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

dominigan on May 21, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Well, actually, part of why Iran-Contra was politically explosive was because the memory of Iranian revolutionaries taking 52 Americans hostage for 444 days in 1979 was still fresh. As well as the fact that Iranians had taken yet more Americans hostage, and we were trading weapons in exchange, perversely making it profitable for Iran.

I get your point, but the underlying dynamics are still fairly similar. Obama can still fall back on “I wasn’t in the loop.”

Robert_Paulson on May 21, 2013 at 11:36 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

The Clintons are not above murder either. This puts on a whole new theory as to why the military was told to “stand down” and not respond to Libya.

Cherokee on May 21, 2013 at 11:38 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.

GarandFan on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

I believe the phrase is “I was drinking a lot of iced tea.”

pedestrian on May 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM

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

Not sure we disagree at all. I was referring to pre 9/11 libya. The light footprint doctrine set the wheels in motion. There were supposedly up to 50 CIA groups in Libya after Gaddafi’s fall, trying to reign in the weapon caches. Military Boots on the ground in those months before would have largely minimized that risk but Obama did not want troops there.

Either way you slice it, the administration served up a helluva mess.

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I cam to the conclusion at this time, the only reason Obama is going to Africa to get out of the country is because it’s the only continent that will take him. I am sure Merkel, Putin, as well as all other leaders of countries came out with every excuse not to meet him. Africa was the only place he could go for right now

Conservative4ev on May 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Joesph Curl, editor of the Drudge report, tweeted yesterday that there is another shoe yet to drop on benghazi, and senior WH people are terrified. This story would certainly fit that concern. If these folks have talked to Roger Simon then they have probably talked to Drudge too.

rockmom on May 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Answer to question #6: Zip.
Oblamer said that Al Qaeda were ‘on the run’.
No preparations needed.

Dexter_Alarius on May 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Joesph Curl, editor of the Drudge report, tweeted yesterday that there is another shoe yet to drop on benghazi, and senior WH people are terrified. This story would certainly fit that concern. If these folks have talked to Roger Simon then they have probably talked to Drudge too.

rockmom on May 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

I think the DOJ was listening not for leaks but to see if the press was finding out about the weapon running in Benghazi

Conservative4ev on May 21, 2013 at 11:45 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.

Again, why didn’t Petraeus blow the lid off this? If you see or learn of something so dangerous, and so ill-conceived – and you do absolutely nothing to prevent it – it just boggles the mind. I’ve lost what little respect I had left for him.

Hill60 on May 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Again, why didn’t Petraeus blow the lid off this? If you see or learn of something so dangerous, and so ill-conceived – and you do absolutely nothing to prevent it – it just boggles the mind. I’ve lost what little respect I had left for him.

Hill60 on May 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

From my understanding and from someone who is friends with my family who is in the pentagon, was that Petraues was told if he blew the lid, he would lose his pension as well as everything else. He was blackmailed and that is why Petraues leaked his affair before the WH did

Conservative4ev on May 21, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I think the DOJ was listening not for leaks but to see if the press was finding out about the weapon running in Benghazi

Conservative4ev on May 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Yep, right on the button. These thugs were trying to figure out who knew what so they could formulate a defense before the storm hit, or preemptively attack those who they thought might start blabbing.

Stinger missiles being sold given to whichever Libyan group walked in the door? Smart Power!

Bishop on May 21, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Frankly,I think the Republicans are afraid of Benghazi too. The only way this blows wide open is by force.

ORconservative on May 21, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Stinger missiles being sold given to whichever Libyan group walked in the door? Smart Power!

Bishop on May 21, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Not to mention everything else under the sun that was left over after Daffy was toast.

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 12:02 PM

As others have pointed out why didn’t we call our BFF Israel that evening and see if they could send a fighter or two over the annex and put the fear of Allah (pbuh) into those terrorists?

Helen A Handbasquet on May 21, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I would suggest that the AP story and the Benghazi stories may be linked. The premise for the AP story is that DOJ was trying to crack down on leakers within the government under the auspices of national security.

Under the premise of national security, the DOJ was granted broad powers to monitor reporters, news agencies, access phone records and email. As a result, many reporters appear to have been monitored and phone call records obtained to identify or track with whom they spoke and identify potential leakers.

In an apparently unrelated issue:
It now appears as tho’ there is a Fox news angle as James Rosen has been singled out, his personal emails have been read and receiving a DOJ prostate exam. DOJ uses a 44 page search warrant application

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/the-doj-versus-journalist-gmail.html“>found here: Rosen is identified as “an aider or abettor / or co conspirator.

Doesn’t this seem like an extreme over reaction? James Rosen covers the State Department. He has been asking tough questions about Benghazi for a long time…..Is he being targeted about a North Korean story from 2009? or are his more proximate inquiries somehow related.

OPINION WSJ
October 19, 2012, 7:08 p.m. ET

The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About
Every White House sooner or later succumbs to the temptation to cover up an embarrassment.

The AP scandal also seems over played. If you believe the AP managing editor, AP cleared the terror plot story with DOJ prior to printing. Does the existing DOJ rational make sense as a triggering event that illicited such a massive, overly broad and intrusive response? Why the over reaction and why such a massive press spying net was cast? Does the premise and over reaction of DOJ make sense? The actions of the DOJ seem to be reckless and dangerous for an administration, almost desperate. Why?

If you argue the reaction is to protect sources and methods associated with the terror plot, recall this is an administration that gushed to expose sources and methods in the aftermath of the OBL killing.

Is it conceivable that the rational for spying / monitoring the press is really an effort to identify potential Benghazi whistle blowers and reporters who were pursuing the Benghazi scandal.

Certainly this AP /Fox News /DOJ story has likely had a severe chilling effect among potential leakers and whistle blowers and the reporters pursuing this story. There are many things about Benghazi and the AP stories that seem to be in congruent with what we know. Roger Simon’s piece may help explain the dynamics and particulars of the Benghazi scandal.

But why would DOJ conduct such a massive surveillance program that appears to get larger and more intrusive every day. This is a very serious over reach….why would an administration take such a huge risk over the story we are being told. Is there a link between the two? Are there things within the known timelines that might connect the two temporally?

Just asking……

R Square on May 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Benghazi, the IRS, & the Wire-Tapping scandals continue to rage … all 3 are unraveling – new news being added every day, so much that we can hardly keep track.

Regarding the Wire-Tapping, it is being reported now that besides ALL of the AP’s reporters/editors AND the 1 Fox News Reporter, the DOJ tapped / tracked 2 additional Fox News reporters. There can be no doubt, as the scandal grows, that there are more to come – the list will grow. This is the 1st time in U.S. history an administration had engaged in this level of illegal/unethical acts against the media – this has far surpassed the Nixon administration’s Watergate!

In Benghazi, more whislteblowers are lawyering up and coming forward…Hillery’s Dtate Dept ‘scapegoat’ is coming forward, refusing to take the fall for her complete & utter failure as Sect of State & her part in the Benghazi cover-up!

More whistleblowers are coming forward in the IRS scandal!

Obama is being exposed for the narcissistic, Socialist, self-surving ‘Enemy of the State’ that he truly is! But is there enough of a soul and a backbone in America to raise honor, duty, patriotism, ‘RIGHT’ above the partisan, self-serinv political disease that has allowed this festering rot to grow within the very core of our government? Will anyone care enough to take any action, such as writing or calling their reps? Will we seize back control of our govt or just b!tch about it then roll back over & go to sleep?!

easyt65 on May 21, 2013 at 12:24 PM

What if U.S.-supplied stingers were what concerned Panetta when he said, “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on”? Blackhawk Down and Fast & Furious rolled into Won.

Barnestormer on May 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Your Government hereby orders all comments on this thread about Benghazi to stand down.

That is all.

smoothsailing on May 21, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I told you within the first 2 days to always ask this question “why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on the anniv. of 9/11, officially and unofficially?”. Therein lies the truth.

Finally getting near it.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM

WIRE-TAPPING SCANDAL:
Obama & Holder declared they are SO upset and determined to end leaks that they negaged in this massive (& illegal/unethical) wire-tapping, e-mail grabbing, journalist-monitoring effort (that no one knows anything about…

But if everyone will remember, concenrs about leaks 1st began with for 3 consecutive weeks a while back leaks were pouring out of what was decided could ONLY be coming out of the WHITE HOUSE! Congress (the GOP) was clamoring for finding out WHO it was. The White House, rather than finding out who within their own midst was leaking the info, obviously went after the medium (reporters – AP, Fox, others?) thro0ugh which the info was being passed.

Well, while Obama/Holder attempt to justify their scandalous activity, villainizing the MEDIA for these leaks, we are reminded of the REAL PROBLEM:

Now, the Obama administration has reportedly apologized to Israel for another leak of classified information to the media, one that occurred earlier this month and which Israeli officials are concerned could place Israeli lives at risk.

easyt65 on May 21, 2013 at 12:30 PM

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

fogw on May 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM

That hangs me up too. The regime would have to be offering Al Qaeda something big in exchange, such as handing over the Blind Sheikh.

petefrt on May 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM

So we are to believe that is was a total coincidence that the attack started less than 30 minutes after the Turkish emissary left the “compound”?

This is like a scene from the Godfather.

can_con on May 21, 2013 at 12:34 PM

That hangs me up too. The regime would have to be offering Al Qaeda something big in exchange, such as handing over the Blind Sheikh.

petefrt on May 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Hmmmm…

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 12:35 PM

I told you within the first 2 days to always ask this question “why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on the anniv. of 9/11, officially and unofficially?”. Therein lies the truth.

Finally getting near it.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I hear ya…but I don’t give a D@MN!

1) WHY did the President hire an AL QAEDA-associated/backed (terrorist) militia to defend our Ambassador and Americans?

2) WHY did he allow them to do so after they failed to protect him during 2 previous terrorist attacks on his compound?

3) WHY did he ot provide additional security to Stevens after those 2 attacks…or at least pull him out?

4) Why didn’t he provide ANY security to Stevens after that same militia QUIT protecting him (they notified the State Dept they would no longer do so) 2 months prior to 9/11/12?!

Only a F*ING IMBECILE or a TRAITOR would ask the perpetrators of 9/11/01 to guard a U.S. Ambassador, would REFUSE to provide Americans protection after 2 terrorist attacks, would REFUSE to provide them ANY protection or tell them to leave after those attacks & after being notified that these Americans are no longer under Al Qaeda’s ‘protection’!

5) Who gave the 2 STAND DOWN ORDERS, WHO RELIEVED AFRICOM Commander General Ham of his command?

THAT is what I want to know right now!

easyt65 on May 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

You have 3 dunces, Obama, Panetta and Hillary, running dirty wars, risking your relatives’ lives.

It couldn’t be made up in fiction.

Here’s hoping that Petraeus puts country before self and tells all. His reputation is nothing compared to the republic.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

easyt65 on May 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

1. YOU do give a damn!

2. The answers to your questions go along with the ones I ask, every single one, all related.

3. He is a traitor. His interests lie with his muzzie brothers, not with America.

p.s. thanks for the smiles.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM

One more thing I’d like to know – what took the whistleblowers so long? What threats were they under and what ‘freed’ them?

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 12:46 PM

R Square on May 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM

My hunch is you’re on the right track. At the very least Benghazi and AP/Fox scandals are connected in that they were aimed at reigning in the press and whistleblowers. If, as the Drudge editor tweeted, the “White House Sitting On Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About”, then maybe that’s the reason for trying to shut down whistleblowers and journalists’ investigations.

petefrt on May 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM

One more thing I’d like to know – what took the whistleblowers so long? What threats were they under and what ‘freed’ them?

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 12:46 PM

I’d guess that most thought they were isolated and it was for the greater good – initially.

I can’t understand Ham and Patreaus. Screw your Command and your retirement. Neither one is worth a damn thing if your conscience is, or at least should be, pushing you to blow your own brains out.

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM

I told you within the first 2 days to always ask this question “why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on the anniv. of 9/11, officially and unofficially?”. Therein lies the truth.

Finally getting near it.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I hear ya…but I don’t give a D@MN!

1) WHY did the President hire an AL QAEDA-associated/backed (terrorist) militia to defend our Ambassador and Americans?

2) WHY did he allow them to do so after they failed to protect him during 2 previous terrorist attacks on his compound?

3) WHY did he ot provide additional security to Stevens after those 2 attacks…or at least pull him out?

4) Why didn’t he provide ANY security to Stevens after that same militia QUIT protecting him (they notified the State Dept they would no longer do so) 2 months prior to 9/11/12?!

Only a F*ING IMBECILE or a TRAITOR would ask the perpetrators of 9/11/01 to guard a U.S. Ambassador, would REFUSE to provide Americans protection after 2 terrorist attacks, would REFUSE to provide them ANY protection or tell them to leave after those attacks & after being notified that these Americans are no longer under Al Qaeda’s ‘protection’!

5) Who gave the 2 STAND DOWN ORDERS, WHO RELIEVED AFRICOM Commander General Ham of his command?

THAT is what I want to know right now!

easyt65 on May 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Good Questions all.

#2 The British were doing the same thing…This came out after their Ambassador was targeted for assassination.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Bets on the bottom line?

Hillary was given the authority for a stand-down since it was her operation? CIA crawling all over North Africa trying to get a handle on who got what and what they could retrieve?

A pile of fit about to hit the shan?

oldroy on May 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM

My hunch is you’re on the right track. At the very least Benghazi and AP/Fox scandals are connected in that they were aimed at reigning in the press and whistleblowers. If, as the Drudge editor tweeted, the “White House Sitting On Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About”, then maybe that’s the reason for trying to shut down whistleblowers and journalists’ investigations.

petefrt on May 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I think there’s a whole lot of things Obama is squatting on…going all the way back to the State Dept. breakin during the primaries.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 1:03 PM

You have 3 dunces, Obama, Panetta and Hillary, running dirty wars, risking your relatives’ lives.

It couldn’t be made up in fiction.

Here’s hoping that Petraeus puts country before self and tells all. His reputation is nothing compared to the republic.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Witnesses gotta live to testify.

The DOJ doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in that area…currently.

workingclass artist on May 21, 2013 at 1:05 PM

I think the man who will blow the lid off this thing is Gen. Ham!

Pomai on May 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM

R Square on May 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM

My hunch is you’re on the right track. At the very least Benghazi and AP/Fox scandals are connected in that they were aimed at reigning in the press and whistleblowers. If, as the Drudge editor tweeted, the “White House Sitting On Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About”, then maybe that’s the reason for trying to shut down whistleblowers and journalists’ investigations.

petefrt on May 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I think Simon is on the right track and if so, the administration would be forced into an all or nothing game matrix. If the real story comes out….he and Hillary are done.

This could be the impetus for launching a politically risky press / state dept monitoring net. I find it hard to believe that the AP story, as vast and intrusive as it seems to be, is really about a foiled terror plot.

Why rummage through James Rosen’s personal email account? looking for dirt? Why use language in the warrant that seems over the top? Is this about a North Korean story from 2009 or does it have a more temporally proximate cause?

There is no real debate that the AP scandal is about the government using its capacity to spy / monitor the press and suppress information and identify people within government (State) that leak information. This is not a point of contention. What is open for debate is which scandal, what information and which leakers? A terror plot and North Korea or Benghazi…….which is more proximate and most plausible?

R Square on May 21, 2013 at 1:32 PM

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.

GarandFan on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 AM

And the beauty of this is…

I would be just fine with the trail stopping at the State Dept. Charge Hillary with treason and remove her from 2016 consideration, and hurt liberals where it counts.

dominigan on May 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I think the man who will blow the lid off this thing is Gen. Ham!

Pomai on May 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM

He should use his last shred of steel, for the sake of the land. Most of today’s generals only look for the last star, bestowed upon them by Obama, at retirement. It brings bennies and they go consulting/teaching at universities…life’s good.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Also, most of today’s generals are PC freaks, for given bennies.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM

ORconservative on May 21, 2013 at 11:59 AM

And you “know” this how?

Trochilus on May 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Hmmm if we only had a curious media.

Alas this story has been declared dead. Many times. Old news they say…

If we only had a curious media.

Without the media it won’t matter what the truth is.

petunia on May 21, 2013 at 4:59 PM

the only reason Obama is going to Africa to get out of the country is because it’s the only continent that will take him

I hope he goes back home to visit the old relatives in Kenya…maybe they’ll find discrepancies in his paper work & Original Kenyan BC and order him held without bail?

Nah…they don’t want him either…he’s too much of an embarrassment even to them.

Twana on May 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM

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

fogw on May 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM
That hangs me up too. The regime would have to be offering Al Qaeda something big in exchange, such as handing over the Blind Sheikh.

petefrt on May 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM

So here we get the 2 for 1 truth drop. Obama is so convinced the World, particularly the Muslim World, loves him, he assumed that if he sent an unarmed Ambassador to Benghazi as a show of “good Faith”, his comity would be repaid with Stingers.

And the Blind Shiekh is extremely important to this story. Could it be possible that Steven’s solo trip to Benghazi was a trap? What if, in response to…oh, I don’t know…let’s say the hypothetical orchestrated kidnapping of a senior DOS official, the Sheikh could be returned? Wouldn’t that give everyone (other than Stevens) what they wanted? And wouldn’t the MB in Cairo be willing to stage a protest over “a video” as a cover story in order to get their guy back? The video…the Blind Sheik…Egypt…Muslim Brotherhood…funny how it all fits into the false narrative that the Administration fought so hard against common sense to impose upon us. Hmmm.

I guess until answers are given, we’re all free to ask whatever questions we want, eh?

Kenz on May 22, 2013 at 12:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2