cover? Such as, well, it looked like and alQ attack, but the CIA cleared things up for us?

I can't believe they were so stupid….

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 16 2016 19:46 utc | 14

Or do they just figure they can get away with just about any lies and cover-ups? S

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 16 2016 19:48 utc | 15

Hillary in interview with FOX News, June 18, 2014: "Fog of war" defense.

“You know, my own assessment careened from, you know, the video had something to do with it; the video had nothing to do with it,”

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 16 2016 20:04 utc | 16

I thought Benghazi was all about gun running to Syria.

Collecting missiles and arms used against Gadaffi for other nefarious proposes.

Posted by: shadyl | Apr 16 2016 20:18 utc | 17

...furthermore like someone else mentioned, chit will hit the fan if one of the missiles used against Gadaffi gets used in Europe.

I want to know why Soros thinks if Europe does not accept 500,000 middle eastern refugees it will be an existential threat to Europe. Isn't it the other way around?

What is the end game?? Destabilizing Europe, who benefits?

Posted by: shadyl | Apr 16 2016 20:22 utc | 18

b - thank you as always for staying on top of so much!

the reason hilary is where she is, is due the fact she is a good person to continue with the bullshit.. unfortunately this is the usa today - run by a collection of psycho and socio paths who will lie, steal, murder, rape - you name it - all in order to continue profiting off war, threat or war, supremacy of the us$ and etc - money.. no one ought to be surprised to see her win the election either... needs to be said.. obviously it is the last thing i want to see, but so has been all the wars the west has waged on other countries, iraq, libya, ukraine and syria being the latest and most obvious... the colour revolutions continue thanks the same lot of folks wanting to serve all the wrong forces for all the wrong reasons..

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2016 20:27 utc | 19

It was all about gun running to Syria.

Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 16 2016 20:38 utc | 20

Even The evil US empires own ambassadors to another country are cannon fodder if it serves the Empire.

Also shows that the tip of the spear in this case the US empires Al Qaeda proxies, can take precedence over its own ambassadors.

That's a big part of why Hitlery lied.
I've never seen such a downplaying and wilful omission of one of the empires leading diplomats who was killed by terrorists. It's obvious the US had bigger plans for Al Qaeda and they had for it's own ambassador

Posted by: tom | Apr 16 2016 20:42 utc | 21

@10 Virgile, 'If Sanders is out, the American will have to choose between Donald Duck and Pinnochia.. Such a unique country indeed!'

What's this 'will have to choose' stuff? Bring a pen with you to the polls and write-in the name of someone you want to see as Potus ... and as your Representative in Congress and Senator, if there's one up in your state. Yeah, it'll take several rounds of elections to become effective, but a journey of a thousand miles ... if we had begun in 2004 we'd be home by now.

If Sanders wins and you support him, write him in anyway. And if he loses ... do exactly the same thing. Apologies if you're not an American.

@12 I agree with your quote from unz ...

"[T]hey are setting up ‘Trump-the-Straw-Dragon’ in order to promote the poisonous Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton as the ‘lesser evil candidate’ for President of the United States."

Same thing with the Ramblin' man last time. It's so obvious. It makes such little difference. We need real change. Will we effect it? It's not even a question of courage ... it's one of disinterested sloth. What's a few million more murders by the US Wehrmacht?

Posted by: jfl | Apr 16 2016 21:06 utc | 22

Posted by: Penelope | Apr 14, 2016 9:10:53 PM | 26, Soft Coup In Libya Causes Meltdown, Breakup

Who was the better leader? who saw to the needs of the people, who recognized that it was their lives that mattered? Muammar Gaddafi? or his assassin, the original super-predator, Hillary Clinton?

It’s Day of Anger, it’s day of the great Challenge, to show the Pride of the great Libyan.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 16 2016 21:40 utc | 23

Missing link in the analysis of Benghazi, arms transport to Syria through Turkey ...

The Obama administration under Secretary Clinton was allied to the Muslim Btotherhood faction of terrorism in the Middle East . The alliance responsible for regime change in Egypt and Syria in support of Israel's supremacy in the region.

Hamas was also supported by Qatar and the Muslim Brothers, these terrorists are present in the Sinai peninsula and were responsible for the jail break that freed Morsi and his supporters. In the overthrow of Gaddafi, as in Syria, the opposition groups were split along the lines of Qatar and Saudi Arabia with other Gulf States UAE and Kuwait. This split remains today and caused the Geneva talks to fail and henceforth an early diplomatic settlement of the conflict.

HRC and Bill's Foundation earned big bucks from the Al Thani clan of Qatar.

Thanks to General Sisis, the Muslim Brotherhood was defeated in Egypt, much to the chagrine of HRC, Obama and Erdogan of Turkey. There is no way to understand the machinations of the Arab Spring unless these divisions are recognized.

Muslim Brotherhood

Posted by: Oui | Apr 16 2016 21:55 utc | 24

I was mulling over the "spin" lie relation. The spin as the type of lie and the narrative of its etymology.

After reading wikipedia's lie page, as a rube, I'd boil it down to: The Big Jocose 'the lie-to-child' lie."

I also found the first type apropos.

Posted by: Forest | Apr 16 2016 22:09 utc | 25

My favorite conspiracy theory:

The U.S. was trying to round up MANPADs loose in Libya (unintentional consequences and all after they offed Gaddafi). They were doing that in conjunction with scooping up small arms for the Syrian rat lines. The best sources for those loose weapons were the various gangs operating around Benghazi associated with al Qaeda. Whether they were technically al Qaeda itself or just loosely affiliated with them is immaterial. They all existed side-by-side in Benghazi and were all looking for American money for Gaddafi's weapons.

The arms purchases drove prices up on the black market, previously flooded with cheap and plentiful arms looted from the former Libyan military. When the CIA started buying them by the truckload, black market prices rose. The Benghazi gangs wanted more money from the Americans for them, but the CIA was reluctant to accommodate them (budgets and all). A side deal for payment was worked out with the gangs where they could kidnap Stevens for ransom, which would be willingly and quickly paid by Hillary's State Department. Thus, no CIA budget woes and nobody in .gov would complain about forking over a few million for Stevens. All this unbeknownst to him, of course. He was just a pawn, but he wasn't suppose to die in the kidnapping.

The fires were stared to force Stevens and the handful of security staff out of their safe rooms or whatever. The militia attacking the compound knew where the gasoline was stored, knew about the safe rooms and knew about the security. The plan was to grab Stevens and the Department of State security guys once they were forced outside and leave as quickly as possible. Instead, Stevens suffocated in the fire. He was not taken to the hospital by locals, he was taken there by the guys attacking the compound. They needed him alive to collect the ransom.

The White House was watching the play-by-play because they didn't figure anyone (that mattered) was going to get killed. All they had to do was play the part of the angry/shocked government officials and send the ransom money to free Stevens. When things went south, they just played along about 'finding the perpetrators' or whatever.

After realizing Stevens was dead, the militia knew they were not going to get any more money from the U.S. They decided to steal back whatever arms the CIA had bought from them and stockpiled in Benghazi awaiting shipment. That was the second attack later that evening on the CIA warehouse and was just for the weapons. Hillary could not admit to any of this, so it was all just dressed up as a 'terrorist operation'. The captured leader of that militia supposedly claimed that this was all in response to the offensive film. That 'confession' was just more BS by Clinton - they needed to grab that guy so he wouldn't squeal on their pre-arranged, staged kidnapping.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 16 2016 22:12 utc | 26

Taking into account source of funding:

Judicial Watch
Richard Mellon Scaife's Cash Pays For Judicial Watch's Lawsuits

    Three non-profit groups—legal organizations Judicial Watch and Cause of Action and conservative advocacy organization Citizens United—have taken the lead in a campaign of legal harassment related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account while at the State Department. Judicial Watch and Citizens United have together brought two dozen Freedom of Information Act lawsuits targeting Secretary Clinton’s email, and Cause of Action has taken a different, but equally aggressive, approach to using the courts to pursue a concerted attack on Secretary Clinton.

    These groups try to present their work as advancing transparency and good government, but a review of these organizations’ work, their key players, and their funders, however, shows that they have deep roots in the conservative movement and an extreme conservative agenda. Judicial Watch and Citizens United have pursued a decades-long vendetta against the Clintons, and Cause of Action is closely tied to the Koch brothers’ network which is working hard to try to defeat Secretary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Posted by: Oui | Apr 16 2016 22:16 utc | 27

@26 paveway.. just as good a theory as any other on this..sounds entirely plausible.. thanks.

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2016 22:26 utc | 28

Not a video? Yes.

Part of an al Queda op? Dubious.
My perception of al Queda ops are ... different.

I believe Paula Broadwell (Pretraus' mistress) and Sy Hersh. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning bullsh!tter doesn't want people to know that CIA detentions continued and he was running a secret war. See: Breibert's story that broke the news:

In January of 2009, the Obama administration ordered secret interrogation camps abroad to be closed. Broadwell’s comments about the CIA Annex having captured Libyan militia members may reveal some of these overseas prisons may still be operational.

[Broadwell:] “Now, I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try get these prisoners back..."

The "unforeseeable reaction to a video" canard bought Obama enough time to escape any consequences in the 2012 Presidential election and "National Security" was used to block any understanding of what a neocon tool he really is.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2016 22:52 utc | 29

paveway @26--That would make a great screenplay. Is it yours or someone else's idea?

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 16 2016 22:52 utc | 30

Why did CIA detentions continue?

Probably no one reason. Blackmail? Co-opting extremist movements? Rounding up forces for Syria? Intel?

Do they still continue?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2016 22:55 utc | 31

Stating that Clinton or the US govt. are liars is about as revealing as stating the sky is blue. The reason for the public cover story (lie) about Benghazi, not what was told to our allies, was learned some time later when it was inadvertently revealed at one of the early hearings, labeled Sat photos showed that the compound was not a consulate but a Company operation headed by the Ambassador which was also illegal. No one in government will acknowledge that fact even today and some even still refer to the CIA compound as a consulate or some other vague description.

Taking those known exposed facts and speculating that Clinton and the US were lying to protect AQ who led the attack is creative thinking if you admire third rate Iranian style propaganda.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Apr 16 2016 23:19 utc | 32

Oui at 24: Yes, absolutely, we need to be reminded of the sleaze that is the MB and its pervasive and reactionary influence. Intolerant Wahabbism in a business suit.

Posted by: fairleft | Apr 16 2016 23:31 utc | 33

TROLL WARNING: This commentor has been designated a "troll-not even a capable one" by the blog management. The opinions expressed here may not resonate with the blog's echo and, consequently, may adversely affect your world-view and/or mental health. Proceed at your own risk.


"September 11, 2012 email in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed her daughter by email that the attack had been staged by an “Al Qaeda-like group,” rather than as the result of “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier."

WTF?? We now know that RHC only had one Em account the whole time she was SoS. That was, ostensibly, the whole point of the home-brew server. It was: She wanted to mix her work Em's with her personal Em's, so you would expect to find some Em's to Huma, Cheryl, Petraeus, etc about the attack. And you would expect to find some chit-chat to Chelsea like "What are you guys doing this weekend?" But here's personal chit-chat about a breach in US security and US casualties during an attack on US foreign embassy property. I mean, this constitutes a third category of HRC Em's: 1) work Em's, many of which had classified info; 2) personal Em's; 3) personal Em's w/ classified. Surely at that early point in the Benghazi cock-up, what she was telling Chelsea was classified.

IOW Chelsea just became a witness, along with Barak, Blumenthal, and every man and his pig.

The effect of this info on the public is irrelevant as far as the election goes. And the reason I say it is because she'll never make it to the convention. Comey will either indict her or resign because Loretta refuses. Either way HRC will be too shit-splattered to beat even Trump. At that point the Republican establishment in the form of Joe Biden will step in. That'll piss off a lot of Bernieites, but who cares? Vice president H.Humphrey did the same in 1968 and pissed off a lot of McCarthy and McGovern fans.

I'm not sure whether the FBI has demanded the 30,000+ so-called "personal Emails" or not, but if this is the sort of information contained in the personal pile, then a few dozen of those 147 FBI agents on this case had better be picking through that pile as well.

Posted by: Denis | Apr 16 2016 23:54 utc | 34

karlof1@29 - I'm not that creative; this was intertubes speculation. The idea was proffered because Clinton and the White House supposedly did not like Stevens for some reason, but not so much that they would have had him killed. He was concerned with repairing the damage and relieving the human suffering we caused in Libya. Others in the U.S. gov and elsewhere (Team Chaos) were much more interested in the raping and pillaging part. Israel didn't want Libya to ever become strong, i.e., a threat to them. They were not happy with Stevens efforts at rebuilding a unified Libya free from roving gangs of extremists. The staged kidnapping was also thought to be a message to Stevens to curb his Libyan enthusiasm.

The whole Clinton/neocon/CIA rat line operation was known to be in danger because of the rising black market prices and failure to collect nearly as many MANPADs as they intended to. Merc types and weapons collectors noted the rising black market prices, so I don't doubt that part. I think the issue there was specifically U.S.-supplied Stingers. It would look particularly bad if one was used to take out an Israeli or U.S. passenger airliner. The CIA would destroy any they managed to buy in Benghazi - they were not intended to be passed on to Syrians or anyone else.

Clinton and the CIA were known to pay the local (Benghazi) al-Qaeda linked militia for all kinds of stuff at the time, like protection or incentive to attack/kidnap/kill someone in Libya for the U.S. This was from the accounts of the militia themselves who were always desperate for cash. A militia was paid to guard the diplomatic mission compound. The U.S. used the local militia as paid thugs and apparently had used them for kidnapping persons of interest to U.S. intelligence agencies many times.

The Stevens kidnapping was simply an elaborate money-making ruse to keep them on as loyal paid thugs/arms collectors by making up (financially) for what they thought they were owed for the arms. Apparently the State Department and/or CIA would have had to ask Congress for the extra cash for the arms buyback program and they didn't want Congress to know. They could pay ransom for their staged kidnapping without the bother. I have no way of knowing whether the ransom part is true or not, but they certainly didn't want anyone to know about the arms trafficking operation.

The people suggesting this on certain now-defunct discussion sites were supposedly Blackwater/Xe/Academi types who generally hated the State Department because of all the double-dealing in the middle east. Libya was particularly bad because the only muscle left to hire after they killed Gaddafi were the jihadi militia gangs. The bullet used to kill you there (providing you were a merc) was probably supplied or paid for by the U.S. There were thousands of mercs working security for western interests in Libya and plenty of on-line discussions about the work/pay etc. there. Never interested in the work personally, but the discussions were fascinating.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 17 2016 1:04 utc | 35

'Stinger' issue from Jim Geraghty for the National Review:

Public reports corroborate some, but not all, of a stunning accusation about Benghazi.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow [Qaddafi] on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda — indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 17 2016 1:14 utc | 36

@ Denis....ah, does Chelsea have TOP SECRET CLEARANCE???

Posted by: shadyl | Apr 17 2016 2:52 utc | 37

Clinton lied. No shit Sherlock.
Usians should be scared shitless at what's going on in the U.S.. Clinton is just a symptom of much deeper systemic problems an election just can't fix.
March 19,2003 was a significant point in western history; it signaled the point where the citizens of western countries no longer had any say in their government's policies.
Clinton as president will cement, once and for all, the dictatorial, fascist leadership of the U.S.A. and western regimes in general.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor, if you can keep it.”

We failed to keep the republic and are faced with the worst of all possible worlds.

Posted by: V. Arnold | Apr 17 2016 2:59 utc | 38

@26, @34, @35 pwiv

That's all inside disinformation from my point of view. Criminals acting as stool-pigeons on one another, each trying to drag the redherring over their own trail - cf. Graham Fuller's miraculous conversion, of late. The eleventh hour. I feel sure that the CIA is and was at the center of it all. Just as Fuller was godfather of Iran-contra, of Al-CIAduh, of the Boston Marathon bombing ...

Alexandr Bovdunov has an interesting summary of the New American Century plans, as delivered by the oracular

Ralph Peters : the concept of constant conflict

Summing up the theoretical provisions of Peters ... it all sounds pretty ominous. In principle, one could perceive them as mere mental theoretical constructs, generated by an extravagant US military thinker and writer, but the analysis of what Obama and previous Bush administrations did shows a similar picture of the world. Peters’ expressive texts are key to the decisions of the current American leadership tediously written in diplomatic language. Ralph Peters rightly predicted the postmodernist-chaos oriented model of behavior.

Peters was not the inventor of these plans, he was more like the one of the tiny dust particles around which ice condenses at the onset of a hailstorm. It was in the air they live and breathe in the MIC. The 'justification' for maintenance and enlargement of the MIC in the face of the collapse of the USSR.

Peters became the mouthpiece piece for the neo-con 'plans' for a New American Century, and their proselyte and explainer to military types. Hillary Clinton internalized all this monstrous stuff and her political currency is completely based upon her willingness to deliver, to continue and enlarge upon - unrestrained growth is the essential characteristic of cancer and the MIC - the 'heritage' of Obama and George XLIII.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 17 2016 3:23 utc | 39

OOPSIE! US pulls out of Yemen ...

"However that may be about to change. In late March the Houthi rebels, who control the capital Sana’a and much of the rest of the country, seized a cache of files. The US claims that these contain details of CIA operations and the names of agents. It also says they have been handed over to Iran, which is known to back the Houthi forces fighting the US-backed government."

source -

Posted by: ALberto | Apr 17 2016 3:24 utc | 40

shadyl | Apr 16, 2016 10:52:30 PM | 36
"does Chelsea have TOP SECRET CLEARANCE???"

Oh, yeah, she probably does, along with her $10M apartment, $3M wedding, and a very humble $600,000/yr job at her local mom-and-pop Clinton Foundation, organizing influence peddling opportunities for anyone on Wall St. who has cash in hand. Does Sid Blumenthal have clearance? That's an equally interesting question.

Never mind the whole home-brew server outrage, the fact that the SoS even mentioned the details of the Benghazi massacre in real-time to a family member who is outside of government and has marital ties to zionists should be enough for an indictment.

Is Comey Jewish? Loretta?

Posted by: Denis | Apr 17 2016 4:23 utc | 41


I don't buy the conspiracy to kidnap for ransom story.

I think kidnap to exchange for compatriots held prisoner by CIA makes much more sense. And would be consistent with Paula Broadwell's remarks.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2016 4:44 utc | 42

b and Paveway IV,

My memory is really dim on what I'm going to relate. I hope it's close to accurate.

There were two young (marines?)-- at least someone who was NOT DIA present in Benghazi. They wanted to go to the aid of the (pseudo)embassy where the ambassador was. But were ordered not to (perhaps for good reason; reinforcements on the way? I don't remember). The father of one of them was somehow apprised of this & in a televised interview spoke movingly about his son & how that was just like him. You see, the next morning, while everyone was leaving snipers shot & killed just these two-- no one else.

I remember thinking at the time that it was possible they were being hushed up for what they knew.

Again, I apologize if there are inaccuracies in this. Does anyone else have info about these two young men?

Posted by: Penelope | Apr 17 2016 6:45 utc | 43

@39 alberto.. interesting story in your link.. thanks..

Posted by: james | Apr 17 2016 7:44 utc | 44

Jackrabbit@41 - I have no idea what the truth is and never will, hence 'favorite conspiracy theory'. It seems plausible that the militias were working directly with the CIA and implausible (to me) that their coordinating group would have had any prisoners that needed to be freed in the CIA annex. The CIA depended on those militias for collecting the arms and other miscellaneous services, and paid them for as much. The CIA wouldn't have risked the purpose of their entire operation by taking any of those affiliated militia prisoners, and they damn well wouldn't have held them at the arms smuggling warehouse complex. And if you're trying to get your buddies out of a heavily-fortified CIA compound, you would not have started mortaring it - which subsequently killed the two CIA contractors and injured many others.

Petraeus's mistress would have every reason to make excuses for a botched State Department/CIA scheme gone bad. Her statements ring about as true to me as Clinton's claims of the attack being a mob protesting an offensive film. Broadwell seems unaware that many people realize the CIA Annex was primarily for the purchase of Libyan arms from the militias and for feeding their Syrian FSA arms-smuggling operations through Turkey. I don't know though - maybe you're right.

Penelope@42 - Stevens and Smith (Information Officer) died in the safe room from suffocation. There were two groups of CIA contractors that played a part here. The fist were stationed at the CIA Annex and also tasked with providing backup security for the mission a block away. By their accounts, they were prohibited from immediately going to the aid of the mission staff by the head of security at the CIA Annex. They were prepared for such an attack for a couple of weeks prior to that. The knew about the actual attack almost immediately, but were delayed from going there for a half hour - by that time Stevens and Smith were dead. They did find a couple of people and Smith's body and headed back to the Annex. They still didn't know where Stevens (or his body) was.

The Benghazi Scandal Just Got Very Interesting Again

The second group of CIA contractors were the seven from Tripoli who also heard about the attack right after it happened. They wanted to go and help, but the CIA wouldn't send them. They bribed a pilot to fly them there instead. They didn't get to Benghazi and the Annex until early in the morning - too late to do anything at the mission. Instead, they helped the CIA Annex security contractors fend off the attacking militia.

The two contractors that died were hit on the roof by mortar fire, not killed by snipers as the press initially claimed. *They* were trained as snipers, the militia didn't have any such thing. The two were Tyrone Woods, a security contractor at the Annex, and Glen Doherty, one of the seven Global Security contractors from Tripoli that had just arrived. They were both ex-marines IIRC. Neither had any special knowledge that the dozen or so other CIA contractors involved didn't also know, so I'm not sure about the 'hushed up' part. An unfortunate militia mortar round seems more likely.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 17 2016 8:26 utc | 45

@44 pwiv

Thanks for the link. John Tiegen and Kris Paronto have written a book on the subject, "13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi", which is not hard to find in epub version on the net.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 17 2016 10:24 utc | 46

Well, maybe that book's questionable ...

In 1969, while the eighty-year-old King Idris was abroad, the timing was ripe for a bloodless coup led by a power-hungry twenty-seven-year-old army officer: Muammar al-Gaddafi. Over the next forty-two years, the erratic, brutal, egomaniacal Gaddafi earned the sobriquet bestowed on him by Ronald Reagan: “[M]ad dog of the Middle East.”

... well, this is just the intro, written by the 'pro' who put the guys story 'to music'. Maybe their testimony will ring truer.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 17 2016 11:02 utc | 47


Petraeus's mistress would have every reason to make excuses for a botched State Department/CIA scheme gone bad.

Why would she "make excuses" that complicate matters? Excuses are made to end questions, not multiple them.

As you say, we may never know. But she's as good a source as any for now because it just makes sense.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2016 11:11 utc | 48

I'm pretty hip on a number of subjects, but I know nothing about this Benghazi attack. Some kind of dirty deal? Bodies were found? Sounds like one page out of the already too-long story of my life.

I certainly don't intend to belittle the narrative.

Just saying not all of us are entirely hip to what it all means.

Posted by: blues | Apr 17 2016 11:40 utc | 49

I'm fuzzy on this but here goes. Washington was intent on having an incident happen and on short notice. The attackers were actually gathered by cell phone calls on very short notice. There in tent was to create the semblance of an armed attack. Now at the same time a US navel vessel with a specially team was going to be sent in to perform a spectacular rescue. Lots of noise and gunfire and smoke. No one would get hurt but Hillary and company would have there needed attack. Now as I remember this info was brought forth by the Captain of that US rescue ship, and no I can't remember the Captain's name or the vessel's name. The entire operation was going to be directed from Washington. Several of the participants were not even briefed on this at the time and were pissed that they had to be called in at the late hour ( Washington time ? ) Long story short, the call from Washington never came and the actors attacking the Embassy were receiving fire from within the Embassy ( they weren't in on the plan, by the way ) turned it into a real deal . That's it, That's all I got ....

Posted by: Dave | Apr 17 2016 12:11 utc | 50

You do realize that on this explanation of what was happening in Benghazi, Clinton was lying to protect a CIA covert operation. The CIA is the president's fiefdom. As such, CIA operations are above her pay grade as Secretary of State. (Despite the cabinet level position, in the current system as practiced, State is a PR department, with real foreign policy determined by the president with the national security advisor and the CIA as his direct agents, along with the Pentagon. How the generals decide is opaque to outsiders.) The Republican partisan frenzy over Benghazi has nothing to do with the covert operations of al-Qaeda (and Islamic State,) though. No Republican candidate is opposed, indeed, all pretend that they are the ones tough enough to successfully fight against AQ and IS. Their criticism of the Democrats is they are wusses.

Posted by: steven johnson | Apr 17 2016 12:13 utc | 51

@48 blues

I think it's

1. What was the State Department doing there to begin with?
2. Why didn't they clear out in June, when the Brits did?
3. If they had some reason to stay, why weren't there US Marines to guard them?

It stinks of CIA from the very beginning. I think the State Department has become a subsidiary of the CIA. Or a condominium of the CIA and the Pentagon. Everything about this deal stinks. Hillary has never come clean. She's taking orders, just like Obama. If she's 'elected' it will be a continuation and escalation of what's been going on in earnest since 2000.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 17 2016 12:14 utc | 52

Paveway @34--Thanks for your further explanation. Bottom line seems to say US Taxpayers are supporting international terrorism and have for decades.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 17 2016 13:12 utc | 53

Then, how do we root out the stinky weeds?

Posted by: Bardi | Apr 17 2016 13:31 utc | 54

Iirc, the very first story out was that it was a demonstration (Benghazi attack was on 9/11) concerning a 9/11 demonstration - implicit, anti-USA - that degenerated. That ridiculous bold-faced lie (iirc, by Clinton) immediately signalled to me that Clinton (or whoever it was) knew all about it.

Then the story was corrected - one can imagine who objected, and in any case there have been NO demonstrations pro-9/11 on 9/11, for the good reason that it was not a 'muslim terrorist attack.'

The spiel turned into ‘agitation’ that ‘degenerated’ -again!- into a riot because of an anti-muslim movie which imho did not exist.

Then these stories disapeared. Such narratives fed to the US public are sadly typical. The aim is to exploit the moment of emotion (murder of ambassador) and hook into a previous meme that invokes horror (9/11) and lay the blame on deranged muslims, US-haters, etc. When the good US citizens have it fixed in their minds, the stories vanish, are never taken up again, and all that remains mentally is the original first judgement or impression.

In this instance, as is now shown, the point was to hide links with the ‘terrorists’ themselves (along the lines of : Al-Q-CIA-duh, dirty deals.) Which is why the two stories insisted on the people’s demonstration aspect, as if a US ambassador and others could just be killed by a rowdy crowd of poor ..heh.. fill in disgusting description. The narrative presented had to create a split between AlQ (not to be mentioned) and the ppl who…err…are like AlQ but not AlQ and just have those attitudes!

Then, all the accusations from the opposite side of aisle were confused, all over the place, because *all* US pols knew roughly what went down but couldn’t say so, so blame, accusations, spite, richocheted, in a mighty mélée of coded lies and implicit threats and garbage grandstanding.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 17 2016 13:33 utc | 55

Great article b

I know they knew the ambassador was about to die and they let it happen.I wonder why knowing full well he was as a large part of the US ambassador a undercover agent working to destabilize if needed the country he was assigned to.Maybe someone in here could help on that issue.

Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | Apr 17 2016 13:35 utc | 56

Noirette @54

The initial story wasn't just a "demonstration" but a "spontaneous demonstration".

They wanted to push the notion that this was something the attack was something that couldn't be planned for or anticipated.

One question that I don't think was ever adequately answered is this: what was so important that Ambassador Stevens had to be in a lightly protected compound in Benghazi on 9-11?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2016 14:08 utc | 57

Re: Amb. Chris Stevens' role or roles in Libya

I remember a discussion or article which discussed how people in other US government departments can be temporarily sworn in as CIA agents. There was a term of art for such temporary switches. The point was that Stevens was working as a CIA agent when ensuring weapons were gathered and sent on the US supported fighters going to Syria or already in Syria.

Does anyone here recall such a term? I tried to search for it, but must also complete my tax forms…due Monday. Any hep appreciated.

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 17 2016 15:04 utc | 58

@56 bingo. My thought all along....what did Stevens represent? Who had it in for him? However, Paveway's scenario has the benefit of a plausible motive, involves a cock-up and provides an explanation of the continued need for secrecy. The Congressional hearings then are really Repub committee members *in-the-know* would be trying to push her to turn on the Pres. She didn't. Explains why BHO could have, but didn't, throw his support to Biden for 2016. CIA was above her pay grade. She has his legacy by the balls.

Posted by: S.H.E. | Apr 17 2016 15:10 utc | 59

@ 57 Jawbone
I think the term you want is "secondment".

Posted by: Glenn Brown | Apr 17 2016 15:16 utc | 60

I did not follow the Benghazi hearings, I think the point was the the Administration let the diplomats die, which is a bit specious because GOP was not interested in the major FUBAR in Libya, an operation that simply should not take place.

From the point of view of "realistic" school, Libyan adventure was a classic example of aims (pro-Western Libya) not matched with resources. It would be more helpful to have a consulate in a fortress-like compound and a detachment of 100 marines with serious firepower, like heavy machine guns and anti-vehicle missiles. And with the weapon warehouse on the premises. More importantly, for the plan to work there would have to exists a numerically strong and potentially popular pro-Western force.

But the structure of Arab politics makes such a force hard to find. "Middle class" is rather weak and gravitates to a government that can protect it against "superstitious masses". The latter have a combination of religious and tribal motivations and respond much better to Gulf influence and/or Muslim Brotherhood. CIA approach is to recruit some of them with generous bribes, but pocketing bribes and accepting weapons does not yield lasting affection or influence, especially if there exists other "generous donors".

And those donors have their own pet causes. Qatar and Turkey is more "pro-Brotherhood", KSA and Emirates prefer other brands of jihadi extremists (Brotherhood is implicated with anti-monarchy agitation in those countries) and so on. Moreover, a tribal gang can simply use weapons to make a living without further external influence and Islamic extremism can facilitate workable coalitions of such gangs. All of that was well known from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and perhaps also Yemen.

On the level of Benghazi specifics, American agents were engaged in high risk activity (ruffling feathers of some armed gangs) without a high level of local support or a functional fortress. Nothing really as bad as what Reagan administration tried in Lebanon just before the Marines were blown up, but overall, total lack of learning from experience. (There were enough of Marines in Beirut, and I presume that they had needed weapons, but the fortification of their position was obviously neglected, by the way of contrast, political chances of the mission could at least make a plausible case, while no such case existed in Libya.)

By the way of contrast, Kaddafi was an effective leader, if given to funny theatrics, and in the years preceding his overthrow, increasingly cooperating with the West. Making a case that the caper of sustaining the insurrection with weapon supplies and air support did any good to Western interests is really hard

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 17 2016 15:36 utc | 61

@53 karlof1.. i conclude the same..

@57 jackrabbit.. your question feeds into paveways scenario...

Posted by: james | Apr 17 2016 17:30 utc | 62

jfl@47 - The particular conspiracy theory has holes, but you and I fundamentally agree. You cite Ralph Peters, and you'll note I often refer to 'Team Chaos'. Team Chaos follows the general PNAC-neocon failed foreign policy of what Peter's calls chaos+order. That is part political in nature, so its leaders are people in the U.S. administration, State Department and congress. It extends well beyond the U.S. space into (roughly) the leaders of various NATO powers. Chaos+Order is a control tool, and PNAC psychopaths love control tools. The problem is finding reliable jihadi terrorist that don't also hate the U.S. but simply play along anyways for weapons and cash (as Noirette observes).

The details of Benghazi are debateable, but the part I believe is that the State Department and the CIA were involved in some intrigue with al Qaeda-linked jihadi militias. The staged event was something known to a few insiders was suppose to happen on 9/11 (attack, kidnapping, etc.) but something went wrong. I will never believe it was an unexpected attack by a coalition of local militias on one of their significant paymasters: the State Department and CIA. Clinton lying about a spontaneous demonstration tells a lot.

Jackrabbit@48 Re "Why make excuses?" - Precisely to draw attention away from what was *really* going on at the annex, which would have raised more serious and embarrassing issues they would rather keep from the public. This is a continuation of the crumbling spiral of lies that started out with 'spontaneous demonstration'. Every lie is another attempt to obscure the weapons trafficking operation.

steven johnson@51 Re State Department vs. Administration/CIA - normally I would agree. The State Department may have had a more direct role (parallel but not superior) in the weapons collection efforts however. If the State Department did provide U.S. stingers to the Libyan rebels to help them overthrow Gaddafi 'on the cheap', then they would have been paranoid about those incriminating MANPADs being discovered later on and raising questions as to their source. Why would the State Department do such a thing? For the reasons you stated: that was normally the Pentagon and CIA's job. Both would have opposed such an idiotic move. With Clinton so firmly in the grip of her PNAC/neocon masters, she may have just 'went around' both of them to facilitate the coup. It's certainly less crazy (comparatively) than fabricating WMD evidence to justify a coup. And the State Department was certainly involved in providing the weapons to Syrian rebels. The last meeting Stevens had on 9/11 was with some Turkish diplomat. Now why would a Turkish diplomat be in Benghazi to begin with unless it was related to the arms smuggling through Iskenderun? Stevens and the State Department were certainly involved in that part.

Piotr Berman@61 - Good description of the issues. I'll only point out that the CIA Annex was a fortress and well-defended. It predated the temporary consulate and was much larger - four large buildings in a walled compound. The temporary consulate had no reasonable purpose in Benghazi at the time. I would have to lean towards the speculation that the only reason it even existed was to coordinate and provide some kind of cover for the CIA Annex operation. If the CIA was not involved in weapons trafficking at the annex, it wouldn't have existed and neither would the temporary consulate. Both existed with the knowledge, consent and cooperation of the local jihadi militias. The only possible reason for that is that they needed the money (but despised America otherwise).

Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 17 2016 20:42 utc | 63

I'm a little surprised nobody mentioned the CT that was floating around in rw circles at the time. Obama supposedly wanted to get the Blind Sheik Rahman released, and tried to engineer Stevens' kidnapping so he would be 'forced' to do that. Because PBO was really a Muslim who himself favored their radicals, of course. He's a deep cover Manchurian candidate type, they claim.

Perhaps no one mentioned it because there are so many other more plausible story lines.

I still think it provides a clue to another layer of motivation along with the more obvious ones. It's wise to consider that events may have multiple agendas in play, esp. in the area of intelligence operations. And often, what gets charged of others is projection of the actual plans of those doing that charging.

Here's my theory. Little noticed in that '47%' speech of Romney's that was taped was his comment that if anything happened overseas, he would not shy away from attacking on that issue, and would jump on it. Really? What did he have in mind, and with what foreknowledge?

Then Romney had been determined to embargo any comment during the 24 hours of the anniversary of 9/11. Until he couldn't resist. Somehow he got his top advisors on a phone conference close to midnight and with their advice put out a condemnation of the State Dept.'s first response (re: Cairo) at a few minutes to midnight just before the self-imposed embargo was to end. It's as if they were primed for the event. I think they were.

I believe there was an attempt to give Obama his own hostage crisis, similar to Carter's, arranged on Romney's behalf via the longstanding ties of Mormons to the national security and deep states by factions in them despising Obama and favoring Romney's replacing him.

The video maker looks to have had spooky connections, and I suspect he was guided to put this out. Joe Cannon has discussed this in some detail on his site. It did cause rioting in about 30 nations in and around the ME. The video and the riots it caused in Cairo were discussed on jihadists' social media in Benghazi prior to the attack there, according to CIA monitoring. People at the scene told al-Jazeera and NY Times journalists there that anger over the video was a factor. Even Fox News reported it had been a factor the next day, because that was the first day reporting.

Meanwhile, it became very important to hide its influence upon the failure of the kidnapping and the unintended death of Stevens, because pulling on that thread would lead back to the original intended provocation for the benefit of Romney's campaign. So, under a fierce rearguard action of the hidden plan gone bad, the role of the video has been completely suppressed and is now laughed out of bounds.

Note, even if this is so, of course it all took place in the context we all know and has been described here. Many different agendas were tracking simultaneously. The temporary mission facility did not appear on the State Dept's list of its global installations. It was not reported to the Libyan government, such as it was at the time. Lastly, by report, at the end of Stevens' last meeting he was advised by the local he met with that he should leave that night, because he wasn't safe. He ignored the warning, sadly.

Posted by: Pathos | Apr 17 2016 20:59 utc | 64

PavewayIV @ 26,

A conspiracy theory by Webster Tarpley:
"This year, a cabal of generals evidently believed it could secure the White House for Mitt Romney by staging the Benghazi incident and using it as the signal for a cold coup under cover of elections — probably including computer-generated election fraud — to bring down Obama. They guessed wrong."

Some versions have Obama (then running against Romney for his 2d term) being damaged by his inability to free the kidnapped ambassador. That is, Obama would be "Carterized" in the manner whereby Carter was unable to get the US embassy employees released from Iran.

Tarpley goes on "The Obama administration and its establishment controllers appear to be ousting a number of intelligence and military officials who took part in illegal operations to replace Obama with Romney. These sackings are being presented to the public under the guise of soap opera sexual infractions or expense account padding, in the hope of hiding some real mechanisms of power from the popular gaze. The outgoing US military cabal favors the extension of colonial wars, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as an attack on Iran."

There is more
But as there is no data to back these things up I am regarding them only as "entertainment".

Incidentally, another person came forward and gave his story for "the night of", and it made no sense-- at least not to me. This individual claimed that he was with Amb Stevens in the small room where they'd locked themselves in. However, he later went out the window, leaving Stevens there, and when he returned Stevens was dead. Stevens being young and agile, I could see no sense in his not accompanying the other man out the window, especially in preference to smothering. But then I understand nil about Benghazi.

Jim Stone Freelance carried a story which focussed on some apparently factual details not covered elsewhere.

Posted by: Penelope | Apr 17 2016 22:36 utc | 65

Pathos @ 64,

I've just read yours. Looks like Webster Tarpley was tracking the same theme.

Btw, I remember there was considerable scandal imm'y after the event that Hillary had refused a request by the Stevens ambassadorship to supply marines.

Posted by: Penelope | Apr 17 2016 23:10 utc | 66

@Penelope | Apr 17, 2016 6:36:52 PM | 65

My estimate of Webster Tarpley's judgement has taken a serious hit, since he has been sure that Trump will bring fascism, yet has little to say about Hillary. Trump cannot possibly be more fascist than Hillary.

Certain things that Jim Stone (Freelance) is 100% sure of are known by me to be almost certainly erroneous.

Jim Fetzer has yet to make any claims that I know to be flat-out wrong.

Just saying.

Posted by: blues | Apr 17 2016 23:22 utc | 67

Penelope@65 - Yet another conspiracy I have to give a nod to because it explains what some of us believe was some kind of major political purge of senior officers in the U.S. military. Most disturbing to my fellow USAF vets was the purge of nuclear missile and bomber staff, which lead us to much darker conclusions on motivation. Maybe that was just a different purge - I've lost track already.

Romney's name frequently came up in discussions. I think he may be the anti-Christ or at least some kind of liver-eating reptilian. He doesn't seem remotely human, yet appears to be a different species entirely than Clinton. Where in God's name do these people come from?

"...This individual claimed that he was with Amb Stevens in the small room where they'd locked themselves in..."

I had called it a safe room as well. It was referred to in the press at the time with the odd term 'safe haven'. It turns out that this was actually the ambassador's apartment inside the consulate, so this would have been several rooms. It had a single fortified entrance inside the consulate and egress windows on either end that could not be opened from the outside. I believe the story you're talking about had them in the bathroom until the smoke became unbearable. Then a Diplomatic Security agent started crawling across the smoke-filled, pitch-black apartment for the back egress window calling for Stevens and Smith to follow. The apartment itself was not burning - the common areas of the consulate were soaked in diesel fuel and set ablaze. This diagram from freerepublic.comshows the safe haven area of the consulate. Dave Mellon of FreeRepublic was one of the earliest publishers of the annotated image, but not sure if he was the original source.

That isn't proof of the DS agent's account, but its more plausible given that the safe haven was not just a single room. You could see how the attackers would have had difficulty getting to Stevens in the safe haven and had (by some accounts) planned beforehand to smoke him out rather than RPG the door or windows.

The fact that they were trying to force him out suggests a kidnapping motive. If they had just wanted to kill Stevens, they could have breached the residence door or windows with and RPG quickly and easily enough. That's how they got into the consulate itself - the locked, fortified front door was RPG'd. They knew the layout of the consulate and knew that Stevens was going to be in the safe haven. They apparently didn't even bother searching the rest of the consulate much because other DS agents were hiding in the kitchen behind a barricaded door until after the fire started.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Apr 18 2016 1:58 utc | 68

Left of the US flag is a Daesh flag at some point in the video.
Group of young thugs + normal youth and probably just a few serious cases there, not the ones making noise (not very Salafi to be singing like normal hooligans)

Posted by: Mina | Apr 18 2016 7:09 utc | 69

The book 13 hours : the inside story of what really happened in Benghazi is war porn, as our friend chipnic used to say. It tries to put the best face on a dreadful story.

Dreadful because what should have happened was that the US/EU should have worked with Muammar Gaddafi rather than with al-CIAduh, should have tried to improve the state of the world's lands and peoples, rather than destroy them.

Once the decision for D₃+D was taken all that's followed was preordained ... continues now, with the US/EU/UN now readying for round two. The reasons 'why' in this particular sordid, senseless episode are not addressed in this book.

People will continue to spin stories about what's not been addressed. The reasons 'why' are chiefly greed and ruthlessness, sloth and stupidity on the part of Neolibraconia in its ongoing war against all others. In this case they were caught, red in tooth and claw, eating even their own.

Death to the CIA! The organization, of course, not the people.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 10:22 utc | 70

I was an embassy guard in Cairo back in the 80's. In normal circumstances, at the hint of any trouble, the Egyptians would truck in loads of police and shut down every street surrounding the U.S. embassy. There is no way that embassy gets stormed unless the Egyptians were told to stand down by the U.S.

Posted by: David | Apr 18 2016 12:31 utc | 71


I have always mesmerised by your pure intellect covering wide variety of topics in detail. Pls keep them coming.

One question I have with your 'favourite conspiracy theory' is that who was that Turkish diplomat?

Would there be a double job between Erdogan stooge Fidan (head of Turkish intelligence) in full collaboration with Qatar against some fraction of US modus operandi and/or 'deep state powers' in Turkey trying to cross into Erdogan-CIA ops in Benghazi and thus failure.

Budget is an issue for typical bureaucracy, never an issue for this type of super covert intel ops.

One question I have not seen is whatever happened to Qaddafi's billions, gold et el? Perhaps that might give us another angle regarding this botched operation..?

Posted by: Truist | Apr 18 2016 12:55 utc | 72

@69 and @71 point to the Cario embassy incident as staged and separate from what happened in Benghazi.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 18 2016 13:59 utc | 73

@70 jfl.. i agree with you in your 2nd last paragraph which i will copy here :

People will continue to spin stories about what's not been addressed. The reasons 'why' are chiefly greed and ruthlessness, sloth and stupidity on the part of Neolibraconia in its ongoing war against all others. In this case they were caught, red in tooth and claw, eating even their own.

Posted by: james | Apr 18 2016 15:21 utc | 74


I think in assessing the veracity of Paula Broadwell's account, one has to consider:

- the possibility that the CIA asked her to lie

This makes a poor excuse as it only raises more questions. The CIA quickly issued a statement saying that the President had ordered all detentions to cease earlier that year.

- her mental and emotional stability

We were told that she was cyber-stalking a potential rival despite knowing that both she and Petraus were married. But this information came out after the scandal broke. Was this concocted to discredit her? (I don't know.)

If her aggressive protection of her relationship with Petraus is true, would it extend to lying about national security matters?

Wouldn't a truthful leak make more sense because it sends the message: "Back off 'cause I know a lot of secrets.

A lie wouldn't protect her relationship with Petraus. Would she lie to vindictively lash out against Petraus (for breaking off the affair) or Obama (for forcing break-up)? Acting out of spite or revenge would have put her career and her relationship with Petraus (whatever it may be going forward) in jeopardy.

- motives of Broadwell/Petraus/CIA in leaking this info

Petraus had refused to allow CIA to be scapegoated (perhaps because he harbored ambitions to run for President). For this 'disloyalty', he might have reason to believe that he would be dismissed after Obama won re-election. Petraus might be concerned that he might be blamed for Benghazi after he was dismissed. That might end the possibility of this war hero running for President someday. Did he want to get ahead of that? Did he talk to Broadwell of his concerns and brainstorm possible responses? Did he ask her to lie or leak or did she take it upon herself to do? If he/she was defending his tenure, wouldn't they do so with the truth?

- the possibility of an inadvertent leak

There were all sorts of speculation and rumor on the internet about what really happened. Some of it seemed to be very close to the truth. Broadwell was talking to a friendly audience and this 'leak' came in a Q&A after her prepared remarks. (Naturally, seemingly inadvertent leaks can be deliberate.)

- the possibility that she participated in removing Petraus

As Petraus was not 'playing ball' by accepting SOP of scape-goating 'intelligence', he may have been targeted for removal for that or other reasons. (note: this is not my thinking - I actually read this theory somewhere on the internet. IIRC, it was knee-jerk pointing of fingers to Israel/Zionists).

Removing Petraus due to a scandal would prevent speculation that he was being removed because of Benghazi.

But in this unlikely scenario, leaked info would have to be truthful to get the attention of the CIA and start the process whereby the affair is 'discovered'. It seems to me that there are easier ways to accomplish this.

You have to make the determination for yourself, but IMO all of the scenarios above are either flawed or lack a compelling reason for her having lied. A lie would be most likely if she was truly mentally/emotionally unstable but she seems very composed in the video of her speech.

- October 26: Broadwell speech

- November 4: Presidential election

- November 9: Petraus resigns

- November 11: Briebert publishes speech video

- November 12: Broadwell is detained and admits affair during questioning

- November 14: President Obama News Conference
The first since August 20th.

Obama asserts that:

> I have no evidence at this point from what I've seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security.

He doesn't say that classified info was NOT disclosed, just that any that might've been disclosed would have "a negative impact on our national security". Lot wiggle-room there - could just mean: no impending attack on the Homeland.

Also of interest:

> he didn't know about the FBI investigation. Why not? The government was just "following protocols".

> Susan Rice

[UN Ambassador Rice] ... made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous ...

I'm happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information. And we've got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress. ...

when they go after the U.N. Ambassador, apparently, because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me.

Emphasis is mine to highlight the multiple layers of spin. Things get complicated when you can't blame the intelligence agencies for FUBAR.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 18 2016 15:41 utc | 75

Jack Rabbit at 57, you are certainly right, didn’t recall it all exactly as said.

It was presented as a totally oh my gosh! - wide eyes - surprising, unpredictable event, sh*t happens, crazy hate-filled ppl!

As for yr question (1), idk, yet, imho, the surprise, or better sudden acute sinking dismay, was the only genuine part. US machinations seem to often proceed on the assumption of exceptionality and invulnerability, the real world takes second place, and intelligence, in the sense of information from the ground, is sorely lacking, or blithely ignored.

1. what was so important that Ambassador Stevens had to be in a lightly protected compound in Benghazi on 9-11?

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 18 2016 16:20 utc | 76

@76 Noirette, @57 jr

Yeah, the question of what was Stevens doing there on 9/11. Only the CIA knows at this point. The whole show seems to have been CIA. Could they have been stupid enough to think that they actually had things 'under control' in Benghazi? Yeah. Never underestimate the stupidity and self-delusion at the CIA. It is also impossible to overestimate the complete disregard they have for the lives of individual humans and the results of their half-assed operations. Sixty-eight years of impunity and crime that, literally, does pay have engendered both.

Death to the CIA ! The institution, not the people. A president signed them into existence and a president can sign them out of existence. Same with the NSA. Same with the FBI.

Really. What's the downside here? It's true that ever country needs intelligence, but there is no intelligence at any of these three institutions. And the USA will never have any as long as these three outfits are taking up the space where intelligence ought to be.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 19:24 utc | 77

US Ambassador's Motorcade Kills 7-Year-Old Boy in Cameroon

What was it that called so urgently for Samantha Powers' presence ... 'to visit the front lines in the war against Boko Haram' in Cameroon?

Never underestimate the stupidity and self-delusion of the USG. It is also impossible to overestimate the complete disregard they have for the lives of individual humans and the results of their half-assed operations. Sixty-eight years of impunity and crime that, literally, does pay have engendered both.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 22:15 utc | 78

@73.......That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Staged to support the fallacy of a YouTube video being responsible for the Benghazi attack.

Posted by: David | Apr 18 2016 22:20 utc | 79

Secrecy shrouds Europe's new Libya plan

Some 1,000 British troops may be dispatched to the Libyan capital, Tripoli, as part of a 6,000-strong coalition purportedly to train Libyan soldiers and fight Daesh terrorists.

Reports say a number of British forces have been operating in Libya since the beginning of 2016.

Hammond, who has been accused of being “less than candid” about the UK’s stance on sending troops to Libya, arrived on a surprise visit in Tripoli on Monday.

His trip comes following those of the foreign minister of Italy, France and Germany to the Libyan capital in recent days.

The Libyan government, however, has said it does not want foreign military assistance and calls for publication are likely to intensify concern about Europe's already heavily-criticized involvement in the North African country.

They're winding up to hit the Libyans again.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 22:32 utc | 80

Libya – the New Stronghold of the Islamic State

[T]he American Conservative points out that:

It was not an oversight by the intervening governments when they left Libya to its own devices. That was part of the plan, such as it was, from the very beginning. They made that decision because they wanted a low-risk intervention on the cheap, and they certainly were not prepared to make a long-term commitment to police and rebuild Libya. But they were willing to help throw the country into chaos and to destabilize the surrounding region and declare victory when the regime change they supposedly were not seeking had been achieved.

It must be pointed out that at this point the West suffers from extremely limited capabilities in influencing the situation on the ground in Libya. Weeks after Western politicians discussed a massive air campaign against ISIS in Libya have failed to materialize any action. It’s clear that President Obama doesn’t want the US to get stuck in yet another war, while he thinks that the responsibility for the Libyan crisis resides on European shoulders.

Under these circumstances, the West and, above all, Europe should not wait for the black plague of ISIS to cross the Mediterranean Sea and entrench itself in France, Spain, Italy, Germany and others. It should forget about Washington’s propaganda and turn to Russia for help in a bid to make the fight against ISIS a common effort.

That last sentence sounds like plan. Get some help in opposing ISIS from a state that opposes ISIS, rather than from one of its creators and most stalwart supporters. The EU could put up the dough and Russia the go ... cheaper, and much more effective, that bribing Erdogan. That's all the EU cares about, the Weapon of Mass Migration. The Libyans and their EU destroyed-state be damned.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 22:50 utc | 81

@80 Yep. Trainers for Libya. Training in target acquisition no doubt.

The BBC is on the case. Note the wrecked frigate in the background. Wonder if Blair sold it to Ghadaffi.

Posted by: dh | Apr 19 2016 0:03 utc | 82

@82 dh

After allowing all sorts of scripts through the BBC wanted me to install flash ...

I think they've got to be losing their audience. At some point we all think, 'I know what this is going to say, anyway, it's not worth the trouble'.

If you go with javascripts disabled you get a one-line summation ... one line worth a thousand spiJacked BBC propaganda flash videos.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 19 2016 0:18 utc | 83

@ jfl | Apr 18, 2016 8:18:31 PM | 83

OT -Anecdotally, confirmed, I have not seen a video on BBC since last April and will never allow Adobe on any machine I own. In the last half year accessing things BBC have decreased substantially, now approaching once a day at most. The Guardian has now replaced BBC as go to for finding the propaganda stories of the day - without all the historical (histrionics) pretence (news with a L-handed chirality).

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 19 2016 2:22 utc | 84

Well, I did some research and found that it is still perfectly legal for the CIA to detain people (OMG!). Obama's supposed ending of this practice is essentially a ruse. His 'order' was partial and poorly defined (read: unenforceable) as explained in Executive Order 13491 (2009):

2(g) The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis

4(a) CIA Detention. The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

If you think the wording looks strange . . . you're right! The definition of "detention facility/facilities" - which applies solely to 4(a) was moved to the "definitions" section. The effect is to mask the fact that "detentions" can still be conducted if it is for a short time. Strangely (um... not actually), moving this definition the "definitions" section didn't motivate the drafter of this order to define what 'short-term, transitory' actually meant!!!!

Now, Broadwell also committed other transgressions, saying:

> Petraus and the Administration knew within 24 hours what had happened;

> reinforcements had been requested (note: the Obama Administration contends that no "stand down" order was issued); and,

> that "political hunting season" meant that Benghazi matters had been politicized.

All of this reflected negatively on the President - days before the election(!).

A clue as to why she provide this info is her statement that: the “challenging thing” for Petraeus was, as Director of the CIA, he was “not allowed to communicate with the press.” Broadwell was probably trying to defend Petraeus or was used by Petraeus to get his message out.

Its difficult to know for sure what really happened, but non-Kool-Aid drinkers probably agree that the President lied to ensure his election. Gen. Petraeus may have been trying to set the record straight via a proxy (Broadwell) and in the process unseat the President. If that was the intent, it was poorly executed or blocked. If it was NOT the intent, then Broadwell's off-the-cuff remarks were her attempt to defend Petraeus and/or create a record that could be used to defend him in the future.

IMO, this all points to Broadwell's having been truthful.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 19 2016 4:50 utc | 86

clarifying @86

Obama's order probably closed large purpose-built facilities ("jails" or "camps"). The CIA could still hold prisoners for an indeterminate time in smaller facilities that are not staffed/constructed for large, long-term prisoners.

Prisoners can still be transferred to other countries, I believe. And if so, prisoners could be warehoused/jailed until transfer back to CIA for (further) interrogation.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 19 2016 5:04 utc | 87

I wonder how Noirette reconciles her current stance (comment #55) with her original argument that reaction to the film was akin to the British reaction to the death of Diana?

Posted by: Bob Jackson | Apr 19 2016 5:13 utc | 88

The thread has Hillary Clinton's name at the top ...

Deutsche Bank Turns on the Gold-fix Cartel

The traders bringing the lawsuits against Deutsche Bank and others allege that the banks abused their position of controlling the daily silver and gold price fix to reap illegitimate profit from trading, hurting other investors in the silver market who use the benchmark in billions of dollars of transactions.

Notably, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the US government agency allegedly mandated by Congress to regulate those banks and their commodity derivatives trading, initiated its own investigation in 2008. After a five-year-long “investigation” into allegations of price rigging in silver markets, in 2013 the CFTC dropped the case. The chairman of the CFTC was Gary Gensler, a former senior partner at Goldman Sachs, probably just coincidence. Today Gensler is Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign finance manager.

... so I'll add this toward the bottom. I believe that the F3 are inter-related and that a 'qualified' and 'experienced' politician like Hillary has need of and must have demonstrated her synergistic sympathies in order to have been chosen to serve them.

Oil in Libya (fossil-fuelers) is related to 'war in Libya (fusiliers <= MIC) and both of those are related to Gaddafi and anyone else - Russia and China, for instance - looking for a golden crutch to lean on during the transition from a petrodollar-based world economy to something different (the financiers).

This bit of news is interesting. I hope it has legs. It looks like Deutsche Bank has ratted out its fellow banksters in exchange for easier treatment itself. It's hard to believe that there's a court in the world the banksters cannot collectively roll, however.

And this is happening in a US court, which the banksters definitely can roll, so I assume that the court will turnover everything it gets from Deutsche Bank to the other banksters, and will otherwise defuse and or disqualify it. And that everyone will plea nolo contendere / no wrong doing and pay an 'agreeable' fine.

The evidence for gold market manipulation has been documented on several occasions by Paul Craig Roberts. We'll have to wait and see where this goes. I have to assume nowhere.

I'd loved to be shocked! and awed! by legal firepower brought against organized crime: the banksters.

But Barack Obama has proven to be as effective against the financiers as he is against the fusiliers (Daesh/ISIS) and the fossil-fuelers (BP and the frackers). Which is to say completely ineffective. And he's in the 'fourth quarter' and well ahead of all of us in points. He only has to coast for another 277 days till payday. And then its Hillary's turn ... according to his script. In which case, see the above.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 19 2016 10:05 utc | 89

The smash and grab seems to be on ...

New Push for Military Intervention in Libya: Who Will Control the Libyan Central Bank?

Next week, the Germans French and the British will make another push to influence the Obama Administration over the full support for overt deployment of forces. According to the Guardian newspaper from Britain,

“The Obama summit with European leaders has a wide agenda, but the presence of the Italian prime minister, Mario Renzi, suggests a chief focus will be on Libya, including the need to defeat Isis and stem the migration crisis. The west is pressing the new Libyan government to seek permission for the EU’s Operation Sophia to operate inside Libyan waters, increasing the effectiveness of the EU’s efforts to defeat people traffickers.”

Eastern Libyan military’s warplanes hit Islamists in Derna

Last month, a U.N.-backed Libyan unity government arrived in the capital Tripoli and is trying to establish its authority over the large oil-producing nation.

But allies of eastern military commander Khalifa Haftar have prevented moves by Libya’s eastern parliament towards recognizing the new unity government.

The military loyal to the eastern government has been making advances on the ground in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, which is on the coast about 250 km (155 miles) west of Derna.

Khalifa Haftar is the CIA's man in Libya.

It's a mess. The author of the first article above sees a road out ...

Despite the limitations of financial and military resources, Tanzania and Kikwette as the AU [African Union] envoy cannot relinquish its role as an international player on the question of the deployment of European forces into Libya. The UN Security Council remain divided over the future of western European military intervention in Libya. The Security Council of the UN has already been discredited in Libya by the exposure of the former UN Special envoy to Libya, Bernardino Leon, who took a high paying job in the United Arab Emirates and left his post in the middle of the negotiations over a national government. Leon who had spent a year arranging dialogue talks between the two rival Libya governments suddenly quit his position last November to take a job with the UAE which was to pay over US $1000 per day. Such are the motives of those seeking peace in Libya.

At the minimum, the UN Security Council should be put on notice that there should be no more European intervention until there is a full scale inquiry into the lessons of the UN resolution that had given the NATO mandate to intervene. Now that the reasons for the Sarkozy energetic efforts to intervene are clear, it devolves on members of the Group of 77 to take the lead to oppose the intervention of forces from countries who were implicated in the destruction since 2011. Secondly, the diplomatic efforts of the African Union should be geared at removing the foreign military elements from Qatar and the Emirates who are carrying out a proxy war in Libya. Disarming the varying militias will not be possible until foreign elements such as Turkey, the Sudan, and Qatar are forcibly removed from Libya.

... Russia and China are on the UNSC. They F**ked Up big time last time on Libya. They owe it to the Libyan people to go all out to try to rectify - well, ameliorate - the horrendous consequences of their F**k Up last time.

The present head of the Group of 77 has fallen to the Thai Dictatorship. China has suck there, they could tell the dictator to get on it. The US will play the contras, again, of course.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 22 2016 22:03 utc | 90

The comments to this entry are closed.