Posted on 10/28/2012 8:11:58 AM PDT by StandAndDeliver1
As John and Scott point out, the CIA has issued a statement making it clear that “no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need [in Benghazi]; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” That statement surely was issued with the approval, and presumably at the direction, of the CIA’s director, General Petraeus.
Who, then, made the several decisions denying help to the Americans in Benghazi who needed it? Who, initially, told CIA to “stand down” in face of the attack? Who decided that American defense forces an hour or two away in Southern Europe would not be deployed?
Bill Kristol argues that, at least with respect to not sending in the military, the decision must have been made by President Obama. Given what was at stake – the safety of Americans, including an ambassador, in the face of an attack by hostile forces – Kristol surely is right. It is inconceivable that none of the key actors — Secretary of Defense Panetta, Secretary of State Clinton, and General Petraeus — failed to present to Obama the decision of how to respond. And if Obama failed to make a decision, that would be more damning than making the wrong one.
Kristol goes on to ask: “When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?”
The key question is “why.”
Leon Panetta has provided an answer. He says “the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.” At one level, this answer doesn’t work. He and the others involved did know the essence of what was going on, and they did have real time information.
At another level, Panetta’s statement provides a window into the thinking at the White House that day. Although the administration knew, in general, what was going on, there was much uncertainly in Benghazi. We didn’t know for sure what the outcome of the attack on our personnel would be; we didn’t know whether military forces, if deployed, would have succeeded in saving them; we didn’t know how many of our rescuers would have been killed; and we didn’t know (as far as I can tell) what Libya’s reaction to the use of large-scale use of American military force would be.
Faced with uncertainty, Obama apparently opted for caution, hoping that somehow the CIA contingent from Tripoli, aided perhaps by Libyan forces, would save the situation.
This is just the decision one would expect from Obama. By temperament, he is a non-interventionist and (except when pet domestic policies are in play) a non-risk taker. He was highly cognizant of the consequences of a failed U.S. military operation in Libya, including, I suspect, the electoral consequences in an election that he believed on September 11 he was winning fairly handily.
Let’s also remember that, although Obama decided to approve the raid that killed bin Laden, his team apparently considered this (and his campaign has promoted it as) a difficult decision. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden praise Obama’s alleged courage on this occasion, pointing to the adverse consequences to Obama of a failed mission against bin Laden.
If the decision to kill an unsuspecting and poorly defended bin Laden – America’s enemy number 1 for a decade – was difficult for the Obama administration to make, then the odds were always against a decision to fly our military blind into harm’s way in Benghazi in response to situation whose precise contours weren’t well known. Obama’s decision not to intervene was likely less about “the fog of war” than about fear of the fog of war.
In hindsight, Obama made the wrong decision. The extent to which he should be criticized for the decision is difficult to assess because we don’t know all of the information he had at the time the decision had to be made. Perhaps the decision was a reasonable one to make at that time. But let’s keep in mind that our inability to assess this is due mainly to the administration’s unwillingness to speak about the decision and the surrounding events.
Voters, then, must assess the administration’s handling of Benghazi with limited information. But we do know this: (1) the administration erred grievously by leaving open our mission in Benghazi while turning down requests for more security, (2) the administration made the wrong decision on the day of the attack by not bringing our military to bear, a decision consistent with Obama’s instincts, and (3) the administration has not been forthcoming or honest in its discussion of Benghazi after the fact.
These facts, without more, present a serious indictment of Obama.
Here’s what I think his motivation is (besides CYA).
While the bad guys in the WH are scrambling to deny their cover up and misdirection, I believe there is another long-standing related issue with this.
IMO Obama has as one of his main goals: improving the image of Islam around the world and helping its expansion.
Of course the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other fanatics keep getting in the way by killing ambassadors and shooting 14 year old girls.
Look at the apology tour, the support of the muslim brotherhood, moslems in the top of the state department advisors and the WH. Add his comments about the film for 14 days, even after he knew is was a terrorist attack..
The calling of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, workplace violence, is just another outlandish example.
Stevie Wonder can see the pattern. Any decent reporter could make this into a headline story if they had the balls.
Ditto.
I like your profile page, too. Fits in rather well now and then...
From what I've understood in the past and am reading now in Edward Klein's "The Amateur," I have little doubt. She has her fingerprints on this.
BTTT.
Who had the authority to direct AFRICOM second in command to relieve his senior?
Agree.
Just why is she getting such secret service detail?
Because she is pretty much co-president and makes major decisions?
Because Obama can't do without her? Can't make decisions without her?
Why does she get such protection?!
Agree.
Just why is she getting such secret service detail?
Because she is pretty much co-president and makes major decisions?
Because Obama can't do without her? Can't make decisions without her?
Why does she get such protection?!
BTTT.
Good article. The other thing to add is that sending in forces would conflict with Obama’s campaign message of “ending wars” and withdrawing troops from around the world. To “win” on this issue, he needed to avoid deploying troops to Libya on the ground AND he needed to make it sound like terrorists were weak enough that deploying troops would no longer be necessary around the world. Hence, that leads to the White House trying to spin later that this was a “spontaneous” riot which could not have been predicted and has no connection to organized terrorism.
Thanks to the mainstream media’s complicity with Obama’s message in that regard, they were certainly getting away with that strategy for at least a good, solid month.
It would be a rare occasion, outside of Pakistan, where someone other than the President would be able to order military force used in another country without a state of war.
While your plan sounds good, it is not practical.
Thank the good Lord for stupidity. I wish he’d gotten those guys out but it would have been sickening to see them spiking the ball all the way to Nov. 6. This is driving me nuts. I’m excited and depressed at the same time.
Maybethe hostage scenario went south when the two SEALs from the annex went to aid the consulate personnel. I don't think that was counted on either.
It seemed odd to me that the people who brought Stevens out of the consulate were yelling Allah Akbar and yelling that he was alive.
Maybe they were saying this because they hoped the kidnap scenario could still be enacted. Maybe they were still hoping to get the Blind Sheik back in the trade-off.
Just seemed odd that the people who were attacking with RPGs would be giving the Allah Akbar upon finding the ambassador alive - assuming the people bringing his body out were the same attacking the consulate.
It got too complicated and the whole scenario fell apart...
BTTT.
Absolutely ODD!
Rush said once that Obama took 4 hours once to play a round of golf. Rush said no one takes 4 hours to play a round of golf. He joked, IIRC, that maybe Obama was smoking cigarettes behind Michelle's back.
Maybe he was smoking something else - he is ODD on that video.
BTTT.
W-O-A-H!
Interesting post....BTTT.
Who is the Turkish official the ambassador met with the evening of 9/11?
The attack started some time after the Turkish official left the compound.
That's one clever way of getting people to do your dirty work. Wonder if Valerie Jarrett thought of it, or at least, sanctioned it. Obama is believed to not do anything without her approval.
TIA!
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.