The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don't Want You to Know (3 page)

Now let’s pause here briefly. Perhaps even more mystifying than the lack of significant security at the mission or the unarmed guards who served as the first layer of security was the presence of armed February 17 Martyrs Brigade members within the complex. Just who are the February 17 Martyrs Brigade?

The February 17 Martyrs Brigade is part of the al-Qaeda–linked Ansar al-Sharia, a militia that advocates the strict implementation of Islamic law and that took credit for attacks against other diplomatic posts in Benghazi before the September 11 attacks.

Ansar al-Sharia would become the first group to take responsibility for the Benghazi attacks in social media. The organization later claimed it “didn’t participate [in the attack] as a sole entity,” claiming the assault “was a spontaneous popular uprising” to an anti-Muhammad film that was released on YouTube.
20
Witnesses told the media they
saw vehicles bearing Ansar al-Sharia’s logo at the scene of the attack and said gunmen taking part boasted of belonging to the group. Some witnesses said they saw Ahmed Abu Khattala, a commander of Ansar al-Sharia, leading the attack.
21
Contacted by news media, Khattala denied he was at the scene.
22
In
chapter 6
we will investigate how a strange move by President Obama all but thwarted a mission by U.S. Special Forces who were reportedly just hours away from capturing Khattala. More on that unreported scandal later.

Before you start asking why in the world the State Department would hire a known al-Qaeda–linked Islamic extremist organization to “protect” the special mission, consider this. Not only is this group part of the Ansar al-Sharia banner that reportedly attacked other Western outposts in Libya, but the February 17 Martyrs Brigade may have assailed the very mission it was hired to secure. That’s right. The Senate’s extensive report on the Benghazi attack reveals that the U.S. Benghazi mission “had been vandalized and attacked in the months prior to the September 11–12 attacks by some of the same [Libyan] guards who were there to protect it.”
23
(It is unclear whether the guards referenced in the report were the February 17 Martyrs Brigade or the unarmed, local Libyan guards provided by Blue Mountain.)

LOOK WHO REFUSED TO HELP FLEEING AMERICANS

Did the al-Qaeda-linked February 17 Martyrs Brigade compromise U.S. security the night of the attacks? The Senate report for the first time reveals the February 17 Martyrs
Brigade militia refused to protect the U.S. security team that was trapped inside the compound. “Three armed members” of the brigade were present and working as part of the mission’s security external detail during the attack. The security team asked brigade members to “‘provide cover’ for them to advance to the gate of the Temporary Mission Facility with gun trucks,” the report says. “The 17
th
February Brigade members refused, saying they preferred to negotiate with the attackers instead.”
24

According to CIA notes, “the security team initiated their plan of assault on the mission compound” anyway. Some members of the brigade ended up getting into the vehicle, and a few members followed behind on foot to support the team.
25

The Senate’s picture of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade members refusing to “provide cover” contrasts sharply with the image of the brigade painted in the State Department’s ARB report. The ARB report recounted the February 17 Martyrs Brigade complained to the local Libyan government on the U.S. special mission’s behalf after a uniformed Libyan police officer was caught taking pictures of the compound before the attack. The ARB report states that as soon as the attack began, the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade guards advanced “towards the Villa B area.” It also claims the brigade helped American personnel escape a roadblock while fleeing the compound. “The driver, ARSO 1, reversed direction to avoid a crowd farther down the street, then reverted back to the original easterly route toward the crowd after a
man whom the DS (Diplomatic Service) agents believed to be with February 17 signaled them to do so.”
26

So were the February 17 Martyrs Brigade members helpful or not? It’s hard to tell for sure, but according to the ARB report, the gunmen the night of the assault “appear to have used filled fuel cans that were stored next to new, uninstalled generators” to burn down one of the living quarters on the compound.
27
That’s how the U.S. special mission was set ablaze. Did the February 17 Martyrs Brigade militia plan this? Were the fuel cans left there deliberately? Why aren’t these glaringly obvious questions being asked?

As we will further explore in
chapter 4
, the intruders were said to have inside knowledge of the layout of the compound, including the precise location of a secret safe room where Stevens was later holed up. Was it the February 17 Martyrs Brigade that provided the attackers with that critical information? Were these militia members among the gunmen who carried out the actual assault that night?

I am not asking open-ended questions here. We will further explore the possible nature of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade’s relationship with the mission in the next chapter, utilizing data to offer a plausible explanation for why these dangerous Islamist thugs were on the State’s payroll and inside the gates of the compound.

SHOCKER: STATE PULLED AIRCRAFT, SPECIAL FORCES FROM BENGHAZI

Now let’s put on steroids the question of why we hired
armed Islamic extremists to serve as our special mission’s quick reaction force. The State Department normally provides security for our embassies and diplomatic personnel in the form of Security Support Teams (SSTs), which are made up of special U.S. forces trained for counterattacks on U.S. embassies. Reports have emerged that months before the September 11, 2012, assault, the State Department pulled the SSTs from the Benghazi mission.

It gets worse. In another largely unreported detail, the State Department denied a request for the continued use of an aircraft to move personnel and security equipment. Such an aircraft could have aided in the evacuation of the victims during the attack. Ultimately, the U.S. special mission had to wait for a Libyan C-130 transport cargo aircraft and other planes to be secured to move the victims from Benghazi to Tripoli and then from Tripoli to Western hospitals.

This bombshell information is contained in a February 2014 report by Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The report documents that on May 3, 2012, four months before the attack, State Department under secretary Patrick Kennedy “terminated Embassy Tripoli’s use of a DC-3 aircraft that provided logistical support to the SST.”
28
We mentioned Kennedy earlier in this chapter for also denying guard towers to the mission.

According to
The Aviationist
blog, the Dos Wing DC-3 aircraft “provides a wide variety of missions, including reconnaissance and surveillance operations, command and control for counter-narcotics operations, interdiction operations,
logistical support, Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC), personnel and cargo movement by air.”
29

Shortly after the attacks on the Benghazi mission began, congressional staff met to discuss the events. In that meeting Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a former Special Forces member from the Utah National Guard, “called the DC-3 ‘vital’ to moving sensitive personnel and equipment to and from Benghazi and Tripoli.”
30

The State Department’s ARB report into Benghazi doesn’t once mention the cancellation of the DC-3 aircraft or the withdrawal of the SST forces. It does detail how evacuees, including victims of the attack, waited for several aircraft to be procured to aid in the evacuation of Benghazi following the attacks. The report notes that staff of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, including the compound’s nurse, took a chartered jet to help in Benghazi. That jet departed Benghazi with the wounded at 7:30 a.m. local time, or three hours after the final assault on the CIA annex in Benghazi. However, numerous other American personnel remained in Benghazi, apparently awaiting other aircraft.

The report states, “Embassy Tripoli worked with the Libyan government to have a Libyan Air Force C-130 take the remaining U.S. government personnel from Benghazi.” The cargo jet did not arrive back in Tripoli until 11:30 a.m. The Defense Department sent two Air Force planes, a C-17 and a C-130, from Germany to Tripoli to evacuate the wounded. Those planes arrived in Tripoli at 7:15 p.m. local time, according to the Accountability Review Board.
31

The detail about the State Department’s cancellation of the DC-3 aircraft for the U.S. missions in Libya was first reported by CNN in October 2012, citing an internal State Department e-mail. At the time, CNN quoted State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner saying it was common practice to use a DC-3 in locations where no commercial flights were available. “When commercial service was subsequently established (in Libya), we then moved that asset back to other State Department business,” Toner added.
32

However, unmentioned was that the DC-3 was recalled from Benghazi along with another Kennedy decision that makes little security sense. The House report relates Kennedy in July 2012 rejected the U.S. military’s sixteen-member Security Support Team “despite compelling requests from personnel in Libya that the team be allowed to stay.”
33
It was that SST that required use of the DC-3 aircraft.

Eric Allan Nordstrom, regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, told House Republicans that “retaining the SST until other security resources became available was a ‘primary issue’ for him,” the House report states. The House report did not find credibility in State Department claims that Ambassador Chris Stevens himself rejected the use of the SST. Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 at the facility under Stevens, “vehemently denied this claim,” according to the House report.
34

WHO’S LYING? BENGHAZI WITNESSES VS. STATE DEPT. ON “ARMED” GUARDS

As explained in the introduction to this book, it is difficult to recount the timeline of the attacks and the specifics of what transpired that night due to the conflicting reports from the State Department and the eyewitnesses. One of the many strange contradictions between the State-sponsored ARB version of events and testimony provided by Benghazi witnesses and victims regards whether personnel inside the U.S. special mission were armed during the attack.

U.S. Representative Westmoreland, chairman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee, told Fox News in November 2013 that State Department employees inside the mission were “not set up for any type of protection. When we interviewed these guys they said that they were really surprised at the lack of security at the mission facility.” Westmoreland was commenting on closed-door testimony given to his intelligence committee.
35
He told
The Kelly File
on Fox News that none of the security officers were armed, and in fact, “one of ‘em was barefooted, and I think they were totally unprepared for any type of attack.”
36
Westmoreland was clearly referring to the U.S. assistant regional security officers (again, ARSOs or RSOs) who were inside the compound with Stevens during the initial assault.

Entirely unreported by the news media is that this witness testimony of unarmed personnel directly contradicts the narrative in the State Department’s extensive ARB report, which specifically claims the personnel inside the compound
were armed. The report states that the “ARSOs were each armed with their standard issue sidearm pistol; their ‘kits,’ generally consisting of body armor, radio and an M4 rifle, were in their bedroom/sleeping areas, in accord with Special Mission practice.” It even claims that the officer who located Stevens “asked them to don body armor, and led them into the safe area in Villa C.” He radioed in their location and then, “armed with an M4 rifle, shotgun and pistol, took up a defensive position inside the Villa C safe area, with line of sight to the safe area gate and out of view of potential intruders,” the report notes.
37

The ARB report describes in detail the process by which each security officer retrieved kits and guns:

Following the SMC’s emergency plan, ARSO 1 entered Villa C to secure the Ambassador and IMO in the safe area and to retrieve his kit; ARSOs 2, 3, and 4 moved to retrieve their kits, which were located in Villa B and the TOC… .

From Villa C, ARSO 4 ran to his sleeping quarters in Villa B to retrieve his kit, while ARSOs 2 and 3 ran to the TOC, where ARSO 3 had last seen the Ambassador, and where ARSO 2’s kit was located. (ARSO 2’s sleeping quarters were in the TOC, making him the designated “TOC Officer” in their emergency react plan.)… At Villa B, ARSO 3 encountered ARSO 4, who was also arming and equipping himself, and the two then attempted to return to Villa C. They turned back, however, after seeing many armed intruders blocking the alley between Villas B and C.
38

Remember Representative Westmoreland said the witness reported that the security officers were unarmed and one was barefoot. That would help explain why no officers reportedly fired any shots or even attempted to engage the intruders. Instead, the officers barricaded themselves in rooms. If that is accurate, does it mean the ARB report details were fabricated out of whole cloth? If those details were falsified, we cannot trust a word in the entire report. The ARB report claims officers did not want to engage the intruders because they were “outnumbered and outgunned by the armed intruders” so they “barricaded themselves in a back room” because they did not want to “compromise their location.”
39

WHAT’S THE WHITE HOUSE HIDING?

It is rare for Benghazi witnesses to speak out. The Senate’s Benghazi report slams the White House, Pentagon, and especially the State Department for actively interfering in the investigation into the attacks. In a particularly stinging accusation that went largely unreported by news media, the Senate’s extensive report by its Benghazi investigative committee charged a “strong case can be made that State engaged in retaliation against witnesses who were willing to speak with Congress.”
40

Other books

The Wizard King by Julie Dean Smith
Chameleon by Charles R. Smith Jr.
Easterleigh Hall by Margaret Graham
My Forever June by DeAnna Kinney
My Soul to Keep by Tananarive Due
For Valour by Andy McNab
Dancing With the Devil by Misty Evans


readsbookonline.com Copyright 2016 - 2024