Benghazi: Whistleblower to claim Hillary Clinton gave Stinger missiles to al-Qaeda
Where? Who? Why? These are the three big questions surrounding the Benghazi attack and the cover up which followed. Where was Barack Obama during the attack? That should be a very easy question to answer but to this point either nobody knows or they do not want to say. Who put the youtube video language in the 12th edit of the talking points thereby changing the original–correct–motivation for the attack to the lie which was promoted for so many weeks? We still do not know who was responsible, but we do know it came from the State Department. Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi at a time when it was known the situation on the ground was deteriorating? If this story is true we may soon know the answer and it could be very damaging to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
According to the article linked to above there are more whistleblowers looking to come forward once they procure the proper legal counsel and one of them is set to testify that the United States government supplied the Libyan rebels with weapons including Stinger missiles. Once it became clear these rebels were actually part of al-Qaeda (something many of us suspected all along but apparently the Obama regime did not do its due diligence before supporting the rebels) the Obama regime sent Chris Stevens to Libya to buy back the weapons.
But that isn’t all because the whistleblower is reportedly going to testify that the CIA (General David Petraeus) was dead set against sending these weapons to the rebels so it was the State Department which authorized the transfer of weapons because Hillary Clinton thought it was a cheap way to dispose of Qaddafi.
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.
Rumors have been circulating for some time about the United States being involved in arms trafficking to the Libyan rebels and we might be about to learn that is indeed the case, and if this is the case there is no way that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had no knowledge of what was going on in light of the claim that the CIA recused themselves from this activity.
But the story does not end there because it is also being reported that General Ham–who had people in place to come to the rescue in Benghazi–was ordered by the WHITE HOUSE to stand down. This is in direct contrast to Barack Obama’s claim that he ordered the use of all available resources to the scene to rescue Chris Stevens before he disappeared for the night to prepare for his campaign stop in Nevada the next day.
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.”
General Ham was set to disobey a direct order and was threatened with disciplinary action from the White House, General ham was eventually relievd of duty after the attack anyway. I guess we now know why General Petraeus and General Ham had to go in the eyes of the White House–they knew too much.
Now the question is, why did the White House order the stand down order once things went bad with the plot to buy back weapons it had provided to al-Qaeda? (Weapons which might actually have been used to carry out the attack.) Could it be that dead men tell no tales, or so Barack Obama thought…..