These are saying they have details about what really happened in Benghazi: why the Ambassador was there rather than in the embassy, and the pressure on General Carter Ham (in charge of the region including Libya) not to act.
Why Ambassador Stevens was there is explosive -- literally:
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.
I had classed this as a conspiracy theory. It looks like I was wrong.
If this is true, no wonder they are frantic to cover it up.
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."
This will be devastating testimony. I don't have any idea whether this represents something actually illegal -- the President has a lot of latitude in foreign policy, but aid and comfort to an Al-Qaeda linked entity is certainly illegal for the general public. Refusing to send aid to Americans under attack is probably not criminal, but it's politically nuclear.
This entry was published Tue May 21 09:21:18 CDT 2013 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2013-05-21 09:21:18.0.