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
click here to read article
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.
Should be "US Special Operations Command, Africa" (US SOCAFRICA), not South Africa
Approx., two and a half days to go to the big top comes to town.
Thanks for the post.
We need to do more than just impeach 0bama. We need to take down the entire progressive regime.
There, I finally said it.
Anybody who thinks Hillary did this on her own is falling for the bait. Someday, some person is going to stop protecting Obama and letting themselves be thrown under the bus, and then suddenly even the press is going to have to admit that the man is plain evil and hates the US.
He’s not smart and he probably doesn’t even originate his own evil ideas. But he’s ruthless and ideological, yet he survives on trying to portray himself as innocent and well-meaning. He does this by creating “plausible deniability” by simply never being seen as involved in anything; that way he can claim it was all just a mistake by bungling subordinates.
Hillary is an evil witch who hates the US, but she was about the least powerful SOS we ever had (remember, Obama was always leaving her home or sending her off to the middle of nowhere whenever he had to meet with an important, usually Muslim, personage). She wouldn’t have done anything without knowing that Obama had authorized it.
One more of a hundred WH lies about Benghazi.
I have said from the get-go that the Ambassador was assassinated on orders from 0bama. As someone else pointed out, this should have been a shining heroic moment just before the election, instead we have a very ugly result. Nothing they have said or done on Benghazi makes any sense at all.
Now they point to al-queda etc., but I think it is much more grim than that. If it were al-queda where are the drone strikes in retaliation? We've heard nothing...nothing at all about any type of recourse.
What is so heinous that our government had to kill our own people for? That my FRiend is a darn good question.
“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?”
How about a prison, which would have made staying at Gitmo look like a walk in the park. A prison filled with Islamo prisoners being questioned by Arabs, without the safety of waterboards and zippo constitutional rights.
Then, how about an weapons/arms exchange that would make Iran/Contra look like little boys playing cowboys and Indians.
Then, how about those arms including new stingers ending up in Syria/Egypt/?????
This administration is guilty of much worse than what they try to blame on the Bush Admin.
Something they’re not talking about: The guys who finally did charter a jet and started flying 2 Bengazi were at first in full military garb. That fact was communicated to higher-ups during the flight and for reasons that remain unclear that garb agitated higher-ups so much that they had to LAND AND CHANGE CLOTHES.
And this change took 90 minutes WHILE the bullets were flying.
Obviously there was a lot of legalism still going on, then.
“The biggies didn’t really WANT them to die. Rather, they consider themselves enlightened, loved, and infallible, and the notion that the Bengazi locals were NOT star-struck with the regime in the way the Beltway Crowd is simply did not occur to them —they thought the attack was just rock throwing...”
“There was NO Embassy or Consulate in Bengazi. There was a large facility for Libya->Turkey->Syria arms transfer, which formed the cornerstone of Obama plans for the toppling of Syria. The program was larger and more sensitive than is commonly understood, and an involved rescue might not only have failed per Desert One but surely would have brought sharper media attention on a covert program on the eve of an election. 30 more deaths at “The Farm” was an eventuality preferable to the unmasking of this sensitive operation —the higher-ups were scared and simply pulled the plug.”
It’s way past time for some stars, bars, and super grade GS’s to earn their pay, suck it up, and spit out how it was that they all had an overwhelming desire to sit on their hands. Even Ham, who as I recall, claimed he was about to retire anyway. We all know it’s exactly possible to trace these stand down orders to the ultimate source——and it MUST be done-——then prosecuted because it is negligence of the highest order.
Agree. Unfortunately the coverup was successful and the traitorous barack osama won a second term.
The odds of him being impeached over this (or anything else) are slim to none.
President “Hillary!” will be the next national nightmare (since we’ve now elected a black president, it is now time to elect a woman or hispanic /s). The hope is that her involvement with Benghazi will damage her politically so that she will be forced to give up her presidential aspirations.
Best dang post I have read in a while. They all should be impeached and disgraced, but the Media will run the block and Amerika is too addicted to watching the Red Sox’s, The Bears, and the Jaz. We are living in Bread and Circus’s and MillHouse Obama probably will get off scott free...
I vote for your explanation.
Syria is next on the “arab spring” hit list.
Where is Jack Ryan? If there were only a movie...
The situations are far too similar....
Some new ideas ther,...the prison....Hmmm.
Wanted to say in the debates with Romney,....we have put no boots on the ground.
And only one person has the authority to give that order.
That is what real courage looks like. Not some mediocre sports figure pronouncing his is gay in front of supporting, cheering crowds.
The wicked truth is it doesn't even have to be credible. It just has to be a reply and the MS will buy it hook, line and sinker. - along with the low information crowd.
The next step is to vilify the accusers and make some political hay about them and destroy more on the way to scorched earth.
I don’t think it’s going to be Hillary - I think they’re prepping Michelle for the run, and I think Hillary knows it. If she doesn’t see that it’s all over for her, she’s too stupid to cross the street unescorted, let alone run for President.
Hillary thought she was using them, but they were using her, and now they don’t need her anymore.
The only question in my mind is whether she’ll be angry enough to turn on them. I don’t think so, because for some reason I think Bill has told her not to rock the boat.
It would appear this group gave the administration every chance and a long time to make the story right.
They were being as loyal as they could. But it seems they will not let the lies persist. They are not moving on and letting their comrades voices fade away.
And remember there appears to be other deaths that were never reported or followed up on.
“Of the eight American troops who had come from Tripoli, one was killed and two were wounded, Obeidi said. A Libyan deputy interior minister said a second American was also killed in the attack on the safe house. It was not clear if this was a diplomat or one of the consulate’s original security detail.”
Are there other deaths that were covered up?
I don’t know.
Reading these stories is making me physically sick to my stomach. That our ‘leaders’ would let Americans who answered their nation’s call just be slaughtered, not only without help sent their way, but with help pulled back and forbidden to give the aid needed.
We all know military and foreign service personnel, some are family, who go willingly into harm’s way. We always know of the danger and that there is the possibility that they won’t return from their latest mission. But we do NOT expect them to be left to die at the hands of our enemy, while our POTUS goes to sleep for his pre-fundraising beauty rest.
All of this is inexcusable from our POTUS, SoS, SecDef, the whole damned lot of them.
Filthy politicians in their worst form.
Other deaths,....news to me.
They don't worry about any body count.
Read Horoiwitz's book,....Unholy alliance.
Still in jail from what I heard. He was naughty. There was a wire fraud conviction for which he was on Probation, and one of the terms of release was to stay off the interwebs. It made for a convenient rationale to snatch him, but he’d be free now except for the priors.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him.
Well, in the stupid political world we live in, anything is possible, but that being said, even hillary (and zero) felt the need to spend some time as senators. Michelle is a political lightweight. It would be an incredible precedent to elect someone as blatantly unqualified as michelle. The hillaryites in the dem party believe that they've been patient for long enough and now it's their turn. Imagine the civil war that would ensue in the democrat party if michelle ran for the nomination against hillary, lol!
No, this presidency is a cancer.
But Michelle would be a twofer...
“Some new ideas ther,...the prison....Hmmm.”
Just a single source, but this does jibe with what Broadwell said in her Denver speech.
In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIAs Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of Sept. 12.
A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
Two separate questions here. One: Is the CIA still operating secret prisons and, if so, how are they questioning their prisoners? Enhanced interrogation is the only part of the Bush counterterror playbook that O hasnt adopted, or so weve assumed. Well see. Two: Did Ansar al-Sharia and its partners in jihad find out about the prisoners and attack the annex on 9/11 to try to free them? Im thinking probably not, for the reasons Ed gave this morning. If they thought there were prisoners at the annex, whyd they attack the consulate first and give up the advantage of surprise? The attack on the consulate wasnt a diversion, either: According to the CIAs timeline, the first attack at the annex didnt happen until 11:56 p.m., more than two hours after the consulate attack had begun and after the CIA security team had already returned from the consulate to the annex. That makes it sound like the jihadis tailed the CIAs people back to the annex; if they were planning an ambush to free prisoners, they should have had people pre-positioned there to move in as soon as they saw the CIA security team leave for the consulate earlier in the evening. And again, per Ed, if you were going to hold prisoners somewhere in the Middle East, why on earth would you choose a city as unstable as Benghazi?
Besides, the timeline of the Petraeus/Broadwell affair is hard to square with the idea of her being privy to secret info about Benghazi. Quote:
The affair between Gen. Petraeus and Broadwell, both of whom are married, began several months after his retirement from the army in August 2011 and ended four months ago, retired U.S. Army Col. Steve Boylan, who is a former Petraeus spokesperson, told ABC News
Petraeus is said to have been the one to have broken off the extramarital affair.
If if all of that is accurate, then it sounds like Petraeus dumped Broadwell sometime in July and, given what we now know about those threatening e-mails that she sent to another woman, she probably didnt take the news all that well. In which case, why would he still be sharing secrets with her two months later, after the Benghazi attack? Was Broadwell really revealing classified info in her Denver speech or was she just misremembering a report from earlier that day on Fox News? She did, reportedly, have classified documents on her computer, but both she and Petraeus claimed they didnt come from him. And in fact, because of her background in the military, Broadwell allegedly had a top secret/SCI clearance and then some. She might have had access to info about Benghazi, and classified documents about whatever, from her contacts in the national security bureaucracy, entirely independent of Petraeus.
But maybe that timeline isnt accurate. Petraeuss allies might be keen to claim that the affair didnt start until after hed left the military because adultery is an infraction of the UCMJ. If the affair began while he was still in uniform, its not only a moral failing but potentially a legal issue.
Now, help me answer three questions. First, why did the FBI pursue its investigation of the cyber-harassment of Jill Kelley all the way back to Petraeus? My understanding from reading a bunch of stories this morning is that Kelley reported the harassment, the FBI quickly launched an investigation (no ones sure why it was such a priority for them but maybe it has to do with Kelleys JSOC connection), and they traced the harassing e-mails back to Broadwell. But they didnt stop there; evidently they started digging around to see who was e-mailing Broadwell too, and they traced that back to a pseudonymous Gmail account operated by Petraeus. Er why did they do that? Once they knew who the cyber-harasser was, why was it necessary to keep digging and piece out the entire love triangle? Theyd found their suspect.
Second, why is Jill Kelley suddenly hiring some very expensive attorneys? Not only hasnt she been accused of anything not even an affair with Petraeus but Petraeus and Broadwell arent being charged with any crimes either. Second look at what Broadwells father told the Daily News this morning?
Third, I have a post up in the Greenroom noting that Petraeus and Broadwell seemed conspicuously together as early as 2010, with even Mrs. Petraeus likely becoming aware of it before last Friday. John Brennan, Obamas White House counterterror czar, allegedly learned of the affair in summer 2011 before Petraeus was named the new CIA chief. That being so, how were Obama and James Clapper supposedly kept in the dark until last week? The One should be spitting mad that he wasnt kept fully informed about potential liabilities of one of the most sensitive hires hell make as president. In theory, Petraeus could have been blackmailed or hacked or otherwise compromised, with catastrophic consequences for national security and Os presidential legacy and yet the FBI kept things hush-hush, even from their boss, until just a few days ago. Why? Heres Scarborough and Peter King wondering. Key bit at 4:00.
Even should the House impeach, Senate Democrats would never remove a fellow Democrat. They are all about protecting their own instead of protecting the Constitution.
Keep catching the 3 wire!
...and Hillary in as VP.
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.