Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BENGHAZI: A READER ASSESSES THE EVIDENCE (My work again)
powerlineblog ^ | 10/27/2012 | barryobi

Posted on 10/27/2012 1:53:09 PM PDT by barryobi

A reader, relying on publicly available information, has reconstructed what we know and can infer about what happened in Benghazi. I haven’t tried to verify all of his facts nor do I necessarily vouch for his inferences, although in general they seem reasonable. But his analysis is, I think, a valuable contribution to our understanding, and I reproduce it here in slightly edited form:

(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: biden; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
The format I sent it to powerline in is much more readable and includes my picture of the Ansar al-Shariah gunman.
1 posted on 10/27/2012 1:53:17 PM PDT by barryobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: barryobi

great work.


2 posted on 10/27/2012 1:56:51 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Did the CIA tell their former SEALs to stand down because there was a planned ‘hostage taking of Stevens’ in progress?? We all know it went south, as they say, but THAT is what I want to know..


3 posted on 10/27/2012 2:01:04 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

I take that back —FANTASTIC job...!

Journalism is too important to be left to journalists.


4 posted on 10/27/2012 2:04:32 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Now I was only a LT for 5 years active duty in NavSpecWar, but it was imprinted deeply upon my brain that ONLY the PUTUS can give cross-border permission. Probably a million living ex-military officers know this like they know 2+2=4. This Benghazi fiasco is Obama’s baby 100% and there is no way for him to wiggle out.

The system is designed to ENSURE that when a crisis is happening, (and a missing ambassador with a consulate under attack is “Crisis Level Infinity”), and military assets are already charging in to the rescue, the president must be in the loop to grant the the cross-border authorization. Nobdy else can do this. This one formality must be followed, “just put your intitials here, Mr. President, for history,” so to speak. Boiler plate, but it must be done.

(Can you imagine Reagan or either Bush saying “No. Cross border permission not granted. Stop the rescue. Stand down.”)

The POTUS has to tell the Sec. State and JCS, “Yes, do it, execute the rescue, cross the borders.” Then it WILL happen, without delay, since the military is already on the way, flying in from all directions toward Benghazi.

But if POTUS says at 5pm DC time, “No military action, no cross border,” and then he becomes “unavailable,” then his last standing order stands until he changes it. So if he went to bed, for example, nobody could change his standing orders.

I imagine that a lot of extreme military, CIA and State Dept. craziness was going down while Obama was sleeping. Aircraft must be told proceed, or return to base, or they fall from the sky. I imagine many HEATED arguments around the globe on phone, text and email, subject, “Well wake the damn president up!” Followed by, “I can’t! You MUST stand down the mission!”

Just imagine dozens of inbound planes, jets and helos. Ships moving at full speed into position to be “lilypads” for long-range over-water helo refueling. Airborne refueling tankers all head to the area. It’s a complicated ballet. The Pentagon is wide awake, the military is on full alert. The rescue is in process, from the first minutes after the alarm.

Everybody in all the planes and involved HQs knows how many minutes/miles to the Libyan border, Benghazi, and their “bingo fuel” moment, when they must turn around or run dry and crash. Ships can “loiter,” but planes fall from the sky.

So you can imagine why General Ham of Africom was relieved for refusing to stand down. He probably KNEW Obama was “unavailable,” and was screaming over the phone, “Well, wake him up, dammit!!”

Planes and jets and helicopters and ships and commando teams are zooming all around the central Med, keying in on Benghazi——

And in that environment, OBAMA WAS ASLEEP AND UNREACHABLE!!!!! Resting up for Las Vegas! With a MISSING AMBASSADOR, in Al-Queadatown!

Anybody not furious is a vegetable.


5 posted on 10/27/2012 2:08:28 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

My theory is this. The White House made a political decision to not save or attempt to save them. With the elections coming they decided that the lives of four are acceptable damage than to send in troops or anything and risk a wider engagement in a new theater. Obama and his team sacrificed Stevens at the alter of politics and his career.


6 posted on 10/27/2012 2:10:11 PM PDT by aft_lizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Awesome work!

You bring up some great points, and wow, some super sharp observations... like the pant leg roll up.


7 posted on 10/27/2012 2:13:05 PM PDT by Professional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Yes, that small reinforcement party from Tripoli, dang that is good stuff.

Did they also refuse orders to stand down? Were they sent? If they were sent, why not anything more meaningful???? Dang...


8 posted on 10/27/2012 2:14:17 PM PDT by Professional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Yup! They thought, “The electorate already EXPECTS periodic muzzie agitation, most of all on a 9-11 anniversary. There is a CONCEPTUAL TEMPLATE, and even if we lose 4 or even 40, well, we can weather that.

But if there are TV images of charred C-130 and helicopter fueseslages —a failed rescue attempt— then that’s Desert One all over again, and RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION...So...let’s cut our losses right there....”

Don’t become Jimmy Carter, Barry...”

And it was Valerie Jarrett and Axelrod who told this to Barry, and he went along with it.


9 posted on 10/27/2012 2:17:53 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Well done!


10 posted on 10/27/2012 2:17:58 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Hey, what about the “folks” all those folks....

Shucky darn, you know, we had folks, they had folks, it you know, not optimal, but we’ll be getting to the bottom of this,,,, because you can trust us, we always tell the truth, and yes, you know, I care, and where is the MTV guy for my interview about political music and how I feel about facebook?


11 posted on 10/27/2012 2:18:02 PM PDT by Professional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

That hits the nail on the head!


12 posted on 10/27/2012 2:18:31 PM PDT by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

bump


13 posted on 10/27/2012 2:22:24 PM PDT by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Great job! Many excellent questions the ‘real journalists’ aren’t asking.


14 posted on 10/27/2012 2:25:00 PM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Just read it there. Outstanding work!


15 posted on 10/27/2012 2:25:48 PM PDT by Snake65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

This is excellent! Thank you for doing this!

Unc


16 posted on 10/27/2012 2:30:06 PM PDT by uncitizen (Arrest him for treason today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi; humblegunner
The blog is full of pop-ups and virii:

HG, you're slipping.

Posted on October 27, 2012 by John Hinderaker in Benghazigate

Benghazi: A Reader Assesses the Evidence

A reader, relying on publicly available information, has reconstructed what we know and can infer about what happened in Benghazi. I haven’t tried to verify all of his facts nor do I necessarily vouch for his inferences, although in general they seem reasonable. But his analysis is, I think, a valuable contribution to our understanding, and I reproduce it here in slightly edited form:

This last week may have finally broken the protective wall around the POTUS. Between the comments of Hillary Clinton, Gen. Petraeus, Defense Secretary Panetta and the FOX News report, the picture of what really transpired in Benghazi is starting to emerge. The trail is leading straight to the POTUS….

I have no military service, security clearance, or contacts in the middle east. I don’t speak Arabic and have no special skills that would allow me to have a special insight into how the travesty in Benghazi happened, and who is responsible for letting our people die.

All I have are my instincts and google. They allowed me to ascertain within a couple of days that there was no protest outside the consulate before it was attacked. For the administration to attempt to sell such a story infuriated me, especially when Ambassador Rice appeared on five Sunday talks shows on September 16th to spin an obvious lie.

The latest bombshell revelations by FOX News about our people being denied assistance while under attack fits in with my theory of what transpired on 9/11 in Benghazi. I developed my theory by using google to find as many disparate sources of information as I could, and I am presenting you more of what I discovered in hopes you can shine a brighter light on the obvious falsehoods of the Administration’s storyline about what they knew and when.

Rather than include links within the story, I footnoted them and include them at the end of this document.

The timeline of the attack is very important in understanding what happened at the consulate, the “rescue” by Tyrone Woods and other members of the annex staff, the subsequent assault on the annex, and ultimately, the evacuation of the staff to the Benghazi airport.

First we have the attack, which everyone now agrees happened at 9:40 and was not preceded by a protest of any nature. Charlene Lamb said she was at the situation room monitoring the attack in real time, and that the consulate staff sounded the alarm at about 9:40. By monitoring the attack in real time by watching the video feed from the cameras at the consulate, the State Dept situation room staff … would have seen a large number of armed men.

In the State Dept timeline briefing (1) given on October 9th, the briefer describes their version of what happened that night. Here is how they describe the “rescue” of the Americans at the consulate:

At this point, the special security team, the quick reaction security team from the other compound, arrive on this compound. They came from what we call the annex. With them – there are six of them – with them are about 16 members of the Libyan February 17th Brigade, the same militia that was – whose – some members of which were on our compound to begin with in the barracks.

Here is how FOX News (2) describes the same event:

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

Question 1: Tyrone Woods and his group were described by the State Dept as “the quick reaction security team.” This implies they were in Benghazi to provide precisely the kind of protective force that would be needed if a situation like this arose. WHO TOLD THEM TO STAND DOWN? Did the order come from their superiors at the annex or from Washington DC? Were their superiors CIA officers or State Dept staff?

So we now have everyone but deceased Ambassador Stevens at the annex at about midnight local time. Again, according to FOX News (2), they called for military assistance because the annex had begun to take fire from the terrorists:

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

The State Department on Oct. 9th (1) describes it this way:

Once at the annex, the annex has its own security – a security force there. There are people at the annex. The guys in the car join the defense at the annex. They take up firing positions on the roof – some of them do – and other firing positions around the annex. The annex is, at this time, also taking fire and does take fire intermittently, on and off, for the next several hours. The fire consists of AK-47s but also RPGs, and it’s, at times, quite intense.

As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound – to the annex, I should say. And I should have mentioned that the quick reaction – the quick reaction security team that was at the compound has also, in addition to my five agents, has also returned to the annex safely. The reinforcements from Tripoli are at the compound – at the annex. They take up their positions. And somewhere around 5:45 in the morning – sorry, somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning – I have my timeline wrong – somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning the annex takes mortar fire. It is precise and some of the mortar fire lands on the roof of the annex. It immediately killed two security personnel that are there, severely wounds one of the agents that’s come from the compound.

Question 2: Leon Panetta said this (3) about sending military assistance to the annex:

We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of our deploying forces to the region. We had fast platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya, and we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But as a basic principle here – the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

The fact is, American assistance WAS sent from Tripoli that night, but it was not military assistance. Who were the 8 guys sent from Tripoli working for? It is logical to assume they were CIA agents or on their payroll. Notice, in the State Department briefing of Oct. 9th, they do not describe the Tripoli contingent other than this:

As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound. So what we have here is the first huge contradiction between Panetta and the military and the CIA. SOMEONE sent those guys from Tripoli, but it was not the military. Why was it ok to send 8 lightly armed American guys from Tripoli into harm’s way to rescue 30+ people in Benghazi, but not ok to send a heavily armed special forces contingent who have trained for just such a scenario?

The State Dept. was asked about the Tripoli 8 on Oct. 9th and here was their response:

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NUMBER TWO: The calls were made to Tripoli at the moment that the – at the same time the agent in the [Tactical Operations Center] sounded the alarm and then proceeded to make calls. I’m not going to go into any details about the number of security personnel who moved.

Notice the State Dept. refers to them as “security personnel.” Whose security personnel? Why only 8 sent (notice State Dept won’t give number sent)?

The best description of what happened that night with the rescue mission from Tripoli I found on 9/13, but was skeptical because part of the story conflicted with my “no protest” theory. After re-reading the story (4), and comparing it with the FOX News report and State Dept briefing, I am sure the part of the story having to do with the rescue of the annex personnel is 100% accurate. Here is how that story describes the rescue:

Captain Fathi al-Obeidi, commander of a special operations force for the February 17 Brigade, told Reuters that he took a call about 1:30 a.m. from Tripoli telling him that a helicopter was on its way from the capital’s Mitiga airport with a rescue squad of eight U.S. troops – he described them as marines.

After he met them at Benghazi airport with a convoy of 10 vehicles, mostly pickup trucks, one mounted with an anti-aircraft cannon, the U.S. force directed Obeidi and his men to the GPS coordinates of a farmhouse to find the survivors there.

Here, two more things went wrong. First, Obeidi found four times as many Americans at the single-story, fortified house as he had been told expect – 37, not just 10. So he did not have enough transport. Then, the villa came under massive attack.

This time, there was little doubt in the minds of Libyans who experienced it that this was a well-organized assault by men who had mastered the complexities of military mortar fire.

“This attack was planned,” Obeid said. “The accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries.”

While some Libyan officials suggested that former soldiers from Gaddafi’s army may have been involved in Benghazi, some of the Islamist fighters also have substantial military experience from years spent fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Though Libya’s deputy interior minister described the locating of the safe house as a “critical security breach,” the attack may not have been planned for long in advance. The assailants would have had some hours to follow the fleeing Americans and set up an ambush after the consulate attack.

“It began to rain down on us,” Obeidi said just as the rescue force was preparing to leave. “About six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa,” he said. One American fell wounded by him. A mortar struck the building itself, throwing from the roof another American posted there onto the men below.

“I was being bombarded by calls from all over the country by Libyan government officials who wanted me to hurry and get them out,” he said. “But … I needed more men and more cars.”

Two Americans, including one of the eight security personnel sent from Tripoli, were killed and several wounded.

Finally, dozens more vehicles from the Libyan security forces arrived, the attackers melted away and, as the sun came up over the desert, they reached Benghazi airport, from where the surviving Americans and the bodies were flown out.

So we now know Tyrone Woods was part of those on staff in Benghazi and Glen Doherty was part of the rescue group sent from Tripoli.

Question 3: According to FOX News, one of those killed (Tyrone Woods) was “painting the enemy mortar team with a laser” and calling for air support to take it out. He was killed when a mortar shell hit the roof. The question is: Was any air support available in the area? Were either of the two drones on station armed? Was there an AC130 gunship in the area? Why was no airpower deployed to assist those in the consulate? Even if Panetta did not want to send men, airpower could have been used to provide cover for those in the annex.

Another reader, Thomas Wictor, weighs in on this point via email:

The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.

Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.

There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.

Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.

Now back to our original correspondent:

Gen Petraeus through the CIA spokesperson said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” Interesting choice of words, “nobody told anybody NOT to help.” That is a little different from saying they did tell somebody to help. If an order is NOT given to help, you did not tell somebody not to help, you just ignored their plea.

On to Hillary and her claim that Facebook and Twitter postings (2) during the attack don’t constitute “evidence that Ansar al-Shariah (and by association Al Qaeda) was involved.” When I saw that quote, it immediately brought me back to the most iconic photo of the attack. 


When I saw this picture, the thing that instantly struck me was the way the guy was wearing his pants. I started doing some research and came across this (5) — another interview from one of the injured Blue Mountain guards at the consulate:

He himself was hit by grenade shrapnel, and then was shot through the knee when the first wave of attackers came in. He said those he heard speak had local, Benghazi accents, though he added that two men “looked foreign.”

He said some of the attackers wore masks, and many had their trouser legs rolled up – a mark of Salafi, or purist, Muslims and a common feature in members of Ansar al-Sharia.

Does Mrs. Clinton or the CIA have anybody with expertise on Ansar al-Shariah? Between the Facebook and Twitter posts and this picture, the evidence that Ansar al–Shariah was involved should have been clear as day. If I can figure it out, those paid to be “experts” in the Middle East had to know right away who was responsible.

So what do we think is the bottom line? Who were the 8 guys from Tripoli working for and who ordered them to Benghazi? Why was the military not used in terms of special forces or airpower?

The answers to the above lead directly to the White House and POTUS. The time difference between Benghazi and Washington DC is 6 hours. We also note that at 5 p.m. on September 11 2012, President Obama, Vice President Biden and the Secretary of Defense were meeting in the Oval Office. … The attack was going on for more than an hour, the Ambassador’s whereabouts were unknown, and you have to assume Obama, Biden, and Panetta were talking about what to do.

Instead of calling up the military resources at his disposal, the POTUS went “small.” The protection and rescue operations were outsourced to the Feb 17th militia, who had failed already in their responsibility to protect the consulate, and most of whom fled when the fighting at the consulate started. The ONLY US assets that could be spared were EIGHT brave Americans in Tripoli who most likely were CIA contract employees (including Glen Doherty).

The final call was by the POTUS. No military action to Libya from Italy or elsewhere could have been undertaken without the POTUS signing off. In the end, his “leading from behind” strategy and failure to realize the nature of the situation in Benghazi led to the deaths of at least Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. His meeting at 5 p.m. was 5 hours before they were killed. That is why there is a cover up, the POTUS failed to act. The screw up of not having enough security on the ground in Benghazi can be passed off to Charlene Lamb, Hillary, etc., but in the midst of the crisis, when the lives of the 30+ Americans were on the line, the POTUS froze, and Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed as a result. He can’t pass that blame off on anyone, he was informed of the attack and as a result of the decisions he made in the Oval Office with Biden and Panetta, those two brave Americans died. The Panetta smokescreen does not hold water because US personnel WERE sent into harm’s way, they just weren’t US military personnel. If there was enough info to send the 8 men from Tripoli, why was that not good enough for our military? This is 100% on Obama.

One related point that may be relevant was this. (6) Sending the military into another country can be a sensitive and delicate decision. CBS News has been told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did seek clearance from Libya to fly in their airspace, but the administration won’t say anything further about what was said or decided on that front.

How do you request clearance from a government which really only exists on paper? The prime minister was not even sworn in yet, and the country was and is ruled by armed militias. When Americans are dying, and someone attacks an embassy or consulate, we do not require permission to do everything in our power to protect out people. In a lawless country like Libya, protocol should take a back seat to saving our Ambassador.

1. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm

2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

3. http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981725499

4. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-libya-ambassador-assault-idUSBRE88C02Q20120913?feedType=RSS&feedName=wtMostRead&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FMostRead+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Most+Read+Articles%29

5. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9549126/Benghazi-consulate-attack-was-targeted-assault-says-security-guard.html

6. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57536611/could-u.s-military-have-helped-during-libya-attack/

Will all of our correspondents’ inferences hold up as we learn more about what happened in Benghazi? I don’t know. Readers who have additional insights are invited to share them in the comments.

Someday a proper investigation will be done and the truth about Benghazi will emerge. In the meantime, Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard have posed a series of questions to President Obama:

Friday, in response to questions regarding the events of September 11 in Benghazi, President Obama said this: “Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do. But we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice. So, we’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again but we’re also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”

The interviewer followed up: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”

The president responded: “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

THE WEEKLY STANDARD understands that it will take some time to “gather all the facts” about what happened on the ground in Benghazi. But presumably the White House already has all the facts about what happened that afternoon and evening in Washington—or, at least, in the White House. The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections.

1.) To whom did the president give the first of his “three very clear directives”—that is, “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?”

2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?

3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?

4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?

5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?

6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?

7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?

8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?

9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?

10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a C-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?


17 posted on 10/27/2012 2:34:01 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

That would imply 0m0slem informed the CIA.


18 posted on 10/27/2012 2:35:23 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: barryobi
The fact is, American assistance WAS sent from Tripoli that night, but it was not military assistance. Who were the 8 guys sent from Tripoli working for? It is logical to assume they were CIA agents or on their payroll. Notice, in the State Department briefing of Oct. 9th, they do not describe the Tripoli contingent other than this:

As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound.

Let me reinforce the author's opinion about that...

State Dept. Rules of Engagement Kept Marines out of Tripoli, Benghazi in Libya Sept. 14, 2012

Captain Kendra Motz, Marine Corps spokesman, told Breitbart News on Friday that she wasn't aware that the Marine Corps had issued a formal statement, but that the information included in the Powerline report was correct.

"The Marine Corps does not have any Marines stationed at diplomatic installations in Libya."

If we are to believe the Marine Corps (I do) there were no Marines stationed anywhere in Libya.

19 posted on 10/27/2012 2:39:07 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Will there be an Obama ‘Wag the dog’ coming before the election?

Obama Contemplates Arming Syrian Rebels. What Could Go Wrong?

http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/18/obama-contemplates-arming-syrian-rebels-what-could-go-wrong/


20 posted on 10/27/2012 2:40:19 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

A very interesting choice of words: “ ... The president did not deny requests for aid...” may in fact be true. He might have been requested for aid, but did not say “ no”, and did not answer the question, and did not say “request approved”. I suspect this to be the real truth.

Maybe Valerie Jarrett was not around to give him direction, or she was around and he followed her dictate.

I cannot see any political downside to have provided aid, but suspect that my suggestion above may be the most accurate, and reflects the poor experience of the Obama team in handling any kind of foreign policy/political crisis.


21 posted on 10/27/2012 2:41:17 PM PDT by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Outstanding job.

Yep. A real rescue attempt was too risky — not to a military team — but politically, in light of the election. So, as you say, they went small.


22 posted on 10/27/2012 2:42:45 PM PDT by Rumierules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NUMBER TWO: The calls were made to Tripoli at the moment that the – at the same time the agent in the [Tactical Operations Center] sounded the alarm and then proceeded to make calls."

That is a gobbledeygook answer. When that alarm was 'sounded' that was the alert that automatically and immediately 'sounded' in every situation room around the world. The WH sit-room, State Dept. sit-room, Pentagon sit-room, CIA sit-room, Africom sit-room and, according to Col. Hunt and other former mil and CIA officers, every CentCom around the globe totalling about 12. I'm not saying that agent didn't make any other calls but no other calls were necessary.

Howie Carr interview with Col. Hunt On The Newest Libyan Revelations audio 28:37

Judge Jeanine Investigates Benghazi Gate Part 4 - 10/20/2012 video 6:53
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (U.S. Army ret.), former CIA Station Chief Gary Burtson and former CIA operative Mike Baker

They confirm everything Col. Hunt said about automatic notifications to the WH and add more details.

23 posted on 10/27/2012 2:51:37 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

You weren’t in the military? You should have been. Logical and well-presented.


24 posted on 10/27/2012 2:58:01 PM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

I read it three times. Thank you. It’s riveting.

Questions I have for anyone who can answer. When a request for military support is “denied”, how is that negative response communicated? Radio? IM? Aside from WHO GAVE THE ORDER, once a “stand down” order is given, how is that order delivered? Face to face by a superior? Phone? e-mail? When someone like Tyrone Woods, a member of the quick reaction security team, decides to take matters into his own hands, does he just quietly slip out of the annex unnoticed or what? Does no one warn him he is under orders? In the heat of the moment, how does this all shake down?
Sorry for the ignorance.


25 posted on 10/27/2012 3:07:08 PM PDT by FryingPan101 (2016 looms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; All
(and a missing ambassador with a consulate under attack is “Crisis Level Infinity”)

I have my thoughts on why that is so but it would mean more to all of us if you could say a few words about it. So that we can all understand the immense gravity of that situation, in your opinion, why would it be viewed as “Crisis Level Infinity?”

26 posted on 10/27/2012 3:22:45 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: barryobi
Great stuff, imagine the humiliation in subject area expert cubicles that they missed the rolled up pants in the photo seen by millions.

You laser use analysis matches mine.

Much of this timeline and decision tree I ascribe to the “cross border authority” uber-dichotomy. The QRF from Tripoli was already in-country, so CIA could “follow the evolving ROE” and just send them to Benghazi almost or entirely under “local control.” That is, the station chief (buy you a beer any day) just said, “Roll them! GO!”

And I would expect that the “QRF” will turn out to be a motley ad-hoc collection of contractors and spooks and techs and I-can’t-imagine-what who just manned up, armored up, grabbed their M-4s and shit and went charging out the door, and just piled into the CIA charter plane and they WENT. I'll bet there was no formal “QRF/Tripoli,” but just “who can get on the next thing smoking—Benghazi is under attack!”

And some mighty fine Americans stepped up and went, and as a cosmic result, there was a Benghazi linkup between two old frogs, can just freaking imagine? Under fire, down range, in Benghazi of all places! (HOO F-ING YAH to that, my brothers!)

And Obama wouldn't send rescue forces, already on the way at full steam ahead.

Some good men are dead,
Because Obama went to bed.

27 posted on 10/27/2012 3:24:45 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

My guess is we will find Valerie was the person to issue that order.

My guess is that will come out after the election.


28 posted on 10/27/2012 3:34:43 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (The dude abides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Professional
The shuck and drive won't work this time, because millions of Americans already understand the deal, that POTUS and only POTUS can authorize or refuse an international rescue mission. He can't punt this off on shuck and jive, we all knkow the deal. The prizzy is like Caesar on this one, thumbs up or down. Only the prizzy. Rescue, or no rescue, since it crosses international borders, we must ask, so what say you Mr. President, rescue them, or let them go?

He let them go. He let them go.


29 posted on 10/27/2012 3:36:28 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

The fact that a 4 star, General Ham was terminated , is all you need to know about the CIC’s involvement here.


30 posted on 10/27/2012 3:38:58 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Agreed, they used the Tripoli assets because they did not need any permission, they were already in Libya. That said, the best we could muster was 8 guys? Obama was in the Oval Office during the initial assault with Panetta and Biden. The Defense Secretary asks you...”Mr. President, should we send some special ops guys to Benghazi?” Obama....”Nah, let Hillary and Petraeus handle it, I’m going to watch some Sons of Anarchy on FX”


31 posted on 10/27/2012 3:39:56 PM PDT by barryobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: barryobi
I am somewhat concerned about the future well being of General Carter Ham in light of his struggles with PTSD. i.e. Marcy Park/Vince Foster.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, commander of Libya operations, sought help for posttraumatic stress syndrome

A general battles post-combat stress

32 posted on 10/27/2012 3:41:55 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

The nut graf:

“The final call was by the POTUS. No military action to Libya from Italy or elsewhere could have been undertaken without the POTUS signing off. In the end, his “leading from behind” strategy and failure to realize the nature of the situation in Benghazi led to the deaths of at least Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. His meeting at 5 p.m. was 5 hours before they were killed. That is why there is a cover up, the POTUS failed to act. The screw up of not having enough security on the ground in Benghazi can be passed off to Charlene Lamb, Hillary, etc., but in the midst of the crisis, when the lives of the 30+ Americans were on the line, the POTUS froze, and Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed as a result. He can’t pass that blame off on anyone, he was informed of the attack and as a result of the decisions he made in the Oval Office with Biden and Panetta, those two brave Americans died. The Panetta smokescreen does not hold water because US personnel WERE sent into harm’s way, they just weren’t US military personnel. If there was enough info to send the 8 men from Tripoli, why was that not good enough for our military? This is 100% on Obama.”


33 posted on 10/27/2012 3:43:06 PM PDT by gotribe (He's a mack-daddy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV415yit7Zg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Okay, short of “Iran and Israel just launched 1,000 rockets at each other,” or “Europe’s stock market just wiped out to 1% and the NYSE is not opening,” in normal diplomatic life, a missing ambassador in Al Queda territory is one of the very biggest imaginable.

Obama went to bed with a missing ambassador, who might have been on youtube in a few hours pleading for his life, or admitting to shipping SA-22 manpads to the Syrian AQ groups. Or he could have gotten the Danny Pearl/Nick Berg intro to jihad 101.

Never mind the 3 dead pawns. The king and queen on this board, in this context, is the ambassador. A missing ambassador, in the hands of AQ, is 1,000 times worse than an ambassador who is a known KIA.

And this POTUS of ours went to bed, and left a “no border crossing rescue” set of standing orders.

Some good men are dead,
because Obama went to bed.


34 posted on 10/27/2012 3:45:35 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

I got a lot of info out of that.


35 posted on 10/27/2012 3:46:48 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

How many actual “shooters” / “operators” did they muster in Benghazi? Damn few, and they were not there as “shooters” but as weapon locator/collectors etc. It just so happened they were ex gunslingers, they were not there in a “security billet” or not many of them.

If the Tripoli “QRF” mirrors the Benghazi situation but 2X scale, then mustering 8 of a mixed bag of “security” and “experts” who were ex-shooters with M-4s sounds right.

It might turn out there was no “formal” security of Americans by Americans, the 16th Feb Martyr’s Brigade being the armed “external security.” The Welsh-contracted, native-muscle “internal security” for the consulate was unarmed. IOW, some shady locals to open the gate, without guns.

My take is that the WH believed they had an “arrangement” with the MB honchos in Benghazi. “Since we are cooperating on parallel lines with arms shipments to your brothers in Syria, you won’t hurt us. We’ll demonstrate our trust, by agreeing to unarmed interior guards you’ll recommend, and external security by the Martyr’s Brigade.”

Sounds like an insane world view, but not as explained by Amb Bolton to Greta the other night. The WH view is airtight. THey had a deal in Benghazi, no overt American weapon display, you can stay. No Marines, etc. “We’ll keep you safe.”

Reminds me so much of the Aesop’s fable about the farmer and the semi-frozen viper, who recovered against his skin and bit him. This is gratitude in the Muslim world.

Obama’s biggest bitch-slap, on 9-11, and he couldn’t even muster up the guts to approve a rescue that was already under way.

So he said, “No,” and went to bed, or otherwise disappeared with his Ipad.


36 posted on 10/27/2012 3:58:26 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Hell, even the incomparably incompetent Carter had balls enough to okay a military rescue. It failed but at least he tried!


37 posted on 10/27/2012 3:58:45 PM PDT by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rumierules

I think this whole coverup I was begun to draw attention away from a single thing: what was the CIA doing there? Everything I have heard so far has directed attention away from the Annex. They did not want the SEALs going to the consulate—not because they could get into a firefight—but because it would draw attention to the assets we had in the area.

What were they doing there that would cause Obama more political harm than four dead Americans.


38 posted on 10/27/2012 4:00:26 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (The dude abides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Two more points that I read on other threads:

1. The alert would have gone out on the highest priority network. It would have been immediately received in DC. The Ambassador in danger requires that the message is immediately delivered to the President.

2. The contingency plans for the military are to scramble immediately and head out to protect the Ambassador and the others. Should they fail to get a response, they are to follow preestablished plans for rescue. Which means that a NO GO from the President was needed to stop the operation.


39 posted on 10/27/2012 4:11:10 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

Bookmark


40 posted on 10/27/2012 4:15:38 PM PDT by nutmeg (Ten more days!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; All
Thanks. I hadn't thought of the ambassador being used that way to embarrass and blackmail the U.S. No small thing.

IMO there would be a lot more to an attack on an ambassador and an embassy. (or any of its properties) An attack on an ambassador, any ambassador, has more significant implications than, say, an attack on a mil base somewhere. An attack on any diplomatic mission property has big implications being American soil. The message such attacks send have enormous national security and foreign relations ramifications.

How we respond (or utterly fail to respond) sends a message back about what the U.S. is made of and how we will respond to other provocations anywhere in the world. The message sent or unsent is a ripple that travels around the globe changing the view of the U.S. everywhere. 0coward has just told the world that he can't be trusted by his closest allies, his own ambassadors. They have to see him as utterly spineless now. And proven so in the open not just backroom opinions.

The point I am driving at here is meant for all the couch potatoes out there who might still doubt that the POTUS had to be notified immediately and had to be involved first hand in every decision and had to be the one to sign off on any and all actions approved or denied for reasons that exceed even the undeniable need for POTUS to sign off on crossing and acting on foreign soil.

The downside of getting it wrong is bigger than merely violating sovereign foreign soil.

41 posted on 10/27/2012 4:16:06 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More

I was wondering that myself - is Valerie Jarrett the one who said “stand down”?


42 posted on 10/27/2012 4:26:40 PM PDT by Tenlein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: barryobi

Thanks


43 posted on 10/27/2012 4:43:08 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes

Not exactly. All correct to my understanding until the end when you make the leap to “Which means that a NO GO from the President was needed to stop the operation.”

Not quite. Yes, the rescue begins, at full speed. Planes, jets and helos are scrambling, commando teams embarking, ships moving into position, all as if they are going full speed ahead to Behghazi.

But on the way, they need to punch the “cross border authority” ticket. No way around it....only POTUS can authorize a cross-border mission with armed forces. Hillary can’t do it and Panetta can’t do it and Dempsey can’t do it.

Only the POTUS.

My belief is that after hearing the “lull” report around 5pm DC time, Obama made a “no cross border military action” decision with Dempsey, Panetta and Hillary in the Oval Office, as reported.

If he was going to “take charge of the crisis,” reports would say he met them down below in the Situation Room, the bridge of the “American Eagle Global War And Diplomacy Machine, INC.”

That is the bridge of the Starship Enterprise. Why did Capt. Kirk meet Spock and the others in the side office, and then disappear, while the Klingons are attacking Earth just below?

I have not seen one report stating that Obama ever went to the Situation Room, where he would have been sucked into the command vortext by proximity to dozens of people reporting new messages, requests, reports etc. Once in there, he would have stayed, just by being pulled into that power vortex, even though it’s not his style.

So he never took the elevator down, but instead hit the button for up, to the family quarters, where he could hide out with his Ipad watching ESPN, while Axlerod and Jarrett ran interference until he was down asleep for the night.

At any rate, he went to bed with a missing ambassador, in Alquedaville, and it sure looks like his “no outside military intervention” standing orders held for the rest of the night while he slept. So the CIA in Tripoli could send what motley crew they had, but all of the other external military QRF then streaming toward Behghazi from all points had to turn around in the end.

Because only the POTUS could authorize them to cross the international border, and he didn’t, or couldn’t, or wouldn’t.


44 posted on 10/27/2012 4:46:12 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I totally agree with 41, and most folks (reasonably) focus on the 4 dead Americans as the worst aspect, but around the world, AQ just stuck a $#!++Y stick in Uncle Sam’s eye, spit in his face, and kicked him in the balls.

And Obama was such a coward, he couldn’t even sign off on a rescue plan, ALREADY IN PROGRESS!

At the very least, by NOT granting cross-border authority, he doomed the two ex-seals who died hours later, after he went to bed.

And the fact that Obama went to bed (resting up for Vegas) while his ambassador was MIA in AQville, is just utterly DAMMNING!


45 posted on 10/27/2012 4:52:31 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
The contingency plans for the military are to scramble immediately and head out to protect the Ambassador and the others. Should they fail to get a response, they are to follow preestablished plans for rescue. Which means that a NO GO from the President was needed to stop the operation.

If the quick reaction force was already in country, then I would agree with you. If not, then it at least used to take a positive order from the Commander-in-Chief to cross the border unless that permission was in a standing order. I imagine the general had half his men coordinating the preparations for that operation and the other half combing through all relevant previous orders (and calling Sixth Fleet to see if the Navy had a loophole) to find something he could plausibly pretend counted as permission to cross that border in order to rescue American military and State Department personnel from armed foreign terrorists.

46 posted on 10/27/2012 4:55:33 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: barryobi; Travis McGee

I saw this at Powerline, I thought it was very well done.

Still digesting it.


47 posted on 10/27/2012 4:59:07 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

On November 4, NatGeo is going to air a propaganda fictionalized movie about the bin Laden Raid that will make Obama the hero. That movie reinforces the idea that only the President can give that go/no go order.

ironic really


48 posted on 10/27/2012 5:06:09 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

bump!


49 posted on 10/27/2012 5:10:19 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

He’s inhuman, Matt. I don’t know how else to put it. A sociopath. I can’t see that he cares about the lives lost or any other aspect of it. I see no sign at all that he does.


50 posted on 10/27/2012 5:12:14 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson