Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame is apparently preparing another document dump of Hillary Clinton emails pertaining to Benghazi, according to Constitution.com. The latest round of emails is supposed to not only shed light on Ambassador Stevens’ real purpose in Benghazi, but also show that the attack on our US consulate was no coincidence. Many news organizations are waiting to see if the latest round of approximately 17,000 emails answers the question many have been asking for the last four years: What was so important in Libya for us to keep a US consulate in such a dangerous, jihadi stronghold as Benghazi? Recall that a bomb detonated on June 6 just outside the compound, prompting both the British government and the International Red Cross to pull their personnel out of the region. So why did we stay in this grossly underprotected compound?
Perhaps the answer is weapons. An August 2 National Review article discusses Qaddafi weapons stockpiles that were raided and seized after the Libyan leader was executed, and suggests that Stevens, assisted by the CIA outpost less than a mile away, was supposed to coordinate the doling out of these weapons, which apparently were to be redistributed, directly or indirectly, to “rebel” jihad groups in the region.
People in the neighborhoods around the consulate report that around 8pm, Al Qaeda jihadis set up checkpoints with machine guns mounted on trucks. Interestingly, Stevens dined earlier that evening with Turkish consul general Ali Akin and escorted him out of the consulate around 8:35pm, as reported three years ago by The Blaze. Although residents say they could not enter or leave their neighborhoods, Akin somehow managed to slip out just an hour before the attack began at 9:35pm. Let’s say he did pass through the terrorist checkpoints. Why did these terrorist not stop him, and why did Akin not warn the Americans about the attack?
The National Review article proposes a plausible explanation: that Stevens was indeed a CIA operative, and that Akin’s job was to hold Stevens in the consulate while the terrorists prepared to attack the consulate. The Obama administration definitely worked closely with the Islamist government of Turkey to train Syrian rebels, thus the meeting with Akin. It does offer a rational explanation of why the Turk escaped unscathed. The article goes further to say that the attack was needed to tie up loose ends, and allowed to happen by the Obama administration and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, explaining the stand-down orders and why help never arrived for the four Americans killed there. Documents, paperwork, and other written evidence was either destroyed in the fire or cleaned up later—after all, American investigators were banned from the site for some time after the attack.
Let’s remember that Obama had followed Bush’s stance to support Qaddafi as a crucial ally in fighting the rise of jihadists in Libya, but Clinton pushed for the policy shift and we changed sides to support the Muslim Brotherhood takeover at her behest. Given Clinton’s penchant for arming rebels, is it that much of a stretch to think that Stevens was in charge of redistributing Qaddafi’s weapons stockpile to Syrian rebels, meaning Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the forces that have since become ISIS? After all, prior to his ambassadorship, Stevens was Obama’s official liaison to Qaddafi’s Islamist opposition in Libya (including al-Qaeda); Stevens worked directly with their leaders, as reported in Business Insider, including the man who took control of the Military Council after Qaddafi’s ousting. Very soon after Qaddafi’s death, this leader, Belhadj, met with rebels in Turkey to plan weapons shipments from Libya to Syria, and sure enough, a Libyan ship carrying a 400-ton arms shipment that included anti-aircraft missiles and rocket propelled grenades docked in….you guessed it…Turkey on September 6, 2012, only 35 miles from the Syrian border. The Benghazi attack happened five days later.
Assange says the next round of email will be highly sensitive government email showing Clinton’s key role in planning and supporting this effort. News outlets are taking Assange’s latest claim with a huge grain of salt, waiting to see if the emails really contain what he says they do. Nevertheless, what is known about Clinton’s role in Benghazi is damning enough already, and only time will tell if there is even more destruction unveiled.