Skip to comments.CIA denied military backup in Benghazi; Panetta spouts Obama talking points
Posted on 10/27/2012 5:59:06 AM PDT by tobyhill
On Friday, sources in Benghazi during the attack on the U.S. consulate said that Central Intelligence Agency operatives twice asked for permission to help Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff, and twice were told to 'stand down' -- while a later request for military backup was denied, according to a Fox News Channel alert by Megyn Kelly.
But, during a U.S. Defense Department press conference on Wednesday, when reporters asked about the U.S. failure to respond to a terrorist attack on a U.S. Consulate in Libya, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made short shrift of the confusing -- some say deliberately misleading -- White House statements over the last several weeks.
Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were viciously attacked and murdered during an attack that occurred on Sept. 11, 2012, and began at 10 p.m., Libyan time, at the consulate, which attackers set afire, and spread to the nearby annex during the course of six or more hours, according to several Examiner reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Panetta has a long leftist history dutifully ignored by many.
See Travis’s comments.
Got pulled away from the keyboard during previous post. :(
To continue...Panetta may now be useful to Obama as a fall guy for Benghazi, but only if Hillary complies, and who knows what Panetta has on her. In fact, they’re probably all arranged in a MAD scenario, mutually assured destruction if anyone strikes anyone. Obama, Clinton, Biden, Panetta — they all stand on a necropolis of shared secrets, and they’re all locked into fear of one another.
You had an ambassador and communication professional (Smith) who were guarded by the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
Were they trafficking heavy arms to Syria? Probably. Were they doing something hinky? Definitely.
Was what they were doing likely the province of the CIA? Most definitely.
Had people, including Stevens, raised alarm bells about the lack of security? Yup!
Was the CIA looking in on outright incompetence, while literally within earshot of rifle fire? Yes!
This all display Obamas ideology, long held paranoia and bias world view. Im sure Obama and his people thought what Stevens was doing was sexy, because it was risky. Of coarse, a leftist cant trust rank and file CIA, right? The CIA killed Che, Obamas hero, Obama is the self styled Che of the new Islamic caliphate.
Again, you cant trust the CIA, that is until your getting your ass shot off in a third world hell hole and your leftist party friends leave you for dead.
Stevens and Smith were expendable to Obama, but they werent expendable to Woods and Doherty.
Panetta is connected with the Institute for Policy Studies, a communist think tank.
If you’d like more info, just google the terms Panetta and communist for starters. The fellow was one of our leftist Congressmen from years ago.
Americans are unware as to the extent of the New Left’s membership that permeates the Democratic party.
Left wing think tanks don’t just write papers, there is a massive covert operation that has been going on for decades, actually back to the early 1900’s.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are hardcore leftists.
Hillary, Panetta, Obama - they put on a show for the American public but it’s the New Left, a.k.a. communism that is their true allegience.
Here’s a link on Panetta for starters...
The big point on Benghazi dereliction of duty - even if POTUS and SECDEF are New Left, they would not order stand down on rescuing an Ambassador. Even someone faking their roles would go ahead and give the approval. It’s not a question of “competence”, they just have to say yes and the military just does their job. Much like the UBL kill - which they DID do.
No, in this case, there waa a stand down. There has to be a motivation for that. What is the motivation for everyone in the room to desire a stand down ? There has to be a reason. They would not just stare at the video and go home like it was boring TV.
On the other hand, the order to start the rescue op would have been instinctful for any rational American. You would ask the military what the options were and what they recommended, perhaps. But you would not want to waste time, you’d give an order fairly quickly unless there was some big concern; seeing as how the military knows what they’re doing, a civilian leader will usually just defer to their advice. Do I know more than special ops professionals that have been in the business for 20 years and are the best of the best ?
We have not heard that the military commanders offered recommendations which the President chose to not pursue.
Instead, we hear the situation room and Cabinet members watching and presumably thinking. About what ? What would THEY be CONSIDERING ?
And, of course, anyway it’s not up to them.
The request goes to the situation room and directly to POTUS.
So were the Cabinet members and high-level advisers and military talking to POTUS ? What were they talking about ?
The would have to know that they were looking more guilty of dereliction of duty by the minute as POTUS hesitated to authorize rescue of POTUS’s personal representative, a U.S. Ambassador.
What is normally done is a special ops team is sent in and they find out whether the Ambassador is alive or dead and they retrieve him either way. Watching it on video and having discussions does not save anyone and it wastes vital time.
What was the reason for hesitation and consideration and conversation ? Why would POTUS not immediately say ok, git’er done, where do I sign, let’s do this thing. Tell me what you need. Give me status updates as to how it’s going.
POTUS had a reason to stand down his forces. He certainly did not flip a coin - such decisions are made for reasons.
His forces would have tried to effect a rescue. They might fail, but they just might succeed. POTUS did not know for sure that his Ambassador was dead or alive. Not having the rescue gives Ambassador zero chance for survival. Having the rescue gives Ambassador some chance for survival.
POTUS, ergo, did not want the rescue to happen, otherwise he would have chosen “some chance for survival” instead of “no chance for survival” for the Ambassador.
Why ? Why would POTUS not want the rescue of the Ambassador to happen ?
A dead Ambassador would not benefit POTUS at all.
A rescued Ambassador would make POTUS look like a hero. If POTUS was PURELY political, this would have caused POTUS to choose to do the rescue. Doing it and failing would be better politically than doing nothing. Doing it and succeeding would be VERY politically rewarding.
There is a third option.
Ambassador is alive, but not rescued in time, and is taken hostage.
I have been saying this for a couple of weeks now. Even before the Col. Hunt interview came out. I didn't serve and I don't know squat about the military or gov protocol. It just seemed self-evident to me. What could be a bigger emergency than this? The national security implications are obvious. The foreign relations implications are obvious.
This is so much more than turning our backs on 41 people who work for us in a high risk environment. As if that's not bad enough. This sends a message to the world that the U.S. is weak and cowardly and duplicitous beyond measure. Not only does this make our enemies believe we are weak it tells all nations that we can't be trusted. If the POTUS would do this to his own ambassadors what deceit and treachery would be beyond him?
Apparently he went to the Oval Office briefly, but not down to the Situation Room, where the war planning screens, full staffs and commo tools are all located for dealing with a major crisis.)
Who, with all of that available to them, could possibly not go to see and hear all that they could. Just out of simple curiosity. Even if you had no authority to do anything but observe how could anyone tear themselves away from that? But a president could find that uninteresting? He's a sociopath.
If the President truly has to be on top of all this stuff minute by minute as it unfolds, if he can’t tell them in advance that they have his okay to do thus-and-such, well we do have a problem here, Houston.
The only thing I’d wonder is, the President is not a robot, even he has to eventually hit the hay (although if I’d been in this spot, I’d have called off Los Vegas and the View and been on top of it as long as I could endure). So unless he and the Veep do shifts, how do things proceed once the President must crash? Doesn’t the President have the right to okay certain things in advance?
bumpin just because.
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.