Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama’s Nightmare
The New York Times ^ | November 13, 2012 | Thomas L. Friedman

Posted on 11/15/2012 12:55:07 PM PST by upbeat5

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last
To: Jim Noble

I recently reread the email that ran the circuits soon after the 9/11 Benghazi event, which asserted the entire raid was a deal between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Obama Administration, to kidnap Stevens, then release him to gain Obama popularity in his re-election. The email CT continues to assert the mission failed when the 2 ex-SEALs intervened, causing some 80 enemy casualties, resulting in the attackers believing they had been tricked, becoming upset, then killing the SEALs.

There is one inconvenient fact in the reported events. The first half might be true, but only 4 Americans were killed: the Ambassador and CommO, due to smoke inhalation, and the 2 ex-SEALs, reportedly by 1 registration round then 3 mortar rounds.

The inconvenient fact is that more Americans weren’t killed.

If mortar rounds were used, in the darkness, after displacing on moving targets who were repeatedly lazing their position, several points arise.

1) Mortars are area weapons and can penetrate bldgs.
2) Some 20-50 Americans were brought out a few hours later.
3) If this was an isolated enemy without comm to others who were American friendlies, and felt betrayed, seeking vengeance, there would have been significantly more casualties. Most of the casualties likely would not have been the 2 ex-SEALS in the hours of darkness.

ERGO
I am led to consider a number of other associations existed such as one of the following:
1) exSEALSs were killed by friendlies inside the compound.
2) ex SEALs were targeted by others with hi-tech targeting capacity, able to discern between any others in the compound, AND if so targeted, were cognizant others in the compound were not a risk to their mission.
3) Some type of liaison occurred between attackers and diplomats when in the CIA compound for them to risk leaving the area for the airport.
4) Attackers were a friendly Black Op posing as terrorists to those outside the inner circle, using a mob to pose as political unrest, but the political mob stupidly set the compound ablaze with diesel, resulting in the unintended death of Stevens and the CommO, while obscuring night vision from verifying the location of Stevens until later found by others.
5) Only the 2 ex-SEALs were killed because they were not part of the preplanned op and may have been too close to interior operations to have overheard or witnessed mechanics of the operation. Killed by other senior diplomat or the Administration team controlling the operation to safeguard the operational integrity of the mission.
6) Remainder of attackers departed after the ex-SEALs were killed, without killing other Americans in the CIA Annex by direct order of somebody controlling their operation.
7) Attackers may have been Muslim militants, but very well controlled and with Friendly BlackOp liaisons in direct control of their actions.

IMHO, it took direct intervening control, in hours of darkness, to avoid killing other Americans, if not all of them, if this had been a terrorist operation which was unopposed and without air on station for over 7 hours. The only real question is who controlled the Black Op?

Judging from our Administration’s behavior, I believe Obama had full knowledge of who was controlling it.

Case in point,... Obama reportedly was on the phone to Netanyahu, in an unplanned phonecon, immediately after the NCA converged, about 1-1/2 hrs after the attack commenced, which would have been a convenient time for them to converge in a preplanned operation.

I suspect Obama was pinging Netanyahu to perceive how much he knew, as the operation wasn’t going fully as planned, but some high risk branch or sequal operation was contingent upon this tactical operation.

If actual events are only partly true with this theory, a number of things would be consistent with the events.
1) Limited number of personnel fully aware of the situation.
2) Ambassador might have been aware,... would explain why he went back in to the Residence instead of out the window to escape the fire. A would explain his walking near the gate when the Turkish envoy left about an hour before the events in darkness, unprotected. He might have been posing to allow the kidnapping without much risk to others.
3) Other diplomats might have concurred or directed others to take out the ex-SEALs to allow all others to leave safely, still within the bounds of the preplanned op.
4) exSEALs reported told to stand-down. This not only manifests intent by command not to use self-defense against armed attackers, it also denied the Command and Control direct reliable military eyes on target. Only explanation is they didn’t want the attackers identified or tracked or monitored.

There are lots of inexplicable behaviors of liberal ‘Democrats’ on the national stage explained if is is true.
There have been many photo ops of National level Demo/Soc/Prog leaders who visit known enemies such as Chavez, or who were allies to anybody who was associated with WMDs during Iraq II,...the so-called, show us the proof of Hussein’s WMDs crowd. This group doesn’t believe in the rule of law, as much as they believe in relative morality and power politics. They would prefer to control terrorists in the same way they seek to control organized crime,...by becoming the more powerful gang and playing the same game as the terrorists, not by preventing terrorism.

Obama is resetting his focus after the election. He won’t be satiated by American politics. He will be tempted by international control. The changes in leadership throughout the midEast, if not orchestrated by him, will entice his skill sets to control them by use of terrorist groups he will grow and control.

He wants to be known as Napoleon.


41 posted on 11/16/2012 9:03:01 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: upbeat5

Three questions for Benghazi-Coward Obama:

1.) Are you HIDING INFORMATION from the US Congress about the Benghazi Massacre?

2.) Have you been LYING to the US Congress, The Media, or the American Public about the Benghazi Massacre?

3.) Were you, as Commander in Chief, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT about your responsibilities to protect and assist those four Americans who subsequently were murdered in the Benghazi Massacre?

BTW, the large cap words were the same as the 3 charges handed down yesterday to BP for punishment of their Gulf of Mexico underwater blowout, a while back.

Since the US Government is going to hold a company accountable for their poor decisions, then it should hold its CIC accountable his poor decisions, AND use the same legal charges.


42 posted on 11/16/2012 9:19:18 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson