My good friend, Steve Dennis, at America’s Watchtower grabbed my attention with his post last night. Steve was reporting on a breaking story at P J Media where they had just interviewed two former diplomats who are planning to become whistle blowers on the Benghazi scandal. According to the P J Media article, the two ex-diplomats are not fully covered by the whistle-blower protection laws, so they are lawyering-up, as they say. They plan to reveal the real reason Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi and they claim to have knowledge of the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), to not send reinforcements to Benghazi.
With regard to Ambassador Stevens, this what they will reportedly say: (emphasis added)
Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
There was speculations about our government buying back weapons from the Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaeda, within in days of the attack. Many of us reported on that speculation. What is new to this humble observer is that it was the State Department (Hillary Clinton) that had given the missiles to the militants and not the CIA, as I had presumed. If these accusations are true, if these former diplomats are credible, it seems to me that Hillary will have to fall on her rubber sword. I have no doubt that President Barack (Always-In-The-Dark) Obama will claim it’s all news to him.
The second revelation by the ex-diplomats has to do with General Ham:
Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”
Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”
The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known that Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.
Again, if these whistle-blower are credible, the smelly stuff id going to hit the fan. But, do not expect that any of it will stick to President Obama. He has an alibi. He was sleeping. So, who in the “White House” could have ordered General ham to stand down? Defense Secretary Panetta? Co-President Valerie Jarrett? I don’t know. But, what these former diplomats are claiming to be the truth would go a long ways toward explaining the “why?” of the attempted cover-up.
At any rate, if these men do testify before Isaa’s committee, it will be interesting to see how the media tries to protect Hilary and Barry.
Steve Dennis wrapped-up his post on the question of the “why?’ with this unnerving thought:
Could it be that dead men tell no tales, or so Barack Obama thought…..
Sadly, I do believe that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are capable of such cold and calculated deeds. They are both true believers in the meme: The ends justify the means.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?