Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why did Obama choose to “stand down” in Benghazi? (Best explanation of motive I've read.)
PowerLine ^ | October 27, 2012 | Paul Mirengoff

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.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: benghazi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151 next last
To: StandAndDeliver1
I said it on another thread: The difference between Soldiers and politicians is that soldiers run toward the gunfire.
51 posted on 10/28/2012 9:04:41 AM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1
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.

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.

52 posted on 10/28/2012 9:04:52 AM PDT by YankeeReb (The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” B.H. 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1
“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.”

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.

53 posted on 10/28/2012 9:05:58 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neveralib
“The authors is evenhanded, and goes step by step to the unavoidable conclusion that, at the least, we now have enough info to “present a serious indictment of Obama”.
BULLSHIT!!
The authors are giving him a pass or at least the “benefit” of the doubt, which based upon the info available, I am not willing to do so.”

My thought exactly! This is BS.

54 posted on 10/28/2012 9:06:31 AM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1
Who decided that American defense forces an hour or two away in Southern Europe would not be deployed?

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!

55 posted on 10/28/2012 9:07:25 AM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1
Why did Obama need this Ambassador dead? I think that is the question.
56 posted on 10/28/2012 9:07:25 AM PDT by IC Ken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
I believe that the action was vetoed based on political/election consequences, undoubtedly by Valerie Jarrett.

As a side question, does anyone know why Valerie Jarrett is entitled to secret service protection?

57 posted on 10/28/2012 9:07:47 AM PDT by YankeeReb (The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” B.H. 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
I believe that the action was vetoed based on political/election consequences, undoubtedly by Valerie Jarrett.

As a side question, does anyone know why Valerie Jarrett is entitled to secret service protection?

58 posted on 10/28/2012 9:08:31 AM PDT by YankeeReb (The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” B.H. 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yadent

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?


59 posted on 10/28/2012 9:09:31 AM PDT by Engedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1

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!!!


60 posted on 10/28/2012 9:10:25 AM PDT by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
If you look at the picture of the situation room when they went after Bin Laden you see by the boy blunder's body language sitting all hunched in the corner that
1. He didn't want to be there.
2. He looks pissed that they went after Bin Laden before he could stop the operation.(He personally vetoed the operation several times!)
3.The decision was already made and he was just a spectator.
Once it was a done deed and he thought it through he decided to ride the coattails and make it look like he was the decision maker,even though they did an end run around him.(might as well get some votes from it since it was a done deal.)
After going behind his back to kill Bin Laden (his thinking)he was going to make damn sure he wasn't ever put in a position to use force against muslim "freedom fighters" ever again.
This is why Americans died in Libya.Obama sees it as his duty to redress the wrongs done to the third world by the evil capitalist racist empire America and their European allies.He especially wants to help uplift the islamic culture to replace the illegitimate White Christian culture that colonized it in the previous centuries not just in the region but in America too.It looks like he wasn't always sleeping in the pew while good ole reverend Wright was spewing his hate the uskkk sermons on Sundays after all!
61 posted on 10/28/2012 9:10:58 AM PDT by bonehead4freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
“There were drones overhead, a live audio feed,...”

Indeed. History is littered with leaders who would have given their firstborn to have the intel capabilities of the modern American President, but who acted, in their time, nonetheless.

62 posted on 10/28/2012 9:12:11 AM PDT by TalBlack (Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1; Travis McGee; ASA Vet; BIGLOOK; Ernest_at_the_Beach; PhilDragoo; Jim Robinson; ...

The procedures our SpecOps, Navy, Air Force and Army have set up to rescue endangered Embassy personnel has been around for decades.

Our military was ready and waiting for their authorization from our Faux POTUS, which never came.

One of our own and a Seal Officer, Travis Mcgee, explains the protocols that have been established for decades.

Obozo refused to pull the pin and authorize the rescue. He went to bed to prepare for a hard trip to Vegas.

Then he and his evil minions lied and good Americans died.

Below is Travis’s explanation of how this stuff works unless the POTUS doesn’t authorize the final actions.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2951160/posts?page=5#5

Now I was only a LT for 5 years active duty in NavSpecWar, but it was imprinted deeply upon my brain that ONLY the PUTUS can give cross-border permission. Probably a million living ex-military officers know this like they know 2+2=4. This Benghazi fiasco is Obama’s baby 100% and there is no way for him to wiggle out.

The system is designed to ENSURE that when a crisis is happening, (and a missing ambassador with a consulate under attack is “Crisis Level Infinity”), and military assets are already charging in to the rescue, the president must be in the loop to grant the the cross-border authorization. Nobdy else can do this. This one formality must be followed, “just put your intitials here, Mr. President, for history,” so to speak. Boiler plate, but it must be done.

(Can you imagine Reagan or either Bush saying “No. Cross border permission not granted. Stop the rescue. Stand down.”)

The POTUS has to tell the Sec. State and JCS, “Yes, do it, execute the rescue, cross the borders.” Then it WILL happen, without delay, since the military is already on the way, flying in from all directions toward Benghazi.

But if POTUS says at 5pm DC time, “No military action, no cross border,” and then he becomes “unavailable,” then his last standing order stands until he changes it. So if he went to bed, for example, nobody could change his standing orders.

I imagine that a lot of extreme military, CIA and State Dept. craziness was going down while Obama was sleeping. Aircraft must be told proceed, or return to base, or they fall from the sky. I imagine many HEATED arguments around the globe on phone, text and email, subject, “Well wake the damn president up!” Followed by, “I can’t! You MUST stand down the mission!”

Just imagine dozens of inbound planes, jets and helos. Ships moving at full speed into position to be “lilypads” for long-range over-water helo refueling. Airborne refueling tankers all head to the area. It’s a complicated ballet. The Pentagon is wide awake, the military is on full alert. The rescue is in process, from the first minutes after the alarm.
Everybody in all the planes and involved HQs knows how many minutes/miles to the Libyan border, Benghazi, and their “bingo fuel” moment, when they must turn around or run dry and crash. Ships can “loiter,” but planes fall from the sky.

So you can imagine why General Ham of Africom was relieved for refusing to stand down. He probably KNEW Obama was “unavailable,” and was screaming over the phone, “Well, wake him up, dammit!!”

Planes and jets and helicopters and ships and commando teams are zooming all around the central Med, keying in on Benghazi——

And in that environment, OBAMA WAS ASLEEP AND UNREACHABLE!!!!! Resting up for Las Vegas! With a MISSING AMBASSADOR, in Al-Queadatown!

Anybody not furious is a vegetable.


My comments: Anyone not furious is an A$$hole and doesn’t belong on this site.


63 posted on 10/28/2012 9:13:22 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (We are the 53%, who pay taxes and keep this country going inspite of the 47% rat moochers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCmarcher-976453
It was Valerie Jarrett, she would only pull the trigger on a repub.

And I know there is a vast number of repubs that would gladly return the favor.

64 posted on 10/28/2012 9:15:35 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Ecclesiastes 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hummingbird

I am surprised that so many so called Liberal lawyers are stepping up to defend the ‘scapegoat” being held until after the electin. “Sarcasm”.....


65 posted on 10/28/2012 9:17:19 AM PDT by Engedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

The media threw everything they had into getting Obama elected and destroying the Republican party. They destroyed a good black man, Alan Keyes, to bring this black, Democrat grifter into a position where he could really steal some money. Ooohhhhh the headaches this morning from the hangovers the liberal media has from trying to drink away the realization that they’ve been played like cheap harmonicas by the Democrats. Their heroes Obama and Hillary are incompetent grifters. Their heroes are so incompetent that Americans are getting killed. Their heroes are cowards. Oh God, the Republicans were right! What a day!


66 posted on 10/28/2012 9:20:02 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Engedi

I cant prove it but when President Berkeley starts acting all Patton-like with the decision to get bin Laden., I smell a rat. The fix was in and the Pakistanis pulled back the security detail.


67 posted on 10/28/2012 9:20:21 AM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Frapster

I think I’ll go watch ‘Black Hawk Down’.

And let’s not forger 55 DAYS AT PEKING. Different outcome.


68 posted on 10/28/2012 9:21:00 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo; All

To what extent were decisions influenced by the “Blackhawk Down” disaster which was like the worst possible tar baby scenario. If you haven’t seen the movie watch it to see just how badly a situation can deteriorate with inadequate information. Incidentally, I have a son in Afghanistan and think about this stuff a lot.


69 posted on 10/28/2012 9:22:38 AM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1

The TRUTH will come out!

Obama pounded the table and declared:

“We will NOT inject American forces into another mid-East country and create the impression we’re involved in a civil war!”

From there, the team set about blaming a video trailer.


70 posted on 10/28/2012 9:30:53 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver; ALOHA RONNIE
Lt. Colonel Hal Moore: I wonder what was going through Custer's mind when he realized that he'd led his men into a slaughter?

Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: Sir, Custer was a pussy. You ain't.

From the Movie “We were Soldiers Once and Young”

71 posted on 10/28/2012 9:36:30 AM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

I would like to have the janitor contract for CNN and ABC and NBC and CBS and the New York Times and the LA Times because their heads must be exploding as they come to the realization that this is way worse than Watergate and way worse than Iran Contra and it’s their team that’s done it! Oh, wait until the money side of this comes out and we find Obama’s and Hillary’s and the Democrat party’s sticky little fingers all over the cash that’s behind this! We didn’t have any clue that the Democrats were like this, well, except for Nobel Prize winner Al Gore wandering around that Buddhist monastery with all that Chinese cash. Oh media! You are sooooo guilty!


72 posted on 10/28/2012 9:37:00 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler
....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.

Naw, being the gutless coward he is, he would have just blamed it on everyone else involved and the media would have dutifully backed him up.

Zero only takes credit for successes, failures are blamed on GWB.

73 posted on 10/28/2012 9:38:38 AM PDT by Zman516 (FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
The call was placed. No one answered. He left them to die.

Exactly right, the man, and I only use that term to differentiate him from the opposite gender, is despicable.

Words fail me to describe the utter revulsion and lack of respect I have for this sorry excuse for a Commander in Chief of US armed forces. No other president in US history would have failed those 4 brave American heroes the way this self-serving CinC did.

And no, his skin color doesn't matter to me at all, I'm a southernor by birth but I got over that un-Christian nonsense many decades ago. It's his actions and in-actions as US Chief Executive and CinC of our armed services that matter to me, and should matter to every American voter on Nov 6.

74 posted on 10/28/2012 9:39:04 AM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1

Mr. Panetta should be edified or reminded that many times you have to put boots on the ground to develop the intelligence picture.

It’s called “reconnaissance” and all infantry and spec ops types are trained extensively in it.

Again, this is inexcusable from the POTUS.

Well, we know the movie will be a tearjerker.


75 posted on 10/28/2012 9:40:26 AM PDT by Molon Labbie (Prep. Now. Live Healthy, take your Shooting Iron daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1
"We didn’t know for sure what the outcome of the attack on our personnel would be;"

I can give you a fairly accurate guess about the outcome when the security of the compound are armed only with flashlights and billy clubs while the aggressors were armed well and willing to use it.

76 posted on 10/28/2012 9:40:54 AM PDT by ScottinSacto (Liberals support abortion on demand and gay marriage....sounds like a great strategic plan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1
Faced with uncertainty, Obama apparently opted for caution

Maybe Valerie Jarrett told him not to send help.

77 posted on 10/28/2012 9:42:49 AM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
"It would be much better to give rules of engagement to the local commander (in Italy, it looks like) and let him make the call."

If you were Admiral Ham, aboard the Stennis I believe, you are removed and replaced, pending investigation. He thought, in opposition to C in C, that assistance of personnel in Benghazi, was warranted.

Looks like his career may be over.

78 posted on 10/28/2012 9:44:17 AM PDT by hummingbird (Obama campaigns right in our faces. Doesn't bother him at all-it bothers me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1

My explanation is better: ZerO didn’t want Arab blood on his hands; preferred to let our guys die. He’s on Brotherhood’s side. Wake up America!


79 posted on 10/28/2012 9:45:06 AM PDT by Factfinder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1

http://www.freerepublic.com/~standanddeliver/

http://www.freerepublic.com/~standanddeliver1/

Friend of yours?


80 posted on 10/28/2012 9:45:29 AM PDT by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie

SEAL’s were sent to kill Osama...(former) SEAL’s were on the ground giving intel in Benghazi. These SEAL’s were elite, “trained” military working for the CIA, how can they expect us to believe they didn’t have “on the ground” intel?!


81 posted on 10/28/2012 9:57:11 AM PDT by Ms Mable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1

We should note here that Obama, via intermediaries, delayed the decision to go get Bin Laden twice. Likely delayed until what was at risk was a scandal if he didn’t act and the risk opportunity might be squandered. But, the longer the delay the closer to election.


82 posted on 10/28/2012 9:58:34 AM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neveralib
You are right! Bill Kristol is SO even handed, he is toothless.

Majorly--he failed to mention Obama would do ANYTHING to keep from offending Muslims in general and the Muslim Bro'hood in particular.

I really think Kristol, along with many RINOS just doesn't get the whole picture in real time.

vaudine

83 posted on 10/28/2012 9:58:44 AM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1

the key actors — Secretary of Defense Panetta, Secretary of State Clinton, and General Petraeus.

The author misses the most important key actor... Valerie Jarrett. I think her role in this has been totally hidden from public view.


84 posted on 10/28/2012 10:01:55 AM PDT by UglyinLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; baddog 219
"That’s a powerful image and message."

Very powerful. Very insightful. Very agonizing to see.

Obama and administration should get copies of it, shouldn't they?

I think I will send it to my representations, etc. Maybe they can show it to the right people - like the investigative committee.

85 posted on 10/28/2012 10:04:08 AM PDT by hummingbird (Obama campaigns right in our faces. Doesn't bother him at all-it bothers me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

That would be General Carter Ham of Africom who was relieved of his duties 30 seconds after ignoring his order to stand down on the afternoon of 9/11. Good story today in American Thinker showing the chain of command.


86 posted on 10/28/2012 10:04:49 AM PDT by sanjuanbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Tony Schaffer says his sources tell him Obama *was* in the situation room during the whole debacle. I’ll trust him over anything in any adminstration since Reagan.

Nowhere to run, folks. Nowhere.

Stevens was meant to die. Why, we can only guess. There are basically two possibilities.


87 posted on 10/28/2012 10:07:04 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph

Great Netflix movie we saw the other night “Act of Valor”-
Instant watch, released 2012. One of the finest military movies I’ve ever seen.


88 posted on 10/28/2012 10:09:07 AM PDT by sanjuanbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

Very thoughtful post. Thanks.

BTTT.


89 posted on 10/28/2012 10:10:03 AM PDT by hummingbird (Obama campaigns right in our faces. Doesn't bother him at all-it bothers me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: UglyinLA

“The author misses the most important key actor... Valerie Jarrett. I think her role in this has been totally hidden from public view.”
************************

BINGO! IMO, She is the ENGINE powering the train!


90 posted on 10/28/2012 10:11:53 AM PDT by Ms Mable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade
Stevens was meant to die. Why, we can only guess. There are basically two possibilities.

There's also the theory that he was meant to be taken hostage, so that Obama could look presidential negotiating a deal to get them released, but it all went sideways when the contingent from Tripoli launched that rescue attempt against orders.

91 posted on 10/28/2012 10:12:43 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: StandAndDeliver1

The best theory that I saw was developed from material that I saw on the Canada Free Press website. Keep in mind as you read this that I have seen no direct supporting evidence for this theory, but I do believe that it makes sense.

After Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress for Fast and Furious on June 28, 2012 it became clear to the White House that the Mexican gun-running scandal was not going away. The White House had been supplying massive amounts of weaponry to al-Qaeda from Qaddafi’s stores of weapons, and sent Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi to negotiate for the return of some of it and supervise the shipment of more of it to al-Qaeda in Syria, in collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned government in Turkey.

Because Amb. Stevens knew so much about the program, Obama and his most inner circle decided that he had to be eliminated. Therefore, they first had an informer (originally called Sam Bacile) post the Muhammad video in early July), and then used this video as a diversion to conceal their plan to assassinate the ambassador.

On September 11, the President and the CIA sent Ambassador Stevens back to the mission (not a “consulate”) in Benghzai, with no protection, assuming (or knowing) that he would be attacked and murdered, and his secrets would die with him.

Then, Obama, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney blamed the video, which first was attributed to 100 Jews led by an Israeli-American and ultimately was attributed to a Coptic Egyptian-American.

Ultimately, too many people were involved in the events of September 11, 2012 for the betrayal of Ambassador Stevens to stay hidden, as Obama intended. First, the two Navy Seals defied orders and went to protect the Ambassador. In addition, the senior Navy person sought permission to intervene. In addition, the attack was being broadcast in many locations (I saw that it could have been as many as 15), and many people were outraged that nothing more was done.

In short, the President of the United States collaborated in the scripted assassination of the US Ambassador to Libya as a way to eliminate the one witness who knew the most about Obama’s secret program to send armaments to al-Qaeda from Libya. He hoped to divert attention to the set-up of the Muhammad film, and that failed because too many people who really care were outraged.


92 posted on 10/28/2012 10:14:22 AM PDT by Piranha (If you seek perfection you will end up with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb
As a side question, does anyone know why Valerie Jarrett is entitled to secret service protection?

She is the president's brain.

93 posted on 10/28/2012 10:14:52 AM PDT by oldbrowser (An empty chair attracts a stadium full of empty chairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

Good points.


94 posted on 10/28/2012 10:18:56 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No. AQ doesn’t play sofball when they’re on a roll.

They prefer to select and take their own hostages in quick grab and runs, then play the media game. Play along with an enemy they won’t do, because if you try playing their game you’re weak and they’ll show their contempt.

This was a heavy, sustained assault with a significant force, and they obviously had detailed pre-worked information on the target.


95 posted on 10/28/2012 10:31:38 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Ms Mable
"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

Hmmmmmmmmm.........

96 posted on 10/28/2012 10:36:45 AM PDT by hummingbird (Obama campaigns right in our faces. Doesn't bother him at all-it bothers me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: baddog 219

Great post!


97 posted on 10/28/2012 10:36:55 AM PDT by Churchillspirit (9/11/2001. NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb
"Why the apology film given to the afghans?"

This is pretty damning. Especially when we know that they had real time video and we know they knew what was going on...in spite of what Panetta and the others say, THEY DID HAVE INTEL!

And it is obvious - THEY ARE, FULL ON, IN COVERUP MODE.

98 posted on 10/28/2012 10:42:56 AM PDT by hummingbird (Obama campaigns right in our faces. Doesn't bother him at all-it bothers me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Considering that Obama does drugs—I mean, really, he was seriously mis-medicated in the first debate and if you can’t wrap your mind around that, watch him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNu9xjUwPEk —and if true that he had to be retrieved from the golf course which is a perfect cover for getting high (or whatever), he was probably under the influence of ....... something ...... at the time this fiasco was happening and he either made the wrong decision or was not capable of making any decision at all.


99 posted on 10/28/2012 10:47:22 AM PDT by Auntie Mame (Fear not tomorrow. God is already there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: neveralib

Exactly.

I think Powerline is bullshiite... I pretty much ignore them anyway...


100 posted on 10/28/2012 10:50:32 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson