http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2950034/posts
The Real Reason Behind Benghazigate?
Townhall.com ^ | 10/25/2012 | Frank Gaffney
Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:42:58 AM by RoosterRedux
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have now taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, the leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Once Qaddafi was overthrown, Chris Stevens was appointed as the ambassador to the new Libya run by Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amounts of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Amb. Stevens was there - on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now-copiously-documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates - for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
(Excerpt) Read more at
http://townhall.com/columnists/frankgaffney/2012/10/25/the_real_reason_behind_benghazigate
****************************************************
Gunrunning. Now where have we seen that before?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2950443/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: ‘Could not put forces at risk’
CNN ^ | October 26, 2012 | Chris Lawrence
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 7:20:01 AM by maggief
The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday.
At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no “real-time information” to be able to act on, even though the U.S. military was prepared to do so.
“You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on,” Panetta said. “(We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
A defense official provided more context on Panetta’s comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops to the consulate being attacked in Benghazi.
He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.
He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as “looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground.”
He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.
“We didn’t have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they’re in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).
(Excerpt) Read more at
(CNN) Panetta on Benghazi attack: ‘Could not put forces at risk’
CNN ^ | October 26, 2012 | Chris Lawrence
Posted on Friday, October 26, 2012 7:20:01 AM by maggief
The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday.
At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no “real-time information” to be able to act on, even though the U.S. military was prepared to do so.
“You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on,” Panetta said. “(We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
A defense official provided more context on Panetta’s comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops to the consulate being attacked in Benghazi.
He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.
He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as “looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground.”
He said it was not enough to discern exactly what was happening.
“We didn’t have good eyes on the situation. There were security forces there on the ground, but they’re in the middle of a firefight - not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).
(Excerpt) Read more at
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/26/panetta-on-benghazi-attack-could-not-put-forces-at-risk/
***************************************************