Posted on 06/28/2016 9:18:57 AM PDT by NonValueAdded
This reads like a Clancy novel gone horribly wrong
Jack Ryan made the wrong move, Clark gets killed. Read the Gowdy letter and then read Sum of All Fears. Øbama is Fowler, Clinton is Liz Elliot, Panetta is Ryan. Clark, Chavez, Oso, and the rest can be assigned to several roles. There was no Bart Mancuso, no James Greer.
The two principals, Barry and Hillary, make themselves absent rather than face the possibility of making a wrong decision. In their minds, that relieves them of responsibility. BUT IS WAS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY! Their decision to go hands-off WAS the wrong decision. They are culpable without question. Dereliction of Duty. I accuse.
I will make the bold assumption that Leon Panetta is an honorable man. Therefore, he must regret what happened until his dying day. His fatal mistake was to leave the White House and go to the Pentagon. Was that a reasonable thing to do? Yes, except for one thing. By doing so, he removed the only adult from the center of power. He had the chance to be Jack Ryan but he left the field to the entirely incompetent White House staff. The collection of kids and political operatives prevailed and focused on damage control for their principals. Clark and friends were hung out to dry. They never stood a chance.
That said about Panetta, he too failed in his duty. Having gone to the Pentagon, he could have acted independently and still saved the day. I have yet to read what happened there but how could there be such a long time gap between his order and action finally happening with him in place at the Pentagon? Sure, political interference from the White House is the likely answer but he could have countermanded it and made things happen. He ducked his Ryan moment. Miserable failure.
I chose Sum of All Fears as the closest match because of the incompetence at the top and Ryan taking control of the situation when all was falling apart around him.
Panetta and the Joint Chiefs were at the WH at the time IIRC?
Where’s a JAL 747 when you need one?
5 PM meeting. Yes, everything was in place. Øbama could have said “Situation room, NOW!” and the full might of the United States unleashed. Instead, they ran for their safe places and slept the sleep of the righteous (spit).
Fiction writers usually underestimate the amount of spine that any politician has...
There is no such thing as a senate or house hearing in real life where the status quo of crony power is rocked, ever...
Benghazi is going nowhere, because it CAN’T go anywhere.
First, nobody cares about it. In a society like this one, that’s important.
But secondly, and most importantly, a decision to commit ground forces to urban combat in a third world sh*thole like Benghazi is ENTIRELY discretionary, and rests ENTIRELY within the powers and responsibilities of the Commander-in-Chief.
It’s not “treason” and it’s not “dereliction of duty”, because Obama had no duty in the first place - not constitutional, not statutory, not nothing.
Now, I grant you that his responses were chickensh*t and Muslim-loving, and his lies about it were entirely in keeping with his incompetence and his low character.
But we had a plebiscite on his cowardly, Muslim-loving, incompetent low character ass less than two months later, and he won. He won quite handily, despite what has been obvious about him since 2009.
So, it’s over. Gowdy didn’t discover anything because there was nothing to discover. If the American people, acting through their representatives in Congress assembled, cared about this in the least, “Obama” wo;uld have been impeached and convicted for high crimes and misdemeanors a long time ago. But the American people care about this not at all.
It’s awful, it’s embarrassing. It’s even shameful.
But it’s over, and it has been over for years.
I think you mean overestimate but I agree.
Yes I meant overestimate....
In real life politicians once they learn of the truth, are sadly anemic in their response...
Not sure I entirely agree. Our embassy was under attack and the ambassador was in danger of being killed or captured. That alone should have been enough to commit troops. There was a clear objective and in our national interest to do so.
I tend to agree...but no consequences for deliberately lying about the ‘video’? They completely fabricated a falsehood and reported it to the people, congress, the media, etc. Its just wrong.
I agree with much of what you said, but this was an attack on American territory, wasn’t it?
That was a real question, by the way. I assume we still regard the consulate in a foreign country as American soil, but that might be “outdated” thinking.
"Clear objective" yes. "National interest" depends on how you think the scenario would have played out.
But in either case, a thing being in someone's idea of the "national interest" does not create a duty for the man in charge to do, or not to do, something.
I am happy to concede that "Obama" is a terrible decision maker, that he has hangups about use of force that make him unsuited to his office - which is why I voted against him, twice.
But I don't believe that you can turn anything that happened that night into a crime, with the possible exception of the false arrest of Nakoula the "filmmaker".
If a Federal official, up to and including "Obama", ordered Nakoula to be arrested on false charges, THAT'S a crime.
I do tend to regard this incident more like the Iranians seizing the Embassy in Tehran than the embassy being bombed by a car bomb or shot up by a bunch of guys in a truck.
This was a sustained attack over time where action could have made a difference.
Perhaps.
I don't think territoriality applies to the person of an ambassador (but I could be wrong).
The "consulate" was not a consulate, but a rented home being used for unknown purposes by unknown individuals. It was referred to by the State Department as "U.S. Special Mission Benghazi". It was drafted as a meeting place for Amb. Stevens to meet a Turkish official, again for unknown purposes.
There was a plan for HRC to travel to Benghazi after the election to OPEN a consulate, but of course that never happened.
So, whether the "U.S. Special Mission Benghazi" was U.S. territory or not is above my pay grade. But my point stands, a decision to send unbriefed US forces into unplanned urban combat is discretionary, not mandatory, and it's impossible to turn the decision not to do so into a crime.
Right, no doubt.
But scenarios where "action could have made a difference" do not create duties to act in and of themselves.
Which has always been a major hiccup in the political arena regarding Benghazi. Think about the Bin Laden raid/ assassination, Obama and crew in the situation room, theoretically fighting right beside the seals, incredible political drama, right?
So fifty some days before a presidential election, Obama COULD have had a BINLADEN re-run, the OSCAR and won the election without another campaign rally. Imagine, Obama sitting in the situation room, giving GO orders for the rescue of an Ambassador in Benghazi. Helicopters, fighter jets, bringing hell to Libya, Seals, and Deltas all over the roofs, in a rescue attempt, orchestrated by none other than, BHO. It would have been the greatest campaign ad of all time, even if the rescue failed. Instead, Obama and Clinton are no where around, actually starting BEFORE the attack.
The video lies were risky and desperate, whuch tells me there was something far more important, planned and sinister happening in Benghazi than political concerns about a re-election. Something big went down and then went horribly wrong.
I agree.
Correct.
It's over.
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.