Skip to comments.More Misdirection from the White House
Posted on 11/01/2012 10:14:00 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The White House continues to offer only this line on Benghazi:
The White House on Wednesday shot down rumors that President Obama nixed an operation to rescue U.S. diplomats under attack in Benghazi after former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich made the claim on national television.
Neither the President nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi during the attack, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Hill via e-mail.
Gingrich told Fox News Tuesday evening that he'd been told by a fairly reliable U.S. senator that at least two news networks have emails from the National Security Advisers office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down. Gingrich qualified the statement, however, saying I want to be clear, its a rumor.
This is the only line the White House has offered in the last weeka response to rumors. Here's the reason: Responding to rumors allows the White House to go after a straw man. It was always unlikely the president and the White House would have explicitly denied a request for assistance during the attack, since it's unlikely such a request would have been presented formally to the White House in the first place if there was a sense the White House wouldn't approve it.
How is denying a rumor “shooting it down?”
But by NOT issueing a CBA.... nothing outside of Libya moves....right?
See my note about the CBA-- Cross Border Authorization.
I call it Clinton/Pinnochio syndrome.
OBAMA - “Do whatever you can to save the consulate, under existing standing orders.” (Which happens to NOT INCLUDE the authority to cross international borders with military personnel or equipment.) [hypothetical quote to illustrate weasel opportunity.]
We need a full deposition to get past all the weasel words/parsing.
I think the CIA contractor said stand down. This way the WH, DOD or CIA made the decision. Of course there was a discussion between the contractor and CIA or WH or DOD where it was made known what was wanted without saying stand down and the contractor followed through. Perhaps a reporter can ask about them.
This is probably true. It is also true that they did not provide the necessary PERMISSION to conduct a cross-border operation.
Hence, they are trying to buy time with an ambiguity as cover to get past election day.
I don’t think the Islamist militias that attacked the cosulate on 9/11 did so to kill Stevens and the other personnel there. I think they were looking for something.
I think that rumors had filtered out that Stevens was assisting with the transport of shoulder-fired SAMs and other goodies on to Turkish vessels that then transported the weapons to Syria. I think it was understood that the US had a stockpile of those weapons secured in the days after Qadaffi fell, and were disposing of them to “friends”. I think that was the primary business of the so-called “consulate” and especially the CIA safehouse compound a mile away. I think those militias wanted those weapons for themselves and went after them.
This would also explain the reluctance of Panetta, Hillary and 0’s Nat. Security team to intervene. I think they had a pretty good idea what the militias were after, and I think they were afraid that they had succeeded. It’s one thing to deny help to an ambassador and some CIA guys while Muslim fanatics shoot up the place. It’s another to have US combat aircraft shot down by SAMs during a fire fight. During an election. On the 9/11 annaversary. I think Panetta and Petraeus thought the militia men had the SAMs and decided that they weren’t going to give them a target to shoot at.
And if that meant a few dead Americans, so be it. They could always cook up a story about a video and mobs out of control. It wasn’t “optimal,” but it was the best they could do.
You really have to be careful about what you say and write when your guilty conscience reminds you that there could be an impeachment or tribunal. If you’ve been honest and doing the country’s work, and not your own, then you can just talk freely.
“It was always unlikely the president and the White House would have explicitly denied a request for assistance during the attack, since it’s unlikely such a request would have been presented formally to the White House in the first place if there was a sense the White House wouldn’t approve it.”
This is NONSENSE!
THEY WERE DYING asking to be rescued!!!!
It’s not like a budget request, where you precoordinate and hope for a nod, to make the formal request.
I think you've got it right on the money there! Sad, at the very least.
Obama will deny, deny, lie, lie... based on word games...
Neither the President nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi during the attack,
The real question should be, “Why didn’t anyone APPROVE the assistance.”
Absolutely! Anyone who has worked in that environment (either totally or on the fringe) knows this to be fact. Plausible dependability. My guess is the public statements that Obama said he told his advisors was never in writing. Also, everything Obama says verbally must be restated by his minions, because what he says and what it means, is always restated.
If he issued no order, he left the military in the lurch, which, (I think), would be the same as a stand down order.
Yes, that is very plausible, and could have lots of variations too. I read that the CIA also had stashes of cash.
In addition Putin had made clear that he did not want these heavy armaments given to the Syrian rebels. Always possible the Russians co-ordinated with Iranians to make sure that those weapons stayed in Libya.
Many variations on your theory. I have felt from the start that the CIA mission is an important part of the story, and that every effort will be made to hide it from the public and the world.
That’s correct. Obama might never have said the words, “Stand down the rescue mission.”
But if he refused to grant cross-border authority, the rescue is not allowed to get off the ground, literally, in Sigonella where the rescue SOFs were staging.
Rats using semantics, half-truths, etc. Bastards.
And it’s all provable. If he gave an execute order for a rescue mission with cross border authority, messages went everywhere. It’s the most provable fact in the entire case.
If only a reporter would ask him.
That is my understanding. The POTUS alone can pull that trigger. Panetta may have the authority to say 'no.' Gen. Ham may have the authority to say 'no' within his theater of command. Only the POTUS can say 'yes!'
Now if the POTUS said 'yes' no one would have the authority to countermand that. So, we know that 0coward did not say 'yes.'
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.