Ruh-Roh: Ambassador Killed by Secret State Department Weapons Program?

Posted on Comments

Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers
with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama
— Roger L. Simon, PJ Media

Benghazi witness points finger at Clinton
on lapses in consulate security
— Julian Pecquet, The Hill

New whistleblowers coming forward on Benghazi?
— Ed Morrissey, Hot Air

Lawmakers dig into life-and-death issues of Benghazi
— Byron York, Washington Examiner

Breaking: New Crop of Benghazi Whistle-Blowers
Will Testify on Obama’s Missiles to Al-Qaeda Program
— Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit

Pretty serious stuff here, eh? If the latest reports are true, this is much more serious than who edited the talking points:

Ambassador Chris Stevens, killed along with three other Americans in the September terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, was reportedly attempting to buy back arms sold to Libyan rebels. Roger L. Simon of PJ Media reports that whistleblowers are prepared to testify that a State Department program of arming insurgents who overthrew Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was the secret the Obama administration sought to conceal . . .
Such testimony, if verified, might help explain why Obama administration officials spent several days after the deadly Libyan attack — which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 9/11 attacks — promoting the falsehood that the four Americans killed in Benghazi died as a result of “demonstrations” inspired by a YouTube video.

You can read the rest at Viral Read and while, of course, I cannot vouch for information from Roger Simon’s sources, common sense actually argues on behalf of the story they’re telling, because this has been the Benghazi mystery all along: Why all the lies?

Was the State Department’s blame-the-video story just about protecting President Obama’s re-election chances? Maybe, but the intensity of the pushback seems a bit too much to be so easily explained by “politics as usual.” And this may be the Big Secret:

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, [new whistleblower witnesses] 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.
He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Oooh! Hillary and her staff ignored the CIA’s advice and decided — with presidential authorization, of course — to provide arms to these shadowy “insurgents” anyway? And also, maybe, the takedown on Petraeus was part of an elaborate effort to cover their tracks?

Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Nobody’s verified this stuff yet, but exactly what has Joe Curl been hinting at lately?

Care to guess where this stuff is leaking from? I could, but I won’t.

 

37 comments

  1. The only thing I have trouble with is the Petraeus thing. I mean, why expose his affair? Once it is exposed, you can’t hurt him with it anymore. The primary value, in fact the only value in blackmail information, goes to zero the moment it hits the street. Unless there is something worse that they can reveal than what they already have and that just seems unlikely to me. Note I didn’t say impossible but unlikely. The only thing that matches the facts and makes sense is that they needed Petraeus out of the way for subsequent operations.

  3. Maybe a two-fer? That is to say, some Republicans had viewed Petraeus as a potential 2016 candidate . Not something I really took seriously, but maybe the friends of a certain former Secretary of State took it more seriously, eh?

  4. I’ve been waiting for a story like this. I am sure it goes much deeper than this – I’m waiting for the story that reveals Obama secretly negotiated the Bin Laden take out with power brokers in Al-Qaeda, and has been funding their war in Syria and other places, perhaps even against American troops.

  7. Using one scandal to deflect attention from another scandal……gee, what could go wrong with that?

  8. Where the heck did we get these clowns? One of the things government is supposed to do is talk to foreigners, and they can’t even do that competently.

  10. Bush tried to f**k with the Agency. They shafted him big time. Obama and Hillary did the same thing.

    American Politicians have been trying to throw the CIA under the Bus since the Diem Coup, and the Agency is tired of it. The Church Committee was a complete whitewash of Jack Kennedy’s role in the assassinations of Diem and Premier Nhu, and the CIA had to walk around for 15 years with that smear because it served the political interest of the Kennedy family for them so to do.
    They have decided not to be screwed by some upstart hustler from Chicago and his incompetent Secretary of State.
    Watch and see how this plays out.

  11. Plus, I think the Agency lost an Interagency Turf Battle with State and probably decided not to cover any thing up, but let the chips fall where they may.

  13. Aiding our sworn enemies is an act of treason.

    The state department has also likely violated International treaties.

    Are there any details of that ‘Reset’ with Russia that pertains to aiding terrorists?

  14. This explanation has the taint of stupid about it that helps support its credibility.:
    They (Hillary/Bama/theleft) knew that Stingers were given to the Afghans to use against the Soviets to good effect. In their clotted up reasoning, things are good becasue they are good not because of causes and effects and logic and stuff so giving missiles to rebels against Qaddafi is a good thing to defeat him because missiles are good. QED.
    I know it looks screwed up to us but I can just about visualize them sitting around a table arguing this out.

  15. Something else just occurred to me.

    The same administration that is tapping phones because of a LEAK about international terrorism has now engaged itself in dealings with international terrorists?

    Will the Obama administration apply the same low threshold of proof it hold our free press to, to the state department? Did Obama tap Hillary’s phone?

  16. Maybe the leaks are coming from Holly Petraeus who was humiliated that the good general was getting something on the side from a much better looking woman. The O-Dawg posse in exposing Petraeus loosed the proverbial woman scorned.

  18. I wonder if Howard Dean will consider Benghazi a “laughable joke” if his beloved POTUS ends up being tried for treason for giving aid and comfort to our enemies… which is what should happen.

  22. oh, i seems i’ve entered the crackpot twilight zone. bye y’all.
    bye the way, i can read this same steaming shit written more imaginatively at infowars.

  26. I don’t remember…I heard it though…gun running, etc.. maybe Beck? not sure, I don’t listen often.. I know I heard it though, in full detail.

  28. Don’t count these “witnesses” until they’ve testified publicly. So far it’s just indications others “want” to tell their stories, but fears of reprisals are very real in dealing with the Chicago Mob.

    If true, the information here would be highly classified and undoubtedly illegal to share without clearance. We have exactly NOTHING until statements are on the record.

Comments are closed.