What emerges could be devastating for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
More Benghazi Whistleblowers Ready to Step Forward
“If
Hillary Clinton gave the OK to sell missiles to insurgents... it would
reveal the utter callousness and calculated mendacity of a woman who
knows full well ‘what difference at this point’ such a revelation would
make…
Selling such missiles to anyone is usually a function of the CIA…
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose to move forward because she wanted to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap…
It
is worth remembering that in assisting the overthrow of Gaddafi,
Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 requiring Congressional
approval of the use military force after 60 days…
It
will be revealed the White house told Ham (AFRICOM Commander General
Carter Ham) to stand down, and when he refused, the White House called
his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”
May 27, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
According to two former diplomats who spoke with PJ Media’s Roger Simon, more
Benghazi whistleblowers will emerge and blow a giant hole in the Obama
administration’s already shaky narrative regarding the deaths of four
Americans.
Their
revelations will focus on two subjects: the real purpose of Ambassador
Christopher Steven’s mission in Libya, and the pressure put on former
AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham to stand down from any attempt to
rescue those under attack. What emerges could be devastating for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The
whistleblowers are reportedly colleagues of the former diplomats. They
have yet to come forward because they are in the process of obtaining
lawyers, necessitated by their work in areas that are not completely
covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Furthermore,
Simon notes that, as of now, what the diplomats are saying is
considered 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,” he writes.
What
the diplomats say the whistleblowers will reveal is that Christopher
Stevens was in Benghazi to buy back Stinger missiles from al Qaeda,
issued to them by the U.S. State Department. Selling such missiles to
anyone is usually a function of the CIA, but they reportedly were
against the idea of selling such advanced technology to elements of the
“rebel movement” attempting to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. Stinger
missiles can endanger civilian aircraft.
According
to the diplomats, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose to
move forward because she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
When
the “rebels” who were sold the missiles turned out to be al Qaeda,
Stevens was tasked with the job of cleaning up the fiasco.
One of the diplomats noted that it was likely the same elements of the
terrorist group to whom the missiles were sold ended up attacking the
consulate in Benghazi, killing Stevens, State Department employee Sean
Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.
The unnamed diplomat was even more contemptuous of the Clinton-led effort, likening it to the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War,”
the story of a Congressman who thought it was a good idea to supply
Stinger missiles to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan during their fight to
overthrow the Russians. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched
that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.
National Review’s Jim Geraghty, who reviewed several public reports regarding the movement of Stinger missiles in Libya, insists the diplomats’ account can be corroborated and
contradicted. His report highlights several critical elements, noting
that rebel leaders did request the missiles, including Abdul Hakim
Al-Hasadi, who was detained in Pakistan as a hostile combatant by U.S.
forces in 2002 “while returning from Afghanistan where I fought against
foreign invasion,” according to Al-Hasadi himself.
As for the U.S. directly supplying missiles to the rebels, Geraghty cites two different New York Times reports revealing other possibilities. The first report notes
that the rebels were securing such missiles from the Gaddafi regime’s
captured storage bunkers. The second report was far more devastating to
the Obama administration, noting that
it gave its blessing to Qatar to ship arms to the insurgency, before
becoming “alarmed” that the weapons were ending up in the hands of
“Islamic militants.” The Times insisted there was no evidence
that such missiles were linked to the Benghazi attacks. But considering
there’s been no specific identification of the Qatari weapons or the
specific ordnance used to attack the consulate, such claims are dubious
at best. Geraghty further notes that such shipments violate UN Resolution 270 prohibiting the direct or indirect sale or transfer of weapons to any party in Libya.
Thus,
who sold Stinger missiles to the rebels remains in question. However,
the diplomats’ contention regarding Stevens’ real mission in Benghazi
was buttressed by an Oct. 23, 2011 column in The Telegraph. Reporter Con Coughlin revealed that ”teams
of CIA officers, supported by other intelligence services such as
Britain’s MI6, have been scouring Libya in search of the missing
missiles” following the fall of Gaddafi’s regime in August. Reuters further noted that
the consulate “had been a base for, among other things, collecting
information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan
government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles,” a fact
inadvertently revealed during a House of Representatives Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform hearing about security lapses in
Benghazi. The day after that hearing Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank accused Republicans
of ”boneheaded questioning” of State Department witnesses that left
little doubt that the consulate was a ”CIA base.”
Geraghty sums up his investigative report with the other major, but as yet unsubstantiated, reason the CIA was in Benghazi. ”During
this time, a large number of weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles,
were leaving Libya and arriving in Turkey en route to Syrian rebels–and
the CIA had personnel in both countries assigned to monitor and assist
the arms shipments.”
The diplomats contend the whistleblowers will report that Stevens was attempting to procure the Stingers.
This does not negate the possibility that the effort was being done to
arm Syrian rebels, absent involvement that could be directly traced back
to the Obama administration. It is worth remembering that in assisting
the overthrow of Gaddafi, Obama violated the
War Powers Act of 1973 requiring Congressional approval of the use
military force after 60 days. The president sidestepped it by asserting
that no American troops were put in harm’s way. If the administration is
arming Syrian rebels, it would appear that both Resolution 270 and the War Powers Act are once again irrelevant, as far as the administration is concerned.
As troubling as the first assertion made by the diplomats is, the second one is far more damning. Their contacts insist that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately” (emphasis mine). They
further insist that it will be revealed the White house told Ham to
stand down, and when he refused, the White House “called his deputy and
had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”
Ham retired as head of AFRICOM in April. Yet the announcement of
his retirement was released by the Defense Department on Oct 31, 2012.
It said that Ham would eventually step down, even as he retained “the
full confidence of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,” according to Pentagon Press Secretary George
Little, who further noted Ham’s decision to retire was “entirely
personal.”
It was also unusual. Ham was removed from a position with a three year rotation well short of that mark. On October 25, 2012, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta insisted that,
with regard to a rescue operation ”you don’t deploy forces into harm’s
way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time
information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having
that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that
area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not
put forces at risk in that situation.”
Yet Ham himself never referenced any discussions with Panetta or Dempsey when he told Rep.
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given the order to secure the
Benghazi consulate. Chaffetz also said Ham told him forces were
available and “had proximity” to the consulate.
Obviously,
whistleblowers providing credible information on both topics would
prove invaluable with regard to giving Americans the truth about what
happened on September 11, 2012, as a well as a motive for the
administration’s disinformation campaign. If Hillary Clinton gave the OK
to sell missiles to “insurgents,” her judgment at the very least, would
be called into question, putting her chances of securing the Democratic
nomination for president in 2016 in serious jeopardy. It would also
reveal the utter callousness and calculated mendacity of a woman who
knows full well “what difference at this point” such a revelation would
make.
Yet
whistleblower testimony regarding pressure to avoid rescuing
Americans–that could possibly be corroborated by the former head of
AFRICOM– would deal this administration a blow from which it might never
recover.
Americans
may countenance many things, but the idea that we would abandon
Americans under fire in Benghazi to protect the Obama administration’s
pre-election narrative that terror was “on the run” isn’t one of them.
Nothing would make Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America ring any more hollow than that.
__________________________________________________________________________________
About Arnold Ahlert
Arnold
Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to
JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may
be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.