I don't disagree as a matter of principal, but from what I have seen, these "whistleblowers" do not earn the label. IMHO, a whistleblower is someone who wants to report a crime and is threatened with negative consequences if they do. Someone who wants to disagree with their bosses assessment and characterization is not a whistleblower. If you disagreed with your boss and went public with that disagreement, you are not likely to have a great career path with that boss. If that boss committed a crime, and threatened you if you made that crime public, you are still not going to have a great career path with that boss, but that boss is not going to have a great career path either.
Do you see the difference?
I see this as a witch hunt for one simple reason. An investigation means that a crime has been committed and the process begins to find out who did it. A witch hunt is a process where an evident is investigated to try and find a crime committed by a specific party.
We know there was a crime in Benghazi, that is the murder of the diplomats, and that is being investigated.
Beyond that, the investigation should be on what could have been done differently for the purpose of making changes in the future, and if a crime is uncovered in that process, fine, investigate it.
Do you see the difference?
I would not normally be too bothered by this stuff, but I remember White Water and the disaster that was for this country, over nothing. White Water was the reason that we allowed the Independent Counsels law to expire in 1999. With enough resources and a mission to find a crime, a crime is going to be found, eventually, even if they have to cause the crime to prosecute it.
Democrats have never seemed too keen on the whole Witch Hunt thing, and even Watergate only ultimately moved toward impeachment because of Republican support.
Maybe that's the key, if only one party is pursuing a thing, it is probably partisan politics.