This is fairly explosive news if it’s true.

If you’ll remember, the underground story about Benghazi has been that our mission there was to buy up all the free weapons from Ghaddafi’s stashes which had begun floating around after the brilliant idea to depose him and put a bunch of Al-Qaeda types in charge of the country, and perhaps ship them under the table to the Syrian rebels. We had a CIA safe house – not a consulate, a safe house – and an annex, and the place was crawling with CIA operatives there on some undescribed mission. And nearly a year after both were hit, we still haven’t heard from any of the survivors about what happened.

What Joe DiGenova, who along with Victoria Toensing is the attorney for some of the Benghazi whistleblowers who actually have been able to come forth, is saying is that some of the product of that buy-up program were sitting at the CIA annex in Benghazi and the crowd of Al-Qaeda types who hit the safe house and the annex that night made off with 400 of those missiles.

And that the closing of all those Middle East embassies had to do with this, because you can shoot a SAM at an embassy just like you can at an airliner. At least that’s what DiGenova says. Whether that part stands up to scrutiny is dubious; a source of ours who knows about these things says an RPG attack on an embassy is a lot more effective than an attack using man-portable SAM’s.

Oh – and because they were walking off with SAM’s, that’s why we didn’t deploy any rapid-reaction forces – that we did have available – to the scene. Which is something else the public has been lied to about, for reasons that come together pretty nicely. Because to admit the bad guys had SAM’s would be to spill the beans on why we were there in Benghazi and largely admit the complete failure of the mission over there. There are some holes in that theory, though, because the military has been dealing with the threat in using air assets in an environment crawling with missiles like these for years in Iraq and Afghanistan and has demonstrated it can handle that threat. It wouldn’t be a situation where the generals would caution against going because those missiles where stolen, but it might have been a justification for idiot politicians who have zero knowledge about how to assess a threat environment to decline a rescue attempt.

Whether this is true or not, obviously (1) we don’t know much of anything about what really happened at Benghazi last September and the insulting “insistence” from the White House that they’re working to get to the bottom of what happened only festers as time goes by, and (2) what DiGenova is saying sounds a lot more plausible than the Obama administration’s cock-and-bull line about a protest over a YouTube and the subsequent muddying of the waters when that lie was exposed.

The guess here is that not only is what DiGenova is saying is at least somewhat true, it’s not the half of it. The guess here is that we were using Benghazi as a center of arms trading with Syrian rebels and lots of other people nobody in their right mind would be dealing with, including people we had just spent eight years trading shots with in Iraq, and not only that but we were conducting assassinations all over North Africa using that safe house and annex as base.

And Lord knows what else.

And if the public knew what was really going on, it would be pitchforks-and-torches time.

But here’s the thing – it wouldn’t just be Obama’s ass in a crack. Because there’s such a thing as Congressional oversight on something like this, and what that means is John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are just as politically exposed as Obama is. And if you follow the trail of breadcrumbs deeper into the forest what you’re going to ultimately find out is that Boehner and McConnell opted to trade Obama’s re-election for their own personal political salvations.

That also goes for Mike Rogers, who is the House Intelligence Committee chairman and Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Both would have been read into whatever stupid policy led to our ambassador being raped and murdered along with three other Americans who died serving our country. We mention those four Republicans and not the Democrats (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Dutch Ruppersberger), because OF COURSE the Democrats would cover things up for Obama.

That’s a hard thing to stomach, but those two would have been in on the oversight of whatever the mission in Benghazi was – and while McConnell as the minority leader couldn’t commission much of an investigation anyway, Boehner absolutely could. Rather than bring in an independent investigation or a select committee, Boehner is allowing Rogers to conduct an investigation which has been largely a joke.

There’s a page at the House Intelligence Committee website about the Benghazi “investigations.” It touts…

HPSCI Benghazi Investigation By the Numbers:

• Eight Full Committee Hearings
• Full review of thousands of pages of documents
• Leading role in compiling Interim Progress Report
• Investigation ongoing

Hoo-rah.

If you want to know why there is a revolt underway within the Republican Party’s base, this is one example of why. The inability, which looks an awful lot like a refusal, to get to the bottom of Benghazi amid a mountain of provable lies the administration spread over that failure only fuels a perception that the Republicans are no better than the Democrats are.

If Benghazi is a bipartisan scandal, fine. Let’s dump out the bad Republicans along with the bad Democrats.