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.
He voted 'Present' and went to bed.
This doesn't make sense. The CIA congingent from Tripoli was ordered to stand down. They launched that rescue mission against orders.
Another thing to consider. obama has said repeatedly he would not put “boots on the ground” in Libya. He, and his evil friends and followers, were thinking about “military” casualties and how it would be used against him by the republicans. At the very least he sacrificed Americans to get elected. He, all of his administration and many in the left wing media should be tried for treason.
How about he lied to American people for two weeks and had an American jailed - scapegoated - supposedly for the amateur video that - supposedly, again - agitated the whole Muslim world to rioting.
The guy arrested is still in jail - and is, reportedly, scheduled to be released three days after the election. Again, supposedly he was arrested for parole violation.
I didn't know parole violations involved arrest in the middle of the night and warranted 3 months or so of immediate jail time.
Especially, when it is known that the video was not the reason things went south in Egypt, Libya and then - other countries in Middle East (once they were made aware by this administration of the videotape. In other words they became agitated after they were told about something they didn't even know about in the first place.
The worst part is that everyone, even the Democrats, knew the Iran Contra operation was a good idea. It was to free American hostages and get rid of the communists in our backyard in Nicaragua. THE DEMOCRATS USED IRAN CONTRA AS A POLITICAL WEAPON TO ATTACK THE REPUBLICANS. As an American, I demand 40 days of televised Senate hearings into this scandal! Why did Obama and Hillary mess around with the governments in Libya and Egypt? There were no hostages. They weren’t in our backyard like Nicaragua. Obama and Hillary are just a couple of Democrat Grifters out to enrich themselves and get money for Democrat campaigns. Can you imagine what the liberals in the press are going through right now? This is way worse than Watergate. This is way worse than Iran Contra. And it’s their team that’s done it. For the liberal media, this must be the equivalent of catching your wife cheating....with the dog. They must be in absolute shock. They are finally coming to the realization that they’ve been played for years by the thieves in the Democrat party. Welcome to the real world, boys and girls! Your Democrats are a bunch of Thieves, Thugs, Thralls and Thickheads.
While too kind to Obama (IMHO) this is a great article to share with undecided voters or your Facebook libtard friends.
They have to be eased into the reality of whats going on, you can’t hit them with cries of “Obama is a TRAITOR” right off because it will only turn them off and they’ll stop listening.
Last night on Justice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News she had military guests on there and I think I heard one of them say something about a “request” to send support would be presented to the president and then he would “sign” it to make it happen. Did he simple IGNORE the request? I believe this is the question that needs to be asked....Mr. President, were “you presented” with a request for support during the terrorist attack in Benghazi??? Mr. President, did you dither???
” 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.”
From a military perspective this paragraph is completely wrong. The failure to make a timely decision - even one that eventually proves to be in error - is more dangerous than the consequenses of that decision. War is about aggression and the more aggressive you can be the more “the Fog of War” becomes your ally. Sit there like a deer-in-the-headlights and you are nothing but a sitting target for even the dumbest or weakest opponent.
This is why the military often seeks to brief the president and involve e them in exercises. Gets them used to the most critical aspect of leadership - the willingness to make rapid decisions with only a few verifiable facts.
He didn’t want to leave any witnesses alive.
That is the reason.
Occam’s razor.
So if this is true, wouldn't it be wise to err on the side of caution and have the rescue ready to go? Or, better still, when the consulate was requesting additional security , give it to them. If it turns out it wasn't needed fine, but if it was needed it would be there. The next point, why the song and dance about the youtube video? Why the apology film given to the afghans? Why is some guy still sitting in jail for "insulting the prophet of islam"?
Sorry, too many questions remain not only unanswered but unasked by the media. We all know that if this had happened on Bush's watch in '08 it would have been a huge campaign issue.
More BS. If not, then why was the Ambassador still there? The British and the Canadians were smart enough to pull out there people when confronted with intelligence stating a threat.
The call was placed. No one answered.
He left them to die.
My thought exactly! This is BS.
I don't remember where I heard it, but not long after the attack I heard that there were 65 Marines on a US naval vessel just off the Libyan coast who could have been flown into Benghazi (sp?) by helicopters in time to save the men in our embassy. 65 US Marine fighting men vs a gang of poorly trained muzzies would have been similar to a turkey shoot with live turkeys.
Obama should be impeached for his actions, no, make that his INaction, during that span of time when those 4 far better men than him could very likely have been rescued. IMHO mere impeachment would be too little punishment for him in this situation, conviction and possibly even imprisonment would be more appropriate.
I know that would never ever happen, but I can dream can't I? Lord, how I despise that excuse for a man!
As a side question, does anyone know why Valerie Jarrett is entitled to secret service protection?
As a side question, does anyone know why Valerie Jarrett is entitled to secret service protection?
Exactly- what was Pakistans reaction to our Seals going in and getting Bin Ladin without notifying them first? Did we care? No- we just did it. However, there was major hand wringing over what the Lybian government would think, do, etc. Most Powerful military in the world, with state of the art technology yet Panetta says we couldn’t be sure what was going in. Really?
Recall what Clinton said of Obama on the decision to kill OBL
....Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden. Suppose they had been captured or killed, the downside would have been horrible for him.
Horrible for Obama, so close to an election!!!
Are you kidding me!!!
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.