Posted on 01/03/2016 6:12:14 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
An email recently obtained by Judicial Watch shows that the Pentagon was demanding Hillary allow them to send help to Benghazi during the 2012 attack. This would completely contradict the claim from Hillary and Leon Panetta that no forces were available and within reach to provide help to the compound that was under siege.
From Fox News:
As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch.
The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],†reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.â€
The email was sent out at 7:19 p.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2012, in the early stages of the eight-hour siege that also claimed the lives of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, private CIA contractors who raced to the aid of embattled State Department workers.
Although the email came after the first wave of the attack at the consulate, it occurred before a mortar strike on the CIA annex killed Woods and Doherty.
“This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come,†Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement.
Parts of the email from Bash were redacted before release, including details on what military forces were available.
But, if you want to know what forces were likely to be available, all you have to do is listen to, or read, the account from an ex Special Forces member who explained it to Bryan Suits on the “Dark Secret Place,†a popular radio show in Los Angeles.
In the interview from November of 2012, he explained why Panetta’s claim was a LIE, and described the CIF which stands for Commanders In extremis Force, that could have been sent to Benghazi:
[The CIF is a] heretofore little known American option…You’ve probably never heard that before. It’s not secret per se, but it’s not publicized very much… the CIF, as it’s called is something that is available to every theater commander.
The CIF are US army special forces soldiers who are specifically dedicated to being prepared at all times for months on end to leave with no notice, with little or no information to move by air or whatever vehicle, to a situation, that they have been determined to be the best immediate solution to. They oftentimes get in the air with absolutely no idea where they’re going or what the mission is. Oftentimes they are briefed in the air.â€
“The entire purpose of this [CIF]… in the extreme, there is no worse case than this. Something is happening right now, and we don’t have 24 hours to get Delta force in there. Something is happening right now, and that’s why these forces, the CIF are pre-positioned… to at the drop of a hat, to go anywhere and do anything.
It’s time to explain what is angering so many people in the special operations community, because they’re aware of the CIF.
He then explained why Panetta was lying about there not being enough time to send them:
The bottom line is this – did the president have an option? He did. What Leon Panetta said about “real-time informationâ€, when Leon Panetta was saying that on Thursday, we know that’s a LIE. Because we’ve known for weeks that there was a predator drone orbiting the Benghazi consulate. Have US forces been sent places with less information? YES. I can personally vouch for being sent places where my initial mission was to find out what was going on.
There’s no such principle that you don’t deploy people without information.
So there it is. Panetta and Hillary LIED to the American public over and over, and the media never pressed them enough to demand answers.
And this information has been available since a MONTH after the attack…
Yep. I was madder than hell at Perot voters at the time, but in retrospect, I'm grateful to them because they helped put Clinton in on a plurality, which was a good thing and would have been as good if Bush41/Dole had won. It blows me away that in spite of the fact that Bill Clinton was held in such low regard that never was he able to muster more than a minority to vote for him, pretty much everybody buys into the MSM myth that he was "popular."
Exactly the same feeling here. One of life's lessons that even my own old ego has to accept in hindsight. Re-examining that era is critical to understanding how we got here today. Remember 4 years earlier in 1988, I'll bet you were even madder at ( going from memory here ) Pat Robertson, Dupont and Buchanan for what seemed at the time as a crazy attack on the (R)epublicrats. But they had paid attention closer than I did at the time at Reagan's 2nd term, when his handlers asserted themselves and left him as a figurehead while they penetrated the government bureaucracy.
I remember saying that Social Security ( Perot lockbox full of IOU's ) shouldn't be a hill to die on, and that Bush's no-new-taxes was a blip. What actually happened was that the enemy fleshed out their strategy to rollover (R)epublicans at will. The (D)ummycrats got Bush to go back on his pledge, they promised they would unite around the tax hike, and then they stabbed him in the back and hung it around his neck in the next election. It was the prototype passive-aggressive strategy that only a masochist like Bush and the (R)epublicrats could fall for.
And they did solve Social Security, in the worst way possible by importing low-wage immigrants to fatten up the front-end which makes the books look better and extends out the crash date. Every hamburger flipper or hotel room cleaner on the books, no matter how little they get paid, contributes 7.5%, as does the employer, and the result - Social Security is fine until the year 20xx. Meanwhile the (R)epublicrats cheered this because it had the simultaneous effect of keeping operating expenses low and profits high which pleased Wall Street talking heads, and had a positive effect on the bottom line and the price of their real product - paper, that is, stock price. A classic win-win for the insiders and an enormous time-bomb for America. Later they figured out another way to dress up the bottom line, erase the Reagan jobs explosion through layoffs at home, offshoring and hiring foreign slave wagers, and Wall Street without fail, dutifully cheers and runs up the stock price of these efficient corporations.
Reagan's pro-America face of the GOP and "conservatism" got quickly redefined as open borders, illegal aliens, "free" trade and NAFTA. That kind of sh!t happens when a large enemy like the Soviet empire vanishes and leaves a vacuum for the bureaucrats to fill.
So the cost of these uniparty actions is much of what we are facing today, but that is nothing compared to what our descendants will face. We're worse than 21st century Greece with a coat of lipstick and a disguise. Morally, we're every bit as decadent as ancient Greece and Rome, with our own Caligulas and Neros. Except that we have clowns that celebrate them rather than get fed up and remove them. So we may even be worse along in a shorter period of time than those historical examples of democracy and republicanism.
1992, or perhaps 1986 to 1992 is redefining itself as a uniparty watershed moment. The point in time where the uniparty establishment made the beltway their own fiefdom, like a feudal estate, with King and castle and a noble aristocracy pitted against the vast fruited plain of serfs.
Is this really a historic time of change with outsiders about to topple the uniparty? It sure could be but I can't predict it. After the false starts with Buchanan and then Perot, there was the 104th Congressional sweep in 1994. TEA Party advances in 2010 and 2014. But these popular insurgencies have never coincided with the Presidential quadrennial years. If it does happen, it will be despite massive use of force and dirty tricks from the GOPe and their (D)ummycrat allies.
Whatever. Support progressive Trump if you want; he'll never be the nominee, and I wouldn't back him under any circumstances.I'll stick with conservatism.
As I've said to you before, I'm not supporting Trump or anyone. This is still the process of elimination phase. I'm in NY where the primary is almost always settled by the time it gets here. I have/had immediately ruled out the (R)INOs Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Graham, Pataki, Gilmore, FioRino, Christie. I crossed off Perry, Jindal, Walker and Paul right after the Trump announcement when they blindly lept into the stay out of our party, you ain't no conservative chorus. ( Don't underestimate that incident with Trump and Mexicans, and Trump with McCain, as they generated a huge amount of anti-GOP sentiment when they tried to remove Trump from even running ).
That leaves just Trump, Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee, and Carson. If God made it so, any of those five would be fine in that office, in theory, but reality is more complicated. The candidate must be able to win the election. So if it was up to me, today, the only one I can see with a shot at threading the needle to 270 is Trump. That is logic only, not emotionalism, not philosophy, not what I wish. If you call it support, that's your prerogative.
However, unlike you, I am not ruling him out, not by a longshot given the circumstances. His enemies have identified him as an excellent candidate indeed, and the fits thrown by the GOPe only highlight this. Why you have the same spit and venom that they do is what is curious.
I've also addressed this alleged leftist/liberal label you attach to him. In our state here with such well defined (D) and (R) crime syndicates I am wondering just how someone like Trump could have conducted himself to your satisfaction. He was never part of the Carey-Cuomo-Koch or Rockefeller-Lindsay-Pataki cabals. He alternated when it suited him. It really wouldn't have mattered if those (R)INOs were someone else, because Trump would have befriended them as easily. He adapted to the reality, here, where he lives. If you believe there is a way to insulate yourself from others and still maintain a huge business then give an example. I mean, you have similarly big non-Lib business people like the Kochs, Wynn, Adelson, and a few more, and they inevitably wind up funding the GOPe wing of the uniparty. How is that any better?
Apparently you want someone who has no history of adapting to their local environment and is a philosophical purist. I've been there too. Alan Keyes was the guy I have supported the most since Reagan, and he dwarfs Reagan and Cruz and pretty much everyone else for both evangelical purity and Constitutional knowledge as both the bible and the Federalist papers ooze from his pores. No-one was more ant-abortion, pro-America, a better friend to Israel and Jews, and a bigger enemy of the left. Problem was, he would never get past our electorate and I accept this belatedly. He also would have been a lame-duck had he somehow been elected since he has no way to beat them at their own game - at the negotiating table.
I do like Cruz very much, and unlike you and others around here, I know the one job where he can actually do some good for America, for the entirety of his life. And that job is not the one he is running for, in fact he will never get on the Court within a reasonable timeframe if he were somehow elected President. It would require some future Conservative (R) President to appoint him, because we know know uniparty President ever would. Probability zero. It has taken a long time for me to understand now, that like a toolbox, there are the right tools for certain jobs, they are not all interchangeable. I would no sooner wish for Trump to be on the Supreme Court than I would wish for Scalia or Thomas or Keyes ( or Cruz ) to be President.
So you're presumably left today as a evangelical-Constitutional purist ( a very good thing! ) as I was as recently as 2000. I even used the same arguments. They kept Keyes out of the debates around the Iowa and New Hampshire timeframe and I was apoplectic because I know he decimate that little wussie Bush43 on every level. People told me he was too religious, can't get along, too abrasive, too outspoken, etc. Even though those were maybe bigoted or offensive statements, there was some truth with respect to the general electorate, unfortunately.
Cruz though, has additional baggage, a very big problem. And it is unfair for him as he had no choice in the matter, and also for us, because we do. Unlike Keyes, and Hillary, he was born in Canada and despite what Mark Levin was saying on the radio today, ironically almost the identical thing that O'Reilly said about Hussein 8 years ago ( "I looked into it, he's fine" ), it is NOT fine for a lot of voters. The Supreme Court has left this decision to the people themselves, and many of those people after seeing millions spent on ads against him will not be persuaded. It will not take much in swing states like PA, OH, MI, IN, WI, VA, FL to keep them "blue" when they must go "red" to defeat the (D)ummycrat 250 electoral vote headstart.
So the quandry now is situational awareness. This could be the last reasonably fair election America ever sees ( defining fair as when the enemy does NOT have a 270 electoral vote advantage, just 250 or so, real fair! ). One more round of amnesty and naturalization, the latter of which is already ongoing, and that end of America is assured. Now these are the stakes, they are extremely high. Given these stakes how much do you want to gamble on throwing the dice that a conservative purist, dragging a heavy anchor can get past the electorate that's full of people like unlike you and me? Especially when we have no real evidence that a conservative purist can ever win at this level. That's some bet. If you're that confident then you should be in the casino business.
P.S. if the past is a guide, you will once again breeze right past all this typing and call it Trumpism or something like that once again. Oh well.
Now, I only vote for what I'm willing to be accountable for if it wins. My tagline was a long time figuring out. I'm partly responsible for how left the GOP has gone, and I'm applying what I've learned from that mistake.
Trump looks more and more like a really awful option. If he's the nominee, I hope we have a very strong 3rd party candidate.
Mitt Romney was my Governor back when I found this site at a rally on the Boston Common to stop ALgore in the election debacle.
He then started “ Main Street Republicans” pac. I abhor Mitt Romney, he literally Has NO BALLS.
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.