Skip to comments.Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks
Posted on 05/06/2013 9:43:29 AM PDT by Bigtigermike
The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.
The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."
(Excerpt) Read more at m.cbsnews.com ...
“Think about this they had to know this order to stand down might get out and how it would look if it did, yet they were willing to take that risk. Why? Was it all politics or was it something more sinister?”
If Stevens got out alive, Obama was done for. Stevens not getting ou alive ensured Obamas win over Romney.
This whole mess was to ensure Obama was reelected. Nothing more, nothing less.
Before the election, it meant Romney as President, and possibly a GOP Senate.
After the election, the worst case was Biden as President, still keeping the White House in Democrat hands.
Would someone please explain what this “ missing the plane” comments are all about??..
Was it some scheduled airline????(doubt it)
Wouldn’t a military C-130 Wait ??
I tend to agree with you. It may well be the response was purely about the election and their naïveté (the view Rush is touting as I type), but I’m not convinced. I suspect there was/is something far more devastating they want to keep hidden. They knew when they refused aid that 30-40 Americans might die. That seems a much bigger risk politically. So I have to believe 30-40 deaths was preferable to the truth.
May God Bless these brave people who testify. They stand for America and may our committee in Congress do the right thing for America. They must stand up.
“King Obama is a total destructive jackass installing empty fools like Clinton as SOS. His total empire is made up of the same incompetency. Impeach “
Evil Empire. Stevens and his men were deliberately thrown under the bus for some reason (perhaps weren’t fully on board with illegal gun smuggling to Syrian rebels including al qaeda?).
Hillary deliberately deprived Stevens of effective security. The end result was entirely predictable.
Impeach osama obama.
And if the goal was to not have an example of terrorism in front of everybody’s eyes - to keep the “the war on terror is over” meme going - they would not have denied security like that or prepared the video to be used as an excuse but would have instead tried to prevent the attack from happening in the first place. It seems like there was advance planning for this. Whether it was over the blind sheik, weapons running, or something else I don’t know. But it seems like they were compelled by something they considered bigger than the lives at stake.
The war on terror being over was already going to be botched by Zawahiri’s call for revenge attacks on the terrorist from Libya who had been killed, and the turmoil going on in Cairo at the same time.
No, I think somebody had them over a barrel and they couldn’t just do what should be SOP: prevent terrorist attacks.
Unless they only intended for Stevens to be taken hostage...
I'm serious. These people are evil. But they are also monumentally incompetent. It is easy to destroy things, especially when you are protected by layers of fellow travelers and the MSM. But creating, maintaining, and protecting is hard. It takes moral integrity, vision, and dedication. And it requires the wisdom of years of development coupled with the will to act. Neither Obama nor Hillary possess any of these. So, when the hard situation arises, when the call comes in at 3:00 a.m., they freeze. They cannot make the hard decisions because they are moral cowards.
Benghazi exposed their moral cowardice to the world. It also exposed their treason. So they immediately went into full butt-cover mode. And why not? It has always worked for them! They have never been held accountable. Their lesson learned is that all they have to do to survive and thrive is lie, stonewall, and destroy evidence until people forget.
But their Benghazi lies are being exposed. Their stonewalling is falling apart. And the evidence could not be destroyed. So their heinous butts are still on the line. It's really that simple.
I have no doubt that all sorts of other treasonous activities were afoot in the area at their behest. Likely these activities will also be exposed. But their failure to protect and defend Benghazi is the smoking gun of treason. They know it. And they fear We The People are coming for them.
Right, we are thinking along the same lines.
Their only choice is to stonewall, delay, distract, and hope that the whole thing fades away. If any combination of corrupt administration and partisan media could pull it off, this is the time.
“What are Obama and Clinton covering up that is so heinous that they were willing to leave the whole Benghazi staff - forty or so people - to die?”
I have asked a similiar question many times. What are they covering up that was more important than Obama using a golden campaign opportunity, maybe the greatest American political moment of all time. A real time rerun of the BinLaden raid? Situation room, Obama active in the rescue of an American ambassador, Navy Seals, testimonials from survivors, videos and photos that would have sealed his reelection. Yet, he was nowhere to be found, basically AWOL, which should tell us, there was another plan that went wrong.
Obama’s last statement that night was reportedly “well, do what you have to do . .
That sounds about right coming from the Lady Boy in Chief.
Authorization for the military to cross borders can only be given by the president (there are probably some exceptions).
However the media will claim that the military couldn’t have done anything anyway.
Ultimately there is one person who has the authority to order cross-boundary operations: the Commander in Chief.
We know who failed to give the proper authorization.
What we need to find out is why.
There is no American nor any number of Americans these criminal bastards will not sacrifice to retain their power over US. And the liar-in-chief instructs the heads full of mush graduates to not believe the regime is tyrannical ... be zar folks, be zar tot he max.
Oops. I responded to the wrong post.
We know that it was Obama who refused to authorize cross-border operations. What we need to find out is why. His excuse (we had nobody who could have helped) is being proven wrong.
If he was afraid of making trouble with the Libyan regime, why didn’t he just ask them to help, or ask for permission to enter airspace with an armed drone? The Libyan regime came out early on saying it was a terrorist attack, and one of the whistleblowers has said he couldn’t believe the humiliation of our State Department calling the Libyan government a liar. The Libyan regime was more honest and willing to call this what it was than our own regime. Obama could have asked the Libyan regime and they would have no option but to allow us to go in their airspace.
The people Obama seemed to be worried about were not the people in the Libyan regime, but the terrorists. Perhaps the very terrorists he was arming...
In any event, Obama has to be forced to give an answer - and one that doesn’t insult the intelligence of everybody who was there as well as the memories of those slain.
And the same process of accountability has to happen for all three issues: why was security denied in the run-up to 9-11? Why was help refused on 9-11? And why did they claim it was a video when even the Libyan government acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack (and we now know the Obama regime knew it was coming too)?
We know these people have already lied, so they now have the burden of proof, to prove that they are not lying any time they open their mouths.