Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Rick Moran


August 3, 2013 - 12:22 pm

Rep. Trey Gowdy told Fox News that the CIA is creating aliases for some of the dozens of CIA operatives who were on the ground during the attack on our diplomatic outpost in Benghazi and dispersing them around the country.

Rep. Trey Gowdy claimed in an interview on Fox News that the Obama administration is creating “aliases” for survivors of the Benghazi terror attack and “dispersing them” throughout the country.

The allegation followed new reports about the lengths to which the administration is going to keep witnesses to the attack quiet. Fox News has learned that at least five CIA employees were forced to sign additional nondisclosure agreements this past spring in the wake of the Benghazi attack.
CNN also reported that CIA operatives are being intimidated into keeping quiet.

Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, addressed the reports Thursday night on Fox News. He claimed the effort to keep information about the attack secret included “changing names, creating aliases.”

“So you stop and think what things are most calculated to get at the truth? Talk to people with first-hand knowledge. What creates the appearance or perhaps the reality of a cover-up? Not letting us talk to people who have the most amount of information, dispersing them throughout the country and changing their names,” he said.

The administration claims it has been forthcoming, both in providing documents about the attack and access to personnel. The CIA told CNN that CIA employees are “always free to speak to Congress.”

Either Gowdy has been misinformed, fed a load of hornswoggle, or there is a lot more to the Benghazi story than we can imagine.

What would cause the CIA to go to such extraordinary lengths to prevent Congress from hearing testimony from some of the survivors of the Benghazi attack? It could be that revealing what the agency was up to that night would compromise other operations and put people’s lives in danger. It might just be part of the culture of the CIA and their mania for secrecy.

Or they might have been up to something not entirely legal. It was not illegal for the CIA to transfer weapons from Libya to the Syrian rebels as long as there was a Presidential finding authorizing it. But what if the weapons transfer was just one part of the operation? The fact that only select CIA personnel are being subjected to the extra polygraphs and being shuttled around the country with different names might suggest only a few operatives knew of the entire operation.

Gowdy’s revelation sounds fantastic. But the level of cover-up of what went on in Benghazi during the attack just continues to grow and at this point, the least that can be said is that Gowdy’s information should be taken seriously.

Don’t miss Barry Rubin on What the Benghazi Leaks Mean

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Next thing you know, we won't be able to get their valid birth certificates, social security numbers, or academic records.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's rather obvious at this point that the annex at Benghazi was used as a weapons depot to transfer arms all over the mid-east. Who knows whether they were sold, traded for other weapons(lost manpads)? or whatever. With the regimes general disregard for the Constitution or any of our laws they don't like it would be naive to think that anything they did over there was legal. Hence all the effort to threaten CIA operatives with their pensions, lives, families lives, give them monthly polygraphs instead of every three years and generally let them know that if they say anything to anyone val/jar and the chicago thugs will do what they do best and destroy their lives.

That being said the biggest story remains what zero was doing when and where during the raid.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It would explain why the President suddenly got interested in a conflict in a tiny country that had no potential to cause the US any thing more than minor annoyance:

They're having a war that isn't going well—we'll say they are for freedom and democracy. Their opponent, Gaddafi, was once a big terrorist supporter. We can use this as cover to ship all sorts of weapons to the Middle East. In wartime, all sorts of weapons are lost and unaccounted for...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All