Skip to comments.Panetta Says Risk Impeded Deployment to Benghazi (Admin has painted itself into a corner)
Posted on 10/28/2012 9:11:36 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
WASHINGTON Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders felt very strongly that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The ex-SEALs were certainly capable of doing a threat assessment. Delta Force was two hours away! THey were doing training exercises in Europe. They really feel a group of locals with AKs could pose a threat to the most elite fighting unit we’ve got??
Total BS. Obama decided it was politically risky to have a failed rescue mission. They had the larger context of Cairo and other embassies facing protests. They LIED.
Obama lied six times to the UN blaming the video. Hillary lied to the father of one of the fallen. Lies lies lies.
Obama met at 5 pm with Panetta and made the call to NOT intervene.
His statement to the Denver reporter (nice to see there are a few left) was telling. He said his order was to intervene, then investigate, then hold the guilty accountable.
If the President ordered something to be done, who didn’t carry out his order?
Looks like they are setting up the Admiral (see ABC news story) to the fall guy. Gen Ham is also out.
“Whether or not this was handled well, the fear of a Blackhawk Down scenario could easily have been on someones mind. “
Yes, and how would that have looked before an election?
Best to let the Ambassador die and then lie about it on Letterman and The View.
Bumps in the road.
These people are disgusting and beneath contempt.
But wait. They did initially send 8 spec ops troops from Tripoli. Can’t have it both ways Panchetta!
Leon Edward Panetta: Nancy Boy
Whether or not this was handled well, the fear of a Blackhawk Down scenario could easily have been on someones mind. If you havent seen that movie, you should, it is really scary, and I have a son in Afghanistan. If would sure make me think twice before committing more troops.gleeaiken, you are missing my point. If we grant your point, and while I do not agree with it I certainly understand the reluctance, that the Admin was too concerned about safety in this situation of troops, then this totally cuts the knees off of why you would start 3 days later and for two weeks saying that this was a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a video when you knew it wasn't. In fact, you are using the fact now that you knew it wasn't to justify your position not to send in troops. Deceit.
In other words, let’s do away with 9-1-1 because you never as a first responder what the heck you’re getting yourself into.
So I guess the gunship who had the attackers picture in their gunsight crosshairs didn't want to fire on the perps because the picture was too grainy or what????
Ask Obama. He supposedly was watching the gunship videos in real time and still refused to grant permission to fire, according to a new report.
So what's the story, dear leader?
What ever happened to an event like this provoking an evening, televised speech made by the President of the United States of America? There has been plenty of time for the White House or the State Department to come up with an official version of what happened....complete with charts. There is even room for the president to say, “I made this decision because....”.
So does this mean Panetta is admitting that he gave the order to stand down? I’m so confused.
Multiple pleas for help from ‘boots on the ground’ at the consulate.
Real Time video of the attack which multiple administration officials watch in REAL TIME for over 6 hours!!!
How much more “INTELLIGENCE” does Panetta think he needs?
This is the worst cover up of all time.
This administration must think that not a single Republican voter has an IQ above 70 or so.
It is a further insult to all of us that they think this pack of lies will fly.
They are trying rea hard to get past Nov 6.
Watched Warner on Fox Sunday News duck & dodge every question that Chris Wallace asked him.
“We will investigate after the election”.
Not good enough!!
Another reason NOT to have ‘early voting’. How many people have already voted who might change their votes with the fallout from Bangazhi???
How many sponteneous protests come complete with heavy weapons AND an ambush plan?Bingo! If they knew it was sophisticated, or at least were concerned that it was, how could they decide three days later to blame it on a spontaneous demonstration and continue that blame for two more weeks?
Those of us on this site are proud of the brave Americans that ths country has produced, who went into harm’s way to try to save fellow Americans, and who paid the ultimate price.
No matter what damage Obama has tried to inflict on this nation, he has not destroyed our pride in our military and in our country.
And believe me, he has tried his hardest. He and his ilk will never stop trying, so no matter how the election turns out, we must remain vigilant. Evil is hiding everywhere just looking for another way to destroy us.
I almost never write like this, but to paraphrase the mooch, I HAVE ALWAYS been proud of my country, and no treasonous cowards in DC can change that.
Risk aversion has been the singular characteristic of military policy since at least Mogadishu and arguably since our withdrawal from Vietnam. But, the risk has not been defined in military terms at all. This risk has been wholly political and largely short term political risk. The Democrats have been the leader of the pack in this regard, but the Republicans have not been immune to this disease.
Panetta has given us the reason for Obama’s decisions that directly led to this disaster: risk to the reelection of Barack Obama, President of the United States. They care about nothing else and are willing to sacrifice lives, world standing, and the future of the country for political victory.
You wouldn’t need to put boots on the ground. Air support would have aided.
Remember, Obama has taken great pride in saying that Libya was liberated without American blood being shed. Obama did not want potential voters to wake up to our uniformed military being KIA.
So, DOD assets were told to stand down as CIA subcontractors, whose presence could be concealed, were tasked with extracting diplomatic assets from the Mission. Also, those operators were familiar with the battlefield and were leveraged with local friendly militia.
As the battlefield was so unshaped and on/off and populated by hostiles of unknown strength and unknown weapons, this was a reasonable tactical choice anyway.
Other rapid response units that could have gotten there would have been too little and too late.
General Ham and Africom, were frustrated that in this theater of their responsibility, they were not in position to act effectively.
The Ambassadors loss was collateral.
The goals of the hostiles were to:
1. Exploit document and computer file intel regarding oil contracts and weapons movements.
2. Acquire the weapons that the Brits stored at our Mission after they shut down their Mission.
3. Revenge the death of Yahya al-Libi the AQ 2nd in command.
4. Take our Ambassador hostage to pressure the release of the Blind Sheik. The hostiles tried very hard to find Stevens but could not. He would have been far more valuable alive to the hostiles.
The TRUTH will come out!
Obama pounded the table and declared:
We will NOT inject American forces into another mid-East country and create the impression were involved in a civil war!
From there, the team set about blaming a video trailer.
Why yes. No reason to have a Predator drone ‘injured or killed’ now is there...after all they are kinda expensive. How much does an Ambassador and staff cost?
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.