New whistleblowers coming forward on Benghazi?

posted at 10:01 am on May 21, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

At the end of the Benghazi hearing in the House Oversight Committee almost two weeks ago,chair Darrell Issa welcomed anyone else with knowledge of what happened before, during, and after the terrorist attack on the consulate to come forward and testify.  According to PJ Media founder Roger L. Simon, that may happen soon.  Two former diplomats told Simon that their colleagues have specific knowledge, but need legal protection before they can tell more of the story — and there is more to tell:

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

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.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

Simon notes that this is “largely hearsay,” second-hand representations of what the testimony will be. There isn’t any clear indication of where these whistleblowers worked in the Benghazi chain, but given the representations, they had to have had access to both State and White House deliberations and orders on high levels.  That’s assuming that the whistleblowers have direct knowledge of what these diplomats shared with PJ Media and not second-hand information themselves.  If that was the case, though, they probably wouldn’t need a legal way to work themselves into whistleblower protection.

Those aren’t the only fingers pointing to the former Secretary of State, either. The Hill reports that one of the existing whistleblowers wants more focus on a part of his testimony that mainly got overlooked — about why Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi in the first place. Hicks isn’t talking about recovering covert arms from Islamist terror networks, but because Hillary Clinton wanted a permanent outpost in Benghazi and needed it affirmed before the end of the fiscal year on September 30th:

Gregory Hicks, who briefly took over as head of mission when Stevens and three other Americans were killed, testified on May 8 that Clinton personally ordered the ambassador to turn Benghazi into a full consular post, and that she planned to announce the upgrade during a visit in December.

Hicks’s attorney has been drawing attention to that section of his testimony, which was overshadowed by revelations that no one at the U.S. embassy in Libya believed the terrorist attack was preceded by a peaceful protest, and that the Pentagon told a special operations team to stand down.

“According to Stevens, Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post,” Hicks testified.

“Timing for this decision [to visit the region on Sept. 11] was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, on the … political and security environment in Benghazi.”

He said Pickering appeared “surprised.”

“I did tell the Accountability Review Board that Secretary Clinton wanted the post made permanent,” Hicks testified.

“Ambassador Pickering looked surprised. He looked both ways … to the members of the board, saying, ‘Does the seventh floor [the secretary of State’s office] know about this?’”

The ARB appears to have ignored Hicks’s statement in its public report. Instead, the board appeared to place responsibility on Stevens.

Pickering will appear for a transcribed deposition on Thursday to answer questions about the conduct of the ARB.  Pickering at first vociferously defended the report, which focused blame for Benghazi on lower-level staffers, but the White House undermined it last week in leaks to CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson that pointed fingers of their own at Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy.   Another whistleblower, Eric Nordstrom, testified two weeks ago that the ARB deliberately ignored Kennedy’s role in preventing security requests from being approved.

Stay tuned.  With 55% of Americans believing the White House has attempted to cover up on Benghazi, Congress has plenty of room to keep pressing for the real answers.  Another committee plans on doing just that, with a focus on what happened to the US military when it was needed on September 11th:

On Tuesday members of the House Armed Services Committee will question Pentagon officials in a classified session. The committee chairman, Republican Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., last week told Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that he remains “deeply concerned” about unanswered Benghazi questions. In a letter to Hagel, McKeon said he wants to know more about:

1. The account of events from the commander of the U.S. Site Security Team in Benghazi, including “the orders he received from higher authority;”

2. The presence of aircraft in the region, whether they were armed, how far they were from Benghazi, whether they would have needed in-flight refueling, and who in the military chain of command considered, or rejected, sending them to help;

3. The presence of unmanned aircraft in the region;

4. The status of a U.S. emergency team in Europe;

5. The presence of a Marine Corps Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team in the region;

6. What military preparations had been made to protect Americans in the area on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Just to make sure he got a quick response, McKeon noted that he wants answers before he finishes work on next year’s National Defense Authorization Act, which maps out funding for the Pentagon.

Question 1 deals with the “stand down order” and where it originated.  Hopefully, the response to Question 4 will discover who thought ordering the emergency response team to conduct a training exercise that would take then off line on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“Hope dies first!”

-sesquid

Bishop on May 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Bombshell.

Breaking bigger every day: Benghazi plus AP/Fox scandal = Double whammy.

petefrt on May 21, 2013 at 10:08 AM

We didn’t need to talk with Clinton… we have everything we needed-Pickering

cmsinaz on May 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

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. LINK

The key phrase here is that the CIA, (Petraeus), thought this was a bad idea—to arm insurgents with powerful weapons—and the State Dept., (Hillary) ignored Petraeus’ advice. Stevens was left in Benghazi to “clean up Hillary’s mess”, security measures be damned. Now the next question is…..did she consult her President on these matters, or were they both complicit in this version of events?

More dot-connecting I suppose is needed.

Rovin on May 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Hmmm…arming an al Quaeda group?

What could go wrong?

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

“There’s no there there” – Obama and Nonpartisan.

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM

“There is no ‘there’ there.”

Chris of Rights on May 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM

According to PJ Media founder Roger L. Simon, that may happen soon.

The problem I have with that source is that Simon and others there all but charged Herman Cain with rape during the primaries, based on some obscure undisclosed source.

farsighted on May 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM

“Hope dies first!”

-sesquid

Bishop on May 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM

If that’s the best Squiddie can do this morning, HA should be troll-free.

slickwillie2001 on May 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Ha!

Chris of Rights on May 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM

“What difference does it make?”

Chris of Rights on May 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM

There has always been whispers that there was some sort of arms issue relating to Benghazi; if this is so, you can put a nail in Hillary’s ’16 chances, Obama’s presidency, and get ready to swear in Biden.

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Hillary is guilty as sin. Can’t wait to hear it all unravel.

It’s the cover-up that gets you every time.

fogw on May 21, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Got the feeling that what Barry and The Progs want to do, is established a lower threshold for standards as a way to reach moral relativism quicker.

If the President can’t maintain control, if it’s all beyond his grasp, then what’s to be expected from those around him?

Lower standards. Diminish expectations. And create a vacuum that can be filled by whoever has the resources.

budfox on May 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Those whistle blowers better call their accountants, too, because you know they are getting audited by the IRS next week.

bitsy on May 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM

If this plays out to be true, we just saw the next POTUS on tv for the first time in weeks. Where ya been, Joe?

CTSherman on May 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Chris of Rights on May 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Great minds. :)

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Emotional waterboarding. Learn it. Love it. So, how is the 2016 fundraising machinery coming along, Hillary?

a capella on May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM

tick….tick….tick…..BOOM!!!!

Cant wait to see the Dems running for cover when this thing blows up.

neyney on May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM

……. and get ready to swear in Biden.

Tater Salad on May 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM

The gaffe-master has been off the radar screen lately. They probably locked up Crazy Joe in White House closet.

fogw on May 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Bombshell.

Breaking bigger every day: Benghazi plus AP/Fox scandal = Double whammy.

petefrt on May 21, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Don’t forget that little incident with the IRS.

Doughboy on May 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM

I don’t know if the first accusation will come out, but the second one is a lock.

The second accusation – established Benghazi on the cheap – makes total sense.

If the first one happens, forget it. Barry and Hillary will be at each others throats.

budfox on May 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/

IRS hearing live – for the junkies.

Also, pray for the families of the Tornado victims in Oklahoma.

BoxHead1 on May 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Dear Lord.

We’re about to have Chance the Gardener as President.

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

If this plays out to be true, we just saw the next POTUS on tv for the first time in weeks. Where ya been, Joe?

CTSherman on May 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM

And, makes it even more important we retain the House with present Speaker in 2014….if ya know what I mean.

a capella on May 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Come on HAL, try to defend President Revenge.

22044 on May 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Will Hillary even return to testify if she is asked?

cmsinaz on May 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

In all of these scandals, of course nobody knew anything, it was all low level rogue workers, etc. etc. However, Benghazi is the only one that they are really trying to downplay and make go away altogether, not even admitting it is a problem. “Faux” scandal (and nice way to dig at Fox News), “every fleeting story”, “what difference does it make”, “irrelevant” and so on. THIS is the scandal that has them freaking out. This is the one that can’t be dropped. For the four dead, and for us all, this is the one that needs to be picked at until it is totally exposed. The other issues are important too, but this is the one that will bring them all down.

Boudica on May 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM

If the Stinger story is correct, I’m sure the record will reflect that Barry was out of the room, washing his hands, when the decision was made to arm the rebels.

Or is this another case of “rogue agents” making decisions?

GarandFan on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Dear Lord.

We’re about to have Chance the Gardener as President.

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

John Boehner?

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

The Clintons don’t merely spin: they bald-face lie. Then they go one step further: they attack the accuser.

I hope Hillary finally gets caught. It would do my heart good to know that “liars never prosper” is true at least once in a Clinton lifetime.

MaxMBJ on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Is Joe Biden the source for any of these leaks?

meci on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Dear Lord.

We’re about to have Chance the Gardener as President.

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

You know, I don’t fear a Biden presidency under these circumstances. Yeah, ol’ Slow Joe is a testament to the fact that even kids who rode the short bus can achieve high office, and yes, he is a bumbling marxist, but that is his saving grace, he is not going to be able to pull off any major acts of chicanery because he is so inept. All of the handlers, Jarrett, etc. are going to have to leave with JugEars when he boards that helicopter off the White House grounds. Three years of Slow Joe and then we may stand the chance of getting a real president again. Keeping JugEars in office for another three years and who knows what kind of nefarious acts he’ll pull off through executive orders and defying the law (how about those off-shore permits buddy?)

AZfederalist on May 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM

John Boehner?

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Six of one…

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Many of us here at HA have been speculating as much. If true, still not sure what the outcome will be, but imagine telling the American public two or three months after the first 9/11 that your government is supplying heavy weapons to the same group that just brought down the towers. There would be hell to pay.

A decade later, will it even register?

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM

If the Stinger story is correct, I’m sure the record will reflect that Barry was out of the room, washing his hands, when the decision was made to arm the rebels.

Or is this another case of “rogue agents” making decisions?

GarandFan on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

I wonder who it will be that will say they knew, after the fact, but didn’t feel the need to tell the POTUS until Geraldo’s investigative reporting was finished?

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Dear Lord.

We’re about to have Chance the Gardener as President.

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

In a way, we already do. All Obama did to get elected was recite platitudes off a teleprompter and a bunch of suckers read into it whatever they wanted to hear. And some of the folks who voted for him probably did believe he could walk on water just like Chauncey Gardener.

Doughboy on May 21, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Mapquest…Directions To: Leavenworth.

hillsoftx on May 21, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Come on HAL, try to defend President Revenge.

22044 on May 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I think Hotlips caught pneumonia in the rain at the REB’s Morehouse commencement. The shorty-shorts he wore to attract his attention didn’t help much either.

slickwillie2001 on May 21, 2013 at 10:25 AM

AZfederalist on May 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM

A valid point. I had fogotten about his Chicago Street Gang and Mooch, leaving with him.

That would be a plus.

kingsjester on May 21, 2013 at 10:26 AM

It was obviously the movie and only those at the top understood it.

Robert E. Lee could not defend a union of states which required the force of arms to maintain it.

How about the multicultural and PC shame experienced by State, the WH and the JCS after hearing about that disgusting movie?

How could you defend a country which had a person in it that made a movie like that?

Now I never saw the new Robert Redford movie about the bombing radicals of yesteryear but others have told me it is really dumb and insensitive..

Wait..there was another bad movie?

IlikedAUH2O on May 21, 2013 at 10:26 AM

We didn’t need to talk with Clinton… we have everything we needed-Pickering

cmsinaz on May 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Clearly, the marching orders was to do no harm to Clinton’s Presidential aspirations. Find a few low-level employees, suggest that they went rogue (like the one who sent out a pre-apology in Cairo for a YouTube video) and don’t ask too many uncomforatable questions.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Wait..there was another bad movie?

IlikedAUH2O on May 21, 2013 at 10:26 AM

That’s either somewhat cryptic, or I haven’t had enough coffee yet.

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 10:29 AM

The other issues are important too, but this is the one that will bring them all down.

Boudica on May 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Not sure I would agree. The IRS scandal has a much more visceral reaction with most Americans, because, deep in his heart of hearts, every citizen who pays taxes fears the IRS. Every citizen has heard about the “guy down the street” who had his assets seized or his estate in limbo because the IRS swooped in and the person so treated had no legal recourse — it was prove your innocence rather than burden of proof on the IRS. Thus, to see the IRS used against political enemies, especially small groups, is going to really resonate. Add in the fact that it is the IRS going to be in charge of ObamaCare enforcement? That should chill every American down to the bones.

AZfederalist on May 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

“Timing for this decision [to visit the region on Sept. 11] was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year about a month before the Presidential election, on the … political and security environment in Benghazi.”

Staying in power; nothing else matters.

Kenosha Kid on May 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Drip… drip… drip…

Khun Joe on May 21, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Is Joe Biden the source for any of these leaks?

meci on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Things that make a person go Hmmmmm….

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Also remember when ask about the stinger missile’s during testimony one official said there were 30,000 or so THOUSAND unaccounted for!

coming to an airport near you.

jsunrise on May 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Arming an AQ group in Libya is as dumb as arming Spain during WWII, figuring a lot of that aid would make its way to Germany.

With the IRS and DoJ scandals, many will believe low-level rogues did the dirty work and the WH is in the clear. Benghazi is a disaster for Obama, reaching high up in the Administration. Only at the highest levels are foreign policy decisions made, and CIA can’t be blamed for conducting a covert op so classified that even the president was kept out of the loop.

LSM hacks are going to be dizzy for all the spin they’re going to have to put on this, if these new stories are true.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Rumors have been flying for months that Benghazi was a weapons-running operation gone bad and that General Ham who retired suddenly last year was a key person in all of this. If testimonies in the summer are about this —- then it’s over for Hillary future

journeymike on May 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Is Joe Biden the source for any of these leaks?

meci on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

If he is, he’s one of those “Knock off Leakers”

ToddPA on May 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM

meh– I’ll believe it when I see it, as there’s been many of these type stories for the past few months and pjm is not the most reputable source.

blue13326 on May 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Is Joe Biden the source for any of these leaks?

meci on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

No. There would have been a reference to Colonel Mustard and a racial epithet towards East Indians buried somewhere in all the leaks.

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Staying in power; nothing else matters.

Kenosha Kid on May 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Every single one of these scandals leads precisely to that very same conclusion. If only there were a way to connect the dots in the minds of the parasite class.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

IF this what these ex-diplomats have to say is as explosive as it appears AND is verifiable in some way, then I definitely see how it hurts Clinton. She’s down for the count, and 2016 goes bye-bye. I still don’t see how it leads to Obama’s impeachment. How’s it any worse (politically speaking) for Obama than Iran-Contra was for Reagan?

Robert_Paulson on May 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Will Hillary even return to testify if she is asked?

cmsinaz on May 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Can you say subpoena?

texgal on May 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

AZfederalist on May 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Ricochet made up a scandal bracket.

You both may be right.

IRS scandal unites Americans…AP scandal unites media…Benghazi scandal unites whistleblowers in civil services at State,Military,Intelligence.

Either way…in a rational world this is bad…very bad because of the policy and behavioral pattern(s) exposed.

Scandals build momentum in the minds of the public…and it’s still very early in the exposure phase.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

“Hope dies first!”

-sesquid

Bishop on May 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM

That’s a two-fer!

VegasRick on May 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

More dot-connecting I suppose is needed.

Rovin on May 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Here’s a few.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

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 may be what the entire smoke-and-mirrors act has been about all along.

The Stinger is a short-range anti-aircraft weapon, commonly called a MANPAD (MAN-Portable Air Defense). In Afghanistan, Stingers were used by the mujahedin to bring down Soviet Mil Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters and Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot close-support aircraft (the latter basically a Russian version of the Northrop A-9 prototype that lost out to the A-10 Warthog). They do pose a serious threat to airliners, but only when in the vicinity of an airport, descending to land or climbing out after takeoff; their range is too short to engage one at cruise altitude.

So, why would this be considered part of “overthrowing Qaddafi on the cheap?

He normally traveled from Tripoli, the Libyan capital, to his “desert camp” retreat, and back, by helicopter. Usually an Mil Mi-17, a transport helo with the same engines and rotor system as an Mi-24. Lots of Mi-17s and the even earlier Mi-8 model were downed by Stingers in Afghanistan.

In short, the “smoking gun” here is most likely that Hillary (and by extension The One) planned to assassinate Qaddafi. Qaddafi dies in a “helicopter crash” out in the desert, his “strongman”, “one trick pony” government collapses, and Libya is neutralized permanently. Theoretically.

The trouble is, this just happens to be slightly illegal under U.S. laws. The ones passed by Democrats under Carter to rein in the CIA. Which would explain why The Company wanted no part of it. I’m sure they anticipated being ordered to do it, then when their connection was discovered, being “disavowed” by the administration and left to twist in the wind, as they were when ordered to take out Fidel Castro by the Kennedy White House.

I can understand why the administration would want to go to any lengths to shut everyone concerned up, if this was behind it. Never mind public opinion; The One couldn’t stay in office, and Hillary couldn’t run for that office, if they had to admit they voluntarily and knowingly broke a law their own party approves of.

To egotists like these, the lives of people whom they regard as “underlings” are a small price to pay to further their own ambitions.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Not sure I would agree. The IRS scandal has a much more visceral reaction with most Americans, because, deep in his heart of hearts, every citizen who pays taxes fears the IRS.

AZfederalist on May 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Look at just how far we have sunk as a nation. We can actually have a lively debate about exactly which scandal will have the most impact when any one of them should rightfully bring down the administration. Nobody has been held accountable for any aspect of any of the scandals.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Rumors have been flying for months that Benghazi was a weapons-running operation gone bad and that General Ham who retired suddenly last year was a key person in all of this. If testimonies in the summer are about this —- then it’s over for Hillary future

journeymike on May 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Despite the denial of progressives…It’s already over for her.

No way you can undo her very public meltdown “What difference does it make”

At this point she’s just doing damage control and probably going on the lecture circuit to raise legal funds.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM

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.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said

Conspiracy theory looking pretty conspiratorial ….

Hillary is guilty as sin. Can’t wait to hear it all unravel.

It’s the cover-up that gets you every time.

fogw on May 21, 2013 at 10:13 AM

When there’s a scandal that involves Hillary Clinton, she’s not necessarily always guilty…

… but that’s the way to bet!

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM

coming to an airport near you.
jsunrise on May 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Yes, extremely scary and also mentioned many times here since Gaddafi’s overthrow.

Tin foil hat time: Any particular reason they haven’t tried something like this yet with all that available supply??

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM

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.”

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/2/

Wow. If this is true, it needs to come out.

mbs on May 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

How’s it any worse (politically speaking) for Obama than Iran-Contra was for Reagan?

Robert_Paulson on May 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Congress made a huge mistake granting amnesty to Col. North before knowing what he had to say. Then he stuck to them and took the blame fully on himself, which they never anticipated. Reagan may not have known much anyway.

Obama doesn’t have those luxuries. Hillary will hang on to her prospects fr for 2016 long as she can. There is no way she’ll take the full rap for Obama; I can’t believe Obama and the Clintons ever kissed and made up.

Patraeus won’t be a fall guy, either.

I don’t think there is anyone who will rescue Obama if all these stories are true. He’s basically on his own and, if it looks bad, I can imagine Senate Dems and even his new BFF McCain sacrificing him for the good of the Party.

Only time will tell.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

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.”

OUCH !!! If this turns out to be true, Hillary Clinton would have actually armed Al Qaeda terrorists “on the cheap” (for free), then sent Stevens in to buy back the Stinger missiles after the overthrow of Gaddafi. Meanwhile, Obama was spiking the football for the umpteenth time about how WonderBoy had destroyed Al Qaeda by killing one man (Osama bin Laden).

Deliberately arming America’s enemies is tantamount to treason. Let’s bring forward these whistleblowers, give them lots of bodyguards, and end Hillary’s 2016 campaign right now.

After all the American blood spilled chasing Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and Iraq, our Secretary of State is arming Al Qaeda?
Will she ask us what difference that makes?

Note to Senators McCain and Flimsy Graham: Stay the #3ll out of Syria!!! This Administration is arming our enemies!!!

Steve Z on May 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

AZfederalist on May 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

If its true that Benghazi was a weapons-running operation that nobody in the State Dept or W.H who knew about it, wanted it to come out, then anybody can suppose that those people wanted the witnesses to the event to be out of the picture and thus why there was a STAND DOWN order. That’s huge!!!!!

journeymike on May 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

What I want to know – is it normal for the State Dept to give weapons to insurgents? Why wouldn’t that be a DOD or CIA thing? What the hell is State doing giving away weapons? Wouldn’t Congress have to authorize it?

chelie on May 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Hillary gave arms to AQ

Lsm outrage?…..crickets

cmsinaz on May 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM

AZfederalist on May 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Good points, and I agree that the IRS is something that everyone understands and dislikes even on a good day. If the message can clearly get put out there that the IRS will be in charge of our healthcare, that should be plenty to get people involved/invested in the outcome.

The problem I see with it, though, is that as long as there is a shred of deniability, it will be very hard to go after the One. Same with the AP/DOJ case– it makes him look like an idiot, but his supporters still have wiggle room to get him off the hook. However, I think Benghazi is the thing that will prove his involvement (or his not being involved, which is probably worse) and also will prove Hillary’s incompetence in a way that neither one will be able to slink away from. I think that if they keep at it with the investigation, it will snowball in a way that will make Iran/Contra look like nothing.

With the IRS and AP, there is a lot of outrageous outrage. With Benghazi, there is a lot of, “Go away. Nothing to see here, just paranoid Republicans!” I think that means there really is something there to go after.

Boudica on May 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM

If the Stinger story is correct, I’m sure the record will reflect that Barry was out of the room, washing his hands, on a plane to party in Vegas, when the decision was made to arm the rebels.

Or is this another case of “rogue agents” making decisions?

GarandFan on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

FIFY.

Steve Z on May 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM

How’s it any worse (politically speaking) for Obama than Iran-Contra was for Reagan?

Robert_Paulson on May 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Allowing an American ambassador and three others to die, without putting up a fight, in order to cover your tracks and political ambitions, may very well lead to impeachment. If this is true, who gave the stand down order?

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.”

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/2/

Wow. If this is true, it needs to come out.

mbs on May 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

CTSherman on May 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Note to Senators McCain and Flimsy Graham: Stay the #3ll out of Syria!!! This Administration is arming our enemies!!!
Steve Z on May 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

IF this turns out to be true, are we to believe that this was totally covert and that Senate leadership and intelligence committee members knew nothing, Nothing, of this?

That calls for a willing suspension of disbelief.

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Will Hillary even return to testify if she is asked?

Not if she forms a blood clot or takes a tumble.

LetsBfrank on May 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM

What I want to know – is it normal for the State Dept to give weapons to insurgents? Why wouldn’t that be a DOD or CIA thing? What the hell is State doing giving away weapons? Wouldn’t Congress have to authorize it?

chelie on May 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Exactly, that’s why the bonus prize here could be an Iran-Contra scandal for which the democratics got a Special Prosecutor.

slickwillie2001 on May 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Let’s bring forward these whistleblowers, give them lots of bodyguards, and end Hillary’s 2016 campaign right now.

End her 2016 campaign by SENDING HER TO PRISON!

texgal on May 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM

If the Stinger story is correct, I’m sure the record will reflect that Barry was out of the room, washing his hands, on a plane to party in Vegas, when the decision was made to arm the rebels.

Darrel Issa described Obama as “twiddling his thumbs” that night.

LetsBfrank on May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM

The truth MUST come out!! If this is Ameriaca, land of the free, then people must pay the price to disregard the rule of truth and justice. These 4 brave Americans and their families demand it!!

karlinsync on May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM

What I want to know – is it normal for the State Dept to give weapons to insurgents? Why wouldn’t that be a DOD or CIA thing? What the hell is State doing giving away weapons? Wouldn’t Congress have to authorize it?

chelie on May 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Exactly, that’s why the bonus prize here could be an Iran-Contra scandal for which the democratics got a Special Prosecutor.

slickwillie2001 on May 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM

It’s all a bloody F*ckin mess…NHS,State,DOD,Intelligence & DOJ.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Despite the denial of progressives…It’s already over for her.

No way you can undo her very public meltdown “What difference does it make”

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM

And Biden too. Hard to see him being able to run on this administration’s successes and hard to see him viable after being a national jackass for eight long years. Best bet for Dems IMO is to run Chris Christie.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Unfortunately there is no “there” there unless they have absolute proof…

sandee on May 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM

What I want to know –is it normal for the State Dept to give weapons to insurgents? Why wouldn’t that be a DOD or CIA thing? What the hell is State doing giving away weapons? Wouldn’t Congress have to authorize it?

chelie on May 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

See my 10:41 post. No, it isn’t normal, or even legal, for State to do it period, and even the CIA and/or DoD needs Congressional approval.

Which would not have been forthcoming for a hit on Qaddafi. Not out of any great love for the a$$hole, but due to Executive Order 12333, among other things;

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf

As i stated, there are specific laws prohibiting the CIA from trying anything like this, and have been since the Carter Administration. Practically, this means that the Langley crew knows that (1) a POTUS can order them to whack a foreign head of state, saying that “he has a legal finding” that E.O. 12333 doesn’t apply in this particular case.

But that (2) afterward, the POTUS can go public, calling it a “rogue operation”, deny any wrongdoing, sack a few (dozen) CIA execs and line-animals, and get off scott free. Having aced someone overseas he didn’t like and gutted the Covert Action division all at one stroke.

And yes, “progressives”, like The One, are the ones most likely to try this. Killing two birds with one stone; a foreign leader they dislike, and a U.S. agency they loathe.

No, progressives generally do not have a conscience. Why do you ask?

clear ether

eon

eon on May 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Despite the denial of progressives…It’s already over for her.

No way you can undo her very public meltdown “What difference does it make”

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM

And Biden too. Hard to see him being able to run on this administration’s successes and hard to see him viable after being a national jackass for eight long years. Best bet for Dems IMO is to run Chris Christie.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Funny that…

Biden might cut a deal with Boehner in the event of Impeachment.

Aaaand there could be one if concerned democrats switch to the side of truth and justice?

If the stink is as bad as it’s looking with so many executive agencies involved…some democrats might bail? Doesn’t take too many in the senate does it?

Boehner runs an equal risk if he doesn’t impeach if the evidence calls for it.

Rock and Hard Place.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM

If by “on the cheap” Hills meant “secretly and illegaly”, then yes, it was “on the cheap”. I somehow don’t think she was just trying to be thrifty.

Boudica on May 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Here is my prediction for the next scandal and the one that will ultimately send this over the top.

There will be proof that the SEIU offices set up in Egypt pre-Mubarek ouster had direct communications with the WH and were being instructed to prop up the Muslim Brotherhood prior to the election. Illegal, not sure, but would be highly disconcerting to union rank and file and the optics would just suck.

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM

If true, what idiot thought Al Qaeda would hand over the stinger missiles?

Dumb and Dumber.

fogw on May 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM

This is the reason that Obama is conspicuously ‘out of the loop’ in the timelines on the night of the Benghazi attack. When the sh*t hits the fan, they can deny that he was involved.

That’s why he is saying that he did give the order to save the men but somebody disobeyed and didn’t do it. It’s ridiculous notion —- but it’s an attempt to protect him when we find out that special forces could have easily save them but didn’t

This is the reason that Panetta and Hillary supposedly didn’t communicate with each other that night — nobody wants to be involved

journeymike on May 21, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Rovin on May 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM

If the allegation is proven true that the State Dept under Hillary provided Stinger missiles to al-Quaeda groups, then they are guilty of treason under Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution, and should be treated as such…

In 1790, the Congress of the United States enacted that:

“If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH…

Interestingly, I found this in a very old archive of the New York Times (1861)

dominigan on May 21, 2013 at 11:10 AM

If true, what idiot thought Al Qaeda would hand over the stinger missiles?

Dumb and Dumber.

fogw on May 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM

For now I consider that a big “if true”, partly for that reason.

But if true there is an equally dumb alternative explanation…They did not know they were handing them over to Al Qaeda types… “Honest Hillary, we hate al Qaeda. You believe us, don’t you?”

Neither possibility makes Hillary! look like seasoned Presidential material. More like an Amateur Hour contestant.

farsighted on May 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

How’s it any worse (politically speaking) for Obama than Iran-Contra was for Reagan?

Robert_Paulson on May 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

The Iran-Contra affair never involved attacking the United States. Al-Quaeda attacked and killed nearly 4,000 Americans on American soil on 9/11/2001, which was an act of war.

Arming your enemies who engaged in war against you is an act of treason, which should be punished by DEATH as proscribed by Congress in 1790, and described in detail by the New York Times in the 1861 article I linked to above.

dominigan on May 21, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Thanks, gentlemen, for confirming that I’m not the only one who thought this stinks.

I originally thought this was all a gunrunning op gone bad, a la Fast & Furious.

chelie on May 21, 2013 at 11:17 AM

“Mr. Light footprint” went into libya without congressional approval knowingly setting this into play. Whether or not they were intentionally given the weapons or were just provided the opportunity to shop for free, it has been reported everywhere that he CIA was attempting to get back as much of the cache as they could.

The fisker-in-chief had to foresee this without having troops on the ground.

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM

IRS/AP stories are to take away from Benghazi.
The brain surgeon in chief and his team made a calculated decision to deflect in a big way.
I don’t think this gamble is working out so well.
Popcorn please.

ORconservative on May 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM

How’s it any worse (politically speaking) for Obama than Iran-Contra was for Reagan?

Robert_Paulson on May 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

The Iran-Contra affair never involved attacking the United States. Al-Quaeda attacked and killed nearly 4,000 Americans on American soil on 9/11/2001, which was an act of war.

And, as they say, the cover-up is often worse than the crime. Here, if it is true that orders came from the highest level not to save those in the mission, then it appears they purposefully left them their to die in order to cover this up. What other reason could there be for them not to save those people if they could have?

I don’t know if any of this is true or not, but if it is true, this is far worse (politically) than Iran-Contra. Both in what was done (arming our sworn enemy – Al Queda) and in what was done to cover it up.

it shows a very incompetent foreign policy (arming Al Queda to take down Quadaffi – where’s the benefit to the U.S. in that?) and an immorality that is beyond the pale (allowing those people to die to cover up your mistakes); followed by attacking an individual to cover your but (the maker of the video) and lying to congress and the American people.

Say what you want about Iran-Contra, but they had fairly straight-forward goals that they believed would benefit the U.S. Arm the contras (who we believed to be anti-communist and better for U.S. interests) and pay Iran to free U.S. hostages. And, as far as we know, nobody was killed doing it.

Monkeytoe on May 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Two separate points:
1) Can immunity be granted unilaterally by Issa/The House, or does it have to be blessed by the DoJ? If the later, then it’ll never happen.

2) Pay attention to ongoing coverage of Biden. If he starts getting positive coverage by the MSM, and whispers start percolating up about his outrage at the ongoing scandals bringing the Obama administration down, then that’s the sign that the MSM is prepping the battlefield for Obama to be taken to the cleaners. They’ll need to demonstrate that they didn’t back Obama to the end, if he somehow manages to be removed from office. Not saying he will. But the possibility exists, if the perfect storm happens.

nukemhill on May 21, 2013 at 11:27 AM

How’s it any worse (politically speaking) for Obama than Iran-Contra was for Reagan?

Robert_Paulson on May 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Twin towers. 9/11 anniversary.

We have an overabundance of low-information voters IMO, but I still want to believe the American populace would never stand for this level of weapons-grade stupidity and malice.

If this is true & comes out, Obama will be setting a very different precedent as he leaves office- early, and probably leaving fingernails in the doorframes, unfortunately…

cs89 on May 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM

“Mr. Light footprint” went into libya without congressional approval knowingly setting this into play. Whether or not they were intentionally given the weapons or were just provided the opportunity to shop for free, it has been reported everywhere that he CIA was attempting to get back as much of the cache as they could.

The fisker-in-chief had to foresee this without having troops on the ground.

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM

I gotta disagree. What the rat-eared coward saw was an attack that was inconvenient to his claims about how much he had accomplished in the middle east. Remember the story the morning of 9/12/12? Those Lybians were engaged in a spontaneous attack and other Lybians not only defended Christopher Stevens but rushed him to a hospital where he sadly died. We know now that IT WAS ALL A LIE.

Happy Nomad on May 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM

How’s it any worse (politically speaking) for Obama than Iran-Contra was for Reagan?

Robert_Paulson on May 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Did anyone die in Iran Contra?

Conservative4ev on May 21, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Another thought:

If the Republicans figure out how to optimize their management of the optics on all of this, then they’ll want to have things reach a PR crescendo by late Summer of ’14. I’m trying to get my head around how that can happen. I’m really beginning to think that this was all orchestrated to happen now. It’s after the general election, so there’s no impact on Obama’s re-election. But it’s too soon before the mid-terms. Unless the sh*t really hits the fan over the next few months, this whole set of scandals will lose their energy by the end of this year. And that significantly lessens their impact on the mid-terms.

Any thoughts on this? I’m not suggesting that it get deliberately dragged out, but there has to be a way to pace the investigation so that it can damage the Ds in ’14.

I want to see their brand irreparably destroyed. I’ve never felt so strongly about that before, but I’m there now. The Rs aren’t a whole lot better, but at least the Tea Party still has some sway in that group. But the Democrat Party, and the Leftists who control it, needs to be completely gutted.

nukemhill on May 21, 2013 at 11:31 AM

“There is no There, There”

Soon to be followed by:

“We didn’t know they were Al quaeda, Al quaeda.”

Spit double spit.

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2