Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack

CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi s


Something is definitely being covered up, so damaging the administration looks to be doing everything to stop it.  I hope this is just the start of uncovering what really happened here,  this is probably the biggest cover up during Obama’s term and quite possibly decades.

What takes 35 agents to accomplish? CIA Agents at that.

Why so much obvious man power and such effort to keep that fact hidden?

What is so big that Petraeus and Clinton both had to resign to hide?

Why are we hiding the survivors AND changing their names?

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was on with Greta Van Susteren tonight to discuss the Obama scandals. This was after Jake Tapper on CNN broke the news today that there were “dozens” of CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi on 9-11 when the consulate came under attack. Gowdy told Greta the Obama Administration is hiding the survivors, dispersing them around the country, AND changing their names.
And, at the same time Obama is calling the whole thing a ‘phony’ scandal.

People are claiming that the Ambassador was there trying to retrieve weapons. That’s the piss poor, post hoc, posthaste cover story. And in a nation that breathes and lives in a state of hypocrisy, its the exact opposite of what was actually happening.

 “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

The real story is that Benghazi was being used to run guns to Al Queda in Syria and it was either Russia or Iran that attacked the CIA run operation to expose the gun running to the world. Fact is is that the executive is responsible for arming our enemies in the war on terror. Exposing this hypocritical charade for what it really is exposes every dirty little plan being implemented to manipulate the American public into accepting a war that will ruin the US and destroy this country forever. China and Russia are playing a waiting game as the US implodes with the petro dollar. The only thing that will save the petro dollar is a huge war and that is what Benghazi is really about.

Turkey is being used to arm Syria. But that is not the only place in the world where the US government is arming people including our enemies. Turkey is even being used to transport Columbines into the war in Syria. They have waived all passports between the two countries so the ex drug cartel members and ex Columbine intelligence which was disbarred from the Columbine government can’t be traced and tracked back in forth.

And don’t forget all those crates of ammunition that were being sent to loading docks by DHS. Those would have gone to South America some where. And Columbia could have sent them to Turkey to arm Syrian rebels. It seems multiple routes are being used, land routes from Turkey, Jordon and Iraq, and sea route (direct supply).

The weapons supply to Syria s a big operation.

Multiplying scandals to hide the one scandal that could sink Obama

Realize, first of all, that the normal attention span of elite media is about three days. If you can jam your version of data down their throats for that length of time, you’re golden.

Then you’re facing another three days. You start all over again.

You being the White House PR flack machine.

The overall effect you’re looking for is: here today, gone tomorrow (or in three days). Nothing sticks.

Therefore, the public, or that part of it that can still think and reflect at all, is yanked from one fragmentary story to another. Sooner or later, surrender comes.

“Do me. Give me your stories. I’ll buy them. Then I’ll forget them. Then I’ll buy the new ones.”

In this climate, there is no process that can be called reasoning. It doesn’t exist. It’s all about What’s New.

Fast&Furious? Old hat. Benghazi? He said-he said. Who cares? The Feds spying on AP reporters? A yawner.

No traction. That’s the goal of every modern White House press corps.

Of course, along come stories that can’t be slid out of the pan and tossed in the garbage. A war. A mass shooting in a school or a theater.

In that case, the White House quickly develops a message. The theme. The takeaway.

“What’s our agenda here? What do we want to leave people with?”

“Mental health. This Lanza kid was a nutjob. Therefore, America needs a better mental health system. The president will announce a new program to install community mental-health centers across the land.”

“And guns. The kid had access to his mother’s guns. Feeds into taking all the guns away. From everybody.”

White House PR flacks spread these messages to the press and enlist the help of Congresspeople to make supporting statements.

They invent reality for the masses.

Once in a while, a truly ugly scandal rears its head. If it isn’t cut off at the pass, it could damage the White House and take the president into a place he doesn’t want to inhabit. Benghazi, for example.

“Obama stood by and did nothing while Americans were murdered.” That story line has to be stopped.

So he-said he-said gets a heavy workout. Accusations and denials. The pile of nonsense that goes nowhere.

Then there is the suggestion of blame that should go elsewhere. The State Department. The CIA. Put them front and center and deflect responsibility away from the president. Try a presidential “I didn’t know what was going on.”

If all that doesn’t work, it’s a crisis. It might be time to introduce (leak) new scandals. A few of them. A traffic jam.

If this seems improbable and shocking, take a breath and consider that it’s in the age-old war playbook. Sacrifice a battle to win the war.

“We lose here to win there.”

Politicians who gain significant power don’t think like “good people.” They aren’t operating as the PR-fed media tells you they’re operating. They think like Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz.

“Pretend inferiority.” “All war is based on deception.” “When we are able to attack, we must seem unable.” “War is such a dangerous business that mistakes that come from kindness are the very worst.”

Presidents are at war. They’re at war from the moment they step into power. If they’re not, the people behind the curtain, who put the president into office, take up the slack and protect them.

Benghazi could torpedo Obama? Could take him down? The scandal is widening? It’s getting harder to contain? It’s rising to a roar?

Okay. Do the one thing that will appear to be completely counter-intuitive. Leak new scandals. Let a few dupes take the fall. Who cares?

Obscure Benghazi with new shocks. The AP scandal. The IRS scandal. The NSA-Snowden scandal. In each of those, Obama himself can survive. The damage he incurs is far less than what would happen if the Benghazi op explodes.

Aside from Americans being murdered at Benghazi, which is the emotional spark that could ignite the public, there is the matter of the White House and the Pentagon and the CIA arming the very terrorists who killed Christopher Stevens and the Seals. Arming them to make them into “heroic rebels” fighting against the Assad government in Syria.

Rahm Emanuel says, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” The spin off of that is: Expose new crises if you need them.

The media are ready, willing, and able to publicize the new crises. They live for them. Big stories. Commands don’t have to come down from the penthouse to editors and reporters. It’s an easy slam-dunk. Leak a new scandal, and the wolves of the press come to feed.

As you sit here reading this, do you know or remember exactly who first leaked the IRS and AP scandals to the press? And if you’re in the vast minority of people who think they remember, are you correct? Do you really know how the initial leak occurred and who it came from?

In the Snowden/NSA case, we presume it was Snowden himself who did the leaking, because, as an independent voice, he wanted to. He chose the moment to tell The Guardian and the Washington Post to move ahead and blow the whistle.

But, as I’ve argued in prior articles, it’s far more likely Snowden is an agent of forces who want to blast a hole in the NSA for their own un-altruistic reasons. Therefore, the timing of the NSA scandal, as a media story, would have been a choice Snowden’s handlers made.

In the Watergate myth, two rookie reporters for the Washington Post, following up on the Watergate break-in, caught a break. Woodward did. He “knew a guy.” The guy was standing in the shadows of a parking garage. He said, “This story is bigger than the break-in.” And Woodward and Bernstein were off and running.

Someone wanted that story to become a scandal, to take down Nixon. Deep Throat in the garage was fulfilling a higher purpose. I’ve written about this several times. Basically, David Rockefeller, who owned Nixon, was horrified that the president was laying tariffs on goods imported into the US.

It went directly against David’s prime Globalist strategy: “free trade.”

Rockefeller was the real leaker. He was the man who gave the green light to take down the crook, Nixon.

Take a president down. Protect a president. Either way, in times of crisis, the people in power do what’s necessary. They don’t care about Nice or Kind or Moral or Just. That’s fiction. That’s fairy tale.

The job of elite media is to believe and promote the idea that Nice and Kind and Moral and Just are the rule in political life, and scandal is the exception. That’s the myth for the kiddies.


The truth goes like this. “Okay, guys, we’re in the war room. We’ve got. This is a bad one. Obama is exposed. His flank is unprotected. If we let this scandal play out, it’s going to drown the president. We can time a few new scandals so people will forget about Benghazi. Let’s bring them into play, one after the other. Hit them hard. Obama will weather the storm. Memory is short…”

Here’s what the National Journal reported on June 13:

“Obama’s job-approval ratings in the Gallup Poll have averaged between 47 percent and 51 percent each week since mid-February. This past week, June 3-9, his approval rating was 48 percent and his disapproval rating was 45 percent. All of the other major polls except for Fox News’s show essentially no change in his standing from a couple of months ago, before renewed attention to Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service revelations, the Associated Press phone-records flap, and the recent leaks about the National Security Agency’s electronic-surveillance system.”

The president is, in fact, surviving the recent scandals. At least, that’s how the press and the pollsters are presenting it.

The op is working.

Is Obama taking hits? Of course. Has his credibility diminished? Yes. Will the recent scandals affect his ability to “get things done” in his second term? Yes.

But so far, the larger threat, Benghazi, has been deflected.

And the weakening of the dollar, the increasing of government debt, the economic devastation of the country, the true unemployment rate, the continuing war in Afghanistan, the stepping up of the Surveillance State, the militarization of police forces, the corporatizing of agriculture…and all the other crucial indicators of the decline of America as a modern Roman Empire are on track.

On track to what?

A Globalist planet.

A kingdom of controlled Earth, where all nations, including America, are brought down to a level of power that can managed from above.

Obama, like all recent Globalist presidents, is doing his assigned job. His number-one job. He’s winning the war as he sees it and as his controllers see it.

Jon Rappoport
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at

It’s Dishonest to Talk about Benghazi Without Talking About the Syrian War

The White House is declining to say when President Barack Obama first learned of three e-mails that the State Department sent to the White House on Sept. 11, 2012, directly notifying the Executive Office of the President that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, that U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens was at the Benghazi mission at the time of the attack, and that the group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack.

Whie House: ‘We Decline to Comment’ on When Obama Learned of E-Mails, Met With NSC on Benghazi

The White House also declined to say when the president first met with the National Security Council after the Benghazi attack. Carney downplayed the significance of the State Department emails.

“There were emails about all sorts of information that was becoming available in the aftermath of the attack,” Carney said. “The email you’re referring to was an open-source, unclassified email referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously. There was a variety of information coming in.

Bumps in the road: The President said the killing of ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya was some of the ‘bumps in the road’ along the ‘rocky path’ to Middle Eastern peace.


According to Democrats, today’s Congressional hearings on Benghazi are nothing but a partisan witch hunt.

According to Republicans, the Obama administration committed treason in it’s handling of Benghazi … and then tried to cover it up.

Both parties are avoiding the bigger picture … The fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have been using Benghazi as the center of U.S. efforts to arm the Al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels.

Specifically, the U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported in 2011:

“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion. But NATO planesstopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

In 2011, Ambassador Stevens was appointed to be the Obama administration’s liaison with the “budding Libyan opposition,” according to ABC News. Stevens and the State Department worked directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Belhadj has direct connections to al-Qaeda.

CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.

Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. (Indeed, the New York Times reported last week that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.)

The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

This brings us to the murder of ambassador Stevens …

The Wall Street JournalTelegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi wasmainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate. And former CIA officer Philip Giraldiconfirms:

Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.

Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.

Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:

More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?

Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.


Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot downSyrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.

In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also claim that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.

Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation. (A self-described Pentagon whistleblower contacted us to confirm this theory.)

The Big Picture

Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.

For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends. For decades, the U.S. has backed the most radical, fundamentalist, violent Muslims.

The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria, Libya and Iran for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.

Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.

Liberals rightfully lambast Bush for getting us into the disastrous Iraq war.

But Obama has in fact launched wars in LibyaSyriaYemenPakistan … and up to 35 African nations(and see this).

Obama – citing a Nixon administration official’s justification for invading Cambodia – has claimed his power extends into every country in the world … well beyond those where we are engaged in hostilities.

Obama has dramatically escalated the use of drone assassinations, which are creating many more terrorists than they are killing. The former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo says that Obama’s drone surge is as damaging to our country as Bush’s torture program. I think he’s actually underestimating damage from the program, as drones have become the number 1 recruiting tool for Al Qaeda (especially since children are now being targeted for drone assassination … Oh, and torture is still happening on Obama’s watchbackground).

And the Obama administration has probably supported even more terrorists – in Libya, Syria and elsewhere – than Bush. See thisthisthisthis and this.

In other words, both GOP and Dem politicians are supporting instability and war, based upon false pretenses and pro-war media coverage … just like Iraq.

Those are the deeper truths regarding Benghazi.

The Benghazi Story The Media Isn’t Telling You About

Back on October 29th, UNSPY posted this story: “Rogue” U.S. General Arrested for Ignoring 9/11 Bengzahi Stand-Down Order which received a lot of attention, now watch this video by Ben Swann from Reality Check as he brings you up to speed on recent events. Ben takes a look at 3 generals and 1 admiral who have been either caught up in scandal, forced to retire, or demoted since the Blowback in Benghazi.


Blowback: “We got our eyes poked out” (in Benghazi)

The US mission in Libya that came under attack by militants on September 11 was mainly a secret CIA operation, and the New York Times reported that at least 12 of the 30 Americans in Benghazi were CIA operatives.

“It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss,” said one American official who has served in Libya and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the F.B.I. is still investigating the attack. “We got our eyes poked out.”

The Times report describes the mission of the CIA station in Benghazi as one of “conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups in and around the city.” It further states that the CIA “began building a meaningful but covert presence in Benghazi” within months of the February 2011 revolt in Benghazi that seized the city from forces loyal to the government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Stevens himself was sent into the city in April of that year as the American envoy to the so-called “rebels” organized in the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC).

What the Times omits from its account of CIA activities in Benghazi, however, is that the agency was not merely conducting covert surveillance on the Islamists based in eastern Libya, but providing them with direct aid and coordinating their operations with those of the NATO air war launched to bring down the Gaddafi regime. In this sense, the September 11 attack that killed Stevens and the three other  was very much a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

There is every reason to believe that the robust CIA presence in Benghazi after Gaddafi’s fall also involved more than just surveillance. Libyan Islamists make up the largest single component of the “foreign fighters” who are playing an ever more dominant role in the US-backed sectarian civil war being waged in Syria with the aim of toppling the government of President Bashar al-Assad. According to some estimates, they comprise anywhere from 1,200 to 1,500 of approximately 3,500 fighters who have been infiltrated into Syria from as far away as Chechnya and Pakistan.

The CIA has also set up a center on the border between Turkey and Syria to oversee the funneling of arms, materiel, money and fighters into the Syrian civil war. Given the relationship established between the US agency and the Libyan Islamist militias during the US-NATO war to topple Gaddafi, it seems highly probable that the departure of such elements from eastern Libya and their infiltration into Syria would be coordinated by CIA personnel on both ends.

Last week, Glenn Beck put out his theory that the U.S. is running weapons to al Qaeda or terror groups that are affiliated al Qaeda in Syrian.  In a recent WorldNet Daily exclusive story, significant materials have come to light which further substantiate allegations put forth by the host of TheBlazeTV who called it a scandal that was “Fast and Furious times 1,000.”

Please read the entire article at its original page at WorldNet Daily’s website. Below I have placed some teaser passages, those which make reference to :

Military doctrine used to bomb Libya

President Obama’s national security adviser, Samantha Power, helped to found Responsibility to Protect, which was also devised by several controversial characters, including Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Billionaire activist George Soros’ group the Open Society Institute is also one of only three non-governmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the group that devised the new military doctrine.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”

The term “war crimes” has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’ borders’

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”

In the article, Soros said “true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”

“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.

“In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”

Founded by Samatha Power, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, had a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that original founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term “responsibility to protect” while defining its guidelines. This set the stage for what would become the Obama administration policy in Libya and Syria.

Looking back at that the Obama policy in Libya what we see is a classic case of what the CIA calls the “blowback” of unintended consequence. After triumphantly declaring, “We came, we saw, we killed him” (paraphrasing Julius Caesar’s boast) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now dejectedly asking, “How can this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”  One wonders how she could even ask such a question, much less how the national news media has done nothing to correct this type of flawed thinking on the part of the general population. It is also worth remembering that in 2005 President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had praised Col. Gaddafi as a partner in the “war on terror” because he had arrested or “rendered” on US behalf many al-Qaeda operatives.

The Benghazi Story The Media Isn’t Telling You About

Ben Swann takes a look at 3 generals and 1 admiral who have been either caught up in scandal, forced to retire, or demoted since the Benghazi attack.