Benghazi Was Blowback. And That’s Why Obama Covered It Up.

John Glaser, May 09, 2013

It’s pretty clear at this point that the Obama administration explicitly misrepresented what they knew to be the truth about the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

In yesterday’s hearings, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) publicized a heretofore classified State Department email describing the attack as a premeditated assault by Ansar al-Sharia, a group that “is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” Note, this email was sent on September 12th, a day after the attack and preceding several official administration statements that the attack had been the result of a spontaneous protest against a YouTube video depicting the prophet Mohammad.

Congressional Republicans have been up in arms at the Obama administration for not having enough security at the Consulate and for not being up front about whether the attack was a protest gone awry or a premeditated attack.

But the controversy kind of just stops there. Few Obama critics in Washington have any idea why the administration would knowingly mislead on the Benghazi attacks.

I can only speculate, but my best guess is that they wanted to avoid the political costs of another terrorist attack on American interests that was only made possible because of the U.S.-NATO bombing war in Libya aimed at toppling the Gadhafi regime. The decision to change the regime in Libya and excite the civil war had long-ranging consequences, from destabilizing the entire north African region to bolstering the presence and influence of al-Qaeda affiliated groups.

According to a book written by former Navy SEAL Jack Murphy and former Army Ranger Brandon Webb, the Benghazi attack was retaliation for the secret raids Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan directing on militias in Libya at the time.

Fox News:

“Brennan waged his own unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,” the book says, calling it an “off the books” operation not coordinated with Petraeus and the CIA.

The authors then claim that these raids were a “contributing factor” in the militant strike on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex on Sept. 11.

The raids, they said, “kicked the hornets’ nest and pissed off the militia.”

Benghazi was blowback. Is it any wonder the Obama administration tried to cover it up? No. But what is amazing is that Republicans are so allergic to acknowledging blowback as a phenomenon that it has barely entered the debate.




17 Responses to “Benghazi Was Blowback. And That’s Why Obama Covered It Up.”

  1. And so, the Pentagon stopped any air attacks or other mobilization? Who was killed? A liberal diplomat who wanted to help the locals.

  2. I don’t even know the way I stopped up right here, but I thought this post was once good. I do not know who you might be however certainly you are going to a well-known blogger in the event you are not already. Cheers!

  3. I guess some of the "locals" didn't want any help.

  4. I don't think you're there yet. You reference a single e-mail "describing the attack as a premeditated assault by Ansar al-Sharia."

    Phil Geraldi notes:

    "I would bet that there were at least 15 other reports that went out the same day that provided alternative scenarios." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/intelligen

  5. That leaves the bizarre flap over the Mohammed-dissing video, which was fingered as catalyst for the attack (among other by Justin in http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/16/deb… )

    That was always a bit unlikely as the attack took indeed place on 9/11, which hinted at this being a well-planned anniversary event. The posterior probability of a random protest leading to a successful strike on a day which has a particular significance sounds low.

    And… I have heard the US didn't have a consulate in Benghazi in the first place, just an embassy in Tripoli. What happened to that?

  6. The problem is that the video was translated into Arabic and re-released the same week.

    Frankly, the Benghazi attack didn't take much planning. What was the "reason" for it? I realize that "reason" is a loose concept when talking about terrorists. But Osama Bin Laden did mention that a driving "reason" for 9/11 was U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. What was the "reason" for the Benghazi attack.? And if we don't know the reason, how can we say something was or was not a factor?

  7. What about the theories of U.S. gun-running to Syria through Egypt?

  8. With 11 Embassy Attacks Under Bush, Why Wasn't The GOP Upset?
    http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2013/04/

  9. Fmr CIA Bin Laden unit head Michael Scheuer warned of Benghazi terrorism motivation for Al Qaeda via http://tinyurl.com/911motivemediabetrayal

  10. [...] http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/05/09/benghazi-was-blowback-and-thats-why-obama-covered-it-up/ [...]

  11. [...] This does seem to be a case in which the government fiddled with the truth in order to protect itself from public scrutiny. And while Republicans are aghast at the effrontery of the administration in this case, their gripe seems to be entirely political. They see a chance to hurt the Democrats politically in this, even as the important aspects of the Benghazi incident – like the fact that it was blowback resulting from U.S. interventionism – get completely ignored. [...]

  12. [...] This does seem to be a case in which the government fiddled with the truth in order to protect itself from public scrutiny. And while Republicans are aghast at the effrontery of the administration, their gripe seems to be entirely political. They see a chance to hurt the Democrats politically in this, even as the important aspects of the Benghazi incident – like the fact that it was blowback resulting from U.S. interventionism – get completely ignored. [...]

  13. I would've put "help" in quotes as well.

    Not only was the admin conducting secret raids on Libyan militias (also "locals") — the same militias backed by the US military during its regime change op in Libya — but it has been reported that CIA contractors were "interrogating" some of the "locals" that those raids were aimed at.

    So the admin backed the same types of "militants" that the US government and media usually refer to as "terrorists" to overthrow a government.

    The admin then tried to clean up some of the mess they created with covert ops to round-up some of the more dangerous fighters they created a safe haven for.

    Instead of cleaning up the original mess, the covert ops created a new mess that was even more politically problematic than the regime change mess.

    What's not to cover up?

    Of course, the only things the repubs care about is the superficial, political nonsense.

  14. [...] Leer el artículo completo [...]

  15. Because no Americans were killed. Oops! Not part of your agenda? My bad!

  16. The Benghazi 'consulate' was a spook operation, as was the nearby 'annex.'
    Stevens ran the operation. He was named 'ambassador' just four months before
    for his clandestine work in Libya overthrowing Qaddafi.
    Qaddafi's people knew who they were looking for.
    When is the 'media' gonna own up?

  17. [...] This does seem to be a case in which the government fiddled with the truth in order to protect itself from public scrutiny. And while Republicans are aghast at the effrontery of the administration, their gripe seems to be entirely political. They see a chance to hurt the Democrats politically in this, even as the important aspects of the Benghazi incident – like the fact that it was blowback resulting from U.S. interventionism – get completely ignored.’ [...]