Skip to comments.Libya Warnings Were Plentiful, but Unspecific (Obama ignored the request for additional security)
Posted on 10/30/2012 3:43:13 AM PDT by tobyhill
In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were Al Qaeda-leaning, according to American and European officials.
The warning about the camps was part of a stream of diplomatic and intelligence reports that indicated that the security situation throughout the country, and particularly in eastern Libya, had deteriorated sharply since the United States reopened its embassy in Tripoli after the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafis government in September 2011.
By June, Benghazi had experienced a string of assassinations as well as attacks on the Red Cross and a British envoys motorcade. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September attack, e-mailed his superiors in Washington in August alerting them to a security vacuum in the city. A week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a state of maximum alert in Benghazi after a car bombing and thwarted bank robbery.
In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, as Republicans, led by their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, have sought to lay blame for the attack on President Obama, who they argued had insufficiently protected American lives there.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Washington: "Uhhhhhhh, please be a little more specific. These vague rumblings don't give us enough information to go on."
In my opinion, he caused their deaths and may as well just shot them.
Where the hell is Congress?
Yet we are 100% certain that Iran doesn’t have the bomb.
This scandal is so big that it now takes three demons from the ny slimes to write a propaganda story to try and cover the kenyan’s sorry backside.
To me it reads like the warning were there and ignored.
In fact it almost looks like a set-up.
It only killed 4 people, a lot less than the fake call for help that sent 30 Americans including Seal Team 6 into a trap.
Was there a set-up?
Where else, protecting their own. As they always do.
Just tell me one thing: given the warnings and indicators provided to the State Dept, CIA, JCS, and White House why was protection absent at the embassy and consulate on 9/11/2012? Why were they not reinforced or supplemented?
Please help me. I am trying as hard as I can to get out the word about cross-border authority. I just can't believe reporters don't know enough to ask the right questions! It's infuriating. Libya, as far as standing down the rescue, is 100% Obama's show, and nobody else's. Only he can grant CBA, not Biden, not Panetta, not Dempsey, not Hillary, and certainly not Ham in Germany.
The entire episode is explained perfectly inside the context of not granting CBA. The CIA QRF in Tripoli? No problem, send them on the local Tripoli station chief's say-so. He merely informs up COC that he has done so. CCs them so to speak. "This is what I am doing." Ditto if Predators were in country, no problem using them.
But the big rescue air armada streaming toward Libya right away after the alarm got to Stuttgart and Africom? That has to stop. I believe at the 5pm meeting with Panetta and Biden in the Oval Office, he said, "No outside military intervention," on the basis that the last report was the "lull" from the consulate, at about 1030 p.m. in Benghazi, when the attack appeared to be over and the situation stabilizing.
(As a soft exception, Obama may have authorized sending an unarmed Predator from outside of Libya, but I am thinking the two Predators were already in-country, and hence available to use within no CBA granted rules.)
"No outside military intervention" equals "no cross-border authority" and that constitutes "standing orders" until POTUS changes them. Nobody else can un-decide the POTUS decree. The rescue air-armada of C-17s, C-130s and SOF helos like MH-47 Chinooks and Pavehawks cannot proceed directly to Libya without CBA being granted, so instead they are all staged at Sigonella, Sicily.
USN ships are in position to "lilypad" helos for long over-water flights. Airborne tankers are coming into position. SOF forces in Sigonella are going over their gear for different contingencies. Fuming all night as officers keep checking in with operational commanders. "Hold in place, no rescue yet. We can't find the President, it sounds like," say the colonels to the majors and captains. 100s of military must know about this. I keep waiting for the conclusive whistle-blowers to come forward BEFORE the election. After won't matter, it will be for the historians.
Panetta is falling on his sword for Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "The military doesn't do risky things" defense of no rescue. Panetta is destroying his future reputation entirely, to save Obama. The question is why? Loyalty?
Petreaus was probably "used" in some way early, about the supposed CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his PAO, "The stand-down order did not come from CIA." Well, what is higher than CIA? Only White House. Obama, nobody else. Petreaus is naming Obama without naming him.
Now, as far as Obama / Huma Abedin / Valerie Jarrett etc actually wanting Ambassador Stevens dead, to terminate the end of the very dirty Libyan arms to Syrian AQ programs, I can't speculate. Obama is not competent enough I'm thinking.
But for sure, the ambassador going to unsecure Benghazi on 9-11 of all days stinks to me of a setup. You can bet Stevens would have told the Turks, "No, 9-11 is not a good day for us," and stayed in Tripoli behind many high and thick walls. For him to go to dangerous Benghazi on 9-11 means the Turks totally insisted, but why would they care about the meeting date, unless they were in on a hit as the Judas goat?
Alternatively, ordering Stevens to meet the Turks in Benghazi on 9-11 may have come from down OUR chain of command. Stevens seems to have been wearing two hats as ambassador and CIA arms shipper. Moving between more-secure Tripoli, the Benghazi "consulate," and the CIA "annex." So orders to him might come down the State or the CIA commo channels, or both. I am unclear on his job title and true position, but either the CIA or State sends him final instructions. How this works with dual-hatted ambassadors, I havent a clue.
But Stevens meeting the Turks at the unsecure Benghazi "consulate" on 9-11 stinks to me of a deliberate setup. The Turks left the meeting and probably flashed their headlights to the attack team commanders lurking in shadows. A coded text, a word on a phone, meaning, "The ambassador is there, with minimal security: proceed with the attack plan."
But that is all pure speculation. What I know FOR SURE is that the big "stand down order" issue revolves around granting or withholding cross-border authority.
Every SOF officer and ops officer all the way up has this drummed into his head. We can make Obama respond to this question, even if reporters must shout it at him while he's doing storm cleanup photo ops. If the reporters KNOW enough to ask the quesion. That's why I am shouting all over the internet about CBA.
I can't believe cross-border authority permission is not one of the top discussion points about Benghazi.
That, and who "set him up" by sending him to Beghazi to meet the Turks on 9-11, with them leaving after dark.
And of course, down the road, was the military rescue-in-progress turned back because Obama actually wanted to make sure the consulate was wiped out? Is that why the spooks at the annex were refused permission to travel the under one mile to intervene? That would connect it all together, but for now, the best focus is on Obama either granting or withholding cross-border authority for the rescue.
Feel free to repost these musings of a long-ago SOF officer anywhere you please.
I don’t believe the warnings were not specific enough. However, if I heard repeatedly from end users at work about a problem, I would not be allowed to ignore them just because I considered them too unspecific. I would be expected to dig deeper into the problem, use due diligence, and take some damned responsibility for being a professional.
Anyone else notice that the Times chose to run this story on Frankenstorm Day?
Just a couple of months ago, the Slimes was all over Bush because his administration supposedly ignored an uptick in terrorist chatter before 9/11. Of course, none of this chatter contained any actionable intelligence.
And so now, in order to save 0’s bacon, they come out with the very same angle that they ignored to slam Bush to exonerate 0. There wasn't any “actionable intelligence.”
Except for the inconvenient fact that the diplomatic staff on the ground in Benghazi directly asked for increased security just a month or two before the assault. During a summer when both the British and the Red Cross pulled out of Benghazi because it was getting too hot.
Sure, they didn't know exactly when the bad guys would act, and they didn't know precisely which group of bad guys - only because there were several to choose from.
Now, if my ambassador says things are getting hot, and the British say things are getting hot, and the Red Cross says things are getting hot, then even if I'm some desk-doofus in DC, I'm probably going to reach the conclusion that things in Benghazi are getting hot, and maybe some extra security is warranted. You would, that is if you were anybody but some national security clown in the 0 WH.
Or if you're the NY Slimes and you have as your mission saving 0’s behind on this, then all those reports that bad guys are extremely busy in Benghazi just doesn't rise to the level of “actionable intelligence.”
The media has been consulting with the White House, and from the White House they have been given “the line of march” - report on the Benghazi story in ways that deflect from the most important issue of the moment regarding Benghazi.
That issues is not what we knew or didn’t know ahead of time (that’s another issue), and it is not about intelligence beforehand knowing or not knowing exactly when and what would be attacked.
The nost burning issue that the latest reports have opened up is the issue of once the attack began, what of the attack could we observe and/or did we get human on-the-ground information about; what did we do and what did we refuse to do, to alter the situation DURING the attack.
That’s the most important issue today, not the stuff the NYSlimes is trotting out in an attempt, under White House orders, to deflect everyone’s attention away from today’s most critical Banghazi questions.
Romney “spies” here, take note!!! /LOL
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.