New information about circumstances surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate on Sept. 11, 2012 raises concern about the U.S.'s involvement in Libya and Syria. According to Joe DiGenova, an attorney for whistleblower Thompson, the State Department's deputy coordinator of operations, 400 U.S. missiles were sent to Libya covertly and have since been stolen by an unidentified group. The night this fatal assault occurred, 35 CIA operatives were said to have been working in an "annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armories to Syrian rebels." Since then, the CIA has undergone incredible lengths to suppress information about the incident from leaking out. This suppression of information indicates that the CIA has something to hide. It is crucial that an open investigation be conducted to figure out the missile's whereabouts, as leaving this mystery unresolved could result in the weapons landing in the wrong hands.
CIA operatives in Benghazi during the attack have been subjected to frequent polygraph tests. Normally, CIA operatives undergo polygraph tests once every 3-4 years. However, since January, certain operatives have been required to take one monthly. Some believe this new protocol is to intimidate operatives into keeping silent. One insider told CNN that if you fail to comply, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
The CIA has already been suspect due its inefficiency in dealing with the Benghazi attack despite being only 1.2 miles away. Little is known about the CIA's actions in the annex as many officials in the State Department and Pentagon "were largely in the dark about the CIA's role." The Wall Street Journal reports that the State Department had agreed to provide the CIA "diplomatic cover for the classified CIA operations" in Libya in exchange for additional security. This arrangement raises two critical questions: Why did the CIA fail to keep up its part of the bargain? What was the CIA doing in the first place?
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) believes these missing missiles are not missing, and that the CIA was shipping these missiles to Syrian rebels. He said a ship with the missiles on board "sailed from Libya a week before … Ambassador [Stevens] was killed," going along with various reports from the Telegraph and CNN. The ship's captain confirmed this information, claiming the missiles were for "distribution ... to Syrian rebels." The State Department openly admits that it was trying to destroy missiles considered "damaged, aged, or too unsafe to retain," and that the procedure got out of hand when the missiles went missing. Representatives added that they were not involved in the transfer and "can't speak for any other agencies."
Proving an undercover operation of this magnitude would be very difficult, which is why there are other theories explaining the CIA cover-up. For example, Paula Broadwell, mistress of former CIA director David Petraeus, said that the CIA imprisoned a few high-profile Libyan militia members, and that the attack on the consulate was an attempt to free them. If that were the case, the CIA would be indirectly responsible for the deaths of innocent Americans as a result of illegally taking matters into their own hands.
Two things are beyond debate: the CIA is committed to keeping silent about their operation in Libya, and that the missiles are still missing. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) is one of 150 congressmen demanding an open investigation into the CIA's involvement in Benghazi. This initiative would uncover the extent of American involvement in Libya, a contentious topic of debate. Moreover, it might uncover the whereabouts of the missing missiles, or at least provide some indication of their whereabouts. Recovering them is critical, lest they fall into the wrong hands.