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.
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.