The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don't Want You to Know (12 page)

If Clinton, however, was apprised of the security situation in the Benghazi facility, which was largely handled by her own deputies, then she may have misled lawmakers and the public under oath when she testified on January 23, 2013, that no one within the government ever recommended the closure of the U.S. facilities in the Libyan city. In her testimony, Clinton stated: “Well, Senator, I want to make clear that no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed… about the… threats and the dangers as they were developing in Eastern Libya, and in Benghazi.”
¹⁶
Clinton was responding to a question from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Clinton’s testimony is contradicted by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya. Wood testified that he personally recommended the Benghazi mission be closed, as documented in the forty-six-page House Republican report probing the Benghazi attacks. Page 6 of the report cites security concerns, including more than two hundred attacks in Libya, fifty of which took place in Benghazi, including against the U.S. mission there.

States the Republican report: “These developments caused Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya, to recommend that the State Department consider pulling out of Benghazi altogether. Lieutenant Colonel Wood explained that after the withdrawal of these other
organizations, ‘it was apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi.’”
¹⁷

In particularly stinging comments, an updated House report concluded that “at the end of the day, [Clinton] was responsible for ensuring the safety of all Americans serving in our diplomatic facilities. Her failure to do so clearly made a difference in the lives of the four murdered Americans and their families.”
¹⁸

Besides responsibility for the unfathomable withdrawal and subsequent denial of security at the U.S. special mission, Clinton may have played a role in Stevens’ decision to go to the dangerous facility on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a day when jihadists are particularly motivated to strike our country’s assets. This largely unreported role prompts larger questions about Clinton’s national security decisions and her possible disregard of clear, present, and obvious terrorist threats.

In several previous chapters we documented that al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups gained major ground in Libya following U.S. intervention there to the point that they were establishing training camps in Benghazi. Things took such a turn that those al-Qaeda–linked groups, including the parent organization of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, held a Sharia Islamic law confab not far from the Benghazi mission. Clinton and the U.S. diplomatic staff
in Libya were aware of the terrorist camps in Benghazi. Fox News reported the U.S. mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” in August 2012 to discuss the training camps. The news network obtained a government cable addressed to Clinton’s office stating that the U.S. diplomats in Libya were briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi… These groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’”
¹⁹
This borders on the surreal. After being briefed about nearby terrorist training facilities, no action was taken to secure the U.S. compound.

Remember that Libya was supposed to be the prototype of the so-called Arab Spring, a shining beacon of democracy for other Arab and Middle Eastern countries to emulate. Instead, the country descended into chaos, with extremist groups moving quickly to fill the void. Despite this deteriorating and well-reported security situation, Clinton actually worked on plans to declare a symbolic victory in Benghazi. According to congressional testimony by Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affairs, who was in Libya at the time of the attack, Stevens went to the compound that day in part because Clinton wanted to convert the shanty complex “into a permanent constituent post” as a symbol of the new Libya. “Timing for this decision was important,” Hicks explained. “Chris needed to report before September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, on the physical – the political and security environment in
Benghazi to support an action memo to convert Benghazi from a temporary facility to a permanent facility.”
²⁰

Hicks revealed the directive to convert the compound came from the State Department Office of Near Eastern Affairs, headed by acting assistant secretary Beth Jones. Money was available to be transferred to Benghazi from a State Department fund set aside for Iraq, provided the funds transfer was done by September 30.

He further testified that in May 2012, during a meeting with Clinton, Stevens promised he would give priority to making sure the U.S. facility at Benghazi was transformed into a permanent constituent post. Hicks said Stevens himself “wanted to make a symbolic gesture to the people of Benghazi that the United States stood behind their dream of establishing a new democracy.”
²¹

Toward the end of the hearing, the chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), asked Hicks to summarize his testimony on why Stevens went to Benghazi. “At least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s wish that, that post become a permanent constituent post, and also there, because we understood the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Hicks reiterated. “We hoped that she would be able to announce to the Libyan people our establishment of a permanent constituent post in Benghazi at that time.”
²²

We can only venture to guess the motivation for Clinton’s deputies to repeatedly reject necessary protection to the U.S.
special mission while withdrawing aircraft and even a special response team from one of the most endangered State Department posts in the world. Some conspiracy theorists have baselessly claimed the government wanted Stevens dead and set out to deliberately sabotage the mission. Aside from there being no evidence to support this wild charge, the accusation simply doesn’t make sense on several levels. Why would the State Department want to kill Stevens? He wasn’t threatening to divulge the secretive activities taking place inside the facility. In fact, he was one of the central figures in the arms-to-rebels scheme. To briefly entertain this horrible conspiracy for the purposes of refuting it, let’s say someone did want Stevens killed. There are far cleaner ways to achieve that sickening goal. It’s pretty time-consuming and even highly conspicuous to deny security to the mission for months while setting up the mission to invite such an attack just to have our ambassador terminated. Plus, we’d have to believe the attackers were directed on some level by the U.S. government, a pretty outrageous assumption.

The State Department would further have to be run by unskilled idiots to use the assault to kill Stevens. The attack was an utter embarrassment to the State Department, caused a major political scandal, and only served to draw more attention to what was transpiring inside the secretive facility, a compound the United States went to great lengths to hide. Instead, for those who do want to entertain this conspiracy, it would have been far easier and cleaner to have Stevens taken out in a roadside bombing or sniper attack, both of
which are regular occurrences in Benghazi. That said, let’s get back to reality. I believe a more likely explanation for the denial of security was to keep the U.S. mission’s activities secretive, perhaps even obscured from the military, which repeatedly offered to beef up protection at the compound.

Clinton, it seems, was not only personally involved in some of those alleged activities, primarily the arms-to-jihadists scheme; she was a ringleader. In fact, in February 2013, the
New York Times
described Clinton as one of the driving forces behind advocating a plan to arm the Syrian rebels. Specifically, Clinton’s plan – which was also proposed by then CIA director David Petraeus and then defense secretary Leon E. Panetta – called for rebel groups to be vetted, trained, and armed “with the assistance of some neighboring states.”
²³

The newspaper quoted White House officials claiming they rejected the plan; however, it is difficult to believe the White House would reject a plan proposed and supported by the secretaries of state and defense – plus the CIA chief, to boot. Furthermore, another
Times
report one month later confirmed American-aided arms were shipped to the rebels for weeks. The paper’s description of the arms shipments mirrors the exact plan as reportedly concocted by Clinton.

The
Times
reported that since at least November 2012, the United States had been helping “the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.”
²⁴
In other words, Clinton’s plan to arm the rebels was seemingly put into action.

If this is the case – and all the evidence points there (see
chapter 2
for more) – then Clinton has even more explaining to do because she claimed during her Benghazi testimony that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) asked Clinton a pretty direct question: “Is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked, as her voice suddenly jumped an octave. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
²⁵

So we are to believe that Clinton did not know her
plan to arm the rebels was put into action as her State Department underlings pulled critical security from the Benghazi mission while denying repeated requests for the bare-minimum protection at the strangely established compound located in al-Qaedaville, where she was set to declare victory in Libya as jihadists set up training camps and looted missiles. I’ll buy that bridge now.

A
n enormous amount of attention has been centered on the Obama administration’s altering of the now-infamous talking points on Benghazi, scrubbing references to terrorism while stressing a so-called popular protest against an obscure, anti-Islam film. The protest, by most accounts, never took place and certainly had nothing to do with the motivation for the assault.

The talking points scandal goes beyond the selective editing of intelligence information or the cover-ups of the well-coordinated jihadist assault. The implications of the duplicitous editing affair are larger than obscuring the possibly illicit activities taking place inside the U.S. special mission. The story here is the large-scale, purposeful deception of the American public, the abject betrayal of public trust to the point that national security was willingly jeopardized by stirring further riots across the Islamic world
when the government decided to draw more attention to the Muhammad film and even to use taxpayer dollars to apologize for the irrelevant movie. After top administration officials were caught crafting misleading talking points, they boxed themselves in even further by lying about why the points were selectively edited, claiming the changes were made to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation.

The curious talking points tale began when U.S. intelligence officials testified behind closed doors in early November 2012 and were asked point-blank whether they had altered the material on which United Nations ambassador Susan Rice had based her original statements to the public about the Benghazi attacks. On Sunday, September 16, 2012, Rice had appeared on five morning television programs to offer the official Obama administration response to the Benghazi attacks. In nearly identical statements, she asserted that the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”
¹
Other Obama administration officials made similar claims.

Four days after Rice’s misinformation, at a town-hall event hosted by Univision, Obama himself was questioned about whether the Benghazi attack was carried out by terrorists. He responded, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” Pressed about whether al-Qaeda was behind the assault, he replied, “Well, we don’t know yet.”
²

It would later emerge that the talking points were
edited to remove references to terrorism and al-Qaeda in the attacks. The administration also removed information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.
³
An original draft stating, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack” was changed to “We do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
⁴
Note the replacement of “attack” with “violent demonstrations.”

Of course, the United States immediately had surveillance video from the mission that showed there was no popular protest at all on September 11, 2012. Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 U.S. official in Libya at the time of the September 11, 2012, attacks, testified that he knew immediately the attacks were terror strikes, not a protest turned violent. According to Hicks, “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go.”
⁵