Skip to comments.The Wages of Libya [clear directives, cover-ups and lost careers]
Posted on 10/30/2012 5:12:26 AM PDT by Cincinatus' WifeEdited on 10/30/2012 5:30:15 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
We have had ambassadors murdered abroad before, but we have never seen anything quite like the tragic fate of Chris Stevens. Amid all the controversy over Libya, we have lost sight of the human — and often horrific — story of Benghazi: a U.S. ambassador attacked, cut off and killed alone, after being abused by frenzied terrorists, and a second member of the embassy staff murdered, as two American private citizens rushed to the rescue, heroically warding off Islamist hit teams, until they were overwhelmed and also killed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
"Anonymous administration officials"? I heard Joe Biden blame everything on the "intelligence community" before I turned off the vice-president debate rather than smash the television into worthless chips.
“Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey at some point supposedly received information about the attack in real time. Why given the supposed directive of the president to do whatever we need to to save our people he did not order military assistance will have to be explained.”
It is my understanding the JCOS are not in the loop for direct action these days....the orders go from the Sec of Def to the individual service heads. IMO the blame here rests solely with His Excellency and the Sec of Def...my guess is no order was immediately forthcoming from His Excellency and the sec of def was not going to go out on his own and potentially upset the election perhaps because he was the one to actually give the go order for the ben ladin raid and probably took some heat for doing so until it was a success.
Petraeus cooked his own goose. If he had any honor he would not have supported the video narrative. He should have resigned,called a press conference and gone public to explain what actually happened. Instead, he acted like the typical army perfumed prince.
Dempsey was so clueless that he actually called Terry Jones on the telephone to ask him to take the movie off youtube. Terry Jones had nothing to do with it.
Petraeus acutally did the same thing in 2010 asking the pastor not to burn korans. This is outrageous.
Just tell me one thing: Given the warnings provided to the State Dept, CIA, JCS, and White House why was there so little security already providing protection in place at the embassy and consulate in Libya on 9/11/2012? Just WHY?
I long for the Ceausescu moment. That moment on the balcony during the speech when the crows begins to boo and the look of confused consternation on Ceausescu’s face.
He couldn’t believe his people, the one’s he starved in the cold, had turned on him. Somewhat later, he was stood against the wall.
“Petraeus cooked his own goose.”
As compromised as Roberts was over his shady adoptions, now pwned by the leftists, so is Petraeus now.
First hated and campaigned against by the leftist freaks, then hired by them.
I wonder what Petraeus’ skeleton is.
Petraeus & Dempsey are arrogant bootlickers of the first magnitude. When they pass from the earth, I hope they get to meet their mentor; Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. I doubt the manner of their passing will be like “Lakeitel’s” but whether that should happen is a matter of debate. They should at least be subject to a public inquiry.
What the heck happened to Patraeus? He was Bush’s “go to” guy on the ground at one point. Now he’s a CIA political hack covering for Obama?
-——.my guess is no order was immediately forthcoming ——
That is the crux of the events. You are dead on.
My belief is that the Messiah seeing visions of the coming crucifixion, uttered some rambling gibberish that is now remembered as an order. He went to bed in the belief he had saved the mission, but like Hitler in the bunker, the subordinates could not discern any directive in the meaningless ramblings.
There was certainly no direct order such as “Go kill the enemy and save the ambassador.” There was definitely no strong words “stand Down” . Obama is incapable of making any such non lawyerly unambiguous statement.
This is a great article but it address the “what” of actions during the attack and actions of the coverup. I am waiting for someone to address the following as to “why”:
Why did Clinton deny request for security forces upgrade prior to the attack, why was the Ambassador at Benghazi on 9/11 without sufficient security, WHY did the Turkish official meet with the ambassador and leave without incident that evening, WHY are the networks not covering, WHY did the heavily armed force show up at that time with low security and the ambassador unprotected, why was there a drone overhead, why was there no official US response with military force, why was a standdown ordered, why was the video narrative given as the reason for the attack. I am afraid this leads to a hypothesis that the ambassador was to be kidnapped by the Muslim brotherhood the video was to be the initiator (evil US, not associated with Obama policy and already part of the script) and the kidnap went down in a terrible manner as the standdown order was ignored by the heroic ex-seals. If the hypothesis is proven wrong, it is terrible that in this country it is believable.
I must confess that I’ve been a little surprised that everyone’s been interpreting Obama’s comment as indicating that he gave a directive to come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate. The manner and tone in which he made the statement has always come across to me as meaning he was ordering security for all of our OTHER facilities and personnel, with the parenthetical assumption that Benghazi was already lost.
“I long for the Ceausescu moment. That moment on the balcony during the speech when the crows begins to boo and the look of confused consternation on Ceausescus face.”
Perhaps that will occur at the polls next Tuesday.
How can ANYONE serving in the Foreign Service or the Armed Services not believe the kenyan wouldn't abandon them to the same fate if it were politically expedient?
Any authority as Commander in Chief has seriously been compromised!
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.
Another possibility: Obama made his rambling speech about "do whatever we need to do," just as he said... but that he's leaving out what he said next: "just don't screw up the reelection campaign."
Or maybe "whatever you decide to do, run it past the political desk before you pull the trigger."
How can ANYONE serving in the Foreign Service or the Armed Services not believe the kenyan wouldn’t abandon them to the same fate if it were politically expedient?”””
My thoughts exactly.
There are Democrats serving in the military as well as in the diplomatic corps.
They have to be haveing nightmares about what kind of ‘backup’ they have awaiting them.
The ineptness and arogance of this administration is fodder for authors for the next 50 years.
Passed this on to Facebook and my Call Tree list as well...
I can accept that.
Please read #17. It all boils down to granting or withholding Cross-Border Authority. Obama mumbling about “do all you can to secure the folks in Benghazi” has a clear acid-test question.
DID YOU GRANT OR WITHHOLD CROSS-BORDER AUTHORITY?
Did the rescue forces have to go to Sigonella and wait, because Obama did not grant CBA?
Simple. He did, or he didn’t. Simple. And a clear record will exist. No obfuscation possible. Clear as ice. CBA given, or not given. Please read 17.
The "why" I am convinced, is they were running Ghadiffi's weapons to Syria with the help of the Turks.
VDH hits another one outta the park.
Please read #17. It all boils down to granting or withholding Cross-Border Authority. Obama mumbling about do all you can to secure the folks in Benghazi has a clear acid-test question.
DID YOU GRANT OR WITHHOLD CROSS-BORDER AUTHORITY?
Did the rescue forces have to go to Sigonella and wait, because Obama did not grant CBA?
Simple. He did, or he didnt. Simple. And a clear record will exist. No obfuscation possible. Clear as ice. CBA given, or not given. Please read 17.
Yeah, I got you. Great point, and thanks for making it so clearly. I think I've seen it on other threads as well.
However, true as it is, it is not mutually exclusive with my point.
Obama may actually have given cross-border authority before he left to go watch some TV and hit the sack. He may have been asked about it and said "sure, weren't you listening, I said do what you have to do."
But even as he said that, he also may have said "just check it with the political side before you go forward."
And when they checked with the political people, they either got a direct "no," or the political people told Panetta and Petraeus and whoever else "go ahead if you want, but if it blows up you own it... every finger is going to be pointing right at you."
Thus, Panetta comes out with is stupid "we didn't have clear intelligence and you can't lay on a military operation unless you know in advance that it's going to succeed" jive BS.
I guess we’ll see what happens when the Congress comes back in session...
I know none of us are expecting the MSM to “see the light” unless Zero tries to sh*t a flashlight...
I sent copy to Lars Larson. He’s been hitting this thing hard for weeks now on the radio.
No, I disagree. No “mumbling answers” or “see the political side” can give him wiggle room. CBA is a total yes/no pass/fail litmus test.
The key is the 5pm DC-time oval office meeting with Panetta and Biden. “Do all that you can” is not enough. Panetta would return with, “So, you are granting the military cross-border authority to conduct the rescue mission?”
It’s a yes-no question on CBA. Did he give it, or not? It’s a scepter of authority that POTUS carries, nobody else.
Panetta would not be told, “Check with my politicos.” I call BS on that. Panetta is too cagey to be left holding the bag with ambiguous orders. He would not walk out of the Oval Office with explicit instructions, explicity granting or not granting CBA.
And there is a record of it, believe me. These guys go everywhere with aides and coat holders. At the very least formal level, Panetta, to protect himself, walks out of the Oval Office and tells his aides and the generals flocking to him for instructions, “The President has granted you cross-border authority. Save our consulate. God speed, gentlemen.”
It’s a totally historic moment, this waving of the CBA scepter. There is NO ambiguity about it. It is given, or withheld. No middle ground.
The POTUS doesn’t want a jacked-up jet jockey in hot pursuit, (or a lost SEAL Team squad in a rubber boat), to start WW3 by accident. Crossing an international border with a military force, without permission of the nation invaded, is ONLY up to the POTUS and nobody else.
Always, and every time. This is the one crystal-clear issue in this mess.
“He would not walk out of the Oval Office with explicit instructions, explicity granting or not granting CBA.”
“He would not walk out of the Oval Office withOUT explicit instructions, explicity granting or not granting CBA.”
Thanks. I just want reporters to know the right question to ask.
Good reading, but why did the writer leave out Pinhead Panetta?
” DID YOU GRANT OR WITHHOLD CROSS-BORDER AUTHORITY?
Did the rescue forces have to go to Sigonella and wait, because Obama did not grant CBA?
Simple. He did, or he didnt. Simple. And a clear record will exist. No obfuscation possible. Clear as ice. CBA given, or not given. “
Now, who is going to confront Obama with this ?
So was Powell
Buy me a plane ticket... I’ll go.
when he says 'yes', who covers that grenade and gets buried under the bus ???
We need a former, or preferably current member of the military to speak to an influential reporter who can run with this.
If Obama says, “Yes, I granted CBA,” then the question will be, which military commander disobeyed the POTUS, and stopped the already-in-progress Benghazi rescue mission?
They are all using weasel words to try to obfuscate a crystal-clear issue.
Since 2 different flag ranked officers did the same thing 2 years apart, which is highly unusual and arguably unconstitutional, maybe they both had been directed by direct verbal order from the Commander-in-Chief to make those calls. If Obama asked NASA to develop a Muslim outreach, it would be more consistent that this notion of calling up Jones came from Obama.
It would also be consistent with the State Dept and UN Ambassador’s obsession with the video. Maybe they were placating a Hitleresque, maniacal commander.
There is no way they are doing this on their own. My problem is that they went along with it rather than drawing the line that it is not their job or place to contact private US citizens and ask them to curtail their Constitutional right of free speech for the good of the country or admonishing them that such free speech results in the death of American military personnel.
Conjecture using Occam’s Razor:
POTUS became a Hitleresque maniacal tyrant in the Situation Room, acting to kill 4 friendlies including an Ambassador, 4 star equivalent, and relieving another 4 star, when all had been told to ‘Stand down’, until he decided what to do, even though he wasn’t deciding.
All the others are simply responding in as professional method using their skill sets as they are able in face of such a maniacal authority, trying to manifest to him, their submission to his authority within their own volition.
Simplest solution is that there is only one madman involved. Until he is out of power, they might not consider it wise to act.
Remember, all of this went down before 10pm in DC and the ambassador’s body was found by midnight in DC, and being flown out by 0230 DC time. If he has a history of getting coked up, and he felt slighted by the actions of others in the binLaden situation, I suspect he reacted the same way he behaved in the 3rd debate in response to the 1st debate.
Look at his glare and commanding presence in the 3rd debate, and translate that to a situation room where he felt being adversarial was his forte amongst those requesting immediate action which he had been unprepared to comprehend.
This seems more plausible to me than 20 or so others providing their outlandish statements and coverups. Either it is conspiracy or they are responding to the situation unknown to all of us.
I was always real bad at land navigation, sometimes getting lost miles from my intended position, even clear off my working map sheet.
And I wasn't the only one with that problem:
BENAVIDEZ, ROY P.
Rank and organization: Master Sergeant.
Organization: Detachment B-56, 5th Special Forces Group, Republic of Vietnam
Place and date: West of Loc Ninh on May 2, 1968
Entered service at: Houston, Texas June 1955
Born: August 5, 1935, DeWitt County, Cuero, Texas.
Master Sergeant (then Staff Sergeant) Roy P. Benavidez United States Army, who distinguished himself by a series of daring and extremely valorous actions on 2 May 1968 while assigned to Detachment B56, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 1st Special Forces, Republic of Vietnam. On the morning of 2 May 1968, a 12-man Special Forces Reconnaissance Team was inserted by helicopters in a dense jungle area west of Loc Ninh, Vietnam to gather intelligence information about confirmed large-scale enemy activity. This area was controlled and routinely patrolled by the North Vietnamese Army. ... .
[Indeed, he was inserted west of Loc Ninh...quite a bit west of there, in fact....]
Army Master Sgt. Roy P. Benavidez (center) is flanked by United States Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger (left) and President Ronald Reagan at his Medal of Honor presentation ceremony in 1981.
"If the story of his heroism were a movie script, you would not believe it. -- President Ronald Reagan, 24 February 1981, after having presented Roy P. Benavidez with his Medal of Honor.
I can buy most of that as a plausible scenario, it still leads to the litmus question, yes or no, about granting or not granting CBA. “Standing down” etc are weasel words used by obfuscators.
Cross-border authority: yes or no, Mr. President? Did you grant it? When? To whom? I’m pretty sure they’d remember the moment very, very well.
Not sure about your timeline. When is the verified hour/minute in Behghazi when Ambassador Stevens’ remains were postitively back in U.S. hands?
That is critical. Did Obama go to bed while his ambassador was still missing, and presumed in the hands of AQ, prepping for his Danny Pearl star turn?
My understanding had been that it was broad daylight, well into morning, when the ambassador’s remains were positively back in U.S. hands.
Knowing the moment is not trivial. Did Obama go to bed with an ambassador MIA in AQ contry? A four-star-genearl of diplomats, our point man in North Africa? Obama’s own “Lawrence of Libya?”
“Somebody said they got a phone call said he was found” does not constitute the time the ambassador was back in U.S. custody, as the Obamite defenders might try as an obfuscation. He’s missing until he is known to be back in U.S. hands.
What time did Obama go to bed?
What time did we have the ambassador back?
The question still stands as to why did the muslim brotherhood assemble at the location of the ambassador. What was the purpose of the gathering? No issue that manpads were being gathered by the CIA and being shipped to Syria with the exception of a Jerusalem Post article yesterday saying the weapons were showing up on Israel’s border.
20 people were rescued at 2 am... the ambassador was still missing when the 20 were rescued I believe.
You could miss a jungle border pre-GPS, but it’s much harder to miss the coastline of Libya in 2012.
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.