Skip to comments.Obama Willing to Let 30 People Die in Benghazi (vanity)
Posted on 10/29/2012 12:49:38 PM PDT by TigerClaws
Who gave the stand down order to the two ex-SEALs?
Woods (one of the two killed) father said on Megyns show that his son helped save THIRTY PEOPLE.
"My son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero. I wish that leadership in the White House had that same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed with his life."
The implication of that has not been reported. Stand down order in effect which he ignored. Because he and his friend in arms (the two ex-SEALs) took action regardless, thirty lives were saved.
This means that not only did Obama abandon Ambassador Stevens and the one security man American to death, he was willing to let thirty people die at the consulate compound!
Of course, no American should be left behind, especially an ambassador who is the Presidents representative hand picked and appointed by him.
But 30 people?
And no effort made.
These were ex-SEALs. They would have given a site assessment / threat assessment as part of their communication. 150 armed local militants.
Delta Force was TWO HOURS away. They were training in southern Europe at the time.
Obama decided a failed rescue would be Carter/Iran 2 possibly. Be fatal to his election. There was the Cairo and other youtube protest context and they blamed it on the filmaker guy when they knew this was no youtube protest.
Question to Mr Panetta; Whos the Bull-Crapper now?
TRANSCRIPT: Presidential debate on foreign policy at Lynn University http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/transcript-presidential-debate-on-foreign-policy-at-lynn-university/
Obama Now with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, that we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harms way;
Gen. Ham told a congressional investigator he was not ordered to intervene. This is the 4 star general in charge of the region who answers directly to the secretary of defense and POtUS.
CIA said nobody ordered them to intervene.
The buck stops with POTUS.
Misleading language. Wasn't it "he was ordered NOT TO intervene?"
More and an excellent link below.
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 dont deploy forces into harms way without knowing whats going on, without having some real time information about whats 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 harms 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 evidence points to Obama hoping for a 1979 Tehran Hostage Crisis style event instead of just dead Americans.
"I call on Congress to meet immediately and file charges for impesachment"
But apparently he was ordered not to intervene. The question is, why? Two possible answers: 1. Obama complicit, with the intent of exchanging the blind sheik, as a last minute October surprise. 2. Obama did not want arms smuggling to Syrian rebels to get out.
A few days or weeks in advance of Sept 11, an apparent trial balloon was floated that the blind sheik would be turned over to Lybian security. The trial balloon burst.
Arming the Syrian rebels was already rumored to be occurring.
I favor the first scenario: it was a kidnapping gone bad, and the Ambassador was not supposed to die. When help was requested - and denied multiple times - Obama was unaware the Ambassador was dead or might be going to die.
Actually some of the embassys people were to be taken hostage.. then Zero could negotiate their release.. eating virtually ALL sound bites UP from NOW until the election.. with guess WHO doing daily press releases on CSpan and other Marxist outlets..
Brilliant really.. but no problem “they” will use Hurricane Sandy INSTEAD...
Republicans generally have no idea the evil bastards they are dealing with..
And like sheep just bleat, real hard to get them to actually STAMPEDE..
Democrats are like goats they could care less either way..
Here’s something I just saw posted on Twitter. If you feel it’s worthy of its own threat in FR feel free to post it.
Something else the left wing media arent telling you about Benghazi (video at link)
Witnesses who live near the U.S. Consulate report that Islamic terrorists were sealing off streets and setting up checkpoints two hours before the attacks began....
Also... pancetta said he consulted Dempsey and Ham.
Dont forget that Gen. Dempsey was tasked with running to the phone to call Terry Jones, that obscure Gainesville, Florida backwoods pastor that Obama has turned into a boogeyman, to pressure him not to show the video to his congregation, which he had evidently planned to do. Terry Jones had nothing to do with Egypt or Benghazi, and was a private citizen exercising his rights; but obviously, a private citizen that Obama & Co. keep under surveillance at all times.
Who is Gen. Ham?
Mr. Johnson, who with Gen. Carter F. Ham wrote a 2010 Pentagon report that concluded that gay men and women could serve openly with little risk to military effectiveness, said that he had handled fewer than 10 cases where harassment or discrimination against gay service members was alleged in the last year.
He was “not requested to do so.”
Here’s the info:
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.