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.”
One of the most important unanswered questions about the Benghazi attack has been Benghazi is Not about Gun Running, It’s about the Money
by John Galt
May 22, 2013 05:00 ET
Over the last six plus months, I have penned two articles about the
Assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and “
The Other Truth about Benghazi,” both of which were fairly simple to understand when one realizes the level of corruption and financial incest occurring inside the nation’s capitol. To this day not one national talk show host nor political animal has asked the most important question remaining in the investigation which will topple the regime in D.C.
Last week
The National, a newspaper out of the United Arab Emirates published a fascinating article which drove the point home about what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria:
Saudis overtaking Qatar in sponsoring Syrian rebels
In the article by Hassan Hassan it was stated:
Last week, a 12-member delegation from the Syrian opposition visited Saudi Arabia, for an unprecedented two-day official meeting.
Saudi authorities had consistently declined to meet the opposition, despite repeated requests. This was partly because the kingdom has opposed Muslim Brotherhood dominance in the Syrian National Council and then the National Coalition, owing to the Brotherhood’s alliance with Qatar and Turkey and opposition to inclusivity.
But last week, surprisingly, the Saudi foreign minister, Saud Al Faisal, met Syrian Brotherhood deputy leader Mahmoud Farouq Tayfour, in one-to-one talks.
The Brotherhood had previously been confident in its alliance with Qatar and Turkey, and saw no need to offer concessions to engage other countries, including Saudi Arabia. So this meeting, which came after an “eager appeal” from the Brotherhood, suggests a shift in regional dynamics.
Two separate sources close to the opposition say Mr Tayfour assured the Saudi minister that “Syria’s Brotherhood will definitely not be like Egypt’s Brotherhood”.
He also “harshly” criticised Qatar’s role, even though Qatar had helped revive the Brotherhood in Syria after the Baathists massacred it out of existence in 1982.
Still, this meeting does not mean there has been a breakthrough in the kingdom’s relationship with the Brotherhood, which in 2004 then-Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz (who died last June) called the “source of all problems”.
The meeting was meant to build channels of communication with the coalition as Riyadh apparently took over sponsorship of the opposition from Doha. Last week Al Arab newspaper, citing opposition sources, said Doha had told the coalition’s secretary general, Mustafa Al Sabbagh, that “the Syrian dossier is now in the hands of Saudi Arabia”.
What was conveniently left out was the fact that Qatar was actively arming the rebels just as they did in Libya and had allegedly spent over $3 billion to aid the opposition in Syria
according to an article in the
Financial Times. The interesting part of the story by Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding Smith was this one paragraph:
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, Qatar has sent the most weapons deliveries to Syria, with more than 70 military cargo flights into neighbouring Turkey between April 2012 and March this year.
The only supplier of arms which match the Soviet style in question is in fact those seized by United States forces after Gaddafi’s collapse then transferred to Libya. Apparently the U.S. wants to keep this supply line source quiet so as not to upset the Chinese and Russians but also to prevent any appearance of wrong doing by the Obama administration. These two stories plus older stories from
The Blaze and other sources point to the only question remaining to solve the Benghazi scandal mystery:
Where’s the money?
If Qatar and Saudi Arabia are willing to spend north of $3 billion to overthrow the regime in Syria, then if the United States received the cash for those Libyan weapons, as it appears they have, who received the money, where is an accounting for it, and did any of it accidentally “slosh” into someone’s campaign re-election efforts via the numerous PACs and other support mechanisms?