Benghazi Was Full Of CIA Spooks

Benghazi has been a mess for the Obama administration from the moment our Ambassador was under siege. During the campaign more was made of Mitt Romney’s response than the President’s. A failing of the press no doubt but since then the facts have come out slowly but surely. The attack on the consulate wasn’t due to a bogus You Tube video, it was an attack by al Qaeda. The President went to bed rather than coordinate a response. His failure to lead and the failure of his underlings to know what to do if he wasn’t around resulted in a stand down order to any military that could have aided our Ambassador.

Now we discover that there were dozens of CIA operatives in Benghazi. The CIA has been desperate to hide this fact, subjecting survivors to monthly polygraph tests to see if they’re talking. The President is hiding the names of these CIA agents, all survivors of the attack. In some cases, their names have been changed. It begs the question why the CIA is going to such lengths to protect itself. For the President he has less to lose at this point. He already won re-election, his strategy of focusing on Romney’s response while blaming a bogus video diverted attention long enough for Benghazi to be irrelevant in the election. He was of course aided by the media, including debate moderator Candy Crowley who openly sided with Obama during the second debate.

Or does the President have less to lose? Perhaps what’s really going on here could take down the CIA and the President all at once. Why were there so many CIA agents in Benghazi? The one question that hasn’t been asked by anyone in Congress is why Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi on 9-11-12 in the first place. What’s he doing in a place that’s known as dangerous and what is he doing there with dozens of CIA spooks?

Jake Tapper (who seems to be the only journalist doing real reporting on this matter) suggested in May that Benghazi was the site of a major CIA covert action. Odds are the CIA action had to do with gun running, likely to Syria. Just a few months ago Obama made a half hearted attempt to support the rebels in Syria. Those rebels just happen to be affiliated with al Qaeda, the same people who attacked the consulate in Benghazi and killed Ambassador Stevens. We’ve hardly heard anything from the President about our actions in Syria since he first announced that Assad had crossed the “red line” forcing the US to take action. Why do you suppose that is?

Here’s what’s likely going on. The CIA was involved in a gun running (or other weapons) program based in Benghazi. The consulate was likely a cover, ambassador Stevens was almost certainly involved. The guns were being sent to al Qaeda rebels in Syria, though in the hands of al Qaeda who knows where they were actually going. Ambassador Stevens is killed creating a mess for the President and the CIA. At some point it was decided to openly support the rebels, likely as a cover for what happened in Benghazi. With Congress and some journalists snooping around, it became important for the administration to create a narrative. With Obama openly supporting Syrian rebels, no matter how half hearted, now if comes out that Benghazi was all about gun running the negatives will be reduced because after all the guns were to be used against our “enemy” in Syria. That we weren’t enemies with Syria at the time won’t matter, at least not as much.

If this is so it begs the question why Obama was arming al Qaeda or people associated with al Qaeda. We already have to wonder why Obama so openly supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Why does this President support Muslim terrorists so often?  Especially the sort of people in al Qaeda who have attacked out country before. The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t much better. Even if you don’t believe Benghazi was about the CIA and gun running to al Qaeda in Syria, there’s no denying Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s all rather curious, why does this President support our long time enemies?