If we are to believe Panetta, they are now saying that, in real time, they were too concerned about the situation on the ground to allow putting troops into harms way. This is a position that can be defended by itself (although it shows too much cowardice in my opinion but at least it is defensible). The problem is this: this now cannot in any way, shape, or form square with the fact that three days later (accepting the administration's timeline) they decide to blame this on a video. That decision was not a "fog of war" decision. It does not fall into the "Monday morning quarterbacking" arena as Panetta invoked. The decision to blame this on a video and spontaneous demonstrations, in a very coordinated and persistent (over two weeks) manner, to go on multiple talk shows, late night shows, and to the UN, and to produce an ad for Arab TV blame it on a video, now puts the WH is an untenable position. This is not incompetence. This is deceit. There is no way to spin this, if Panetta is to be believed that they were concerned about engaging what was going on at the consulate.
What ever happened to an event like this provoking an evening, televised speech made by the President of the United States of America? There has been plenty of time for the White House or the State Department to come up with an official version of what happened....complete with charts. There is even room for the president to say, “I made this decision because....”.
So does this mean Panetta is admitting that he gave the order to stand down? I’m so confused.
Risk aversion has been the singular characteristic of military policy since at least Mogadishu and arguably since our withdrawal from Vietnam. But, the risk has not been defined in military terms at all. This risk has been wholly political and largely short term political risk. The Democrats have been the leader of the pack in this regard, but the Republicans have not been immune to this disease.
Panetta has given us the reason for Obama’s decisions that directly led to this disaster: risk to the reelection of Barack Obama, President of the United States. They care about nothing else and are willing to sacrifice lives, world standing, and the future of the country for political victory.
Remember, Obama has taken great pride in saying that Libya was liberated without American blood being shed. Obama did not want potential voters to wake up to our uniformed military being KIA.
So, DOD assets were told to stand down as CIA subcontractors, whose presence could be concealed, were tasked with extracting diplomatic assets from the Mission. Also, those operators were familiar with the battlefield and were leveraged with local friendly militia.
As the battlefield was so unshaped and on/off and populated by hostiles of unknown strength and unknown weapons, this was a reasonable tactical choice anyway.
Other rapid response units that could have gotten there would have been too little and too late.
General Ham and Africom, were frustrated that in this theater of their responsibility, they were not in position to act effectively.
The Ambassador’s loss was collateral.
The goals of the hostiles were to:
1. Exploit document and computer file intel regarding oil contracts and weapons movements.
2. Acquire the weapons that the Brits stored at our Mission after they shut down their Mission.
3. Revenge the death of Yahya al-Libi the AQ 2nd in command.
4. Take our Ambassador hostage to pressure the release of the “Blind Sheik”. The hostiles tried very hard to find Stevens but could not. He would have been far more valuable alive to the hostiles.
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.
If the New York Times believed this rubbish they would not have needed to bury it on page A7:
“A version of this article appeared in print on October 26, 2012, on page A7 of the New York edition with the headline: Panetta Says Risk Impeded Deployment To Benghazi.”
A7 tells you the NYT is scared of this story. They might as well have titled it:
“Serious Journalists Say Benghazi is Not an Issue.”
It wasn't too risky for armed drones or C-130 gunships. The only real risk was collateral damage to innocent Libya citizens and the impact it would have on bilateral relations.
For most of us, the security of Americans under Obama's command outweighed any other perceived risks. There were 30 American lives at stake. Panetta is full of crap and he couldn't make the final decision anyway.
So it was even too risky for Woods, who was only a mile away, to help them?
I found this great article which details how the consulate staff came under attack, how they were fighting for their lives, and details when Woods and his team showed up to help evacuate the consulate.
All of the information provided jives with the details now emerging from FOXNews.
He previously said they didn’t have real-time assessment to determine whether to go in or not. Now he’s saying the risk was too great. Which is it Leon??? You knew, or you didn’t know? Or you knew, and chose to ignore? My bets on the last option.
Oh yeah. It’s all about ‘risk assessment’.. something the voters never had the benefit of in 2008 when it comes to how the media vetted&covered OBama.
Leon, you been around awhile.. maybe that’s the problem.
Ever notice how ol’ lieberals really mess things up on a regular basis? genetic? hmmmm..
sad, good people died becuz others didn’t think they were ‘worth the risk’. telling.. very telling.
Kinda hard to convince me that they don’t know what is happening on the ground when they have a live video feed from a predator, also live video from the embassy cameras, and the spot it being circled by an AC130 Spector giving them live black and white feed.
I mean, How much data do you have to have to understand the embassy is under attack!
How much risk would it have been to the Spectre to take out the Mortars that was lazer targeted for them?
ZERO
Just like the integrity of this President and his staff... zero.
They said they would move heaven and earth to kill bin Laden, but wouldn’t lift a finger to save our Ambassador and contractors.
Where was the risk aversion when:
You had an ambassador and communication professional (Smith) who were guarded by the ‘February 17th Martyrs Brigade’.
Were they trafficking heavy arms to Syria? Probably. We’re they doing something hinky? Definitely.
Was what they were doing likely the province of the CIA? Most definitely.
Had people, including Stevens, raised alarm bells about the lack of security? Yup!
Was the CIA looking in on outright incompetence, while literally within earshot of rifle fire? Yes!
this is the worst cover up, worse than watergate by an administration and by the media.
Never in my life and I thought I had seen a lot even with fast and furious but this beats them all, .
If it was a spontaneous demonstration in which people were dying, the military would not have been averse to helping out.
However, if they knew if was an act of war with RPG's, mortars, etc. and thus were worried about going in it shows they knew it was not just a "demonstration".
They're either lying or cowards.
We reported the event up the line.
They got back to us 6 days later with some orders ~ thank goodness there was no running battle going on ~ our machinegun was broken so all we had were 6 rounds each plus our pistols ~ if we had been issued a pistol.
What made me mad ~ and the only thing ~ was this young buck Lieutenant with us who didn't want to call in the event. His argument was it was just a road and it was in a foreign country, and they ran tanks and trucks up and down it all the time ~ our argument was that 500 motor vehicles in a couple of hours was NOT NORMAL so our orders were to report it.
Besides, like I just noted, we were low on ammunition.
George McGovern lost my vote of course ~ and that of all the other guys out there on that observation point, and probably most of the guys in USAREUR in the '68 election.
Wasn't supposed to be any war going on in Europe that year ~ they promised ~ and there it was ~ a hair's breadth away ~ our jets and their migs nose to nose along the border from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, and a thin tripwire of expendable guys down on the ground.
The Democrats were in charge that time too ~ blew it bad. They are not educable.
You’ll notice this article is from 10/25. About 5 min.
later, i suppose the NYT got the call ordering the
benghazi blackout. There hasn’t been anything since. This
will be a watershed moment for the meaning of a free press,
as established in our Bill of Rights. Ironically, this
has occurred at the same time in history as the emergence
of an alternative media and citizen journalism,via the
internet.
I have to believe its part of God’s plan for this country.
I can only imagine what Andrew Breitbart would be saying
about this right now.