Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jennifer Griffin: What laser capability did Benghazi team have?
FOX News ^ | November 4, 2012 | Jennifer Griffin

Posted on 11/04/2012 4:34:00 AM PST by maggief

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last
To: maggief

“There are no armed drones within range of Libya. The closest fly out of Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa, and were not in range of Benghazi. There was no Marine expeditionary unit — a large seaborne force with its own helicopters — in the Mediterranean Sea. American F-16 fighters in Europe were not on alert, and General Ham concluded they would not have been useful in a confused fight in a major Arab city.”



[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Drones all have missile racks. Armed or unarmed is a simple decision to make. The drone is there, the missiles are there. 2+2=4.

But it takes a POTUS decision to change the standing ROE and send an ARMED Predator over Libya. Which he could have done. Or sent armed F-16s from Italy in one hour. Etc.

See “Cross-Border Authority.”

I am getting so tired of hammering this point over and over and over.

42 posted on 11/04/2012 6:40:05 AM PST by Travis McGee (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: blaveda
How is that done!?

Here's a very simple demonstration: The "non-visible" lasers are infrared, or IR lasers. Your TV remote control also uses infrared LEDs to send commands to your TV.

Take your cell phone camera, and point it at the end of your remote. Then press a button on the remote. Your naked eye sees nothing, but your cell phone camera sees the LED blinking white.

43 posted on 11/04/2012 6:45:35 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Exactly right. See #3 and read the PJ Media article that I wrote.

There may have been standing orders or ROE permitting unarmed Predators to enter Libyan air space as part of their search for weapons.

If so, stretching the terms of those “weapons searching” Predators would allow the military in Europe to get them moving over Libya without a new POTUS order. Ditto if they were already “in country” in Libya.

But to send ANYTHING that was armed for hostile action from OUTSIDE of Libya into Libya would require CBA from the POTUS, covering exactly what the military was proposing to send.

For example, Obama could have said, “I’ll okay an Armed Predator, but I need to be there watching the video feed before any missiles are launched.”

Or he could say (like Reagan or either Bush), “Go save our people in Benghazi, use the QRF in Signolla, anything you need.”

And they would have.

It still seems to me that no CBA for any hostile action was given by Obama on 9-11. That’s why the CIA in Tripoli was able to charter a plane ( !!!!! ) and send six shooters to Benghazi. They were already “in country” and didn’t need CBA from POTUS.

44 posted on 11/04/2012 6:48:18 AM PST by Travis McGee (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

” Fox News was told there were not only armed drones that monitor Libyan chemical weapon sites in the area, but also F-18’s, AC-130 aircraft and even helicopters that could have been dispatched in a timely fashion.

British intelligence sources said that unarmed drones routinely flew over Benghazi every night in flight patterns and that armed drones which fly over chemical sites, some a short flight from Benghazi, “were always said to be on call.” American sources confirmed this and questioned “why was a drone armed only with a camera dispatched?”
Another source added, “Why would they put a ragtag team together in Tripoli as first responders? This is not even what they do for a living. We had a first responder air base in Italy almost the same distance away.” Despite the team arriving from Tripoli that night, sources said sufficient American back-up never came.”

Packed with info articles:

45 posted on 11/04/2012 6:50:00 AM PST by Ms Mable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: maggief

The Administration continues to muddy the water. This report says they had GLDs at Benghazi. So now the administration is trying to confuse the issue by talking about laser sights on machine guns. A GLD is used to provide a path for a bomb or missile to follow to a target. Think of it as a little electronic pilot being told by the person using the GLD where to steer that bomb or missile to. A laser sight is used to let a rifleman, or in this case a machine gunner, see where his bullets will strike. A GLD is used to bring high explosives onto a target such as a 1,000 pound bomb from a circling aircraft. The pilot does not have to see the target. The bomb or missile will go where the CIA operator on the ground is pointing the GLD at. This is a very accurate means of delivering bombs. The bomb will strike within feet of where the GLD is pointed. A laser sight is used to bring rounds from a rifle or pistol onto a target. There is more to it, but this should provide a basic understanding. The big point is, the CIA operators in Benghazi had a GLD and this meant they were ready and able to bring high explosive bombs and missiles onto the enemy. The only reason bombs weren’t being dropped onto the very laps of the enemy is that there were no aircraft above Benghazi with laser guided bombs. The talk by Panetta about not using bombs to support the Americans in Benghazi because of missing the enemy and hitting civilians is baloney. They could have dropped bombs onto the heads of the attackers. Think of a C-130 gunship as being able to use the GLD to focus the fire of several machine guns onto that one laser point. In a shooting match, you want to “suppress” the enemy. This means putting enough lead in his direction that he either can’t shoot at you or can’t shoot accurately at you. That is why the C-130 gunship is so effective. It puts so much lead or bullets on the enemy that they quit firing. It also kills lots of the enemy.

46 posted on 11/04/2012 6:50:36 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Yes, I know.

47 posted on 11/04/2012 6:52:23 AM PST by bgill (Evil doers are in every corner of our government. Have we passed the point of no return?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
Of course this administration's purpose is to keep the water muddy. They are like a pinball machine slapping the ball to all points of distraction. There was something in Benghazi they were protecting and it was not Americans.
48 posted on 11/04/2012 6:54:52 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

See 42.

49 posted on 11/04/2012 6:56:35 AM PST by Travis McGee (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

“The admin continues to muddy the water.”

Please read the article (that I wrote) linked at #3.

To this point, NOTHING about the Benghazi non-rescue is not explainable within the logic prism of the granting or withholding of cross-border authority by the POTUS.


50 posted on 11/04/2012 6:59:14 AM PST by Travis McGee (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

So, if I’m understanding you right, because military forces were being readied for use in Benghazi, the President WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE ASKED FOR PERMISSION FOR MILITARY FORCES TO GO INTO LIBYA AND SINCE NONE WERE SENT, HE MUST, I SAY AGAIN, MUST HAVE DENIED THE USE OF AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES BEING SENT TO ASSIST AMERICANS IN BENGHAZI. There is no other possible explanation for why no American military forces were sent to rescue the 30 Americans under attack in Benghazi. Is this how you see it?

51 posted on 11/04/2012 7:02:08 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Yes, basically.

Now, President “Voting Present” might set up a phalanx of yes-men to keep generals with urgent requests from even finding him.

But the way the system is set up, as soon as the alarm from Benghazi goes out, the QRF in Germany (or anywhere the designated QRF is located that day) is put on alert, and even without orders from Washington, would be moved closer to the crisis to be ready faster when the POTUS gives the order to launch the rescue mission.

For Reagan or either Bush, this would have happened in real time. In the same span of minutes, the QRF in Germany (or whereever it is) is heading to C-17s or C-130s. They have contingency plans for exactly this scenario.

For Reagan or Bush, they might not even have needed to pause in Sicily, because they would have ordered them to head directly to Benghazi. This is one of their primary missions: to rescue a besieged American outpost under attack.

But if Obama pretends not to know, or not to hear, all he needs to do is NOT issue execute orders for a rescue mission with CBA.

He granted CBA for the OBL mission in Pakistan, he grants CBA when we put armed drones into Yemen etc to kill terrorists. He knows the deal.

But if he fails to grant CBA on 9-11-2012 for a Benghazi rescue mission, it can’t get off the ground, because it can’t enter Libyan air space.

The CIA assets in Tripolie (same distance to Benghazi as Sigonella) can be used on the orders of the acting ambassador or CIA staion chief, because they were already “in country” and not bound by the need to obtain CBA.

The 100+ Force Recon Marines in Sigonella should have arrived in Benghazi before the six CIA shooters from Tripoli, with F-16s and F-18s over Benghazi an hour earlier yet. But they can’t move unless POTUS affirmatively grants CBA and hands down execute orders for the MILITARY rescue mission, using forces outside of Libya.

He never granted CBA, or the White House would have shown the world copies of the orders. Then he could totally blame the military for failing to carry out his orders.

The logic prism says therefore no CBA was granted.

52 posted on 11/04/2012 8:16:59 AM PST by Travis McGee (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Ms Mable

Yes, I know. My comment was strictly about this article and the lame defense the Obamites are making to avoid responsibility for their massive FUBAR ACTS.

53 posted on 11/04/2012 8:19:56 AM PST by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Why is our CIA handing out timelines to media but blocking out Fox, which has been talking to eyewitnesses and could confirm the facts if they were accurate?

You have answered your own question. The 'timeline' spin and the eyewitness accounts obviously do not coincide. Thus, the blocking of FN from the 'briefing'...

the infowarrior

54 posted on 11/04/2012 8:21:24 AM PST by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: maggief; Travis McGee
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

They confirm everything Col. Hunt said about automatic notifications to the WH and add more details.

Howie Carr interview with Col. Hunt On The Newest Libyan Revelations audio 28:37

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!

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

0bama was MIA. 0bama Is A Deserter!

55 posted on 11/04/2012 8:24:57 AM PST by TigersEye ( - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

This is the Tweet I’ve sent to every @TalkingHeadNewsPerson I can find.

@TalkingHead Obama did not grant Cross-Border Authority for a military rescue. CBA is the key to #Benghazi. PJMedia

Very hard to get the word out. I thought PJ Media and Breitbart covering cross-border authority would do the trick. It seems to have stalled out. I keep hoping to hear about it on TV, haven’t yet. I tweeted @AmbJohnBolton, he is going to be on FOX at 1210 eastern to talk about Benghazi. I hope he brings up CBA.

56 posted on 11/04/2012 8:33:23 AM PST by Travis McGee (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Great reporting.

57 posted on 11/04/2012 8:40:45 AM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

OK. But only the President has the authority AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to order military forces into Libya to rescue the Americans under attack. I’m trying to reduce Obama’s wiggle room on this. And he is wiggling like a big old worm.
Panetta and Dempsey and Ham and Hillary and Petraeus had the authority and responsibility TO ASK that military forces be sent into Libya, but they did not have the authority TO ORDER military forces into Libya. That order could only come from Obama. So these five can use legalese and say they never turned down a request for military assistance because only Obama could give the order. And he could try to legal out of it by saying he never turned down a request for military assistance to Benghazi, he just ignored it or postponed the decision. BUT IT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO GIVE THE ORDER TO SEND MILITARY FORCES INTO LIBYA. HE CAN’T EVADE HIS RESPONSIBILITY. He asked to be President. As a matter of fact, he’s working pretty hard now to keep his job. He wants the power and prestige and benefits of being the President, but he doesn’t want the responsibilities. That is just more evidence of what a dirty little money-grubbing Democrat grifter he is.

58 posted on 11/04/2012 8:59:22 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
The last thing I want to be is discouraging but the reality is that the problem may not be getting the word out. The CBA aspect is so fundamental it should not take a former mil service person to see it. I'm not and it hit me in the face weeks ago.

Foreign country + military op = POTUS approval.

It's so obvious even Homer Simpson knows the score.

We keep hitting it. It's all we can do.


Here's our freaking problem and it doesn't go away after an election...

Pat Caddell called it. Do you believe it yet?

Pat Caddell slams the media: They have become an “enemy of the people” Sept. 29, 2012(video 26:00)

Emotional Pat Caddell on the MSM ignoring Benghazi: “These people have no honor!” Oct. 27, 2012 (video at link 4:06)

The Media will not report the truth!

59 posted on 11/04/2012 9:01:55 AM PST by TigersEye ( - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st; Travis McGee

Looks like the Benghazi CIA could have used one of these:

“US Army to fly Switchblade ‘kamikaze’ drones (airport defense against UAV attack?)”

Weighing less than two kilos, the drone is small enough to fit into a soldier’s backpack and is launched from a tube, with wings quickly folding out as it soars into the air, according to manufacturer AeroVironment.
Powered by a small electric motor, the Switchblade transmits video in real time from overhead, allowing a soldier to identify an enemy, the company said in a press release last month.

“Upon confirming the target using the live video feed, the operator then sends a command to the air vehicle to arm it and lock its trajectory onto the target,” it said.
The drone then flies into the “target,” detonating a small explosive.

AeroVironment “Switchblade”

60 posted on 11/04/2012 9:09:53 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next 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
Topics · Post Article

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