by Aaron Klein
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), head of the House intelligence subcommittee that interviewed the CIA employees, explained that while there was no “stand-down order,” there was a disagreement at the nearby CIA annex about how quickly to respond. Westmoreland revealed that some CIA agents wanted to storm the Benghazi compound immediately, but they were told to wait while the agency collected intelligence on the ongoing attack.8
“Some CIA security contractors disagreed with their bosses and wanted to move more quickly,” the Associated Press reported, drawing from Westmoreland’s comments.9
According to AP writer Kimberly Dozier:
Westmoreland said the CIA security contractors loaded into two vehicles, with weapons ready, the moment they heard the radio call for help from the diplomatic building. Some wanted to rush to the U.S. compound roughly a mile away, and their agitation grew as they heard increasing panic when the diplomats reported the militants were setting the compound on fire.
The CIA team leader and the CIA chief at the Benghazi annex told committee members that they were trying to gather Libyan allies and intelligence before racing into the fray, worried that they might be sending their security team into an ambush with little or no backup.
At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to “wait” at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because they are still CIA employees.10
The AP reported the CIA agents said a quicker response would not have saved the lives of those killed in the attacks, including Ambassador Stevens. That claim obviously cannot be verified because of the lack of information regarding what happened to Stevens the night of the attacks.
The narrative of “orders to wait” seems to directly contradict page 23 of the ARB report, which states:
Just prior to receiving the TDY RSO’s distress call shortly after 2142 local, the head of Annex security heard multiple explosions coming from the north in the direction of the SMC… The Annex response team departed its compound in two vehicles at approximately 2205 local. The departure of the Annex team was not delayed by orders from superiors; the team leader decided on his own to depart the Annex compound once it was apparent, despite a brief delay to permit their continuing efforts, that rapid support from local security elements was not forthcoming.11
In October 2012, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Young-blood denied reports her agency was told to hold off in aiding those in the Benghazi compound. However, her statement only seems to pertain to her own agency and not others trying to help, such as U.S. Special Forces. “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” Youngblood said at the time. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night – and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”12
WHY NO BENGHAZI AIR SUPPORT?
There is much speculation as to why military assets were ultimately not sent. We can get creative and assert that the Obama administration didn’t believe the attack would progress and so didn’t want to draw more attention to a U.S. mission that was likely being used for sensitive intelligence purposes, like perhaps aiding the Islamic extremist–linked Mid-East rebels.
Another possibility, particularly for the question of why air support was never sent, may have been touched upon by a recent claim from an attorney representing Benghazi whistle-blowers. The claim may also help explain why it took hours for an American-provided C-130 cargo plane to take off from Tripoli for the short flight to Benghazi to help evacuate survivors, as documented in the State’s ARB report.13 I will present information that furthers the attorney’s claim. In fact, these details may provide an explanation for why the U.S. Benghazi facilities were attacked in the first place.
Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney who represents Benghazi whistle-blowers, stated that four hundred surface-to-air missiles were taken from Libya during the attacks and that the U.S. feared the missiles could be used to down aircraft. As you will shortly read, there may be a lot more to the missing antiaircraft story. Before we go there, let’s review what DiGenova told WMAL radio in Washington, D.C., in August 2013. He said he “does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles.”14
DiGenova said his information “comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community.”15 He stated the Obama administration is worried the missiles can target airliners. “They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner,” he claimed.16
He continued: “And it’s pretty clear that the biggest concern right now are 400 missiles which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten in the hands of some very ugly people.”17
Obviously, antiaircraft missiles in the hands of the Libyan rebels or other jihadists would have served as a major threat to any incoming U.S. aircraft sent to aid the American targets during the Benghazi attack.
Such missiles also may have threatened the cargo plane that sat on the tarmac for hours in Tripoli before finally being dispatched in the early morning hours. The ARB report had stated that the plane took off only after security forces were able to secure the airport.18
In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee on June 26, 2013, Gen. Carter Ham was asked why no air support was sent to Benghazi. He replied that the military was facing a “very uncertain situation in an environment which we know we had an unknown surface-to-air threat with the proliferation particularly of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, many of which remain unaccounted for.”19
In House hearings, Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was further asked whether we provided rebels with any weapons systems, such as missiles, that could have been utilized against us during the attack. Roberson refused to deny that possibility. “Sir, I don’t know that,” was his response.20
The Senate’s extensive Benghazi report documented the Pentagon was specifically concerned about MANPADS when military leaders discussed responding in Benghazi, explaining officials “worried about the presence of shoulder-fired Surface-to-Air missiles in Libya.” The Senate committee spoke to outside experts who described a whole range of possible problems with dispatching aircraft, from MANPAD concerns to the lack of communication with friendly forces for marking targets. Still, the Senate determined more investigation was needed to “evaluate why DOD found it unnecessary to begin to prepare fighters and make other arrangements, especially in light of the concern that the hostilities could spread to Tripoli.”
MANPADS PROMPTED BENGHAZI ATTACKS?
Amazingly, the story of missing missiles was first detailed in a largely unnoticed speech to a think tank seven months before the Benghazi attack. As I first exclusively reported, a top State Department official described an unprecedented multimillion-dollar U.S. effort to secure antiaircraft weapons in Libya after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. The official, Andrew J. Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, explained that U.S. experts were fully coordinating the collection efforts with the Libyan opposition. He said the efforts were taking place in Benghazi, where a leading U.S. expert was deployed. Shapiro conceded that the Western-backed rebels did not want to give up the weapons, particularly man-portable air-defense systems, or MANPADS, which were the focus of the weapons collection efforts.
The information may shed light on why the U.S. special mission in Benghazi was attacked September 11, 2012 in the first place. As documented in chapter 7, there is information the Bengha
zi mission was a planning headquarters for coordinating aid, including weapons distribution, to the jihadist-led rebels, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials. After the fall of Gaddafi, the arming efforts shifted focus to aiding the insurgency targeting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Middle Eastern security officials further stated that after Gaddafi’s downfall, Stevens was heavily involved in the State Department effort to collect weapons from the Libyan rebels. Those weapons were then transferred in part to the rebels fighting in Syria, the officials said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last March disclosed in an interview with Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to keep weapons caches, particularly MANPADS, from falling into terrorist hands. Fox News host Bret Baier asked Graham why Stevens was in the Benghazi mission amid the many known security threats to the facility. Graham replied, “Because that’s where the action was regarding the rising Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that are flowing freely in Libya.”
The senator added, “We were desperately trying to control the anti-aircraft missiles, the man pads that were all over Libya, that are now all over the Mideast.”21
BIGGEST MANPADS COLLECTION EFFORT IN U.S. HISTORY
Now, let’s get to Shapiro’s largely unnoticed remarks from February 2, 2012, which may shed further light on the activities taking place inside the attacked Benghazi facility. Let’s recall the U.S. facility itself was protected by the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, which is part of the al-Qaeda–allied Ansar al-Sharia group. That group also was in possession of a significant quantity of MANPADS and was reluctant to give them up, Middle Eastern security officials previously told me.
In his speech seven months before the Benghazi attack, Shapiro stated, “Currently in Libya we are engaged in the most extensive effort to combat the proliferation of MANPADS in U.S. history.” Shapiro was addressing a forum at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit think tank that describes itself as seeking “pragmatic solutions for some of the most important peace and security challenges around the world.”22
Shapiro explained that Libya had “accumulated the largest stockpile of MANPADS of any non-MANPADS producing country in the world.” He also related how then secretary of state Hillary Clinton “committed to providing $40 million to assist Libya’s efforts to secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Of that funding, $3 million went to unspecified nongovernmental organizations that specialize in conventional weapons destruction and stockpile security.23
The NGOs and a U.S. team coordinated all efforts with Libya’s Transitional National Council, or TNC, said Shapiro. The U.S. team was led by Mark Adams, a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force.24
Tellingly, Shapiro stated that Adams was deployed in August 2011, not to Tripoli where the U.S. maintained an embassy, but to Benghazi. The only official U.S. diplomatic presence in Benghazi consisted of the CIA annex and nearby U.S. facility that were the targets of the September 11, 2012, attack.
Shapiro expanded on the coordination with the TNC. “A fact often overlooked in our response to events in Libya, is that – unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan – we did not have tens of thousands of U.S. forces on the ground, nor did we control movement and access,” he said. “This meant we did not have complete freedom of movement around the country. Our efforts on the ground therefore had to be carefully coordinated and fully supported by the TNC.”25
Speaking of the missiles, Shapiro said, “Many of these weapons were taken by militias and anti-Qadhafi forces during the fighting.” Later he explained that “because many militias believe MANPADS have some utility in ground combat, many militia groups remain reluctant to relinquish them.”26
This prompts the obvious question for us – was the facility attacked by militias in an effort to thwart the collection of MANPADS?
Shapiro explained that the U.S. collection efforts consisted of three phases: “Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure, and disable loose MANPADS across the country,” he said. “To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists.”27
Phase 2 efforts were intended to help the Libyan government to integrate militias and veterans of the fighting, including consolidating weapons into secure facilities and assisting in the destruction of items that the Libyans deemed in excess of their security requirements.28
Such actions, we can imagine, were likely not supported by the jihadist rebels.
The third phase would have seen the United States help ensure that the Libyans met modern standards, including updating storage facilities, improving security, and implementing safety management practices.29
The U.S. efforts clearly failed in that phase. In April, the United Nations released a report revealing that weapons from Libya to extremists were proliferating at an “alarming rate,” fueling conflicts in Mali, Syria, Gaza, and elsewhere.30
Meanwhile, what Shapiro failed to note is that he is somewhat complicit in the largest terrorist looting of MANPADS that took place immediately after the U.S.-NATO military campaign in 2011 that helped end Moammar Gaddafi’s rule in Libya. Gaddafi had hoarded Africa’s biggest known reserve of MANPADS, with his stock said to number between fifteen thousand and twenty thousand. Many of the missiles were stolen by militias fighting in Libya, including those backed by the United States in their anti-Gaddafi efforts.
CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson later reported that the United States was unable to secure “thousands” of MANPADS. She quoted a “well-placed source” divulging that hundreds of missiles were tracked going to AQIM, a group in the Islamic Maghreb, which is the al-Qaeda franchise based in Algeria that is now considered one of the gravest threats to the United States.31
Could this missile threat explain why no air support was sent during the Benghazi attacks?
4
AMBASSADOR STEVENS KIDNAPPED?
Details about what really happened to murdered ambassador Chris Stevens the night of the Benghazi onslaught are sketchy to say the least. The official State Department story line regarding Stevens’ fate has some glaring but, until now, largely unchallenged inconsistencies, to put it mildly. These inconsistencies prompt significant questions about the official version of events. Primary among our line of questioning is whether at any point, alive or dead, Stevens was held hostage, and if so by whom? I will show it is likely the rebels were in control of Stevens’ body for a period of time that disastrous night. If this was the case, how was the corpse eventually released? Were there negotiations to secure the remains? What promises did we make for Stevens’ body and to whom? If his body were held hostage, why do we not know about it? These details are important in comprehending the scope of the Real Benghazi Story.
Raising some eyebrows, Thomas Pickering, the State Department’s lead Benghazi investigator and author of the State-sponsored Accountability Review Board report, refused to deny there was a plan to kidnap Stevens. At a House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing on Benghazi in mid-September 2013, Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) asked Pickering directly about a potential kidnap plot.
“Is it true that they were planning to kidnap the ambassador and it went wrong?” she asked.
“I can’t comment on that,” Pickering replied, followed by a long pause.
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa stepped in and changed the subject. However, later in the hearing, Pickering further commented on the kidnapping issue. He stated: “Kidnapping seemed to me to be far-fetched. Because in effect in the testimony that was given and the public report, they did not make a serious attempt to go into the closed area of the villa. It is not even sure in my view that they knew the ambassador was there. So I would say, while I said I didn’t want to touch that, I would say in retrospect it doesn’t seem highly likely. It could be. But I don’t think so.”1
The kidnapping question was further fueled in part by an al-Qaeda member’s claim that Stevens was killed in a botch
ed capture attempt. Obviously we need to take anything a terrorist says with more than a grain of salt. But let’s take a closer look at the jihadist’s boast before we further probe the kidnap question.
Abdallah Dhu al-Bajadin, who was identified by U.S. officials speaking to the Washington Free Beacon as a known weapons experts for al-Qaeda, wrote on a jihadi website that Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Benghazi assault went awry. The Free Beacon reported al-Bajadin’s claim was not immediately being rejected by U.S. law enforcement officials probing the ambassador’s death.2
In the March 14, 2013, posting on the Ansar al-Mujahideen Network, an al-Qaeda–linked jihadi website, al-Bajadin claimed Stevens was given a lethal injection that was overlooked during the medical autopsy on his body. “The plan was based on abduction and exchange of high-level prisoners,” he wrote; however, “the operation took another turn, for a reason God only knows, when one of the members of the jihadist cell improvised and followed Plan B.”3
Al-Bajadin lectured that a lethal injection is given in “more than one place in the human body that autopsy doctors ignore when they see that the symptoms are similar to another specific and common illness. Anyone who studied the art of silent assassination that spies applied during the Cold War would easily identify these parts of the body,” he said. The terrorist claimed he waited until the date of his posting to reveal the botched kidnapping and lethal injection because “the cell” behind “the infiltrative and secret operation is now completely safe from intelligence bureaus.”4
OFFICIAL STEVENS ACCOUNT HIGHLY UNLIKELY
Let’s put the al-Qaeda allegation aside and instead focus on the U.S. government’s account of what happened to Stevens. We’d need to make several monumental leaps of faith if the official version of events surrounding Stevens’ untimely death is to be believed. Here we must review what the State Department’s ARB report on the Benghazi attack has to say about what it claims happened to him that doomed night.
