I do have a few question though. Why did Ambassador Stevens allow himself to be caught in Benghanzi on 9/11? He, by his own words, knew it was Al Qaeda infested. It was his job not to make a splash, because that is undiplomatic, to create splashes. Yet, he and three fellow Americans are dead at Al Qaeda’s hands on 9/11. What was so damned important that he could not or was not allowed to say “NO”. I cannot think of anything, not a thing that was that important.
Three sentences moved me in your essay:
1. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.
2 and 3. President Obama owns cross-border authority, so he owns the failure to rescue the American heroes who were fighting for their lives in Benghazi for seven hours. More than a hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella just two hours away for the launch order that never came.
It is infuriating, heart breaking and tragic that President Barack Hussein Obama broke faith with our Military, CIA and State Department. It is beyond tragic that MSM is complicit with President Barack Hussein Obama and his bad faith.
Here is the ending of my article as I sent it to PJ Media.
The editors I suppose decided to keep it on point by eliminating these paragraphs. In the graph after the Petraues mention, they tacked in a short conclustion that I didn’t write. I’m not complaining, it was a good jobo of editing. But here are my thoughts on why Stevens was in Benghazi on 9-11. I’m reposting the Petraeus graph for continuity.
/ / / / / / / / / /
General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably “used” in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well — what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.
But in any event, Ambassador Stevens going to unsecure Benghazi on 9-11 of all days stinks to me of a setup. The ribbon cutting at the new Benghazi school cover story is laughably lame. You can bet that given his own input in the matter, Stevens would have told the Turks, “No, 9-11 is not a good day for us,” and stayed in Tripoli behind many high and thick walls. For him to go to hyper-dangerous Benghazi on 9-11 means the Turks insisted on that day, but why would they care about the meeting date, unless they were in on an assassination plan as the Judas goat?
Alternatively, the order for Ambassador Stevens to meet the Turks in Benghazi on 9-11 might have come down our own U.S. chain of command. Stevens seems to have been wearing two hats as ambassador and CIA arms shipper. His job involved moving between the far more secure embassy complex in Tripoli, the Benghazi “consulate,” and the CIA “annex.” So his orders might have come down either State Department or the CIA channels. I am unclear on his job title and true position, but either the CIA or State sent him his final instructions, and copies of those orders still exist, to be discovered on computer hard drives by future historians.
Ambassador Stevens meeting the Turks at the unsecure Benghazi “consulate” on 9-11 screams out to me of a deliberate setup. The Turkish “diplomats” (or arms shipment middlemen) left the meeting after dark and perhaps flashed their headlights to the Al Qaeda attack team commanders lurking in shadows. A coded text, a word on a phone, meaning, “The Amriki ambassador is there, with minimal security—proceed with the attack plan.” But that is pure speculation on my part. (The smoking gun clue will be the official CIA or State Department message ordering him to Benghazi on 9-11, perhaps using the preposterous “school opening” as a cover story for his later meeting with the Turks.)
I leave that for future investigators and historians. What I know for certain is that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around granting or withholding cross-border authority. And that sword of authority belongs 100 percent to President Obama. No weasel words or smokescreens should be allowed to cloud that very basic truth.
President Obama owns cross-border authority, so he owns the failure to rescue the American heroes who were fighting for their lives in Benghazi for seven hours. More than a hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella just two hours away for the launch order that never came.
Semper Fidelis, President Obama?
To: stephenjohnbanker; Travis McGee
“The White House never ordered a stand-down.”
The ICG would have done so.
Where was Thomas Pickering on the night of Sept 11th, 2012, was he responsible for the STAND DOWN ORDER?
“The White House never ordered a stand-down.”
It’s no wonder Pickering is in charge of the investigation.
He is investigating his own role and he will be found not culpable. (by himself)
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx
Obama Admin Cites ‘Int’l Permission,’ Not Congress, As ‘Legal Basis’ For Action In Syria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84&feature=player_embedded