New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama

PJM EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama
Posted By Roger L Simon On May 21, 2013 @ 12:05 am In Uncategorized | 184 Comments
More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.
These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.
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.
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.
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.
PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.
We will report more as we learn it.
pjmedia.com...

Already posted here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good there is another source about Stinger buybacks.

You know bud
It looks suspicious as all hell that they wanted Chris Stevens to be whacked by these rebels.....
Somthing is beginning to stink really really bad.

This seems to be becomimg a pattern with Hillary...the sniper incident where she misspoke, the Chounan...the bin Laden raid pic...
so,
If something smells bad here, it probably smelt bad there
( and there too, and there also, and not to mention there as well )

Interesting. I just wanted to comment on one thing. The political dogmatism present in our society. Too often a Republican or a Democrat is voted into office based on the previous actions and party lines the previous officeholder had taken. We should know by now, with Bush and then Obama, that neither of these parties has the answers to the problems we face. Too often the exact same things take place within the government, even when different parties control the government. The best course of action for this country would be the advent of numerous other political parties, and laws to ensure a fair balance between exposure received for each party's candidate.

Don't we deserve to be able to choose between at least 10 or so candidates, who represent different thing? This won't fix our problems, but it is a start. We must put an end to the two party system. We have numerous choices involving everything in our lives, yet we are satisfied with only two political parties? And with the current laws and regulations on the books, an independent candidate, or a candidate from a lesser known party does not really stand a chance when running against these two behemoths. We need to put a stop to it. Not only is it not fair, it is not democratic.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


we may not have ten but there is more than two,

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Interesting. I just wanted to comment on one thing. The political dogmatism present in our society. Too often a Republican or a Democrat is voted into office based on the previous actions and party lines the previous officeholder had taken. We should know by now, with Bush and then Obama, that neither of these parties has the answers to the problems we face.

You are damn right...not only do they not have answers to problems they are the actual SOURCE of the problems. I think if Ron Paul won the presidency he probably couldn't fix everything, but I know he could fix a LOT more than the previous asshats.

reply to post by solarstorm


I agree, he was in my opinion the best man for the job. However there is little room for an honest man in the WH.

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

www.newyorker.com...“>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.

reply to post by Surfrat


Ooooohhhhh! I love this week.

I am slammed at work, busy as all get out, new business is gearing up and every day brings new political death blows to the Tyrant 0bama and his Admin.

Makes me smile.


We all know this was going to happen. There are/were too many people with military experience and close working knowledge that have been chiming in on this, for there this just to be a "video protest".

Let the truth see the light of day.

Originally posted by Surfrat

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.”

Half right...but it was a CIA OP and this is already known. Of the 30 folks rescued from Benghazi, 23 of them were CIA...plus the two Navy Seals weren't working for the State Department, they were working for the CIA.

The WSJ, WAPO, CNN have already broke that much.

CIA OP though, no doubt about it.

There are entirely too many agencies in existence within the Federal government. Each of whom is independently able to ultimately make war against the people.
It needs to be gutted

A good link IRS Tea Party scandal
aclj.org...