Skip to comments.Editorial: Few answers amid the fog of Benghazi
Posted on 10/29/2012 11:16:14 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Stephanie Cutter wandered into deep left field when she said the entire reason the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, was a topic was that the Mitt Romney campaign wanted it that way.
There is, of course, the matter of four Americans killed on Sept. 11, including the U.S. ambassador to a dangerous, war-torn North African country......
....Even so, Americans who care about this story have had to chase their own conclusions through a confused series of information dribs and drabs. Obama officials were slow to coalesce around the obviousness of a terrorist attack, focusing blame too long on an anti-Islam video. The earliest questions centered on Stevens security and whether his team in Libya was denied the protection he requested.
Only recently have we learned, through news reports, that a U.S. military drone fed real-time video to top officials during the attack; that Stevens whereabouts were a mystery for seven hours; that Woods urgent requests for military backup were denied; and that CIA operators were told to stand down instead of attempting to find Stevens a mile away at the consulate.
Woods, it turns out, went anyway and died trying.
Instead of clarity and directness transparency, in other wordsthe administration has fallen into a reactive pattern of vague comments, no-comments and partial denials.
....Still, the questions remain. Who denied Woods request for help? Could military assistance have arrived quickly enough from Tripoli or Italy to save American lives? Who ordered a drone into the Benghazi airspace before the attack even began and for what purpose?
And as Americans are scarcely closer to understanding what happened Sept. 11 in Benghaziand, importantly, why parents, family and friends grieve. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, increasingly on the hot seat, decries the Monday-morning quarterbacking, and we would agree to a point: It shouldnt have to be this way.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Do editorials like this signal a realization by the MSM that the American people are demanding that they question and report on Obama's role in the death of Americans in Benghazi?
"When Obama called the US Navy SEALS to get Osama, they got the job done.
When the US Navy SEALS called Obama for help...he watched them die.
It's time to STAND OBAMA down."
FREEPERS! Send this far and wide!!
Video: Pat Caddell lets loose!
>> Woods, it turns out, went anyway and died trying
The inconvenience of integrity.
GTH, ya’ commie mofus.
Even with dispatches from Amb. Stevens and requests from the security there to extend their mission to protect them, Charlene Lamb refused (denied or ignored) to extend the security Strike Force.
......The colonel and Mr. Nordstrom were fighting a long-distance battle of emails and phone calls with the State Department to maintain a large security presence.
But Charlene Lamb, who was in charge of international programs for the State Departments Bureau of Diplomatic Security, rejected their requests. State wanted to create a picture of normal operations in Libya...... Source
If I recall, Jeff years ago made an image regarding the Chinese kidnapping of a us surveillance plane. It was a cruise missile image with “I’m sorry” on it.
I would love to see that image again. Jeff you are awesome.
I'll add this information too.
Several former SEALs today both on Rush and on the follow-on drive-time WHO Des Moines:
The SEAL lasing the mortars that killed him did so because there was an asset forbidden to respond.
The "consulate" was warehousing weapons and was part of U.S. arming Al Qaeda and like-purposed forces.
My perennial take on Arab Spring is it's been an Obama-Hillary op to replace secular regimes with Islamist ones.
The 150 militants blocked the intersections with technicals and commandeered 20 street youths to chant the video deniability.
It is not that Obama-Hillary were negligent or ignorant or incompetent or cowardly--
In my view (and that of a former SEAL calling in to Simon Conway today) it is that they are working for the other side
This editorial sucks!
F U Dallas Morning News! Take a Stand one way or the other! don’t try and balance on the tightrope of “fairness”!
We don’t care if we ever hear the word fairness again! these last 4 years that word has been spoken and written enuf to last to eternity. the meaning of the word is lost and or twisted beyond recognition by The Traitor and his accomplices.
Take a Stand on this issue and don’t water it down with insults to Govenor Romney, Republican motives, etc. Say what you think Dallas Morning News or you too will be going bust in the not so distant future like some other newspaper have done recently.
“........[snip]....................Talk of threats and terrorist enemies appalls and disheartens the Democratic base. The President therefore decided to run as the man who built peace and, if given four more years, would build that much more.
He therefore needs for the world to look calm. Anything that undercuts that narrative undercuts his campaign. This is the most important problem Benghazi creates for him: it suggests a genuinely poisonous alternative narrative that the President in his naive eagerness to spread democracy and build bridges to moderates opened the door to radicals and then failed to deal with the threat they posed.
The rise of this alternative perception is probably why the President has been losing his advantage on foreign policy in the post-debate polls. The MSM has not pursued the Benghazi story with anything like the single minded pack journalism feeding frenzy that would undoubtedly have taken place if something comparable had happened, say, in October 2004; nevertheless there has been just enough real news (and Fox and the blogosphere have just enough impact) to keep the story in public view.
President Obama needs Benghazi to go away. Even with hurricanes and tsunamis it appears unlikely to do so; count this as another factor that has risen up to complicate what once looked like a relatively smooth campaign to renew President Obamas White House lease.”
Read the article. The title sucks in the left view, then blows it up withe right questions. The fog, essentially is smoke from the administration.
Much of the security depended on maintaining a low profile. At one point, Nordstrom, the regional security officer, proposed establishing guard towers, but the State Department rejected that on the grounds that it would make the compound more conspicuous.
There was no doubt, however, that there were many in Benghazi who knew the compound's location. On June 6, a bomb was planted near the American Mission's outer wall, blowing out a 12-foot-wide hole. No one was injured.
On June 11, the lead vehicle of the British ambassador's convoy was hit by an armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a British medic and driver. The British envoy left Benghazi the next day, and the British post in the city was closed June 17.
About the same time, the Red Cross pulled out after it was attacked a second time. "When that occurred, it was apparent to me that we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove,"...
In the event of a significant attack, Oliveira noted, the Americans were counting on the February 17th Brigade to rush to their aid, as it had during the June 6 bombing. The embassy had also established a series of "trip wires," classified benchmarks about intelligence on attack preparations or escalating unrest that would prompt the United States to evacuate the Benghazi compound. But the trip wires were not set off.
New security cameras with night-vision capability were shipped to the Benghazi compound but were still sitting in crates when the September attack occurred............. [MORE]
There is no fog.
The imam doesn’t even have a beard to hide behind.
I agree with you. He is working for the other side.
Hillary is, too, although I think she’s really a fool and very weak and probably originally thought she was just working to extend communism, which is her favorite thing. By the time the real purpose dawned on her, she was too heavily compromised to do anything except go along, and I think that is true of everybody in Hussein’s administration - Panetta, Petraeus, etc. - and, unfortunately, many of the generals and senior military people (Dempsey, for example). Now they’re scared to cross him and the power behind the throne, the Islamist Valerie Jarret, because they are implicated in everything and if it falls apart, they’re probably looking at criminal charges and certainly at the loss of reputation and power.
Something else that no one is discussing is the complete exclusion from the circle of power of our elected representatives, even the Dems, with the possible exception of the black islamist Keith Ellison.
Bush was diligent In seeking the support of congress for any military activity, as well as keeping them informed, which was one of the very things that made the Iraq war and rebuilding so difficult. Obama, on the other hand,is conducting a rogue foreign policy and military campaign with no input from anybody except his mysterious inner circle. I guess that’s because even many of the Dems in the legislature would find it difficult to support a foreign policy that is aimed at destroying the US and surrendering it to Islam.
I say BS to your analysis of those others involved. They are adults and just like most here understand the consequences of this action, especially since they knew about it beforehand.
BTW, Dempsey is an arsche kissing pansy who crawled his way up the ladder by following the political route rather than the combat one. As far as I can tell, his first taste of any combat campaign was in the rear posts of GWI safely protected by all the junior officers leading their men in the field crawling in the same dirt with them.
Please help me. I am trying as hard as I can to get out the word about cross-border authority. I just can't believe reporters don't know enough to ask the right questions! It's infuriating. Libya, as far as standing down the rescue, is 100% Obama's show, and nobody else's. Only he can grant CBA, not Biden, not Panetta, not Dempsey, not Hillary, and certainly not Ham in Germany.
The entire episode is explained perfectly inside the context of not granting CBA. The CIA QRF in Tripoli? No problem, send them on the local Tripoli station chief's say-so. He merely informs up COC that he has done so. CCs them so to speak. "This is what I am doing." Ditto if Predators were in country, no problem using them. But the big rescue air armada streaming toward Libya right away after the alarm got to Stuttgart and Africom? That has to stop. I believe at the 5pm meeting with Panetta and Biden in the Oval Office, he said, "No outside military intervention," on the basis that the last report was the "lull" from the consulate, at about 1030 p.m. in Benghazi, when the attack appeared to be over and the situation stabilizing.
(As a soft exception, Obama may have authorized sending an unarmed Predator from outside of Libya, but I am thinking the two Predators were already in-country, and hence available to use within no CBA granted rules.)
"No outside military intervention" equals "no cross-border authority" and that constitutes "standing orders" until POTUS changes them. Nobody else can un-decide the POTUS decree. The rescue air-armada of C-17s, C-130s and SOF helos like MH-47 Chinooks and Pavehawks cannot proceed directly to Libya without CBA being granted, so instead they are all staged at Sigonella, Sicily.
USN ships are in position to "lilypad" helos for long over-water flights. Airborne tankers are coming into position. SOF forces in Sigonella are going over their gear for different contingencies. Fuming all night as officers keep checking in with operational commanders. "Hold in place, no rescue yet. We can't find the President, it sounds like," say the colonels to the majors and captains. 100s of military must know about this. I keep waiting for the conclusive whistle-blowers to come forward BEFORE the election. After won't matter, it will be for the historians.
Panetta is falling on his sword for Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "The military doesn't do risky things" defense of no rescue. Panetta is destroying his future reputation entirely, to save Obama. The question is why? Loyalty?
Petreaus was probably "used" in some way early, about the supposed CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his PAO, "The stand-down order did not come from CIA." Well, what is higher than CIA? Only White House. Obama, nobody else. Petreaus is naming Obama without naming him.
Now, as far as Obama / Huma Abedin / Valerie Jarrett etc actually wanting Ambassador Stevens dead, to terminate the end of the very dirty Libyan arms to Syrian AQ programs, I can't speculate. Obama is not competent enough I'm thinking.
But for sure, the ambassador going to unsecure Benghazi on 9-11 of all days stinks to me of a setup. You can bet Stevens would have told the Turks, "No, 9-11 is not a good day for us," and stayed in Tripoli behind many high and thick walls. For him to go to dangerous Benghazi on 9-11 means the Turks totally insisted, but why would they care about the meeting date, unless they were in on a hit as the Judas goat?
Alternatively, ordering Stevens to meet the Turks in Benghazi on 9-11 may have come from down OUR chain of command. Stevens seems to have been wearing two hats as ambassador and CIA arms shipper. Moving between more-secure Tripoli, the Benghazi "consulate," and the CIA "annex." So orders to him might come down the State or the CIA commo channels, or both. I am unclear on his job title and true position, but either the CIA or State sends him final instructions. How this works with dual-hatted ambassadors, I havent a clue.
But Stevens meeting the Turks at the unsecure Benghazi "consulate" on 9-11 stinks to me of a deliberate setup. The Turks left the meeting and probably flashed their headlights to the attack team commanders lurking in shadows. A coded text, a word on a phone, meaning, "The ambassador is there, with minimal security: proceed with the attack plan."
But that is all pure speculation. What I know FOR SURE is that the big "stand down order" issue revolves around granting or withholding cross-border authority.
Every SOF officer and ops officer all the way up has this drummed into his head. We can make Obama respond to this question, even if reporters must shout it at him while he's doing storm cleanup photo ops. If the reporters KNOW enough to ask the quesion. That's why I am shouting all over the internet about CBA.
I can't believe cross-border authority permission is not one of the top discussion points about Benghazi.
That, and who "set him up" by sending him to Beghazi to meet the Turks on 9-11, with them leaving after dark.
And of course, down the road, was the military rescue-in-progress turned back because Obama actually wanted to make sure the consulate was wiped out? Is that why the spooks at the annex were refused permission to travel the under one mile to intervene? That would connect it all together, but for now, the best focus is on Obama either granting or withholding cross-border authority for the rescue.
Feel free to repost these musings of a long-ago SOF officer anywhere you please.
I’m not saying they didn’t know about it or realize the consequences. But I think by then they were so deeply involved in Obama’s program (or that of whoever is running the vicious little idiot) that they felt they had to stay with it and then had no choice afterwards but to try to cover up their actions or shift the blame. It’s like any criminal conspiracy.
In other words, I don’t think this plot - and it is a plot, aimed at destroying the US as a power and handing world authority over to the Islamists of the Third World - originated with any of them or that they knowingly signed onto it (although I suspect that Huma Abedin, Hillary’s Egyptian Muslim aide, probably is knowingly involved in it). But once they had sold their souls to get into Obama’s favor, or think they were in it, at least, there was no going back.
Most of them - Panetta, for example - are hacks and should never have gotten anywhere near the positions they hold. Although a lot of people here seem to credit Hillary with supernatural powers, she’s obviously not very bright, not very well spoken, and exactly what you’d expect from a woman who got rewarded for spending her life cleaning up the messes of her powerful husband and thus enabling him to move unimpeded along the path to power. But she herself is nothing and she only does what somebody (Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Bill) tells her to do.
They are desperate to keep this from being investigated any further, and they are probably sweating bullets thinking about what might happen if Obama loses and they aren’t protected anymore. However, that said, I doubt that Romney would investigate it because I suspect he’d think that knowing the extent of the plot would undermine Americans’ faith in their government and the ability of the system to control it. Sadly, I don’t think they have much to fear. I hope I’m wrong.
IIRC, Dempsey got his big boost by coming out enthusiastically in favor of gays in the military and an end to DADT. He seems like somebody who has been a slimey careerist all of his life. But then, so were some of the generals under Hitler and Stalin.
Folks at FR cannot complain that they are lacking in knowledge on the many facets of this terrible scenario, that is for sure. So many,including you of course are making things available for all to read and absorb.