courseofhistory
Rookie
- Aug 7, 2012
- 1,230
- 179
- 0
- Banned
- #1
Told you so!
It was a CIA Operation
Just being reported , several of the SEALS at Benghazi were actually contractors working for the CIA and several news outlets were aware of this. The information was embargoed, presumably to allow the CIA time to clear out any assets and salvage what information it could from the operation.
Short story is THAT is why the administration was less that forthcoming and willing to allow people to think it was just an angry mob. This was apparently a group of militants who know EXACTLY what they were after when the attacked the Consulate. After the attack there were still sensitive assets (including CIA operatives) still on the ground in Libya, and the administration wanted more time to assess the situation.
News Outlets Held Back Detail Of Benghazi Attack At CIA's Request
Doherty and Woods were in Libya on contract with the CIA. They say they omitted mention of the 2 former SEALs' CIA connection so that other lives wouldn't be endangered. Thus the "silence" from the administration (gasp! they were actually trying to protect other people!!)
Only seven of the 30 people evacuated were with the State Department. Thus the rest were CIA and primarily under the direction and supervision of the CIA, not State.
Now it is clear the Seals killed that night were not part of any security detail. It was an attack on an intelligence gathering installation rather than an embassy which paints a vastly different picture.
It was a CIA Operation
Just being reported , several of the SEALS at Benghazi were actually contractors working for the CIA and several news outlets were aware of this. The information was embargoed, presumably to allow the CIA time to clear out any assets and salvage what information it could from the operation.
Short story is THAT is why the administration was less that forthcoming and willing to allow people to think it was just an angry mob. This was apparently a group of militants who know EXACTLY what they were after when the attacked the Consulate. After the attack there were still sensitive assets (including CIA operatives) still on the ground in Libya, and the administration wanted more time to assess the situation.
News Outlets Held Back Detail Of Benghazi Attack At CIA's Request
NEW YORK -- U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, provided reporters Thursday with the most detailed explanation yet of the CIA's presence in Benghazi, Libya, and the agency's response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, while also identifying the two former Navy SEALs killed that night as being employed by the CIA.
But some news organizations, including the Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post, already knew that the two former SEALs -- Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- were working for the CIA and had agreed not to publish the information at the government's request.
While AP, the Times and the Post held back this detail following an official request, reporters at other news outlets may also have known or assumed the men were not security contractors given the nature of their work in Libya. ABC News, for example, reported that Doherty had been working to "round up dangerous weapons" in the country. One national security reporter told The Huffington Post that it was an "open secret" in national security circles that the former SEALs were working for the CIA.
Doherty and Woods were in Libya on contract with the CIA. They say they omitted mention of the 2 former SEALs' CIA connection so that other lives wouldn't be endangered. Thus the "silence" from the administration (gasp! they were actually trying to protect other people!!)
Only seven of the 30 people evacuated were with the State Department. Thus the rest were CIA and primarily under the direction and supervision of the CIA, not State.
Now it is clear the Seals killed that night were not part of any security detail. It was an attack on an intelligence gathering installation rather than an embassy which paints a vastly different picture.
....disclosing such information could jeopardize future sensitive government activities and put at risk American personnel working in dangerous settings
Last edited: