While it seems like ages ago by now, the attacks at an American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, last year on September 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans have resurfaced, reminding us that we don't actually know much of what happened on that day.
While many believed the violence was over a particularly offensive video mocking the Islamic prophet Muhammad, it is more than likely that the blitz may have been in response to CIA presence (with more than 20 agents and spies) in Benghazi at the time, meaning that what was previously described as a "diplomatic post" may have actually been the middle of a covert CIA operation.
According to Jake Tapper's show on CNN, the CIA is going to great lengths trying to keep its agents from revealing details about the Benghazi events to the media. By using polygraphs and reminding personnel that any leaked information would ruin their careers, not just for themselves but for their families as well, the CIA is using "pure intimidation" to make sure that whatever happened in Benghazi stays in Benghazi. Considering such strong efforts to keep their agents in check, not only must this information be extremely confidential and volatile, but it also means that agents must somewhat feel guilty about their actions, otherwise such strong measures for silence wouldn't be utilized.
The CIA has already released a statement that denies the allegations, saying, "The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi ... CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want." There's no way to tell if CNN's reports are indeed factually correct, but if they are, then it seems more than likely that the CIA would be willing to lie further about the situation in Benghazi.
Many of the assumptions of what could have been occurring in Benghazi at the time, as postulated by CNN and speculated by those on Capitol Hill, suggest that the CIA was helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, to Syrian rebels. Of course, this happened long before Congress gave Obama the green light to arm Syrian rebels, which would mean that the CIA had been secretly going behind the government's back and engaging in shady deals with a Middle Eastern group our nation wasn't even fully prepared to trust at the moment.
There's no way yet to prove any conspiracies, but many in Washington have been hammering away in attempts to investigate further on the subject. GOP lawmakers have already requested that incoming FBI director James Comey launch further explorations into the issue and Rep. Darrell Issa has already demanded (successfully) that Congress issue two subpoenas to the State Department for documents related to the Benghazi attacks. Issa hasn't stopped there and is already asking for more revelations, but it's likely that we won't find out anything more about what truly happened in Benghazi until a confession arises from a source within the CIA.
Then there's the question of the Obama administration's role in the affair. We don't know yet if Obama was aware of the CIA's alleged operations in Benghazi, but if he was, then his speech in response to the event seem like a pretty nasty cover-up to the American public. Only time will tell us the true happenings in Benghazi, but it's more than likely than it wasn't nearly as innocent on our part as was previously assumed.