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.
That doesn't mean O isn't dumb enough to agree to cripple the security in exchange for a (worthless) promise they'll negotiate with him later for the hostage release.
I don’t think the fog of war had anything to do with their decision to abandon our people. For some reason they never had any intention of sending help to Benghazi. How long was the attack going on when Ty Woods was told to stand down the first time? I doubt they ever considered sending troops to rescue our people.
If that is true then how long did it take him to get to the situation room after the call?
It is widely available on the web that at 5:00 pm, ∅rroids, Biden and Panetta were meeting in the ∅val ∅ffice.
Which I have been saying makes the most sense. BTW, I just learned that the attackers blocked off the streets surrounding the ambassador’s location more than 30 minutes prior to the attack. It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.
The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.
There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.
Really? I was thinking about buying it but I wasn’t sure if the acting would be cheesy. I guess I’ll check it out. Thanks!
Because of gunrunning (another Fast and Furious?) to Syria and Obama thought he needed no witnesses to be placed under investigation and he thought an investigation was around the corner?
Or, maybe it was a kidnapping that went wrong. That the Ambassador wasn't expected to be killed - he was expected to be kidnapped and traded for the Blind Shiek.
Obama maybe thought he would ride into election as a great diplomat.
Really sorry POS.
Well, O isn’t dumb. He’s playing the islamist hand, and he knows AQ. Since he *is* AQ. So he knew very well what the events were going to be.
He needed Stevens gone.
Now, there are reports that Stevens had converted to islam.
So, the need for Stevens to begone may have been twofold:
Stevens may have had personal knowledge of O’s “downlow” activity and deaths (and now feeling more loyalty to Allah), and Stevens may have had all that inside knowledge of O’s gunfrunning.
Either way, he was a liability.
But more importantly, he did NOT want the Ambassador’s gun-running operation to Syria via Turkey to be known to the American People so he chose to crucify ALL at CIA cesspool in Benghazi. But two Navy Seals crossed his intention!!!
You got that right!!!
And don’t forget Clint Eastwood’s statement: “This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American People”???
Good question.
Does Libya EVEN have a real government, so to speak? Was there any Libya government that would be offended.
? Doesn't Libyan government basically exist basically on paper?
US worries about Libya when US soil - consulate - is attacked and US personnel are in danger?
The "Arab Street" probably has no fear of the paper tiger - the US - now.
How emboldened are the terrorists now, Mr. President?
No, we are NOT BETTER now THAN 4 YEARS AGO - not by a long shot.
"2. He looks pissed that they went after Bin Laden before he could stop the operation.(He personally vetoed the operation several times!)"
Did Obama give the official - REAL TIME GO AHEAD AT ANY POINT - on kill or capture Osama?
You know..."folks".
Their "folks" fighting our "folks".
Yes, they are knocking each other down, aren't they? "Sarcasm"
BTTT.
People (like Admiral Ham now?) would be relieved of duty and careers would have been ruined.
Military careers, not high-minded journalistic careers.
Bill Kristol is a ruse and apologist for obama and he’s working his a$$ off to paint the messiah’s actions in as rosy a picture as he can manage. No, obama’s first sin was being asleep at the switchboard when Americans were under attack, BUT HIS BIGGEST, WORST, MOST EGREGIOUS SIN is the coverup and lies that came after. Imagine the incitement to riots and mayhem that those obama lies caused our people and our consulates and American businesses around the world!! The audacity of this decrepit miserable twit to reek havoc has no bounds or red lines. He is an utter plague on homeland. Kristol has no excuses for that.
Panetta, who is a radical, is probably the one who recommended the murders in Libya not be stopped.
They sent General Dempsey out to play a role in the cover-up drama for the press. He called Rev. Jones to order him to denounce the you tube video.
These people are such sick puppies. :(
Justice with Judge Jeanine 10/27/12 - CIA talks about latest news about Benghazi coverup
Judge Jeanine speaking with Charles Woods, father of Benghazi slain SEAL Ty Woods
The president and his comrades never envisioned the truth would get out. Thank heavens for OFX news reporters and the internet sites that have scoured every source for news. With them working together, we’ll find out the truth soon enough. Panetta’s claim that you don’t send troops into harms’ way is ludicrous! IS war not harms’ way? Besides, we are supposed to believe that our forces could not have dealt with armed insurgents on the ground? Is that supposedly the current state of our armed forces? I doubt it. They plan and train for this all the time. It IS their mission. It begs a couple questions: #1. Was Stevens set up, or purposely left to die, and why, if so? #2. Were American ammunitions/weaponry in use and Obama knew it? Wanted to let the scavengers get all the stuff picked up before they were found and cited in the investigation?
We have pretty reliable sources that Ambassador Stevens had MUCH more than a diplomatic reason to be there. He’s been related to tracking WMDs and selling weapons to the anti-government types during the so-called Arab Spring. I hope the TRUTH gets out and there is no wiggling out of blame when it hits. Please, LORD! Let this happen ASAP!
These facts, PLUS more...such as the attempt at a cover up by blaming it on a YouTube video.
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.