Posted on 10/30/2012 6:54:22 AM PDT by mgist
Former Pacific Fleet chief: We need full disclosure on Benghazi — now POSTED AT 9:31 AM ON OCTOBER 30, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY
Retired Admiral James A. Lyons likely pulled few punches as commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet during his career … and he hasn’t started pulling punches now, either. In a blistering column at The Washington Times, the former commander blasts the lack of action from the US when the administration learned our consulate in Benghazi had come under attack, writing that “courage was lacking” that might have saved at least some of the four American lives lost on September 11. “Someone high up in the administration,” Lyons writes, “let our people get killed” — and he wants some answers immediately as to whom:
The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.
I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.
I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.
Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only incomprehensible, it is un-American.
There has been plenty of speculation as to what Ambassador Chris Stevens was doing in Benghazi in the first place, which Lyons touches on in his column. Even apart from that, though, this argument above is the key to the failure of the American response. We always come to the aid of our diplomatic missions when under attack, especially with as many assets in the area as we had at the time. It’s worth noting that we intervened militarily in Libya in the first place to prevent a massacre of civilians by Moammar Qaddafi in Benghazi — and now we’re supposed to believe that we couldn’t coordinate a military response to an attack in that same city on our own consulate in seven hours?
Here’s another curiosity, too. General Carter Han, who commanded AFRICOM on September 11th, had already been rotated back home. Now we find out he’s leaving the Army altogether:
General Carter F. Ham, the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM) and a key figure in the Benghazi-gate controversy, is leaving the Army. On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had announced that General Ham would be succeeded at AFRICOM by General David Rodriguez. Later speculation tied this decision to the fallout from the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. However on Monday October 29 a defense official told The Washington Times that “the decision [to leave AFRICOM] was made by General Ham. He ably served the nation for nearly forty years and retires after a distinguished career.” Previously all that was known was that General Ham would be rotating out of AFRICOM at some future date, but not that he was leaving the service. General Ham is a few years short of the mandatory retirement age of 64, but it is not unusual for someone of that rank to retire after serving in such a significant command.
James Robbins notes that the White House insisted that Ham took part in the decision not to supply assistance to the consulate, but Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz that no one had asked him about it. Ham’s retirement could mean that the Pentagon had some sort of disciplinary action pending against him over the incident (also the subject of much speculation, but little in the way of direct sourcing), or it could have a different meaning altogether. It would be inappropriate for Ham to criticize his Commander in Chief while still in uniform, although he could go to Congress to report any perceived malfeasance at any time.
I have to believe, that Romney, if this election were within any sort of margin of error, would be discussing this issue daily.
But Romney knows that he is clear of Obama, and needs to avoid any move that changes the current election dynamic. The idea that we let Congress deal with this later, is the right action IF, indeed, Romney is going to be our next President.
As hopeful as I am about this election, winning the Senate seems out of reach sadly. If someone believes otherwise, please, share that with me!
How convenient for the storm to take over the news right now. This story will not be known by the “masses”. Biggest story of my 46 year lifetime and only us conservatives know about it. Our media is truly the enemy.
Travis,
Do recall any mention of Hillary calling Libya to get clearance to enter their
airspace , which was denied.
I think I heard it quickly on Fox one day.
We are relying on fragmentary and possibly misheard or misunderstood reporter’s versions thereof. We still do not know if the two Predators over Benghazi came from outside of Libya, or from inside. We do not know if the Predators were armed, or unarmed, and what the ROE were determining if they would take off armed or unarmed.
The CIA might have ROE to state that Predator recon flights are unarmed, unless the NCA orders otherwise. That seems reasonable to me, but we don’t know for sure at this point.
In regards to the IR Laser Aiming Device, it was probably just on the former SEAL’s personal M-4, a typical DBAL type device. In conjunction with a NOD, (PVS-14 etc) he would use it to make accurate shots in that environment, or he could also use it to designate a target such as a mortar team.
Remember, some reporter talked to an operator who had last spoken to the SEALs, probably prior to them manning the MG on the annex roof. The reporter is perhaps reporting garbled information. We are just seeing as through a glass, darkly.
We still don’t know if the Predators were armed, or if an AC-130 gunship was over Benghazi. We just don’t know. Anybody who says they know, I want to read that report to see if it’s just wishful thinking, projection, bad reorting, or factual.
Yep, let's make this into a firestorm for Republican and independents not already up in arms about this.
Hillary “calling Libya to ask for clearance” is the same as saying “POTUS did not grant CBA.”
CBA means our military is going in, now, armed, on our own mission, without the permission or knowledge of the subject nation.
If Hillary had to go asking for permission, logically, it is a “need” only because Obama rejected granting CBA.
“Even if Ham is removed from command, he is still in the Army, and subject to military discipline.”
Not so now. He is in the middle of retiring as we speak. (I just learned that.) Once he retires, which is right away, he owes no allegiance to his crooked military superiors. He can talk all he wants after that.
Hillary “calling Libya to ask for clearance” is the same as saying “POTUS did not grant CBA.”
CBA means our military is going in, now, armed, on our own mission, without the permission or knowledge of the subject nation.
If Hillary had to go asking for permission, logically, it is a “need” only because Obama rejected granting CBA.
Thanks.
I have posted elsewhere that I think he played some weasel words to shift
blame onto Libya, and off himself.
Agree there was no CBA , which resulted in reasons for “ stand down” and CIA
comments on not being the one who wouldn’t help.
He loves to have things unclear, and both ways.
Appreciate your insights/answers on this critical topic. The news organizations seem to get hung up in the minutia and don’t go to the critical points.
Well done. Keep it coming. The more people we can get to focus on this the better
You got it. CBA is like the Rosetta Stone for understanding Benghazi. It’s like King Arthur’s Sword, stuck in the rock. Only one man can pull it out: the Obama, wielding his POTUS scepter.
If only the reporters understood this, it makes so much clear, and blows away so much of the deliberate smokescreen of lies, half-truths, and weasel words surrounding this disgrace.
Not necessarily. It would be standard, particularly for senior officers, that they are informed that they are still subject to penalties for divulging classified information. All Obama has to do is declare the details of the Libya incident "classified".
Watch for some reason to have General Ham arrested and locked up in military jail till way after the election...
He better be more concerned about not ending up the way Gen. Patton did after he was dismissed from duty in WWII...killed in a freak accident.
BTTT
You're absolutely right.
And even though it's impossible for us to know the details, what we do know (the aspects you are focusing on) is damning enough.
Powerful Hannity Show - 10/29/12 - Father of SEAL Ty Woods killed in Libya demands truth from WH
No. Expect a *tragic* loss of a military aircraft, with everyone aboard perishing.
No. Expect a *tragic* loss of a military aircraft, with everyone aboard perishing.
Instead what we have are wimps that sit by and complain, whimper and accept that they will not do anything except sit and complain.
That’s probably why the ‘YouTube video’ maker is still in jail. He knows something.. I recall that one of the original actresses in this film said that it was originally never about Mohammed in the first place.. Is it possible that the audio was overdubbed by a third source after the movie was made, to be used as some sort of cover story by our gov’t in the ME??
Like those SEALs in that chopper that went down in Afghanistan shortly after the OBL raid..
Ahhhh... Obama should go to jail...
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.