Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Obama: Courage was lacking for Benghazi

LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi

The American people deserve to know the truth

By Adm. James A. Lyons Sunday, October 28, 2012

There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing.

If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.

"We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

Red Cell In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.
Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.

Our Benghazi mission personnel, including our two former Navy SEALs, fought for seven hours without any assistance other than help from our embassy in Tripoli, which launched within 30 minutes an aircraft carrying six Americans and 16 Libyan security guards. It is understood they were instrumental in helping 22 of our Benghazi mission personnel escape the attack.

Once the attack commenced, Stevens was taken to a “safe room” within the mission. It is not known whether his location was betrayed by the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the local force providing security to the consulate, which had ties to the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group conducting the attack, and to al Qaeda. Unbelievably, we still do not know how Ambassador Stevens died.

The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli. 

I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.

[ADM James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (USN Ret.), as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, was the principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters and was the father of the Navy Red Cell, an anti-terrorism group comprised of Navy SEALs]

I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.

Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American.

Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi/#ixzz2Apr1Cnf0

Retired Admiral James A. Lyons, Former Pacific Fleet chief: We need full disclosure on Benghazi — now

October 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

 Former commander of the Pacific Fleet Admiral James Lyons was among the most highly regarded and influential members of the American military in a generation. He is now using that reputation to now aggressively push for open and honest disclosure from the Obama White House regarding the Benghazi Massacre scandal.

Retired Admiral James A. Lyons likely pulled few punches as commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet during his career … and he hasn’t started pulling punches now, either. In a blistering column at The Washington Times, the former commander blasts the lack of action from the US when the administration learned our consulate in Benghazi had come under attack, writing that “courage was lacking” that might have saved at least some of the four American lives lost on September 11. “Someone high up in the administration,” Lyons writes, “let our people get killed” — and he wants some answers immediately!

Lt. Gen. Mcinerney on Benghazi: Whoever gave the “stand down” order is responsible for killing ambassador
Lt. Gen. Tom Mcinerney asked “are we brain-dead?” and says that we should have had ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets over Libya before the 9/11 attacks ever happened, especially given the fact that radical Islamists were told by Al-Qaeda chief Zawahiri to take out Americans in retribution for our killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi over the summer.
But the most disturbing part of this he says is that during the 9/11 attacks we didn’t even try to save to save our people in Libya, that we didn’t do anything. In fact he goes on to say that whoever gave the “stand down” order to our forces at the annex in Benghazi is responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith because he believes it’s highly possible that the small force from the Annex could have disrupted the attack and likely saved our Stevens and Smith.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: My sources tell me Obama was in the room watching Benghazi attack
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said tonight that his sources tell him that Obama was one of the people in the room watching the Benghazi attack go down and both he and Col. David Hunt agree it would have taken an order by the president to intervene. Further, Col. Hunt said that we were only 20 min away by jet and a couple of hours away by AC-130 gunships and special forces, and the decision not to intervene had to be political.

Benghazigate: We Know Now Who Gave the Order Not to Protect the Consulate


 General Dempsey is horribly eloquent in terms of body language
What does Mike Scheuer, former head of the Odama Bin Laden Issue Station think about how the White House has handled the Benghazi attack?
by Greta Van Susteren Posted in: Fox News Radio, Libya  Oct 24 2012
Below is a phone interview with Fox News Radio White House Correspondent Mike Majchrowitz

Mike Scheuer, former head of the Usama Bin Laden Issue Station, on the recently acquired State Dept. emails on the Benghazi attack. From a phone interview with Fox News Radio White House Correspondent Mike Majchrowitz

"The whole idea that anybody after reading those or seeing those who could say that it was not a terrorist attack was being either very obtuse or being very deceitful."

"When things like that go into the White House Situation Room, and I am speaking from my knowledge of how things worked when I was working for the C.I.A., the White House Situation Room is one of the most competent in Washington and when an American facility or an American is under attack, the information does not just sit in somebody’s in-box or a folder until they get time to read it. The Watch Officer in the Situation Room takes it to the President or the Vice President ‘s Chief of Staff or whoever is the senior most person in the White House at the time."

"The idea that somehow people weren’t aware of that until later in day or the next day is kind of beyond imagining."  It’s almost impossible for it to have not gotten to that level."

Scheuer is also concerned that with all that was known at the time, that no rescue effort was made
"I don’t know if you could have saved lives or not but there was enough time that if the President says ‘jump’ you jump to get some sort of armed force on the ground by helicopter to Benghazi. It would have to be almost a decision not to do that."

"It’s just an unbelievable situation to me as a former intelligence officer."
"When that would occur in the intelligence and the military community, people would have to be stopped from going to the rescue of their countrymen, not encouraged. They would have to be encouraged not to go."

"Someone said ‘we’re not going’, they were afraid of civilian casualties. Whatever it was, it was a fear factor. "  Question number one is who in good conscience could watch seven hours of video of Americans being attacked and no one going to their rescue?"
Mike Majchrowitz
White House Correspondent
Fox News Radio
Carr: Colonel Hunt, thanks for being with us again today. What did you think when you heard Joseph Biden talking ragtime right out of the box last night? HUNT - The second time in my public career I get to call a public figure a liar --- that’s what I thought. Joseph Biden, right off the bat, lied. He said that what happened in Libya recently… The administration looked so inept is because of an intelligence failure. Howie, When Pakistan blew up an atomic bomb, and we didn’t know about it, that was an intelligence failure. When 9/11 happened, that was an intelligence failure. When India blew up an atomic bomb and we didn’t know about it, that was an intelligence failure. Col. David Hunt Tells Jerry Doyle: Benghazi Coverup Worse Than Watergate
Colonel David Hunt has over 29 years of military experience including extensive operational experience in special operations, counter terrorism and intelligence operations.

When the Iraqi military lined up on the Kuwaiti border, and we didn't see it coming – didn’t know they were attacking until they did it, that’s an intelligence failure. This is a flat leadership problem. What happened is that a woman named Lamb, Undersecretary of State for DSS (Department of State Security), 2 days ago, told Issa's committee that she listened, was talking to, and recorded an almost six hour fight that resulted in the death of four Americans. She was at the State Department's Operations Center in Foggy Bottom in DC. When that happens, there are a bunch of people that get informed. President of the US gets found---- the embassy is being attacked---Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of CIA, and on and on. What also happens is that their command centers, National Command Center (CIA), White House Situation Room--- twelve [Command Centers] that I won't bore you with. At least twelve separate Command Centers are listening to the same conversation. It went on for six hours. The question I think, besides the fact that Biden is lying about it, is Why didn't we do anything? Why didn't the United States government react? Here we are, listening to an attack, and we didn't do a thing. We've got aircraft in Europe, aircraft in the in the Gulf, and we have the capability of doing something, and we did nothing. But for the Vice President...My point is everybody, from the moment the attack happened, in our government, and the decision-making capability, knew that it was an attack, that it was organized, that it was violent, and that it had nothing, nothing to do with a riot, an assembly of people, or a film. This was not even close to an intelligence failure. This was prescient, actionable information. And this woman testified to it, and everyone's giving everyone a pass. We sat by and watched the Embassy fall, and four Americans died. Carr: Who was on the radio in the consulate in Benghazi? HUNT: Department of State Security employee -- a DSS agent was at the operation center in Benghazi. They had a room with radios and cameras. And he makes the call; he punches the alert button. Does everything correct and calls his boss in DC. Then he describes the attack for the whole time, until that the command center is overcome. But when she [Lamb] gets the phone call…. Carr: He's killed. He's killed. He's at the radio when he gets killed. Is that right? HUNT: The radio stays open. It's still being recorded until it gets destroyed. Lamb, who is in DC listening to all of this--- Clinton gets called, the President gets called, the Joint Chiefs---everybody gets called about this. This is an embassy under attack. Period. It's an automatic phone call. And the fact that we have this recording, instantly. We know exactly the picture. By the way, he sent pictures back because he had cameras. So, the administration knew; they watched it, let it happen, and then for eight days lied about it. And then yesterday, last night, unfortunately, the Vice President of the US just lied. He knows it was not an intelligence failure. No one ever said that, by the way. This is a case where we have information and didn't act. It wasn't a case where we weren’t provided [info]. We had instant knowledge, accurate description, and just sat by and did nothing. Carr: You said there were a dozen posts listening to this play by play account. HUNT: Sure Carr: Just give me a few examples of what kind of agencies would have been involved in this listening or monitoring. HUNT: National Military Command Center in the Pentagon (that's the military head), the White House Situation Room, the CIA Operations Center, the Counterterrorism Center, EUCON (European Command). Africa Command, Special Operations Command, SOC-EUR [?] Special Operations Command Europe), Atlantic Command, NATO. Everybody. Once this call is made, and a button is pushed, saying, oh by the way, we have an attack going on, everybody listens in --- this is old tech, an old procedure that’s been going on for years. Anybody who has ever been on a watch listening in the military knows what I am talking about. And it is amazing to me that this is not even being discussed. It is the elephant in the living room for me. We knew this was going on and did nothing. Carr: Let's say, let's say there's the African Command and some sergeant is monitoring it, and you know, he's there and he listens to what's going on, and he says, captain come over and listen to this. And the captain listens to it, and I guess the captain would have to call his superior officer, right? And then at some point , wouldn't all these people be calling the Pentagon or the State Department in Foggy Bottom and say, Hey there's a problem in Benghazi. What are we gonna do? HUNT: Within minutes that happens. It's instantaneous notification of an entire chain of command. An embassy is under attack and falling. And oh, by the way, turn to channel 27, and here's the information. And then these separate places are asking for – some cases begging for--- guidance. What do you want us to do? Because the military guys, whether it's in Bahrain or Europe, or any place else, can't on their own just go in there, but we have the means available. The point is that nobody pushed the button to say "GO." Nobody had the guts. Nobody cared enough. Six hours, Howie [Carr]. The last time this happened was Mogadishu, when we stood by and watched a ten hour fire fight go on and did nothing. For ten hours that happened, during the Clinton administration. We watched this in Bosnia ....and other places, where an administration fails to act. But this one. To have the vice president this late in the game --- over four weeks since this has happened---to lie about it and to say it was an intelligence failure is outrageous. And nobody, nobody caught him, nobody backed him up. And it's hardly being mentioned at all, but it's, I think, very serious. And what you said yesterday I think is going to come to pass. This is going to turn out to be a Watergate-sized scandal. Carr: So you think you think some of these commands in the area or in Europe and elsewhere that they actually did go to the their civilian superiors in Washington or made contact with them and asked them what do you want us to do. And apparently there was no response? HUNT: Howie, there are digital and written logs that will be produced that will show that each one of these places, automatically---it is not a question of, Do you have a choice. Whoever is on the watch; whoever was in command center, when an incident like this happens, HAS to do certain things, inform certain people, and it's all logged in. It's a matter of record. So once Lamb testified that she's listening to this, what she just said was that our entire Government was listening, not just Lamb and the State Dept. What I realized when I read the testimony and heard it was that if this phone call actually happened, all of these other headquarters were involved, and a whole bunch of people said NO to wanting some kind of attack to help save Benghazi. That begins and ends at the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. And there's logs, and hopefully Congress will say, We want people to testify. We want the watch officer. We want the senior guy in charge there. Bring you records, and tell us who you talked to. It’s all procedural… Carr: Is it the Pentagon's fault, or is it the State Department's fault? HUNT: No, no, no. State and the White House. The National Military Command Center would not have been able, allowed, to launch---I don't believe---an attack without political permission because they would be launching into a country. I don't think the NMCC could make that call on their own. And it wouldn't be State; it would be the White House. But again, Howie, during this attack, Clinton is informed---that is part of the procedure---and the President of the US is informed, as is the Vice President, as is the Chief of Staff, and on and on. A six hour firefight in Benghazi is not classified. It is not a secret. It's an event, and it's a serious event. And when the ambassador dies, when they know he has been captured, it even goes up higher. And we couldn't get an FBI team in there for three weeks. We had CNN reporters in there picking up the Ambassador's diary. This was ineptness, incompetence, and lying. I think Biden ought to be called on it, just like we did with Clinton when she said she was being shot at. People were there Mr. Vice President. You are lying. This was not an intelligence failure, and he knows that. Carr: Who should have made the call? Who should have ordered the troops? Who should have ordered some kind of scrambling? send in the jets, helicopters, Marines? HUNT: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs could have easily called the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense could have done this, easily…Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. Howie, they are never out of contact with each other. It's not like, Oh, go find Leon Panetta or where’s the President? Anyone in that chain, from the Secretary of State…could have asked or told the Dept of Defense, We need help in Benghazi now. What are the closest assets we have? That’s a simple phone call. Just simple operation military can do that, but they never would have done that on their own. There are incidents in our lifetime where we wish we would we had done it on our own. Bosnia is just one of them. Africa, remember the Congo, and a whole bunch of other places where we didn’t. But this is an example where we watched four Americans die and a consulate fall. We had 320 incidents leading up to this, and while the attack was going on for 6 hours, we watched it. Not just Ms Lamb, but the entire operational arm of the US government was watching and listening to this, and we did nothing. Carr: Where are the reporters? This is like Watergate. HUNT: Yes Carr: When Watergate broke, every newspaper in the country, every network in the country was all over this. Now, it Daryl Issa and Jason Chafetz, and a few Republican congressmen and staffers. Where are the reporters? Are they too busy looking for somebody Mitt Romney gave a haircut to when he was in prep school? HUNT: I can’t answer that, but for me, they are so in the bag. And, by the way, this is so obvious…this is such an obvious thing, that it is being missed. If the operational center at the State Dept is hearing this, all these other operational commands are hearing this as well. Carr: So there's got to be a lot of people reporters could talk to---there’s people who are assigned to the Pentagon---they haven't had that many cutbacks. There's got to be people who know what happened that could provide them with the documentation and the records, and it wouldn't take long to blow the story out of the water. HUNT: It should have been blown out two days ago. I’m not the only one who thinks this is crazy thinking about this. Any guy who’s ever pulled watch, any NCO, any enlisted officer---anybody who’s ever been in these Command Centers knows exactly what I’m talking about. And, Howie, this is after 911. Fifteen years ago we did this. And since 911, since we’ve been at war for eleven years, in Afghanistan, our communications is staggeringly quick. Look at the White House situation room during the killing of Bin Laden. Carr: And it's and it is the anniversary of 9/11 that this is all happening on. You’d think they'll be even more on their toes. HUNT: Yes. The communications is sophisticated and instantaneous. They had satellites looking at this. Carr: They had drones…there was a drone looking at this, right? HUNT: Thank you. And our reaction---three weeks…. We’ve got an ambassador dead, two retired Navy Seals, who weren’t even assigned there---they were assigned to a classified annex down the street--- and another man. And the place is decimated for six hours, and our response is zero. And then the Vice President gets on, and the first words out of his mouth is a lie --- Well, it’s an intelligence failure. No, it is not, Mr. Vice President. It’s not even close to an intelligence failure. This was inaction on the part of your administration who watched this guy die and did nothing. I don’t know what they are investigating, it’s so… My only concern is…Well, there’s too people, just too many people that were watching this. I honestly don’t see how they get to cover this up, unless the press doesn’t do its job. But I didn’t even hear Issa’s committee ask her [Lamb] the question. Maybe the people were in shock when Lamb made her statement, but that’s staggering. I can't believe that people don't know what I'm saying… that all these other…. Carr: This like something out of a movie, where some non-com says, “Colonel, colonel, our men are getting slaughtered there.” And no one has any interest in following it up. It seems like fiction; it doesn’t seem like it would happen in real life. HUNT: It's happened a lot in my time, unfortunately. Like I said, we saw it in the Congo: we saw it in Bosnia. We've seen a lot of incidents where an organization will not act. It’s frozen, and this is the case. And that sergeant you are talking about is actually a general. This is immediately communicated that this embassy is under attack violently, and generals are looking on their IPADS at the pictures, and that’s how good this stuff is. Those images are all over the place. And we knew this was bad, getting worse, and did nothing, and then lied about it for 8 days? Carr: So how many people do you know… HUNT: -- Rice’s statement now, along with the President’s, by the way, and the Secretary of State’s and everybody else, there’s a bunch of people lying. It’s not just Rice. She just got stuck on the Sunday news 5 times. And everybody, on top….[interrupted by Carr] Carr: How many people actually---give me a number of people who knew what was going on while it was happening, or all around the world. How many people would have known? HUNT: Oh, it’s in the hundreds---those staffs---anywhere---NMCC, maybe 60-70 people at one time; CIA Operations Center, about forty plus; the Terrorism Center could have 60-70 on duty at that moment: the White House situation room, 12. It goes on and on. I mean it's hundreds of people, Howie, that knew what was going on at the time---not later. It's to me such a huge thing that maybe it’s just so big and so obvious that people are just letting it go. I have no explanation for it. Except what I'm telling you is not a revelation. This is day-to-day operational information that this administration has been lying about for all this time. You don't need an investigation. There are straight up procedures that, I promise you. were followed. And in those procedures, people like the Sec of State, the Pres of the US---within minutes---within minutes are told, We have an embassy under attack. Carr: And yet Stephanie Cutter says that this is just a political issue that’s being blown out of proportion by the Romney/Ryan campaign. HUNT: I wish this was being blown out of proportion by the press. Romney was right when he said it. it's a very, very awkward defense. Cutter’s a PR person But the vice president---people have to call him out on this. He should, not should, he does know better. He’s just lying. It’s the second time I have had to call a public figure a liar…. It's outrageous. We had people dying. And, by the way Howie, it’s not just one phone call. During the six hours, all of these decision makers are being updated by their staffs. General, this just happened. General, we just found out this guy died. The fight’s still going on. There are now 60 people---these are constant. Video, written, digital, audio updates to the chain of command that did not function. It just seized up. That to me---Why did it seize up? Because there are a whole bunch of people need to go to jail….[Carr interrupts] Carr: Surely there was somebody --- surely there must have been several people trying to get something done, trying to get some relief to the these people that were in mortal peril, right? HUNT: Of course; there are really good people in these organizations. Why the decision was not made to, at least, attempt to do a flyover, to put jets in the air, Marines moving, something. I don’t know. I don’t have an answer for it. I’ve been in those rooms when decisions were not made, and they were always political, as to why they were not being done. But this, this one….Our capability to record things is so sophisticated, this will come out. I just…No news organization has---because I have talked to a couple of them --- has gone on this angle. They are still going on the Romney vs Obama, versus Biden laughing too much. Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. How about he lied--- in his opening remark. He flat lied. It was not an intelligence failure. That a lie, and he knows better. He knows it wasn’t an intelligence failure. He’s been in the government, what, for 40 years? Carr: Yea, 40 years. HUNT: Like I said, Pakistan blowing up a nuke, that was an intelligence failure. 911, big intelligence failure. What happened in Benghazi was an operational, leadership failure on an entire government chain of command. It did not act and had six hours to do so and did nothing. Carr: It certainly seems like it's gonna come out if they have the former head of the CIA and Michael Chertoff and these guys issuing statements today saying that Biden was way out of line, and he lied, and he knows better. These guys can point any reporter that’s interested in the right direction, who to talk to to get the information, I would think it. HUNT: It’s a huge…. Howie, standard operating procedures of how our government operates---There’s books, huge, huge books. And every one of these Commands I have mentioned was on that call, was listening, and followed their procedures, and were never given the words to go. It never happened. That’s all…It’s simple. It’s a very simple question and a very straightforward answer. I talked to this General: I talked to this Secretary. The Sec of Defense said this. The Chief of Staff at the WH said this. It’s not hard. This is all recorded. And somebody needs to explain why, for all this time---6 hours went by and Americans died---and all this time for the FBI to get there, and, oh by the way, Why is it that the heads of our government are lying about this. Can you imagine if you are a family member, if you are Steven’s family, or these Seals, or the kid from Winchester? And you are getting lied to like this? C’mon. I mean c’mon. Carr: I know. Well how about to know that they're listening all over the world for six hours while your son or husband could have been saved. HUNT: Yes, yes: that’s why I’m yelling about it. When Lamb said that, when the Undersecretary of Defense said that, I went, Oh my God! Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Where is the follow-up. Where is the New York Times banging on the door Carr: Exactly, exactly. Let’s take a call or two… [First caller not transcribed] Second and last caller: Adam you're next with Howie Carr and Colonel David Hunt. Go ahead Adam. Thanks so much for covering this. This is absolutely infuriating our guys are being treated this way. We don’t even give them the respect enough to---this is just disgusting. Somebody's gotta leak that tape. HUNT: Ok, the testimony is public. It’s on the Internet. Carr: We know the testimony, but Adam is saying [if we had the tape] we would know what the former Seal was saying five hours before he was brutally murdered. You know what I mean. HUNT: But that tape’s available. All of this---if people can get upset about this. If the press would simply do its job. To me it's so obvious… what these people’s jobs were and how much information they had, and the fact that they decided to do nothing, and then to lie about it on television for all these weeks---And the Vice President to start out with a lie like this and not get challenged, no push back. Carr: I know… He lied to forty million right out of the box last night. HUNT: Of course he did. This is not an opinion. I’m not giving you Colonel Hunt’s opinion. This is a fact. She [Lamb] said what she said [in her testimony] . It’s a matter or record. These Commands exist, and the procedure is as I have stated. There is nobody who is going to argue or push back that when an embassy in under attack, there in a ton, a pile, a truckload of headquarters that are listening and have operational plans to do something about it, and they were not allowed to do it. Our government knew exactly---Pearl Harbor was an intelligence failure. We didn’t see that one coming. This one, we not only saw it coming, we were watching it minute by minute. Carr: Have you talked to anybody in the Romney campaign about this? I mean, they should be ready to go with this next week. HUNT: I've got a couple calls in, and I'm trying to get a hold of Sununu and ??? and they are really busy. The answer is No, I haven’t talked to anybody. […..] I don't know why this is not being jumped on. There is no wiggle room here, Howie. This is Lamb’s testimony in State Department and everything else after that is facts. It’s not an opinion. CIA Operations Center was listening. The White House Situation Room was listening, and on and on and on. Carr: Did you hear the ombudsman of the New York Times, the public critic? She wrote on her blog yesterday, I don’t know why we aren’t covering this story. HUNT: (laughter) Carr: She did! I give her credit for saying it. And do you know what the editors came back and said. There were six better stories to cover in DC. HUNT: You're right: you were right this is going to be big. This is Watergate big because of the coverup and how many people were involved. Carr: This is the way the New York Times handled Watergate in the beginning. They tried to poo poo it---It’s just a police story you know. And they got their butts kicked. And someone's gonna kick their butts on this story too.
MUST, MUST SEE, WITH TRANSCRIPT: Military Officer With Inside Info Puts Blame On Obama For Denying Benghazi Rescue, ‘Stand Down’ Orders

Oct 29, 2012 Pat DollardVideo by The Right Scoop:

This is from a call into the Rush Limbaugh show today…Barack Obama: Guilty of Negligent Homicide.
RUSH: Now to the phones since it’s Open Line Friday. Doug in San Antonio. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks. I wanted to speak to the question of when the president knew and why Secretary Panetta refused to support the CIA annex request either to move to the consulate or to reinforce. Within a few minutes of the consulate being under attack — I’m a retired lieutenant colonel special operations planner for 15 years — the personal security detail for the ambassador notified the communications room in Tripoli who then, on the top secret side, sent a message to the White House Situation Room that the ambassador was in peril, okay? And they did that by code word and it would have been within minutes of the attack commencing.
The White House Situation Room has a list of what’s called Essential Elements of Friendly Information. That’s the military’s acronym for it, but they would have a similar thing, a critical information list. Certain things go right to the person that’s standing next to the president, both military and civilian leadership. So he would have known within minutes or it’s supposed to be informed within minutes because an ambassador is a four-star equivalent, very high, very important person, you know, represents the president and essentially is the president’s — you know, is the surrogate of the president in that country. So the White House cannot deny that the president knew immediately.
RUSH: They are. They are.
CALLER: Well, it’s a bald-faced lie, you know. I’m giving you some inside baseball information –
RUSH: Look, I believe you. You’re talking about watch desks. That tells me you know what you’re talking about.
CALLER: Well, it’s even a little more frustrating than that. So when that message, that code word goes out, flash traffic, that an ambassador is in peril, okay, the –
RUSH: We have heard this. In our parlance, the way we heard this, Doug, was essentially the panic button was hit. That’s how this was explained to me the first time. Somebody who knew what they were talking about referenced this as a panic button essentially was hit, and that once that happens, everybody that receives it knows what’s going on. There’s no doubt about it. So that’s pretty much true, right?
CALLER: Right. But it’s even more detailed than that, Rush. What it means is when a code word goes out, there’s standard operating procedures. The geographic combatant commander that’s responsible for Libya would have been part of that message traffic, and his CINC’s In-Extremis Force, which is, you know, a Special Forces unit –
RUSH: Okay, let me stop you there for another question, because what a lot of people have been told, the excuse that has been offered, in fact, from Condoleezza Rice on Greta Van Susteren a couple nights ago, the impression is, “Well, there’s so much traffic coming in, there’s so many e-mails, so many cables, so many memos, it would take somebody hours to sift through it.” What you’re telling me is that there are systems designed to penetrate all that in a real emergency?
CALLER: Well, there’s three networks, Rush. The e-mails that have been released are unclassified e-mails. On the top secret side, a flash traffic message from the embassy Tripoli to the White House Situation Room, it’s like an IM. I mean, it’s immediately responded to. You have to acknowledge receipt of it.Okay? So it’s immediate. It gets to the person, the watch officer sitting there, boom, flashes on his screen, he has to acknowledge receipt. And then there’s a protocol for who he then sends it to. He physically turns to someone, the senior guy on watch, “This is a critical element of information. POTUS needs to hear this,” and that’s what would have happened.
So no one in the White House can deny that — well, they can deny it, but the fact is the protocol says someone marched their happy little ass up to the senior guy standing next to POTUS and said, “Sir, ambassador in Libya is in peril.” And if he was missing, that is even a higher precedence. And then the chain would have also gone out automatically to the geographic combatant commander, AFRICOM, and he would have then turned to his special operations commander and said, “I want the In-Extremis Force, you know, strip ready in five minutes.” And evidently they were strip ready in Sigonella and they would have the assets to penetrate the airspace, you know, an MC-130 papa, which is a C-130 specially equipped with electronic countermeasures. They didn’t need permission to enter Libyan airspace, okay?
I’m giving you a lot of Inside Baseball stuff, and maybe putting myself in a little peril by doing it, but the In-Extremis Force, they would have been chomping at the bit to do this. It was turned down, POTUS, at his five p.m. Eastern time meeting with the principals, that’s when he put the kibosh on everything. It was a conscious act. It has to be because, you know, the In-Extremis Force is required to be prepared to do In-Extremis non-combatant evacuation operations for its geographic responsibility, the entire continent of Africa. So there’s always somebody ready to go, and the aircraft are always prepared to go.
It’s maddening to say that there was not intelligence. An intelligence guy is not a decision-maker. He’s just some analyst dude that tells the decision-makers this is what we know. Well, the decision-makers who are so risk-averse now need perfect intelligence. They would have had to have, you know, in the calculus of this, to know that, whatever the attacking force was, if I put 15 or 50 or a hundred operators on the ground, you know, they’ll have success. No one knows that. In soft planning, you plan to fail half the time.
RUSH: What about the story we’ve been told that not only was there so much traffic coming in that it was impossible to find the right stuff, which you’ve now explained, but they’re also telling us that the president wasn’t told for a while, and even now, as recently as today, they’re saying that the three most recent e-mails — it sounds like we’re talking about — flash traffic’s not e-mails, right?
CALLER: Flash traffic is digital from station to station.
RUSH: Right. So they’re misleading us left and right. They’re trying to say, “Well, the president –” They will not explain. They will not tell us what happened to the three e-mails and why he didn’t get them or why he wasn’t told or when he knew or what. They’re basically portraying the president as removed from all this.
CALLER: Well, the bottom line is a flash traffic saying that the ambassador is in peril, or, worse, missing, you know, the protocol is for someone to physically contact with a person in the chain that’s supposed to determine what happens next. Now, I wasn’t in the Oval Office so I can’t –
RUSH: Let me ask you, the question came up yesterday that I couldn’t answer, and I need to ask you, just from what you’re saying. This is unreal, but let’s assume they can’t find POTUS, let’s assume he’s just not engaged. Who has trigger authority on a response to something like that? I mean, you say we don’t need permission to send a C-130 in there to disrupt. Who orders it in there, in a situation like this? Who has the authority to order the C-130s wherever they are, Italy, wherever they are, to take action? If you can’t find the president — is the president the only guy that can give that order?
CALLER: No, sir. Okay? Basically in the absence of permissions, okay, you have standing orders. And one of the standing orders to geographic combatant commander is to observe life of American citizens –
RUSH: Exactly. Precisely.
CALLER: And he’s a four-star, you know, he’s in Germany. AFRICOM headquarters is in Germany, and their op-center would have been monitoring this in real time, ’cause it’s part of their geographic responsibility. And they would have been going through the different permutations of courses of action of who can get there the quickest. Now, in their geographic area they have Combined Joint Task Force, Horn of Africa, which is in Djibouti. I served there when it was the Joint Special Operations Task Force Crisis Response Element, and we have responsibility for all of CENTCOM and AFRICOM in Africa because at the time there was no AFRICOM. And we had the capacity to get from where we were in Djibouti to Benghazi in about three hours, four hours, depending on what we wanted to take. Now, if we wanted to go in there with a lot of operators, and at the time we had about a hundred operators, it would have taken us probably five hours.
RUSH: Okay, Doug, you’re sitting out here, you obviously are intimately familiar with all this. So what’s going through your mind, A, in real time when you hear about this, and then in subsequent days when you hear the excuses or explanations that have been offered for why no action was taken? I mean, I may be putting you on spot and you can’t share that with us, but I gotta ask you.

It stems from Desert One, Rush, it stems from the failure of Desert One during the Iranian hostage rescue. And what commander wants to repeat that, you know. Now, at the lieutenant colonel level, at the colonel level of the In-Extremis Force of all these different headquarters, State Department, everybody was saying, “Let’s go! Let’s get boots on the ground and kick these people’s asses and get our people.” But who makes those decisions? It’s POTUS, V POTUS, State, and Def. And they had a five o’clock Eastern time meeting, and they said no. You know, we’re willing to have the consulate overruled and the embassy overrun — (phone connection goes bad)
RUSH: The fact that they’re afraid of replicating Carter’s boondoggle, that’s not gonna fly with a lot of people.
CALLER: Well, sir, I hate to break it to you, but the people that are-four-stars right now, okay, were young officers, and they saw what happened to the leadership, okay? I’m not saying on the Special Ops side. You know, Special Ops guys –
RUSH: But I mean there are alternate explanations. There are political campaign explanations that people have conjured up to explain why Obama would not want any military activity taking place there in order to make sure that an image is created for his campaign: We’re defeating Al-Qaeda. They’re on the run. We got bin Laden.
CALLER: All those memes, you know, are probably in play, but mostly it’s just incompetence and not understanding the principal of you don’t leave anybody behind, okay?
RUSH: Doug, look, I know you’ve stuck your neck out here and you obviously know your stuff intimately well and I really appreciate your call. It’s fabulous to get your input and knowledge on this. Somewhere, somebody refused to make a gutsy call.
RUSH: Doug in San Antonio, Texas, kind of blows Leon Panetta out of the water, and Leon Panetta, we had a sound bite earlier, he said, “Well, we didn’t have enough intel. We didn’t know enough going on.” My guess is that we knew everything, we knew it all. That’s what he was basically telling us. We probably had those C-130s — and we talked about these yesterday, these C-130 Hercules equipped to go in and disperse crowds, buzz low, disperse crowds. They’re an hour away in Italy. It’s a seven-hour operation. They probably are able to get the video feed in the cockpit knowing what’s going on.

 Leon Panetta has “blocked” four senior military officers from answering questions on the Benghazi

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
Photo Credit: DOD

The news keeps getting worse. The Washington Free Beacon reports today that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has “blocked” four senior military officers from answering questions on the Benghazi attack posed by Congressman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC).
McKeon asked the officers to provide answers to questions about security threats by the close of business Friday…
McKeon asked each of the four officers in separate letters whether prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi anyone under their command had notified the State Department or other agencies about growing dangers in Libya.
He also wants to know if there were any requests to increase security in Libya for U.S. personnel. … [T]he letters to the four officers asked whether any military officers under their command had recommended “deployment of additional U.S. military forces to Libya due to the threat environment.
Other questions focused on determining if the officers were aware that officers under their command recommended increasing security in Libya prior to the deadly attack.
To your knowledge, has the Department of State or any other federal agency requested additional U.S. military forces to augment security for U.S. personnel in Libya?” McKeon asked.
Said a HASC aide:
It is nearly unprecedented that the office of the secretary of defense would prohibit a member of the uniformed military from answering direct questions posed by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
Indeed. But what, if anything, about the Benghazi incident does have a precedent – outside of the other actions of the Obama administration, such as Fast & Furious? We have reached the point at which the cynical behavior of this administration can’t be reinterpreted or spun. There is no honest purpose for refusing to answer these questions from the House. If the Obama executive is running an actual investigation, we’re at day 39 now after the 9/11/12 attack, and it’s past time to have answers. There is no excuse for the administration’s behavior.

Why would Panetta and the White House use the stonewalling tactic with the House? Presumably because the Democrat-held Senate has given them until after the election to answer its questions. The calculating character of this reprieve from the Senate is obvious.

Many readers probably saw Bret Baier’s Fox News special Friday night on the Benghazi attack and its aftermath (video linked here). For those who missed Lt. Col. Andrew Wood in the recent Congressional hearing – Wood, deployed through the National Guard, led a special security team for the US missions in Libya, until the team was withdrawn earlier this year by a State Department functionary (video of his testimony here) – Baier’s interview with him brings out clearly that State decided to cut the already-inadequate security force in Libya. Wood advocated keeping his team in place, but State decided against it – even though the Defense Department was actually paying for it.

So McKeon’s questions to the Department of Defense are right on point, and the American people are owed the answers. There is a certain pragmatism at work on both sides of the aisle right now; Democrats want to get through the election, and Republicans are likely to take a more perfunctory approach to the Benghazi issue if Mitt Romney wins on the 6th. The public appetite for details – at least, any details we still don’t know this point – will probably wane once the people know the Obama administration is on the way out.

The gingerly treatment of the Obama administration by the MSM on this matter is a timely reminder that the MSM are not peopled with objective journalists. If a Republican administration were backing and filling after the Benghazi fiasco, it would find no rest anywhere. The attacks on it would be relentless. We may say, “And rightly so!” – but the MSM seem incapable of calibration here: either they are in a frenetic feeding frenzy, hammering their own narratives as they “cover” the activities of a Republican administration, or they are declining to cover stories that obviously matter about a Democratic administration. Too seldom anymore do we see from them the middle ground of sober, fair-minded, carefully assembled reporting.

But the most important take-away from the Benghazi fiasco is the nakedly cynical, self-serving behavior of the Obama administration. Four Americans were killed, in a terrorist attack on a facility that should have been protected better, but – because of decisions made by Obama’s appointees – was not. Instead of manning up to what happened and providing the answers that are owed to the people, the administration first built a specious narrative about why the attack was launched, as if that was what mattered, and then spent weeks claiming that it was too early to answer questions on almost any aspect of the topic.

Now the administration has directed senior military officers not to answer questions from Congress. There is no conceivable reason for this, other than to stymie progress on the House’s inquiry.

Originally published at the Optimistic Conservative.


Penetta Doctrine: Don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on. What?

Sir, we are trained to run to the sound of the guns. 

"Now that may sound counterintuitive in terms of survival or self-preservation, but that’s what Marines do and that is why we are the Nation’s first line of defense. Literally from the first day that a young recruit gets off of that bus at Paris Island or San Diego, future Marines learn that the Marine Corps is all about downplaying the importance of the individual, and playing up the importance of the group and teamwork. And the reason for that is very simple because, the question of the accomplishment of the mission, the question of whether you are going to live or die is not going to depend upon what some individual Marine does. Those questions are going to be determined by the guys to your right and the guys to your left, and how well that team works together.
(It is why we make sure those under us are so well trained. It is why we take care of each other, on and off the field of battle. We are brothers.)
Below are comments by our special operators posted at Blackfive.net: (Warning: Rough Language)
Leon Penetta is Either a Dumbass, or a Liar.
The Secretary of Defense, in his most determined way, continues to try to protect the President from the fiasco in Benghazi. So desperate to shield the President he announced what will be forever remembered as the Penetta Doctrine:
“(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,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
Of course, in the circles that I ran with, it will be forever labeled “The Dumbest Shit I Ever Heard Doctrine”.
To be fair to Leon, however, his audience for this ridiculous statement was not members of the military and especially not for those in the Special Operations arena who immediately recognized that the entire statement is not a doctrine at all. It is horseshit, nothing more.
The “The Dumbest Shit I Ever Heard Doctrine” was targeted toward civilians. Read the doctrine carefully. On the surface it makes a case for Force Protection being an overriding element of critical decision making and it should be and it makes sense. The Secretary of Defense wants to ensure the safety of our troops and understands the value of “real-time information”. Okay, makes sense, good job Leon, end of story, right?
A couple of points however need to be made.
First. I am certain that Penetta realizes that we have very specially trained folks whose job it is to execute missions just like what was needed in Benghazi. On the other hand, maybe he didn’t, since both of the Generals who he supposedly consulted with have a grand total of ZERO days duty in any Special Operations organization. In fact, they are both old tankers. The senior of which, General Dempsy, has a Master's degree in literature from Duke University, where he wrote a thesis on the Irish poet W B Yeats. He was a Captain then, and that thesis alone should have rendered him ineligible for promotion to field grade officer.
Second, and this is very important. I don’t know what Penetta’s definition of “real-time information” is, but I suspect that, if Eisenhower had the same doctrine, we’d still be sitting in England waiting to invade Europe.
Let’s review the real-time facts that we know so far. The entire event was being streamed live to the State Department and, in all likelihood, the White House situation room. That’s pretty “real-time” if you ask me, but it gets worse. Not only were we watching the entire damn thing on expensive televisions; we had at least two highly trained special operators on the ground in direct communication!
Do you think the whole Pointe Du Hoc event would have happened during the D-Day attack if Ike and boys had two Navy SEALs telling them that the artillery had been moved?
Maybe MacArthur should have cancelled the Inchon landings in Korea because having a live tv stream and two highly trained individuals on the ground just wasn’t quite enough “real-time information”?
And this is why “The Dumbest Shit I Ever Heard Doctrine” is so ridiculous.
The best “real-time information” possible is eyes on the objective.
Even better is people on the objective with eyes on the enemy.
Even better than that is people on the objective that are highly trained with years of special ops experience in direct communications.
My God people, this was a perfect intelligence situation to execute a forced entry relief operation!
I spent my youth (24 years) in Infantry and tier one Special Ops units and have been up to my ass is serious fighting on many occasions. In all that time, I never hit an objective where two Navy SEALs were already there and feeding me all the information I could ever want! Hell, that wouldn’t even be a raid, it would be a link-up!
What more information do you need? Or was this never about information at all? Was it really the president deciding that the lives of four Americans wasn’t worth as much as a campaign talking point?
In any case, this was not a military consideration made by Penetta or any Generals, it was purely political.
And that pisses me off.

Blockbuster Report Contradicts Panetta's Claim of 'No Real-Time Intel' During Libya Attack

Emails Expose White House Lies on Benghazi

Told you so. The emails and cables documenting what happened are voluminous. Just wait till the classified material sees the light of day. Obama is a goddamn liar. And he is a coward. When this attack was underway, Obama spent his time worrying about how to avoid taking political damage. He did not focus on how to save or assist the U.S. diplomats and personnel being attacked. He worried only about himself and how to deflect any potential poltical damange. Shameful.
So, let’s look at the first cable and I will help you interpret the message:

This message was sent at 4:05 pm eastern daylight time from the Department of State. It originated either with the State Ops Center or the Diplomatic Security Watch. And who received the message? “@NSS.EOP.GOV” means National Security Statt.Executive Office of the President. That’s the White House, probably the chief of the watch in the Situation Room. Addressees also included FBI, the Pentagon and a blacked out US military entity.
So, within minutes of start of the attack on the Benghazi “Diplomatic Mission,” the White House, the Department of State, the FBI and the Pentagon were alerted.
[SEE NOTE re DISQUS LOGIN ISSUE ... added at the end of this post.]
Fifty minutes later, this message is posted, which notes that the firing has ceased and a response team is on site searching for the Ambassador:

Note, once again, that the White House and the Pentagon are informed.
Two hours later (6:07 PM) comes the real news:

Let me help you with some of the terms. “SES_DUTYDEPUTIES” and S_SPECIAL ASSISTANTS refer to senior State Department personnel. SES is the acronym for Senior Executive Service. These are the equivalent of General Officers in the military services. “S” is the abbreviation for the SECRETARY of STATE. In other words, Hillary and her assistants were notified. The Bureau of Counter Terrorism was notified. The White House, the FBI and the Pentagon were all notified that an Al Qaeda group, Ansar al Sharia claimed credit for the attack.
This exposes in stark detail the bald face lies of Obama and Hillary. Shame on them.

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.
"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."
The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
Watch "Special Report Investigates: Benghazi -- New Revelations" on Fox News at 1 p.m. ET on Saturday, 3 p.m. on Sunday and 10 p.m. on Sunday.
A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.
According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.
"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."
U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.
Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.
Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.
A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.
The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AloYaRd1

Below are more comments by our special operators posted at Blackfive.net: (Warning: Rough Language)

Me too. Me too...

"Second, and this is very important. I don’t know what Penetta’s definition of “real-time information” is, but I suspect that, if Eisenhower had the same doctrine, we’d still be sitting in England waiting to invade Europe."
I think you may have been a bit optimistic here.
I'm certain that under the Penetta Doctrine Ike and our entire Expeditionary Force wouldn't have boarded any transport ships yet. The Atlantic had a lot of uncertainty with all those sneaky Wolf Packs roaming around.
:: GrammieOct 29, 2012 7:52:22 PM

While I agree with most everything he wrote, General Ham is an infantryman (Mech) with a Ranger Tab and a bit of enlisted time with the 82nd. He's not a tanker.
I am reposting my thoughts from the beep beeep post because I think they fit this one as well. Panetta, ultimately is a budget weenie hack. However, I think some of our senior leaded screwed the pooch on 9/11 and I'm not talking about teh Won:
Gentlemen, and I use the term loosely :)
Thus far, we've been putting all the blame on Obama. But when push comes to shove, CIC or not, Obama is an F'ing civilian. He has no clue about our professional code.
Multiple General Officers may have obeyed their oaths to the Constitution, but at the same time, broke faith with their men.  Hundreds of men, know parts of the story, and the rumors and leaks will put it all out there sooner or later.
We all have images of Generals giving Go orders, planes spinning up, troops walking up ramps...Generals with heels locked, muttering in the back of the OPCtr...stand downs.
If Obama wins a second term, Panetta has to go, Dempsey also. Things won't be fixed till at least we get a new POTUS. The Army will respect civilian orders, but it will be sullen. That is the only way to describe it. This is a bigger morale impact than watching helo's lift off the Saigon Embassy in '75.
This time, the Army shot itself.
this is a BFD as the Second Idiot would say...
Comments encouraged.
:: The Drill SGTOct 29, 2012 7:58:57 PM

As is the case with many of obama's appointees and czars, Leon Panetta is a hard core communist radical who should never have headed the CIA, much less be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. He poses a massive security risk and he has never been vetted – at all. Panetta’s radical communist ties should give each and every one of you serious cause for concern. Take a look at some of the "people" obama has in his cabinet and advising him in the role of "czars", PARTICULARLY with regard to National Security, Homeland Security, Foreign Relations, Education and Science and Technology. Scary stuff. Leon Panetta, in his current role, is one of the most dangerous individuals within the obama administration. I pray our members of Military wake up soon and see this for what it really IS. America is finished forever if they don't wake up soon.
:: Twg2a.wordpress.comOct 29, 2012 8:21:21 PM

Fox News essentially confirms that there was an AC-130 Spectre gunship on scene at Benghazi.
"Upon returning to the CIA annex with survivors, Griffin said one of the soldiers got on the radio and asked, frantically, at midnight: 'Where the blank is the Spectre?'"

Notice that the soldier said "the Spectre," not "a Spectre."
Combine this with the fact that Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator, and the logical conclusion is that an AC-130 Spectre gunship was on scene but was denied permission to fire. No SOCOM commander would order a gunship to not engage the enemy when American forces are under attack. The order had to come from Panetta at the behest of the president.

An even worse scenario:
The men at the CIA annex were promised a Spectre by SOCOM but it either never took off or was ordered back. Again, such orders would come only from Panetta or Obama.

There's the possibility that Woods was painting the target for an armed Predator drone, but that still doesn't answer why the Spectre--which was at the very least promised--didn't show up, and it still means that the aerial platform did not fire. So, Tyrone Woods was promised a Spectre that either didn't show up or appeared and was then ordered to not fire. A second possibility is that when the Spectre didn't arrive, Woods was told that an armed Predator or Reaper already on scene would use a Hellfire missile. It didn't fire, either.

Two more considerations:
The pulse repetition frequency code of the laser target designator and laser-guided munitions (the Hellfire missile on a Predator, for example) must be compatible, and the ground laser designators run on batteries. For the first consideration, Woods would've had to talk to any Predator or Reaper operator to make sure his designator was compatible with the missiles. For the second consideration, he wouldn't have turned on his ground laser designator and used up his battery power unless an air strike was imminent.

Prior to Tyrone Woods painting a target, he had to have been in contact with someone for quite a long time in order to work out all the technical aspects of an air strike. Panetta and Obama would've been listening to all that.

Some people say that Woods may have been marking the target for a future air strike, maybe even one he knew would be carried out after his death. That doesn't make sense because it was a mortar team. They would've picked up their weapons and taken off long before a faraway aircraft showed up hours later. He would only have been painting the target if he thought an air strike was imminent.
Finally, on the Lars Larson radio show, Charles Woods--Tyrone's father--said that he was told by the military at that there was a "C-something or other... that could've come above that and completely carpeted the area and prevented it from happening."

He makes the statement at 13:18. He's clearly describing an AC-130, and Lars Larson does say "130" softly.
It seems pretty definite that Woods synched up with an aerial platform, thinking an air strike was about to be carried out, and then someone ordered the aerial platform to not engage. This order came only after Woods painted the target. Whoever gave the order waited until Woods had exposed his position, and then he--Panetta and/or Obama--told the pilot of the aerial platform to not fire.
Whoever told the aerial platform to not fire knew that Woods would soon be killed. Whoever gave the order would have heard the conversation between Woods and the pilot of the aerial platform, so the order giver must have heard Woods shouting on the radio, "Why aren't you firing? Fire! What are you waiting for? Hurry!"
And then Woods was killed because the attackers used their cell phones or night-vision goggles to pinpoint Woods' position, and they dropped a mortar on him.
We're witnessing history here. We've never had a more criminal, treasonous, loathsome administration.
Has "Constitutional Insurgent" been around lately to tell us that Obama is no worse than any other president?
What does "Chow Line" have to say about his hero Obama?
:: Duck BankOct 29, 2012 8:38:41 PM

Leon Panetta's mission in the Obama administration is to be the only competent gangster in that collection of Chicago dorm commies. His presence in a cabinet position was the pro quo for the quid of Bill Clinton campaigning (and incidentally, not actively sabotaging) Obama's reelection bid.
Panetta was intended to be the last firewall between the inevitable Team O screwups and Hillarys! presidential ambitions. Only God knows what the Clinton's have on him, but it must be something terrible.
I don't think any of that pack of hacks, opportunists, and vagabonds every figured on treason being a part of the mix.
:: Andy JonesOct 29, 2012 8:39:27 PM

While you're looking at the communists slithering throughout the obama regime, Don't forget to take a good, hard look at the plethora of islamic terrorists obama has appointed to posts within homeland security and the intelligence circles. Proven terrorists. Not "rumored" or "suspected"..... islamic terrorists, aligned with the muslim brotherhood, al queda, hamas and hezbollah.
We're in big trouble today folks.
:: Twg2a.wordpress.comOct 29, 2012 9:09:45 PM
Would like to add that Panetta's very good friends (a couple that he and his wife vacation with regularly) are members and leaders of the American Communist Party.
:: Shepherds PieholeOct 29, 2012 9:26:45 PM
I have an alternate view. He was always a budget guy, in Congress, asOMB Director, and as WH COS.
He was sent to take an axe to the DoD budget.
:: The Drill SGTOct 29, 2012 9:32:43 PM

Just two quick thoughts from another f'ing civilian:
1) Lots of possible scenarios, but assuming no significant action was taken (since clearly there wasn't a successful rescue), if the military leadership recommended against taking immediate action, then the responsibility rests with them. I don't want a CIC going counter to the advice of his generals without exceptionally good reason. If, however, the military recommended various courses of action be taken immediately and the President chose to ignore that advice, then he's responsible.
2) There might indeed be cause for 'blame', and maybe you'll see this as mere semantics, but I'm inclined to argue about who is responsible at this point. I'll save 'blame' for a situation where it should have been clear that option X was to be chosen / recommended, and for whatever reason it wasn't. If it was a very uncertain decision, I'll let the 'blame' rest squarely with the terrorists, even if our President or military leaders must be held responsible as well.
Also, you've done a fantastic job of collecting bits and pieces of information, clearing up misinformation, and generally organizing things in an easy to read fashion. If you haven't done so already, you should compile your own timeline / post somewhere so that all of that information is available in one place.
:: Liberal CivvyOct 29, 2012 10:11:45 PM

Just started seeing the story that General Ham is retiring from U.S. Africa Command and that his retirement may be due to the 9/11 attack. From the USAFRICOM web page, it looks like General Ham assumed command March 9, 2011. Not sure if this would be a regular rotation out, or if this is abnormal. Thoughts/insight?
:: Dan G.Oct 29, 2012 11:46:00 PM

Just think if your local Cops adhered to the Penetta doctrine, they would never leave the station. They would just hunker down in the basement listening to the radio and wait until the Secretary of Defense brought them doughnuts. Good thing the local authorities do not have to listen to this Idiot. Sorry our military is under his authority.
:: SanmonOct 30, 2012 12:08:39 AM

SGT Craig Warfle Awarded Distinguished Service Cross - First Ranger to Receive DSC post 9/11(10:45AM)
WarfleU.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno presents the Distinguished Service Cross to Sgt. Craig D. Warfle, from Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, during an award ceremony at Hunter Army Airfield, Ga., Oct. 26, 2012. Warfle received the Army's second highest award for valor for his actions during combat operations in Afghanistan. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Teddy Wade/Released)

U.S. Army Ranger Sergeant Craig D. Warfle's Silver Star award was upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross, our nation's award for valor second only to the MoH. Read the citation and the original award write up and see that the upgrade was well deserved.
His citation reads:
For Gallantry in action from August 18 to 19, 2010 during combat operations against an armed enemy of the United States as an Automatic Rifleman for a Joint Task Force in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. During this period, Specialist Warfle, with total disregard for his own personal safety, maneuvered on a fortified enemy machine gun position through effective enemy fire. Even after being wounded, Specialist Warfle continued to suppress the enemy with high volumes of effective fire in order to allow his team members to pull his unconscious element leader to safety. Specialist Warfle refused to be medically evacuated from the fight and his actions allowed the Platoon to hastily withdraw and defeat the enemy utilizing air assets. Specialist Warfle’s distinctive accomplishments are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, this Command, and the United States Army.
The whole write up for the original Silver Star award is below:
                                         SPECIALIST CRAIG WARFLE


Specialist Craig D. Warfle distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous achievement as a Ranger Squad Automatic Weapons Gunner on August 18, 2010 while deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Specialist Warfle was assigned to a task force, whose mission was to capture or kill Al Qaeda (AQ) and Taliban (TB) Senior Leadership.

Specialist Warfle’s valorous actions under effective fire while executing an objective saved the lives of his teammates and were instrumental in the death of at least 16 Taliban fighters, the removal of two Taliban Provincial Commanders, and the recovery of a large cache of weapons intended for use against Coalition Forces.

On August 18, 2010, the team received special intelligence indicating that a Taliban Commander and weapons facilitator, was meeting near a tree line with at least 17 other Taliban fighters. Information gathered indicated that the enemy was orchestrating an ambush on Coalition Forces in Logar Province, Afghanistan. The team observed the fighters in position for the attack to include multiple spotters and runners used to communicate between the various fighting locations. The Battle Space Owner was notified of the imminent threat and diverted all convoys. When the enemy fighters aborted their attack they were observed walking in a military formation back towards a meeting site along a tree line. Enroute to that location the enemy fighters were positively identified to be carrying weapons. The team initiated a kinetic strike on the fighter’s location from two AH-64s. The team stood ready and boarded two CH-47 helicopters for insertion once the kinetic strike was complete.

Immediately after the kinetic strike, the team inserted a Ranger Element onto the hot landing zone to the West of the target area to eliminate the several remaining enemy combatants. Ranger Element 1, consisting of Specialist Warfle and five others, were tasked with isolating the Northern side of the tree line and suppressing the enemy to allow Ranger Element 2 to assault from West to East. Upon infiltration the Ranger Assault Force received effective enemy fire in vicinity of the North-South running tree line where the AH-64s had just completed gun runs. As soon as Specialist Warfle stepped off the ramp he came under fire from multiple enemy positions and without hesitation returned fire and crawled 15 meters through the muddy field towards the enemy. From this position, Specialist Warfle suppressed the multiple enemy positions with 150 rounds from his MK-46 allowing Ranger Element 1 to move to the North and Ranger Element 2 to maneuver to the South. Under fire and with no cover in the open field, Specialist Warfle continued to suppress the enemy positions permitting members of the Assault Force to get down in the prone position while the leaders determined a way to assault the enemy positions. After a couple of minutes passed, Ranger Element 2 came under heavy effective fire from enemy crew served weapons. Realizing that Ranger Element 2 was effectively pinned down in the open field to the South, Specialist Warfle moved with Sergeant Lugo to the North to flank the enemy position from the North-West.

Specialist Warfle, while under heavy effective enemy fire, advanced on the enemy position to suppress the enemy and allow the Assault Force to maneuver on and destroy the entrenched enemy. As Sergeant Lugo and Specialist Warfle voluntarily maneuvered towards the enemy positions they identified two entrenched enemy personnel with automatic weapons firing on the Assault Force. Specialist Warfle continued to advance on the entrenched enemy using suppressive fire alone to protect Sergeant Lugo and himself because there was no available cover in open terrain. When Sergeant Lugo and Specialist Warfle got within 25 meters of the enemy machine gun positions, Specialist Warfle and Sergeant Lugo were both hit with a volley of machine gun fire. Although Specialist Warfle knew he had been shot in the right shoulder he disregarded his own personal safety and moved through the kill zone to Sergeant Lugo’s side to protect his incapacitated Squad Leader. Specialist Warfle purposefully positioned himself in the line of enemy fire and immediately suppressed the enemy in order to defend Sergeant Lugo and provide covering fire for the platoon medic, Sergeant Solomon, to move to and treat Sergeant Lugo. Specialist Warfle fearlessly continued to provide accurate suppressive fire from his exposed position, allowing Staff Sergeant Myers and Sergeant Kochli the ability to move forward, suppress the enemy, and then subsequently evacuate Sergeant Lugo. Specialist Warfle continued to provide suppressive fire as Sergeant Solomon, Staff Sergeant Tucker, and Sergeant Kochli pulled Sergeant Lugo back to cover. Only after the casualty evacuation aircraft evacuated Sergeant Lugo, did Specialist Warfle treat the through and through gunshot wound to his right shoulder by applying a tourniquet to his right arm. Specialist Warfle then proceeded to engage the enemy position from a position between the enemy and the Platoon for over twenty minutes while the Assault Force reconsolidated and moved back away from the enemy positions. He steadfastly remained at his forward position delivering accurate fire on the enemy until all members of the Assault Force had moved across the open field to cover 100 meters to the West. Specialist Warfle bounded back to the West over the open field while the Assault Force provided suppressive fire. Specialist Warfle’s actions allowed the Assault Force to break contact, drop ordnance on the enemy positions, and safely move to the exfiltration hot landing zone.

By repeatedly risking his life for others, Specialist Warfle’s purposeful gallant actions, selfless dedication to the safety of his teammates, and demonstrated extraordinary heroism were distinctive and exemplary. He is most deserving of the distinct recognition. Through his distinctive accomplishments, Specialist Warfle’s personal actions reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.
Comments left behind ::
For the third generation now, from my father's to my husband's to these young men, I have asked "Where do we find such men?" and thank God that we do.
:: oldhickorybabeOct 29, 2012 12:11:11 PM
warriors just do it...
he valued his brothers in armed over his own life...
SGT WARFLE...I salute you...
usn ret sends...
:: butt neckidOct 29, 2012 4:23:48 PM
I have always thought that the people I served with cared more about other persons that they cared about themselves. It seems to be a distinguishing trait not only for the military but for all "first responders." This old Ranger instructor stands a little taller to salute the new generation.
:: Longwalker21Oct 29, 2012 7:17:21 PM

According to the official US Army SF page, Sgt MacPherson's son asked at his father's memorial, "Is that Daddy? Is that Daddy?"
Sgt. Thomas R. MacPherson of 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment was laid to rest Oct. 26, 2012 at Forest Lawn Cemetery in Cypress, Calif. by his fellow Rangers. Sgt. MacPherson was killed by small arms fire during a combat operation in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan on October 12, 2012. It was his fifth deployment, fourth to Afghanistan. US Army courtesy photo.
Mrs. MacPherson's birthday was the 25th. From the OC Register:
...A day later, Claudia MacPherson spoke at her husband's memorial service as she held their 17-month-old son Brayden. On stage was a memorial placed in her husband's honor. His helmet, dog tags and boots stood in front of his photograph.
"I'm grateful for the little piece of Tommy that was left with me in the form of Brayden," Claudia MacPherson told the gathering of family members, friends, law enforcement and Army Rangers.
He was 17 when they met and she, 15. She recalled snapshots from their nine years together.
Senior prom, their wedding day when tears rolled down her cheeks and he had "the most terrified expression on his face," the day their son was born and he named him Brayden. The most recent family gathering when "Tommy" smiled at her with chocolate-smeared teeth.
"Our baby boy will know how proud he should be to call you his daddy," Claudia MacPherson said, breaking down. "I'll share with him the passion you had for what you did. Thank you for going through life with me, Tommy. It's been a privilege."...
Video of the memorial:
Godspeed, Ranger MacPherson!
:: Comments left behind ::
And I shall, with a heavy heart, continue to remind my family and the next generation this is what a hero looks like. This is the price paid for our freedom. The epitome of selfless sacrifice, courage, valor and dedication so often overlooked but never under-appreciated by many.
And if I may say, RLTW.
Please let us know if there is a way to donate or otherwise assist. It would be my absolute honor.
:: Marcus TraianusOct 29, 2012 12:24:31 PM
I always strive to be a citizen worthy of their sacrifice. I hope I am.
:: 45shooterOct 29, 2012 12:44:41 PM
Listen to this interview with a former member of the Combatant Commanders In-Extemis Force (CIF) that was on call in Sicily. The interview was conducted by Lt. Bryan Suits, a combat veteran of Desert Storm, Kosovo, and Iraq.
Just for all the vets, Suits was so severely wounded in the head by shrapnel that he had to learn how to speak, read, write, walk, dress, and feed himself all over again. He's rated 70 percent disabled, but he's still a member of the National Guard.

The discussion of the CIF begins at 5:58. Both Suits and "Operator D" say that Panetta is lying his ass off.
While you listen, read this report by the AP. The attack was carried out by 150 men who arrived in technicals. Obama, Panetta, Biden, Dempsey, and Clinton all watched this massive, coordinated assault happen in real time; did nothing except deploy eight men from Tripoli; let our people die; and then lied to our faces about the whole disaster.
Spread these links around to as many people as possible before the election.
:: Duck BankOct 28, 2012 8:01:40 PM
Seems they are very possibly pulling "a Clinton" with their statement, no? "...nobody in the White House" can mean that someone 'outside' the White House made the call (could that be Axelrod?) Could it mean that someone physically located outside the WH made the call rather than making the call while standing 'inside the WH'? COULD IT POSSIBLY MEAN THAT DESPITE THE PROTOCOLS WE'VE BEEN TOLD EXIST WHEN FLASH TRAFFIC LIKE THIS OCCUR, THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE? Or that the President passed the task off to someone else? Where was the leadership? What the Hell is happening to my country?
:: SteveCOct 28, 2012 8:13:24 PM
I thought Gen Ham's comment that nobody asked him to deploy military forces was a little strange. His comment could be a subtle way of not saying he was ordered to stand down.
:: DavodOct 28, 2012 8:24:17 PM
Yep, reminds me of the situation with the pirates, back in April 2009, who took Captain Phillips hostage, where Obama again was MIA regarding the rescue of an American.
:: MICHAEL in MIOct 28, 2012 9:39:15 PM

Two points for you to consider:
1. Long before SOF, there were Marines. And one of the classic Marine ad-hoc missions, back to the 1800's has been: People f... with our Embassy, the Marines go in to sort it out without, I may add, perfect intel. Now we have SOF, my point is the DoD has been doing, "rescue the Embassy from the natives" for more than a hundred years. I don't see much need for an engraved invite. Embassy calls, folks move to the sound of the guns...
2. This whole Panetta "need intel to risk SOF" BS breaks down in about 15 seconds. The Tripoli Embassy was short of security, but when they got the call, they threw together an 8 man scratch force and launched them 400 miles North to the Benghazi airfield. Siciliy got the call at the same time, but it was too dangerously and vague to launch elite SOF troops 460 miles South? Hell, let them dick around a bit and Delta could have landed at Benghazi after the State Department secured the runway. That story will be told in the Bragg club for a decade...
State could launch a rescue, but Delta thought it too tough?
The real story is going to leak :)
:: The Drill SGTOct 28, 2012 10:13:57 PM

"Regardless of spin statements, Obama owns what happened in Benghazi and what happened after the Brits left and our people stayed in an attempt to find weaponry."
What really hacks me off is that if this so called Arab spring was such a great idea, to the extent that we armed the rebel forces, then why are we sending our brave men into that third world islamic hell hole to recover those weapons? There is so much that stinks about this whole affair, it makes me sick. I often think about how much bravery, how much fortitude and dedication it must take those CIA guys to go esentially solo into a very hostile country and negotiate with brutal murderers. The fact that they were hung out to dry just makes me sick to my stomach, and filled with rage.
I am not a part of the military, but any retired or active duty servicemen, you need to know this, and I believe I can safely speak for many of my countrymen; thank you for your service. You represent the best of what your Country is, with dignity, bavery, and honor. To do my part, I will be voting to remove the current resident from the White House.
:: Rightwingoffspring.blogspot.comOct 29, 2012 4:09:25 AM
Another thought, we know, from both expert analysis, and 3+ years of experience that 1) Obama loves being ‘The President’ but hates being President – can’t make a decision. Valarie Jarrett runs the White House and is at a level above Obama’s COS (why Emmanuel, Daley and others quit).

Her personal task is to keep anything ‘disturbing’ from Obama. When the balloon goes up, CIA is requesting military intervention (forget all the European airbases, etc., we have two nuclear carrier groups in the Middle East), Jarrett makes the decision because of the above and the fact that Obama is in Campaign Mode and couldn’t be bothered. Regardless of which way the decision on military intervention goes, the Joint Chiefs balk because she is not the National Command Authority. Hillary is out as far away from Obama and the election as she can get to avoid getting an Obama taint on her 2016 chances. All this results in underlings making decisions and in the chaos that follows, as we have all seen, it’s who can throw the other under the bus the fastest and with the most sticking power.
:: SeaDog_52Oct 29, 2012 6:37:37 AM
I'm not sure the CIA or WH denied that Woods/Daugherty requested assistance. I think they denied that that turned down those requests for assistance (i.e. someone else made the decision to not send assistance). That's my understanding, but it's hard to know with all the weasel words.
:: Z1ulikeOct 29, 2012 7:10:35 AM
Rowan Scarborough reported last night that AfriCom had no in Extemis force.
AFRICOM is based in Stuttgart at Kelley Barracks. EUCOM is based at Patch Barracks in Stuttgart. It was EUCOM's CIF that was sent to Sicily in preparation to be deployed to Benghazi.
So, this is another lie of omission. While AFRICOM still doesn't have a CIF, EUCOM--right next door to AFRICOM--does, and they sent it to Sicily but it was ordered to not go in.
Also, Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) has a CIF, and SOCEUR is based in Patch Barracks in Stuttgart, too. And I'm hearing that two CIFs were indeed deployed to Sicily. The second was almost certainly from SOCEUR.
So, saying AFRICOM doesn't have its own CIF yet is a non sequitur. There were two CIFs available from the same source: Stuttgart.
:: Duck BankOct 29, 2012 7:36:09 AM

Help could have been sent and the buck stops with Obama. His policy of appeasing the Muslim world, in Benghazi, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, is killing honorable Americans who are risking their lives to free others, and this is unacceptable. Providing material aid to one's enemy is Treason, and arming al-Qaeda fits into that category, does it not? The families of these four men deserve answers now, in a public hearing, not in a closed hearing after the election. Waiting until November 15th is telling the families that the re-election of the man who let their sons die is more important than providing them answers about their assassinations.
:: LuchadoraOct 29, 2012 7:36:50 AM
Words mean something when said.
1. Woods/Daugherty were not Embassy security personnel as media is spinning
2. In defending Annex if third call for help response was to "stand down", that is the same as being told to surrender. Transcript of com likely show air assets told to stand down.
3. If Woods/Daugherty did paint - air assets were overhead when told to stand down.
4. Why did CIC remove Ham and Gaouette, is it related.
:: LowNslowOct 29, 2012 8:47:32 AM
I would be completely UNsurprised to learn that this, or something very close to it, is the actual scenario.
:: OldSoldier54Oct 29, 2012 8:52:00 AM
I saw the same Gerlado interview. I turned it off when I couldn't take the old political General's lies any longer. When he told me that the closest asset was on this side of the Atlantic and ignored the earlier requests for help, I knew he was a shill for the Administration.  There are ships in Med, Marine FAST in Spain, and all kinds of Army assets in Italy. All 2 hours away tops.
:: NJSoldierOct 29, 2012 8:55:46 AM
This is incompetence, and it's not a right/left thing. There are many reasons for incompetence but Obama has three primary ones:
1) He is an academic who has never dealt with on-the-ground problems. I am sympathetic to this, but it's something that can be very destructive. From a military perspective, it's one thing to sit in a room in Washington, DC and model things; it's another to be sent out with a unit to live it. Being on the ground is *much* less pleasant, and little things that you would never have considered turn out to be big things after all. If all you have is the abstraction, you may not be able to conceive the appropriate response when one of those real-world contingencies come up.
2) His models are driven by ideology not by data. The second problem with decisionmaking based on abstractions is even more problematic. It's bad when your models don't fit the real world. Some folk can overcome this and learn. First battles are often disastrous, but people learn. However, if one is so wedded to the abstraction that one ignores the results of the first disaster, then the cause is doomed. Obama has a pattern of holding so tightly to his abstract, academic, worldview that he cannot learn to succeed. This is one of the things that has distinguished him from Clinton politically, and his military blunders have been disappointing.
3) Leadership by a narcissist is doomed. Again, this is not a right/left thing, but instead much deeper. The Obama presidency is about Obama first, and his ideology second. A successful leader will sacrifice himself for his or her mission, and achieves greatness through achieving the mission. A narcissitic leader will, ultimately, sacrifice the mission in an attempt to magnify or preserve his or her greatness and fails through not accomplishing the mission. Obama doesn't "hate" America. Instead, he simply places it lower on his list of priorities than would a better leader. Worse, he views these deaths from the context of his needs, not the needs of the nation.
These three things provide the classic pattern of the dynamic, intelligent, charismatic leader who achieves early success through his ability to motivate people early on, but ultimately fails because he does not have the qualities he has learned so well to simulate.
:: billoOct 29, 2012 8:57:20 AM
The simple explanation - Acting President Valeria Jarret wasn't in the White House when she denied aid to Benghazi.
:: NJSoldierOct 29, 2012 8:59:39 AM
Does this article by Daniel Greenfield ring true.?

"Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are our government’s sacrifices of peace. They died so that we might go on in our futile effort to win over the Muslim world. And they are not the only ones. There is no way of knowing how many of the 1,500 Americans who were killed in Obama’s surge died because they were prevented from firing first or denied air support. But the number is likely to be in the hundreds."
:: MB SmordinOct 29, 2012 9:57:38 AM
The criminality and cowardice of this White House has never been so clearly revealed. This coward has made it clear he will betray any principle and any person. The president who had never heard the word "corpsman" spoken has nothing but contempt for the U.S. military. The ROEs he imposed on U.S. troops subjected them repeatedly to needless deaths and injuries. It is a testament to the discipline and raw HONOR of these troops that they have continued to do their damndest to fulfill the stated mission given them, while fully aware of the low degree of person commanding them.
We civilians however, have an obligation to IMPEACH and ARREST this miserable delinquent traitor without delay. My fathers did not fight to preserve this nation only to have it GIVEN to the DEMONS who hate us by a bunch of swindling sorry rascals.
:: Anane QuasheOct 29, 2012 10:28:59 AM
Rush Limbaugh is picking this story up right now on the air. B5 and our community are being mentioned. Maybe this will give this level of detail a higher public profile.
:: 45shooterOct 29, 2012 12:23:04 PM
I was just listening to Rush on air that is how I found this website ... I feel for the Woods Family and all the Black 5 community ... He was a hero like all of you and you make me proud to be an american ... Rush reported he defied orders to save lives and in so gave his own ... I don't know how you guys do it but thank god every day that you do ... Thanks ...
:: Tyler43Oct 29, 2012 1:15:59 PM
See, RE: Geraldo and all the other poseurs, the problem they face is a whole pot full of us out here, conventional and unconventional, who have been in and run ops in neighborhoods just like this one for the last 11 years and know EXACTLY how to insert and exfil assets. It has become impossible to try and bamboozle the nation in the face of more and more operators who are speaking up. I heard this Congressman and former admiral yammering on about how all the logistics to get people on the ground took so much time to plan. I was just livid because it was so totally divorced from operational reality that it was pure deception.
This whole mess just stinks to high heaven and frankly I was seriously nauseated after all the BS ROE crap over the last 6 years in Iraq and then the mere possibility that if there was an armed asset stacked over that site that someone in the command chain would not allow precision fire to neutralize a mortar position and Americans were killed as a result. B5, I think it is great that Rush is mentioning you by name because while he didn't quite get the specifics right, there is movement on this deal and frankly we ALL owe it to everyone American Warrior who has died as a result of incompetency and stupidity delivered via data link.
You don't insert people into an uncertain situation but we had an operator on the ground designating a specific target?!? WTF? Seems pretty deconflicted to me. I have no idea how these people can sleep at night.
Keep it up B5.
:: Colibri8Oct 29, 2012 2:59:32 PM
Gentlemen, and I use the term loosely :)
Thus far, we've been putting all the blame on Obama. But when push comes to shove, CIC or not, Obama is an F'ing civilian. He has no clue about our professional code.
Multiple General Officers may have obeyed their oaths to the Constitution, but at the same time, broke faith with their men.
Hundreds of men, know parts of the story, and the rumors and leaks will put it all out there sooner or later.
We all have images of Generals giving Go orders, planes spinning up, troops walking up ramps...Generals with heels locked, muttering in the back of the OPCtr...stand downs.
If Obama wins a second term, Panetta has to go, Dempsey also. Things won't be fixed till at least we get a new POTUS. The Army will respect civilian orders, but it will be sullen. That is the only way to describe it. This is a bigger morale impact than watching helo's lift off the Saigon Embassy in '75.
This time, the Army shot itself.
this is a BFD as the Second Idiot would say...
Comments encouraged.
:: The Drill SGTOct 29, 2012 5:12:59 PM
We are one week from an election. If he is re-elected, he will be impeached, but I'd much rather just have him lose the election and go quietly.
:: ValerieOct 29, 2012 7:22:43 PM
 Friday, October 26, 2012

Today is the Day of the Deployed - Help Send Holiday Cheer to the Deployed(04:43PM)
Today is the Official Day of the Deployed.
Right now, our men and women overseas need our support. Soldiers' Angels is in the middle of a drive to get every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine a care package for the holidays. There are a lot of ways to help, whether you send your left over Halloween candy or donate some much needed postage:
Each care package costs about $12 to send, and Soldiers' Angels is aiming to send a care package to every single hero deployed to Afghanistan.
And that's where the candy comes in...
Fall and Winter are the perfect time to send chocolaty and gummy candy to the troops. It's also a great way to deal with the candy overload of Halloween. Our deployed military men and women always enjoy candy in their care packages, and this is the perfect time of year for shipping all types of candy--the cooler weather means it's less likely to melt!
From putting together a big fundraiser for postage to helping your kids collect candy for the troops on Halloween, there are endless ways to get your family and community involved in this month's project!
To help make holiday care packages a little sweeter, you send your candy to the following addresses, or click here to help with postage (links to PayPal and AuthorizeNet are at the bottom).
Soldiers’ Angels
Six Months of Christmas
1792 E Washington Blvd
Pasadena, CA 91104


Soldiers’ Angels
Six Months of Christmas
5068 US HWY 64 East
Franklinville, NC 27248

Bigger than Watergate: Proof that the President is Lying about Benghazi?(02:36PM)
Having a back and forth with a former legendary Delta operator. Here is the gist of what he is implying:  The news is breaking today but there is a small bit that is being overlooked. According to the statements from Fox News:
The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
Everyone is reporting this but they are missing a key point. From the retired Delta operator:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is far bigger than Watergate.
The second worst feeling in the world has to be the platform crew being desperately asked for help, given a clear target and then having to stand down and watch your fellow Americans die.
The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.
Update: Even with two Predators on station, one unarmed and filming and one armed, the call to stand down comes from the same sources. Earlier today, Bob Owens at PJ Media posts about the responsibility of the order to call off the mission as well as some good info about the AC130s on station.
Update 2: From Adam Baldwin and many of you, here is an audio interview between Rush Limbaugh and a caller identifying as a retired SF Lieutenant Colonel and Special Operations planner for 15 years.

Update 3:Jeff Emanuel thinks that we might be jumping to conclusions and that Jennifer Griffin at FoxNews might have misreported a statement about active laser on a target. I highly respect Jeff and Jennifer. And either could be correct right now. Hopefully, we'll get some clarification.
Update 4: From quoted retired Delta operator, "Jeff is correct (about lasing without air asset) but the only reason you would do that is to determine a specific grid for indirect fire which the SEAL did not have available. You are in an active firefight against mortars and MGs; there is only one reason to cease returning fire and paint a target and it ain't because you thought it was a good time to pull a PMCS on your fucking GLD."
Update 5: The only way I buy that the former SEAL was lasing the target without an active asset to synch to and destroy the target...maybe, just maybe, it was a last stand move. Maybe he did that to give the inbounds a target if he didn't make it...
Update 6 (updated twice): Another (very very trusted) source is saying that the AC130 Marine resources were in the middle of a rotation and that the new Marine resources weren't ready yet so no help would come from Sigonella. So that confirms Panetta's statement.
:: Comments left behind ::
No ducking this one either... State Department is not in that OODA loop.
:: FalshrmjgrOct 26, 2012 2:54:23 PM

Rush Limbaugh had a caller on for at least 15 minutes today who identified himself as a (I think I'm correct) retired Lt. Col. SF commander very familiar with the chain of events that SHOULD have and MOST LIKELY would have occurred during the attacks on the Benghazi compound on 11 Sept. He sounded well versed in what would seem to be the probable scenarios and the chain of command when an Ambassador is in peril.
Uncle Jimbo - if you can find an audio recording of Rush's caller/interview I think everyone would benefit from listening.....the Lt. Col. was exasperated and angry at the incompetence and the needless loss of life because no one lifted a finger to help.
:: LIRightOct 26, 2012 2:58:17 PM
My blood is boiling. This is just so f'd up.
:: dniceOct 26, 2012 3:10:40 PM
F/A-18 with an ATFLIR? Wouldn't that be the fastest on-target option?
:: Marcus TraianusOct 26, 2012 3:10:57 PM
Fastest on target if nothing was on station. And least accurate.
:: BlackfiveOct 26, 2012 3:14:05 PM
This is far bigger than Watergate
Except; Nixon, Republican. Obama, Democrat. Media yawns.
Ready for orders to march on Washington, Sir. It’s the least we can do.
RIP Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty.
:: Lands’nGroovesOct 26, 2012 3:25:41 PM
I'll bet the no go decision was made by a political official (read Valerie Jarrett) outside of the chain of command. If true that would explain alot of behavior.
:: James HankeyOct 26, 2012 3:39:36 PM
Edit: Upon further reading, I see this is exactly what was posted by the retired Delta Force operator, my apologies!
"The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing"
Now I was only a lowly civilian contractor who has worked with JTACs, but from my understanding, if this statement is correct, there had to be assets on station. The SOFLAM (GLDT)(Laser Designator) is meant to be fired in communication with assets on station, not just willy-nilly in hope of an asset showing up.
This means that someone (ASOC/AOC) made the call to not "clear hot". Or the statement is inaccurate.
:: YomsOct 26, 2012 3:41:57 PM
If this doesn't wake up America, if this doesn't convince the LEFT that Obama and Company are a FAILED administration and are taking America into a 3rd world abyss, we are truly done for as a nation!
:: A Facebook UserOct 26, 2012 4:07:24 PM
Knowing the Delta operator Matt is talking about, the best part is hearing his awesome Southern drawl spitting our these words.
Update 4: From quoted retired Delta operator, "Jeff is correct (about lasing without air asset) but the only reason you would do that is to determine a specific grid for indirect fire which the SEAL did not have available. You are in an active firefight against mortars and MGs; there is only one reason to cease returning fire and paint a target and it ain't because you thought it was a good time to pull a PMCS on your f...king GLD."
Yer damn straight, and for those who don't know, PMCS is maintenance and testing on a device you do during slack time back in garrison, not in the heat of some deadly shoot up.
Uncle J
:: Uncle JimboOct 26, 2012 4:13:22 PM
I'd like to add my less-then-two-cents to the Delta op. For eight years I was an army fire support specialist (peacetime).
At least a third of our job involved designating for LGM (Hellfire, Copperhead, etc.). There's a very practical reason for not lasing the target until the forward air controller or fire direction center tells you to. While you're lasing the target, you can't do anything else. You literally cannot move. You're looking through the viewfinder, squeezing the "trigger," and trying to keep the designator as steady on the target as you can. A steady paint of the target is the key to a successful hit. Hell, during a hot (training) mission, I wouldn't even talk to my FO partner while I was lasing.
The story isn't clear if there were one or two operators on the rooftop. If one, and he was lasing the mortar crew, he would have stopped manning the machine gun only when he was confident that munitions were on the way.
We need more information on this.
:: Sarge6Oct 26, 2012 4:16:11 PM
"maybe, just maybe, it was a last stand move. Maybe he did that to give the inbounds a target if he didn't make it..."
I am going to vote "thin" on that one. It just seems the least likely given what we do know about the situation and personalities involved.
All due respect to Jeff, I am trying to remember the last time Jennifer was wrong on something so important.
:: Marcus TraianusOct 26, 2012 4:19:03 PM
I'm not an operator, but long long ago I was in the Intel/commo business. At that point we had CRITIC messages that went from the analyst's hands via paper tape teletype to the Director NSA, and 15 info addressees with 15 minutes. The Info addressees include the POTUS, Sec State, Def, CJCS and all COCOMS.
There has been news that the CIA guys launched a CRITIC about the Ambassador and the Attack. That would hit Obama's desk by IM now, well within 15 minutes. There is no cover for that. the deliveries are logged.
PS: I want to know where Gen Dempsey was and why he didn't insist on action. Same with Clapper, who at one time was a Marine, not an AF REMF. Petraeus? he now reports through Clapper. Panetta, a budget weenie political sent to DoD to slash the budget.
PPS: "it was a political decision that we were willing to lose our guys to avoid collateral damage to the locals."
:: The Drill SGTOct 26, 2012 5:18:34 PM
Nope Landsngrooves is correct. In the begining of the Watergate scandal there was less evidence against Nixon than there is currently against Obama. The plenty of evidence you site came after "investigative reporting". I won't hold my breath for and investigative reporting to be done on Benghazi. And your over complicating things with Benghazi. Who cares what the target was? Was it Ambassador Stevens? The Intelligence inside? Who cares, they attacked our consulate. For all I know the terrorist were after the shit paper since they wipe their asses with their hands. Us in the military don't give a damn about why they attacked, but not doing everything humanly possible to save a brother warrior is inexcusable.
:: ClaytonhackbarthOct 26, 2012 5:20:35 PM
Given that if there is a story of Nixon-esque levels to be found it would make a reporter's career and be the story of the decade, I'm inclined to think investigative reporting will happen. Even if the 'liberal' reporters all through any ethics they might have out the window, there will still be some done by others.
And my question about the target was simply to illustrate that we still don't know a great deal about the attacks. I agree, they attacked our consulate and killed our people and we need to track them down and kill them, period. But a specific target rather than a random assault might indicate leadership which isn't yet in the picture and an overall goal. Knowing those is helpful. This is why we don't always take out targets without observing them first.
We need a clearer picture of what happened and why, then we take action.
:: Liberal CivvyOct 26, 2012 5:47:44 PM
Keep up the good reporting guys. This is why I love this site so much, especially on important events like this.
@DrillSGT - I can't buy the decision to leave them hanging for fear of hurting locals. If there had been a lowly garrison of mil-only troops down there, it would sound plausable, but I just don't think this admin would leave an ambassador to die like that. It doesn't go along with their idealism that the top gov't officials are more important than the rest of the population.
Either way, there's A LOT to this story that needs to be fleshed out before we'll know the whole truth. And yes, we want to know.
:: Durka-DurkaOct 26, 2012 6:28:43 PM
I just went to CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS News. None of them had any of this on their websites. CBS was the only one to mention Benghazi on their main page.
They are all lying by omission.
:: NJSoldierOct 26, 2012 6:41:35 PM
I was on a Air Team before that - but I agree. You illuminate that target for something looking down. The only except I can think of is a distant target where you need an exact distance before calling in the JTAR - but that's open desert stuff.
:: NJSoldierOct 26, 2012 6:45:24 PM
Lot's to be fleshed out. Was the AC-130 there or not? Was there a carrier or Amphibious assault ship in the Med that day? Were there armed drones?
What the hell was going on? Some kind of messed up arms deal that turned into an ambush?
Why the total and complete lack of response? Whose idea was that? Why all the lying?
:: NJSoldierOct 26, 2012 6:51:50 PM
The ambasador was dead by then. The Consulate had been overrun, the ex-SEALS had come in and brought those survivers they could find out in the first hour or so. Nothing Sicily or the WH could do in the period. The interesting part is from H+2 on, when if something had been sent from Sicily, what could it have been and what was the potential impact. Any loss of life is terrible, but the Ambassador effectively lost his life because of State force structure / budget Decisions. After that, the onus is on the WH. I personally think the biggest loss to the US is the CIA case files in the safe house. e.g. the bin Laden raid in reverse. Apparently we lost the names of the folks who were assisting us in the recovery of 20000 MANPADs. And 2 SEALs. That has to hurt. a lot more at stake than four employees...
:: The Drill SGTOct 26, 2012 7:12:49 PM
I just went to those sites, too - both CNN and ABC news had stories, linked below, but I didn't find any from MSNBC or CBS on their front pages at the moment.
And I don't think they're lying by omission. I think they find that it's somewhat of a non-story, as opposed to a scandal, when the SECDEF and top military brass explain why additional action wasn't taken based upon the information they had available. Had the military been demanding a response and the WH refusing, that would be a story.
(The ABC article also has a statement by a CIA spokesperson.)
:: Liberal CivvyOct 26, 2012 7:55:22 PM
Were there any assets from 6th offshore? I don't think there is anything that could have used a lased target, but if you could get coordinates to get something to the target...
These men shall not have died in vain.
:: ajacksonianOct 26, 2012 8:09:58 PM
Contact OR Senators Merkley and Wyden. Former SEAL Tyrone S. Woods should be nominated for Medal of Freedom.
Merkley, Jeff - (D - OR)
(202) 224-3753
Web Form: www.merkley.senate.gov/contact/
Wyden, Ron - (D - OR)
(202) 224-5244
Web Form: www.wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Contact CA Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Ambassador Stephens and diplomat Sean Smith should be nominated for Medal of Freedom.

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: www.boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/

Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me
:: Bill WhiteOct 26, 2012 9:13:16 PM
I might have dismissed this as a wacky conspiracy theory non-story if I hadn't watched clinton make a bold-faced lie about a video while standing in front of the coffins of those who died in that attack, all the while trying her best to make a sad voice. Sometimes it's really interesting going back and watching speeches like that after new information comes out.
:: Durka-DurkaOct 26, 2012 9:57:42 PM
Re Update 6: "Marine resources were in the middle of a rotation" Does a rotation take more than 7 hours? Wouldn't you have a policy of "make-before-break" when rotating forces?
:: Charles HenkelOct 26, 2012 11:43:41 PM
Would you time a rotation for Sep 11?
:: Charles HenkelOct 26, 2012 11:47:43 PM
I just keep getting more angry and I have to say that Tyrone's father is about 14 million times the man I am because I would have launched on POTUS and the SOS with a tirade of spit flying profanity and epic shaming that would have shaken the foundations of Heaven.
They chose politics over the lives. And I am certain that will be what is written as their epitaph. I hope the souls of these men tug at their elbows all the days of their lives.
Wonder who would want to be appointed to an ambassadorship in a Middle Eastern Hotspot if this miserable excuse for a human being and his ass-clown compatriots gets a second term?
:: DeebowOct 27, 2012 12:07:13 AM
The news outlets have abandoned anything that is happening in Afghanistan or Iraq...suicides appear to be higher than combat deaths and now this? If troops feel abandoned by the Pied Piper because the President didn't have civil servants backs, who the hell would ever stand up in defense of this POS? I am so angry, I am ready to show up in DC voting precincts with signs that state:
Barack Obama Partied with Jay-Z
because it was important to raise money
And four Americans were allowed to die.
:: defendUSAOct 27, 2012 5:03:24 AM
I look at it the other way. The ABC CIA statement says: Earlier today, Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin reported that CIA agents in the second U.S. compound in Benghazi were denied requests for help.

In response, CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”
This could be the CIA throwing Obama under the bus. Note the two things it DOESNOT SAY:
1. It doesn't say that the reports of the CIA officers requesting aid from higher is completely inaccurate.
2. It doesn't say that NOBODY refused to help.
So if help was requested, but not granted, and the CIA wasn't the problem, who was the one who rejected the requests? Certainly not some O-6 in Sicily. His ass would be having an Article 32 by now...
:: The Drill SGTOct 27, 2012 5:53:46 AM
Glen Reynolds and one of his readers nails it:
UPDATE (From Glenn): Reader John Koisch writes: “It’s not Blackhawk Down. It’s worse. Recall that the major problem in BD was the UN commander was unwilling to risk casualties to protect forward US positions and troops in the city. This is the US unwilling to protect its own. It’s like we have the UN for an administration or something.”
"against all enemies foreign and domestic"
:: snelson134Oct 27, 2012 7:07:52 AM
The attack in Benghazi was coordinated with the broadcast of the Terry Jones/CATO Institute/TeaParty telethon worldwide.
:: Angellight21Oct 27, 2012 8:24:52 AM
If the initial story had said something like "GLD" "SOFLAM" "designate" "paint" "music" "sparkle"--or anything similar--I'd probably agree with this. Or if a laser designator was the only laser on the battlefield, or even the most common, or . . .
Additionally, if the Spectre were overhead, you'd expect that to be the lead. Instead, the only friendly air assets are mentioned as in Sigonella, and we're left inferring the presence of the gunship from the laser sentence. Moreover, the sentence in question says "pointing" which is a common laser function.
Isn't it simpler to infer the operator on the roof was either using some sort of laser pointer, or perhaps ranging the target (possibly to get more accurate coordinates)? And, if so, doesn't that fit all the other information better, including the report that there were no gunships available?
:: Cecil TurnerOct 27, 2012 8:31:55 AM
Drill Sgt; I agree with your time frame on the Critical message. When one of those showed up the alarms went off and the designated petty officer personally went over and removed the tape and had it heading to the addees in under a minute. They were usually short, colorful and to-the-point, as you know. We held a line open back to the requesting party who was, shall we say, ANXIOUS for a reply. One does not utilize this type of message format without deadly serious intent. From the time it was sent to the time it was delivered to all was usually less than 15 minutes, a lifetime. The use of a laser and Critical in the same time frame tells it all.
:: vet66Oct 27, 2012 9:31:20 AM
What was the political benefit of not trying to rescue the Ambassador and his staff? I don't get it. Incompetence at some level is possible, but did the whole chain of command - military, state department, CIA, White House - just make some "political" decision to say f...it and go back to bed? We've got special ops kicking in doors, shooting pirates, roaming across Afghanistan and god knows where else. We've got drones everywhere, zapping "bad guys" even if they are U.S. citizens. But some "political" calculus stopped us from rescuing a U.S. ambassador? In Libya?
Maybe just to piss off the badasses at Blackfive?
:: Chow lineOct 27, 2012 9:41:38 AM
Pentagon chief hit with ‘anti-American’ charges: You wont believe unexplained background of Secretary of Defense.
imageSecretary of Defense Leon Panetta partnered with a group that promotes world government to co-chair an initiative to regulate U.S. oceans and cede them to United Nations-based international law.
Panetta also keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War, and has previous unexplained close ties to the Institute for Policy Studies, a pro-Marxist think tank accused of anti-CIA activity.
And that’s just the start of Panetta’s controversial background and radical associations exposed in the recently released book, “Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America,” by NY Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
The book also charges Panetta with anti-CIA activity. Penatta served as CIA chief under President Obama until his appointment to the secretary of defense post earlier this year.
Panetta caught in 1-world scheme
Until his ascent to CIA director in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.
The oceans initiative, dissected in the “Red Army” book, bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to “accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform.”
Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
That U.N. convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.
Other recommendations of Panetta’s Joint Ocean Commission Initiative include:
  • The Administration and Congress should establish a national ocean policy. The Administration and Congress should support regional, ecosystem-based approaches to the management of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes.
  • Congress should strengthen and reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  • Congress should strengthen the Clean Water Act.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.
Podesta served as co-chair of Obama’s presidential transition team.
“Red Army” found Panetta’s oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”
CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.
The organization currently works on issues that fall into five general areas: U.S. global engagement; global health and environment; peace and security; international law and justice; and international institutions.
CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.
The Federalist movement openly brings together organizations and individuals that support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.
The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine.
Soviet agents, propaganda
Panetta, meanwhile, has unexplained ties to the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, which has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security and for its cozy relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
A review of the voting record for Panetta, a member of Congress from 1977 to 1993, during the period in question shows an apparent affinity toward IPS’s agenda.
The IPS is funded by philanthropist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Panetta was reportedly on IPS’s official 20th Anniversary Committee, celebrated April 5, 1983, at a time when the group was closely aligned with the Soviet Union.
In his authoritative book “Covert Cadre: Inside the Institute for Policy Studies,” S. Steven Powell writes: “April 5, 1983, IPS threw a large twentieth-anniversary celebration to raise funds.
“On the fundraising committee for the event were 14 then-current members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including “Leon E. Panetta (D-Calif.), chairman of Budget Process Task Force of the House Committee on Budget (chairman of Subcommittee on Police and Personnel, Ninety-ninth Congress).”
Powell wrote that in the 1980s, Panetta commissioned the IPS to produce an “alternative” budget that dramatically cut defense spending.
“The congressional supporters for the Institute for Policy Studies included many of those who biennially commission I.P.S. to produce an ‘Alternative’ Budget that dramatically cuts defense spending while increasing the spending for social welfare to levels only dreamed of by Karl Marx,” wrote Powell in the November 1983 issue of the American Opinion.
“In this pact of I.P.S. intimates [are] such luminaries as … Leon Panetta (D.-California), Chairman of the Budget Process Task Force,” wrote Powell.
The IPS has long maintained controversial views and a pro-Marxist line on foreign policy. It was founded in 1963 by two former governmental workers, Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnet.
In his 1988 book “Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today,” Harvey Klehr, professor of politics and history at EmoryUniversity, said that IPS “serves as an intellectual nerve center for the radical movement, ranging from nuclear and anti-intervention issues to support for Marxist insurgencies.”
The FBI labeled the group a “think factory” that helps to “train extremists who incite violence in U.S. cities, and whose educational research serves as a cover for intrigue, and political agitation.”
The IPS has been accused serving as a propaganda arm of the USSR and even a place where agents from the Soviet embassy in Washington came to convene and strategize.
In his book “The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider’s View,” Ladislav Bittman, a former KGB agent, called the IPS a Soviet misinformation operation at which Soviet insiders worked.
Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, described IPS as the “perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB.”
Marxist ideology
“Red Army” documents how Panetta keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War. Panetta also honored the founding member of that group, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a “Soviet front.”
On April 11, 1984, Panetta, then a California congressman, entered into the congressional record a tribute in honor of WILPF’s founding member, Lucy Haessler.
In the record, Panetta praised Haessler as “one of the most dedicated peace activists I have ever known.”
Panetta later stated he was not aware of the WILPF’s communist background and was merely praising Haessler’s anti-war actions.
Still, in his Congressional praise, Panetta recognized that Haessler traveled to the Soviet Union as a member of the WILPF:
“She has also participated in peace conferences conducted by WILPF and the Woman’s International Democracy Foundation in France, the Soviet Union, Poland and East Germany,” read Panetta’s congressional praise.
Panetta hailed Haessler for her activism against the pending deployment of U.S. missiles to counter the Soviet build up:
“She joined thousands of dedicated peace activists where she expressed her concern about the impending deployment of Cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles in Europe,” he noted.
Haessler’s WILPF took on a pro-Soviet stance. It sponsored frequent exchange visits with the Soviet Women’s Committee and against “anti-Sovietism” while calling for President Reagan to “Stop the Arms Race.”
Panetta’s relationship with Haessler and the WILPF goes back to at least June 1979, when was the keynote speaker of WILPF’s Biennial Conference at the University of California at Santa Cruz. The conference was arranged by Haessler.
WILPF’s literature notes the conference honored Ava and Linus Pauling, who were prominent supports of ending nuclear proliferation.
Anti-CIA activity
“Red Army” exposes Panetta, former CIA chief under Obama, once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks at its discretion of the country’s sensitive intelligence agency.
In 1987, Panetta, then a California congressman, introduced the CIA Accountability Act, which would have made the CIA subject to audits by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
Panetta’s legislation would have allowed the comptroller general, who directs the GAO, to audit any financial transactions of the CIA and evaluate all of the agency’s activities either at his own initiative or at the request of the congressional intelligence committees.
The CIA is the only government agency that contests the authority of the comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operations.
Panetta’s bill followed the Iran-Contra affair, which came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, senior Reagan administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo. The weapons were intended to help secure the release of six American hostages being held by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terror group.
Panetta’s bill suggested ways to protect CIA secrecy, including the maintenance of all work papers at CIA-controlled locations and a provision allowing the president to exempt any CIA officer or agent from GAO access.
Still, the act allowed for the comptroller to “inspect and copy any relevant books, documents, papers, records, and other information, including written or recorded information of all kinds, and property which belongs to, or is in possession or control of the CIA.”
Obama accused of deliberately overloading U.S. economy
Klein and Elliot’s “Red Army” charges Obama and progressive Democrats with deliberately overloading the U.S. financial system.
The book purports to exposes the radical socialist network that seized political power in Washington over decades, shaped Obama’s presidential agenda and threatens the very future of the U.S.
“Red Army” takes aim at such personalities as George Soros, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and groups such as the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Center for American Progress and the Institute for Policy Studies.
Some other highlights from “Red Army”:
  • The existence of a powerful “Marxist-socialist” bloc in Congress (explicitly formed as an arm of the Democratic Socialists of America) and how it is behind legislation in areas that affect all Americans, including the complete socialization of health care and comprehensive immigration reform, which, the book exposes, seeks to change the very nature of the American electorate.
  • The book exclusively reveals the radical origins of Obamacare and exposes the shocking misinformation campaign behind Obama’s economic policies, discussing the crafting of the massive “stimulus” legislation, as well as his plans for future economic “reform.”
  • In two chapters that every American must read, entirely new information is laid bare on the left’s unprecedented assault on our already over-liberalized education system.
  • The multipronged policy offensive aimed at disarming America by emboldening our enemies within and without, spurning traditional allies, subjecting us to the authority of foreign tribunals, and systematically dismantling the U.S. military.
  • It shows how elements of the news media not only collude with these radical groups, but are in some cases members of the very same extremist organizations they ought to be investigating.