Skip to comments.Building on a Kernel of Truth
Posted on 11/28/2012 3:24:22 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
This summer, friends and I took a cruise in Alaska where the tourist shops often featured the Russian matryoshka dolls. The dolls originated in Japan but were made popular in Russia around the time of the Russian Revolution, a century ago. You've seen them -- you pop open an outer doll, and nested inside is another. The magic of the art is that you keep opening layer after layer, only to find another even smaller doll, until at last the final incarnation is just a kernel in size. The successive dolls vary from near exact duplicates with hard-to-identify slight variations to entire chess game piece sets, each nested one inside another. Shoppers pass the various pieces around to their fellow vacationers, amazed at the intricate artwork and comparing the design, shape, and ingenuity with which each piece fits neatly into the next. Eventually somebody, usually not the same person who began this process, starts trying to put it all back together again, in just the right order.
We are at a similar midway point now.
Generations of invaluable life and treasure have been spent dismantling the hollow but vast "Evil Empires," yet we did not destroy them. Their vacuous, threatening shells are all around us now, lying askance in the Globalist's Tourista Dream Shop...waiting...
America, like the rest of the world, just watched the spectacular closing scene of yet another act in a drama that has been unfolding for a very long time. We pause in stunned silence as the curtains close on the four fading visages of our hallowed warrior-poets, handsome and strong. Their lives were dedicated to writing a new future for the "Mid-East Projects" we are engaged in -- and protecting that future.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Congress and this administration are looking at the same kernel of truth we all see: four dead Americans, slain in a magician's fog of lying facts and half-truths.
Looks like the Free Canadian Press article was pulled. I got to it beforehand. Fits nicely into what we read from the American Thinker article.
From the looks of this, Woods and Doherty would have been subject to the UCMJ so the order would have come from the Pentagon. panetta...or dempsey.
Did State Department Rules of Engagement Cause the Deaths of the SEALs in Benghazi?
Posted: September 15, 2012 | Author: Wally Zimolong, Esq.
The exact rules of engagement for State Department private military contractors are classified and even when they are the exact rules are somewhat gray. We do know that in 2007, after criticism and incidents involving private military contractors in Iraq, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was amended to bring private military contractors within the purview of UCMJ. Accordingly, private military contractors, like Doherty and Woods, could be charged with war crimes and prosecuted in US federal courts for any wrong doing committed while operating in Libya as private contractors. Moreover, while the exact State Department Rules of Engagement for private military contractors operating Libya are classified, according to a Marine Corp statement shortly after the September 11, 2012 Benghazi incident, we do know that the State Departments rules prevented Marines from operating either at the Tripoli embassy or Benghazi consulate. Moreover, we know that there are reports that the Ambassador in Cairo prohibited Marines from carrying live ammunition within the embassy compound. Finally, we know from Marcus Lutrells book Lone Survivor that the rules of engagement for even active duty military are not always clear and the threat of prosecution under the UCMJ constantly hangs over the heads of operators.
With this as a backdrop, we are left to wonder whether State Department rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi. Given that the State Department prohibited Marines from being on the ground in Tripoli and Benghazi and the Ambassador to Egypts prohibition on Marines carrying live rounds in Cairo, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the rules of engagement that Doherty and Woods were operating under were restrictive. Indeed, it is important to understand what Dohertys and Woods role was in Libya. Doherty and Woods were not contracted to provide security to the Benghazi consulate. Rather, reports indicate that they were operating as part of a team contracted by the State Department to seek out and destroy shoulder fired surface to air missiles in the hands of Libyan militias. If State Department Rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi or if there were no rules of engagement for the situation they faced, then they may have been prevented from taking action early in the battle which could have changed its outcome.
When the perimeter was breached did the State Departments rules of engagement require them to rely on the Libyan security forces to repel the initial attackers rather than permitting them to react immediately to counter the breach? Did the State Department rules of engagement and the ultimate threat of prosecution under the UCMJ cause them to make decision against their better trained combat judgment? Unfortunately, given the lack of reports of EKAs and circumstantial evidence gleaned from the State Departments position Marine security teams, it is certainly reasonable to assume the answer to both is yes.
My hope is that when the final story is told, it will show that Doherty and Woods went down fighting and saved the lives of the 17 people that were rescued from the Benghazi consulate. Early reports indicated that Ambassador Stevens was killed along with three Marines. Clearly, Doherty, Woods, and Sean Smith had done something that would have led to the conclusion that they were Marines. Perhaps they fought off the much larger forces and shuttled the 17 to safety and formed a perimeter (along with Sean Smith who with his military background would at least be proficient in small arms tactics) around Ambassador Stevens who refused to leave until his staff had safely escaped the main compound. Perhaps both were part of a larger team of ex-special operators that indeed caused a significant number of EKAs that has been kept quite for obvious diplomatic reasons.
That is what I hope. Until, then given the State Departments record thus far, the question must be asked did the State Department rules of engagement cause their deaths?
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
I think Beck is saying something close to this.
And based on the premise of this piece....where would you place the allegiance of al-Queda?
We need to know many truths, including answers to:
Who gave the order to our military to stand down and NOT implement plans to rescue our men in Benghazi on 9-11-12?
The order to stand down could also have come directly from the state department...hillary.
Supporting Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists in the so-called Arab Spring may seem like cold strategic calculus needed to unseat dictators, but this policy decision is fundamentally insane.
Of the foreign fighters we squared off against during the height of the Iraqi insurgency, many came from Libya. Of those that came from Libya, the majority of them came from Benghazi.
From the Washington Times,
Prior to President Barack Obamas decision in March 2011 to support the Libyan rebel uprising and overthrow dictator Muammar Qaddafi, a report released by the U.S. Armys Combating Terrorism Center at West Point entitled Al-Qaidas Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look At The Sinjar Records reviewed intelligence captured by coalition forces that included biographical data on over 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 and 2007.
The report showed that an alarmingly disproportionate number of fighters entering Iraq to oppose the U.S.-led coalition presence there had been recruited from Libya, particularly the cities of Darnah and Benghazi, the present-day site where our embassy was attacked.
These extremists were among those that America propped up in order to topple the Gaddafi regime. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy, not a friend that you can use in a convoluted divide-and-conquer strategy.
The killing of Glen, Ty, Sean, and Christopher appears to be a horrendous case of blowback.
Isn't that the truth. They were all killed by a stray unicorn fart and no one can say where the unicorn came from or where the unicorn went.
You’re confusing the issue. There is no such thing as an ‘order to stand down.’ The POTUS either authorizes CBA and orders a rescue mission or he doesn’t. He obviously didn’t.
An apparently informed insightful analysis that few likely will read or heed.
Yep,....sure hasn’t been a stampede to comment on this.
Obama is truly amazing. The outrages just keep coming.
“we know that there are reports that the Ambassador in Cairo prohibited Marines from carrying live ammunition within the embassy compound. Finally, we know from Marcus Lutrells book Lone Survivor that the rules of engagement for even active duty military are not always clear and the threat of prosecution under the UCMJ constantly hangs over the heads of operators.
With this as a backdrop, we are left to wonder whether State Department rules prohibited Doherty and Woods from actively engaging the enemy in Benghazi. Given that the State Department prohibited Marines from being on the ground in Tripoli and Benghazi and the Ambassador to Egypts prohibition on Marines carrying live rounds in Cairo, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the rules of engagement that Doherty and Woods were operating under were restrictive. “
“biographical data on over 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 and 2007.”
They all knew it was a terror attack. Heroes died. Obama lied.
We have leaders to let men die to protect their political agenda — sort of like Marxist revolutionaries who believe that the cause of moving towards the ideal communist state justifies killings along the way.
Obama’s mind: What are a couple of dead jar heads thugs compared to winning a second term?
That was the least of it. He deserves to be indicted. But that was a side effort after the fact. There are many other evils involved. In a time before political correctness, we would call it high treason...and his skin color would not save him...or his flunkies.
I’ll say it one more time.
NO MILITARY CAN ENTER ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
OBAMA DID NOT SIGN THE AUTHORITY .. THEREFORE, IF THERE IS NO CBA (CROSS-BORDER AUTORITY), NO MILITARY OR OTHERWISE IS SUPPOSED TO ENTER ANOTHER COUNTRY.
THE ONLY THING AVAILABLE TO THOSE IN BENGHAZI WERE THE MILITARY ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY OF LIBYA.
OBAMA DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO SAVE THE LIVES OF 4 AMERICAN CITIZENS. ALL HE CARED ABOUT WAS HIDING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN BENGHAZI. LIVES WERE POSSIBLY SACRIFICED TO PROTECT THAT INFO .. AND THIS IS A TOTAL DISGRACE.
You are absolutely right...as far as it goes. But there are wheels within wheels here. SOMEONE gave an order to stand down because obama did NOT issue CBA. But SOMEONE gave an order to start this whole shebang a long time ago. It’s deeper and wider and more sinister than Benghazi and more people have died because of it.
Well, maybe so .. but NO “STAND DOWN” ORDER NEEDS TO BE GIVEN. IF YOU DON’T HAVE A CBA .. YOU DON’T MOVE.
I can’t seem to make people understand that.
We DO understand that. What you seem to be missing is that someone issued a stand down order TWICE to the SEALs because they requested permission to aid the ambassador and they were IN COUNTRY. THEY didn’t NEED CBA. THEY WERE ALREADY THERE!
In the end, they disobeyed those orders or thirty more Americans might have died. Everyone keeps saying this was a planned kidnapping...except me...because Smith and Stevens were already dead BEFORE the SEALs got there. And the other Americans were still under fire.
The rescue team that arrived from Tripoli was first delayed at the airport and then ambushed. It wasn’t a planned kidnapping. It was a planned murder.
And what everyone else seems to forget as well, is that if all had gone according to plan, the entire muslim uprising throughout the ME WOULD HAVE BEEN BLAMED ON ISRAEL.
You all know how obama loves to rub things in people’s faces. WHILE this was going on, obastard actually called Netanyahu on the phone and talked for an HOUR.
YOU asked me what I knew. I am telling you what I KNOW and no one seems to be paying attention.
They were SETTING ISRAEL UP! That was Plan A. Had Walid Shoebat not identified the so-called filmmaker, Israel would have borne the brunt of the US government’s anger for creating a video that was made at THE behest of our OWN government. Israel, and ultimately, Netanyahu, who is facing elections himself, would have been blamed for the death of Ambassador Stevens and Stevens would be out of the way because he was becoming antsy. Stevens KNEW he was going to be killed. He SAID so.
His name was on an al qaeda kill list. Retribution in kind for the killing of yahya al libi. But the administration’s hands would have been clean. They even tried to continue with the plan AFTER they were exposed.
Why do you think obastard gave that insane speech at the UN? It was to incite the muslims to even more violence and it had nothing to do with being reelected because at the time, he wasn’t sure he would be and he was tying up loose ends as fast as he could.
Isn't it true that the military has gamed out and planned for these types of situations?
Did they start to implement rescue plans when they were told they did not have CBA? What happened then?
We need a slogan to get past the MSM, keep it in the public consciousness, and get truthful answers to WTF happened!
Did they start to implement rescue plans when they were told they did not have CBA? What happened then?
Yes, evidence points in that direction (imho), and then a bunch of cussin', yellin', and name calling after denied twice or three times (imho).
If they haven't, someone is slacking off. It is part of the job to anticipate any possible scenario and have a plan, so you don't get surprised.Did they start to implement rescue plans when they were told they did not have CBA? What happened then?
That could be, but the time to start is before you get authorization, just short of jumping off. Then when the word comes down you either go or stand down.
I'd wager the assets were ready for the green light that never came or already on the way when the commanding officers were relieved of command, then the missions were aborted.
“I’d wager the assets were ready for the green light that never came or already on the way when the commanding officers were relieved of command, then the missions were aborted.”
I know you are right. That is the only plausible explanation. We just have to to prove it, and, as you have said, get the truth out - despite the 0-bot media.
I think the semantics matter. If you push the idea that an order was given to 'stand down' when no such order is necessary and when it wouldn't even be considered an order if the POTUS denied requests for a CBA and rescue attempt you set up an easy rebuttal for 0bama's defenders.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the assets were in motion preparing to receive an order to go.
One is misfeasance, the other is treason (or about as close as it gets) and there is a difference. Only Treason is a hanging offense.
1) Only the POTUS can authorize a CBA (cross border authority) command for a rescue mission in a foreign nation.
Plus Fact Two:
2) No rescue mission was attempted.
Equals Fact Three:
3) 0bama turned his back on 41 State Dept. and CIA employees refusing to issue a CBA command and went to bed so he could go to Las Vegas the next day.
Don’t leave out fact 4: Pursued the systematic removal of any in authority who even attempted to proceed or who laid the blame for their lawful inability to do so at the White House Steps.
“If you push the idea that an order was given to ‘stand down’ when no such order is necessary...”
There is a huge misunderstanding here. A stand down order to rhe MILITARY was never issued for exactly the reason we have been saying all along. If obama wasn’t there or had already refused CBA, no stand down order would have been necessary because they could not have proceeded without authority from the o.
BUT, an order to stand down WAS given THREE TIMES to the EX SEALs who requested permission to go to the aid of Chris Stevens and Sean Smith. THAT order has been terribly misconstrued by the press as well as almost everyone who seeks to ignore that simple fact.
They have taken the order given to the SEALs and extended it to the entire military which has conveniently overlooked the FACT that Ham has already stated that there was no military response because NONE WAS REQUESTED OR ORDERED BY ANYONE.
These are two completely separate facts which have been mistakenly, or maybe NOT so mistakenly, combined as if that order to stand down was actually issued to the military, but it wasn’t.
And then, to conflate and confuse the entire issue, the CYA story has evolved that no stand down order was EVER issued by anyone. THAT is a lie straight up. And that lie has added to, and perpetuated, the confusion and chaos that is so welcomed by the admin and the state department.
So WHO ordered the SEALs who were EX military, to stand down BEFORE Chris Stevens and Sean Smith were murdered? THEY did not NEED Cross Border Authority because they were already in country on a NON MILITARY contract. Yet they were specifically ordered by SOMEONE to stand down, not once, but three times and the third order was disobeyed.
By then, Stevens and Smith had already been murdered. The cia, via petraeus, stated that NO ONE in the cia gave the ex SEALs that order. So the question remains, WHO DID? Because THAT person is as responsible for the deaths of those four Anericans as obama is.
IF the order did not come from either the cia OR the pentagon, then all that is left is the state department. THAT means hillary.
Every single American stationed in Benghazi would have died had the SEALs NOT disobeyed direct orders. They deserve more, much more than being called “bumps in the road.”
Travis, help me here.
Meant to ping you to the above post. Don’t have a clue who I ended up pinging.
I don't think we have any idea who told Ty Woods to stay at the 'annex' but it was most likely someone in the State Dept. in Tripoli. As for Glen Doherty; he was in Tripoli at the time that Woods was requesting permission to go to the main consulate. Doherty and seven others flew from Tripoli to Benghazi to evacuate all of the personnel there and got there after Woods had gotten everybody back to the 'annex.'
I would like to see a source for that. Once a CIR (critical incident report) is triggered the preparations for a rescue are automatically put into motion. No one has to request anything.
AFRICOM leader General Carter Ham was never given the order to secure the consulate in Benghazi. This is what the general told Rep. Jason Chaffetz after the 9-11 Benghazi terror attack.
The questions concerning General Ham’s role in the September 11 events continue to percolate. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John R, Bolton also mentioned Mr. Chaffetz’s account, and contrasted it with Mr. Panetta’s statement that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. “General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways,” Mr. Bolton concluded. “Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh.”
From everything I have seen and heard since, it is entirely plausible that Ham WANTED to respond but could not and resigned early because of it. The order was not forthcoming and he was so informed by panetta. He was not given an order to stand down. He was given no order at all.
That would make THIS: “Mr. Panettas statement that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces.” technically true and everyone simply made the inference that Ham had agreed with the decision...which is probably NOT true even though that is what panetta’s statement implied.
...Ham has already stated that there was no military response because NONE WAS REQUESTED OR ORDERED BY ANYONE.
I think I proved that no request was necessary to put the wheels in motion. If Travis McGee's post about that protocol isn't enough I think I could find Gen. McInerny's statement that in fact forces were in motion and waiting for the 'go' order.
FWIW that is patently obvious without anyone saying so. I have been posting the proof of that for about two months...
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
But an order WAS necessary to move after the prep. That order never came.
This is so simple. And according to Chaffetz, Ham DID say he was never asked to proceed. Dear Lord.
“Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi.”
He probably DID speak to panetta when no order was issued to find out what the hell was holding things up and was told there was no order or that there was no authority for him to proceed and panetta did not have the authority to issue any order.
This is a pure cya bunch of bs coming from this administration. If we don’t keep the story straight, they win.
Which is what I have been saying for over two months before anyone else on FR did. Anyone.
Only the POTUS had the authority to act!
0bama was notified immediately and automatically when the Benghazi consulate triggered the "Imminent Danger Notification System" alert. He did nothing.
Judge Jeanine Investigates Benghazi Gate Part 4 - 10/20/2012 video 6:53
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (U.S. Army ret.), former CIA Station Chief Gary Berntsen and former CIA operative Mike Baker
There are three scandals here...
Denial of requests for security were a dereliction of duty. The lies and misdirection about the "video" after the attack were fraud and malfeasance under the color of authority. The inaction during the attack was something more than that.
The failure to act during the attack is the direct equivalent of desertion IMO.
ONE man had the authority to act that night.
ONE man deserted his post!
0bama abandoned his post. 0bama Is A Deserter!
I agree and confused statements like this...
...Ham has already stated that there was no military response because NONE WAS REQUESTED OR ORDERED BY ANYONE.
...don't help keep the story straight. It makes it sound like no alarm was sounded and there was. It makes it sound like no assets were put in motion and there were.
Well, you’re certainly loud enough even if there’s not much to be proud of.
How about some valium?
We need an explicit timeline of who, what, when and where these events and non-events took place, both in country and elsewhere, with sources.
Then we can sort out definitively who did or did not do what, and where the authority lay at any given point in time.
While the latter is pretty much understood, without clear arrows pointing to the one who had the juice and kept it in the can, this is (intentionally, imho) too confusing to get legs with the average schmuck.
The media have conflated and comingled and crisscrossed accounts and timelines and locations to the point where the average person will have trouble keeping straight what happened, much less who was responsible for what in order for any response or rescue attempt to happen.
Keep in mind that this is just this one series of events, not even tying in motive which likely had something to do with gunrunning to the Muslim Brotherhood. (After all, this administration has a track record of running guns to unsavory characters worldwide.)
THAT’S ME .. LOUD AND PROUD!
Nobody forces you to be on this website.
Nobody forces you to read what I write.
And .. since you were not privey to previous conversations regarding this issue .. I was perfectly within my rights as a member of this website to make my point clear .. since there were several who kept trying to muddy the waters of information.
But .. you don’t have to agree with me .. I never require that .. but to insult me is lame.
Oh, I haven’t insulted you. But there’s a few things about all-caps screaming you should probably know.
And I coulda sworn “loud and proud” was a gay enterprise. Example:
Maybe you’re confused.
LOL .. proving once again how ignorant you are.