Whistle-Blowers Could Soon Reveal: Feds To Terrorists Gunrunning Necessitated Benghazi Cover-up
May 22, 2013 by Sam Rolley
More explosive details highlighting the culpability of top Administration officials in the deaths of Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September could emerge as more whistle-blowers come forth, reports indicate.
According to PJ Media, colleagues of those killed during the incident in Benghazi are currently seeking legal counsel — as their positions do not grant them full protection under the whistle-blower defense law — so that they can reveal information that would change the entire narrative of events surrounding the tragic events.
The PJ Media story indicates that Ambassador Chris Stevens was attempting to buy back weapons in Libya provided to terrorists under direct order from then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
From the article:
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.
A theory of the cover-up with regard to Benghazi being necessary because of clandestine arms trading has also been posited by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — though his version involves the CIA running weapons to insurgents in Syria via Turkish ships.
“I don’t know,” Paul said. “Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex? I’m not sure exactly what was going on, but I think questions ought to be asked and answered, and I’m a little curious when employees of the State Department are told by government officials they shouldn’t testify and then they are sort of sequestered and kept away from testimony, so I think there may be more to this.”
Paul has been criticized by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle for touting what has been written off as an outlandish conspiracy theory and asking Clinton about it in pointed questioning during Senate testimony, much to her chagrin. But if PJM’s story turns out to be accurate, it looks like the Senator’s theory will be revealed as closer to the actual story than any explanation given thus far.