When Sharyl Attkission was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly recently, she spoke of both “Fast and Furious” and Benghazi, but she didn’t tell us what she thought might be going on in Benghazi. However, another establishment source has spoken out on Benghazi and has, just like Attkisson on “Fast and Furious,” confirmed what we have been seeing in the alternative media.
Pulitzer-Prize winning Seymour Hersh writes,
The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)
In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)
The questions that become pertinent if this story is true are: 1) Did this operation provoke that attack in Benghazi, 2) Was the desire to deny this operation the reason for a lagging response to the attack?, 3) Was the desire to cover up this operation a reason the Administration invented a false cover story about a riot in response to a video? 4) Is the secrecy of this operation the reason the Administration is refusing to cooperate in an investigation about what happened.
The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
The Washington Blog points out many stories from conservative sources that back up Hersh’s own reporting. It also points out that even CNN has admitted to some of these aspects of the story.