ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 29, 2012

WND column

Is Obama unfit for command?

There were no American helicopters shot down at the CIA annex in Benghazi. But those who have seen the movie, “Blackhawk Down,” will surely recall the scene where the two Delta snipers, Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon, are desperately fighting off the Somali attackers, who are attempting to capture the crew of the downed Black Hawk. Shugart and Gordon, valiant men who were both posthumously awarded the congressional Medal of Honor, killed 25 Somalis while defending the crew before being killed by the enemy militia.

As the details of the large-scale attacks on the American diplomatic compound and the CIA annex gradually leak out into the press, it appears that two of the four fallen Americans, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died fighting in a manner no less valorous than Sgt. 1st Class Shugart and Master Sgt. Gordon.

Labels: ,

81 Comments:

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 29, 2012 4:26 AM  

The movie about the Benghazi incident will be called "Black Man Down."

Anonymous JACIII October 29, 2012 5:19 AM  

It obviously has been policy to attempt to actively deflect blame for attacks away from terrorist organizations on the theory that deflection also deflects blame away from the Whitehouse.

See WTC Bombing I, OKC, Flight 800, Fort Hood....

Anonymous OCS October 29, 2012 5:41 AM  

Psshaw, like the massive amount of immigrants care about that stuff at the voting booth.

Anonymous The Great Martini October 29, 2012 6:07 AM  

I'm not sure how you're jumping from the incident in question to Obama, skipping the entire chain of command, or is this some kind of "the captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship" thing? For a ship's captain, that might be a good rule, but I'm not sure how practical that is for a president and the entire behemoth of military. Also, at this point, a congressional investigation might, maybe, if they start in a couple minutes and work 24/7, decide on a seating arrangement before the election.

Blogger James Dixon October 29, 2012 6:26 AM  

> .. or is this some kind of "the captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship" thing?

I seem to remember a rather famous line that went something like "The buck stops here".

Anonymous Rosalys October 29, 2012 6:32 AM  

Yes.

Anonymous Rosalys October 29, 2012 6:40 AM  

I'm thinking that anyone who casts his vote for Obama is actually voting for Biden for president - knowingly or not, because that is the likely eventual outcome. Man! Doesn't THAT give you the warm fuzzies!

Anonymous VD October 29, 2012 6:43 AM  

I'm not sure how you're jumping from the incident in question to Obama, skipping the entire chain of command, or is this some kind of "the captain is responsible for everything that happens on his ship" thing?

The rumors are that the chain of command in the military and CIA commanders wanted to act but were ordered not to do so, to "stand down", by their superiors. Since the Director of the CIA has already issued a statement that no such orders came from the CIA, that basically leaves Panetta at the Department of Defense and the White House. The most important questions that people want answered are as follows:

1. Was there a stand-down order given in response to the request for assistance?
2. If so, by whom?
3. Is there any connection to the removal of Gen. Carter Ham from his position as U.S. Africa Command and the Benghazi attacks?

The general belief is that a stand-down order was given, and it was either Obama, or someone who reports directly to Obama, who gave the order.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie October 29, 2012 6:44 AM  

The emerging facts seem to indicate the President was in the loop. His statement that he ordered those below him to do everything to rescue those trapped was either a lie or one of his subordinates countermanded his orders. Just possible that his negritude is so weak his underlings feel comfortable acting on their own. It was suggested in the past that his orders or lack thereof, was overridden by Panetta to get Ben Laden. He is probably the weakest man (man?) to ever be elected to what was a the time, the most powerful position in the World. WTG 47%

HKC

Anonymous Stilicho October 29, 2012 6:54 AM  

The movie about the Benghazi incident will be called "Black Man Down."

Nah, it will be "Black Chickenhawk Down."

Anonymous Stilicho October 29, 2012 7:03 AM  

The answer to the question "Is Obama unfit for command?" is, of course a resounding "yes." This provides Romney with another chance to distinguish himself and win the election. For all of his many faults, one does not get the impression that Captain Underoos is unwilling to make difficult command decisions. At the same time, I expect that there was no direct order from Obama to stand down, just confusion, vacillating, analysis paralysis, and an unwillingness to allow anyone down the chain of command make a decision that resulted in orders along the line of "Hold on, we're looking at the situation, don't do anything without getting clearance from National Command Authority."

Anonymous aero October 29, 2012 7:04 AM  

This should be a warning to all Americans overseas. The GOV is not going to help you.

The White house is stuck on stupid

Not only did they deny extra security in Libya they made cuts in the security force.
No one knows the outcome of an military action. But to do nothing, the outcome is your going to loose every time. No guts no glory
A squadron of fighter jets doing a low pass over head may have been all that was needed to stop or delay the attack.
The people attacking us do not care about other civilians in the area. Yet we have police in our own country that will raid the wrong house and kill innocent people. They do so with even less intelligence information.
We have many videos of Obama lying about the events and blaming it on one video. He should be thankful that the white house is not in Libya. Liars are always very offensives.
Leon Penetta should understand Monday morning Quarterbacking is 99 percent the truth about the game. In this event the coaches and managers failed. As one of many I say firer them all.


Anonymous daddynichol October 29, 2012 7:26 AM  

If Obama were truly innocent, he should be livid and demand to know the facts and details so he can get to the truth. However, since he (and his administration officials) has come out with three different versions of what led up to the attack, the time line of events during the attack and still has not determined what exactly happened, leads me to believe he is up to his ass in this self created mess.

What's even more diabolical is the willful ignorance and cover by the press and broadcast media.

Anonymous Jerome Horowitz October 29, 2012 7:36 AM  

What is it with Democratic Presidents and Military failures?
1. Jimmy Carter – Iran hostage rescue helicopter failure
2. Bill Clinton – Black Hawk Down
3. Barack Obama - Benghazi

Anonymous Procol Harumph October 29, 2012 7:44 AM  

The whole thing makes no sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

If the order not to respond somehow came from the president, why would he do that? Let's assume for a moment that he gave the order based on political calculations instead of protecting the staff. Even so, why? How would it have been politically risky for him to defend Americans under attack? If anything, it would have made him look good. It doesn't sound like a controversial thing to do; it seems to me like all the political risk and fallout would come from the decision he seems to have made. Or maybe that Valerie Jarrett made.

Also, (military types jump in here) why would the issue go all the way up to the president? I would assume that there are standing protocols for this kind of thing, and that it's been gamed out and so forth, after all it's the Middle East, they know they are under constant threat. Isn't there a regional commander who had sufficient power to act under his own judgement without asking the White House?

Again, sending in troops or other assets to protect our guys doesn't seem like a difficult call. If we can believe the story, apparently two SEALs held off something like 150 attackers. They've been fighting in the region long enough to know that a handful of our guys usually outclasses an AQ mob. So it isn't like they had to send in an entire battalion or something.

MAYOR OF RIOT-TORN TEXAS TOWN: They only sent us ONE Texas Ranger?
TEXAS RANGER: Well, you only got one riot.

I just don't get it. But if it can be used as a stick to poke Obama with, well why not do that, he deserves it anyway. Like a certain joker once said, Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Anonymous VD October 29, 2012 7:50 AM  

Also, (military types jump in here) why would the issue go all the way up to the president? I would assume that there are standing protocols for this kind of thing, and that it's been gamed out and so forth, after all it's the Middle East, they know they are under constant threat. Isn't there a regional commander who had sufficient power to act under his own judgement without asking the White House?

There are. There is. His name is General Carter Ham, a four-star general who, until recently, was the commander of the US forces in Africa. That's why so many people are suspicious about his very recent reassignment. The rumor is that he informed his superiors of the planned response, received orders to stand down, indicated his refusal to obey them, and was thereby relieved of his command at gunpoint.

It sounds a little too Hollywood to be true, in my opinion, but the fact of his post-Benghazi removal from the Africa command is a matter of public record.

Anonymous procol harumph October 29, 2012 7:51 AM  

Is it possible that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi doing some sort of covert work that was so delicate and sensitive and secret that that played a role in the decision? I don't quite know how it would work that way, but there are of course missions that officially "don't exist". Maybe this was one of them.

Blogger IM2L844 October 29, 2012 8:02 AM  

Great article, but I'm a little disappointed there was no mention of the follow up attack in Afghanistan, three days later, at Camp Bastion. It seems probable that both attacks were coordinated by the same people.

Anonymous aero October 29, 2012 8:03 AM  

VD
It sounds like the white house was dealing with a bunch of loose cannons. This is probably their next excuse for the failure. Obama is going to say, had Woods obeyed the order to stand down he would have been able to implement his plan that would of saved everybody. As we all know Obama always has a plan he a military genus.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan October 29, 2012 8:13 AM  

Yes he is unfit for command.

When the majority of your electorate are women, you tend to end up with unfit leaders.

Unless you define "fit" as "willing to destroy the country by pandering to women and their desires".

It doesn't help that a third of the men of voting age are either minorities, obese, unemployed, uninformed, dumb as a sack of hammers, envious, or all of the above.

Anonymous The Great Martini October 29, 2012 8:13 AM  


What is it with Democratic Presidents and Military failures?


Technically, this doesn't qualify as a military failure. Anyway, not any more than Reagan, 1983, Beirut barracks bombing.

Anonymous zen0 October 29, 2012 8:21 AM  

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer says Obama was in the situation room watching Benghazi attack

On the video both Shaffer and the other guest (Col. David Hunt) say that the decision to act would have come (or not) from the President and through the Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta).

Blogger JD Curtis October 29, 2012 8:23 AM  

Shugart and Gordon, valiant men who were both posthumously awarded the congressional Medal of Honor, killed 25 Somalis while defending the crew before being killed by the enemy militia


Isn't it ironic that non-citizens from Somalia are helping to determine the outcome of a critical swing state in this election?


the filmmaker supposedly responsible for the film, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is still in federal custody


That'll teach these people coming to our shores about getting any bright ideas about exercising free speech and what have you.

Anonymous Noah B. October 29, 2012 8:53 AM  

"Is it possible that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi doing some sort of covert work that was so delicate and sensitive and secret that that played a role in the decision?"

That's certainly possible, but regardless of what Stevens was actually there doing, he had official status as an ambassador. I can't even imagine what legitimate reason there could be for refusing to protect him or delaying that protection.

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 9:17 AM  

Everyone is expendable. You are expendable. Diplomats are especially expendable. You could find yourself, at behest of your government employers, arming “terrorists.” Then one day find yourself in a double-cross, abandoned and dead. Someone could have got a bad case of the conscience… as in, “What the puck am I doing?” Someone could have got the bad case of… the paranoids. Someone could have become a… martyr… to crank up your emotional… “LET’S KILL ALL THE FRIKKIN MUSLIMS!”

The shenanigans going on in the Middle East and Persia was planned way before dial 9-1-1. It is ongoing today. It will be ongoing tomorrow.

Of course, most AmeriKans today, including men, are driven by emotions, rather than the truth.

In AmeriKa, we live, breathe, eat, go to work, relax, sleep… pay our taxes… living in fear. Fear propagated in your minds by the talking heads. By your own government. Crack open the heads of many AmeriKans, and Muslims will fall out while screaming, Boo!

It was the fear of Muslims that gave AmeriKans the PATRIOT Act., Military Commissions Act., NSA Solar Wind, NDAA, Dept. of Homeland Stasi, TSA groping, VIPR Teams, and etc. While you may hate all of this, your constant fear mongering, induced in your mind by your own government, does nothing but perpetuate the governments insatiable thirst to create new ways to save you. And fear and revenge are their tools.

I fail to understand the constant emotionalism over Ambassador Stevens. Stevens understood where he was going. He understood he was point man and a conduit for the schizophrenic geo-political diplomacy of the CIA, State Dept., National Security Council, president… perpetrated by various Think Tanks. He understood that his position was nothing more than war by other means. He understood the precarious position he put himself in… while arming the very people we say we are fighting against. He understood that the policies and objectives he was participating in were established long before Obama who is just perpetuating the agenda of the Bush administration who was perpetuating the policies of men like…

Cont.

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 9:18 AM  

Cont.

Elliott Abrams, Bruce Pitcairn Jackson, John Podhoretz, Gary Bauer, Ash Jain, Stephen G. Rademaker, Max Boot, Frederick Kagan, Karl Rove, Ellen Bork, Robert Kagan, Randy Scheunemann, Scott Carpenter, Lawrence Kaplan, Gary Schmitt, Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Dan Senor, Seth Cropsey, Robert Lieber, Michael Singh, Thomas Donnelly, Tod Lindberg, Henry D. Sokolski, Colin Dueck, Michael Makovsky, Marc Thiessen, Eric Edelman, Ann Marlowe, Kurt Volker, Jamie Fly, Clifford D. May, Kenneth Weinstein, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Joshua Muravchik, Paul Wolfowitz, John Hannah, Martin Peretz, R. James Woolsey, William Inboden, and Danielle Pletka, Morris Amitay, Paula Dobriansky, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Michael Rubin, and etc.

President Obama merely carried on exactly where Bush left off, and exactly where presidential candidate Mitt Romney will pick up if elected in 2012. In reality the White House is not responsible for the creation of policy. It merely serves as public relations, selling a particular narrative to the public, and taking the fall (with little or no consequence) for when details emerge implicating the US in the global state sponsorship of terrorism. Behind Bush, Obama, and Romney are corporate-financier funded think tanks that craft policy and/or the talking points used to sell such policy to an unwitting public.

You think your insatiable focus on all this BS is promoting the return of of our republic. Somehow going to return us to our rightful liberty? Advancing the cause of our Founding dreams? Ambassador Stevens was the anti-thesis of everything that America should be about. All the BS propagated by our own government in the ME and Persia is not about liberty. It is not about restoring our constitutional republic. It is about setting up a catalyst for a NWO. Stevens was part of that.

Let the dead bury their own dead.

Stop living in their world. Stop living in their creation.

They hate us for our freedom… indeed!

They hate us so much for our freedom, that our own government must save us from liberty?

Anonymous E> PERLINE October 29, 2012 9:21 AM  

Why are the Republicns picking on Obama? Don't they realize it's hard to knock off Jihadists you secretly agree with? The problem is the media. They used to keep such incidents obscure. Now they're a disorganized bunch of blabbermouths.

Anonymous TheExpat October 29, 2012 9:29 AM  

General Carter Ham, a four-star general who, until recently, was the commander of the US forces in Africa. That's why so many people are suspicious about his very recent reassignment. The rumor is that he informed his superiors of the planned response, received orders to stand down, indicated his refusal to obey them, and was thereby relieved of his command at gunpoint.

-----

Someone could have become a… martyr… to crank up your emotional… “LET’S KILL ALL THE FRIKKIN MUSLIMS!”

An alternate scenario - what if the General Ham story is backwards, or some variation thereof? That is to say, what if the Obama administration had credible knowledge that an attack was planned, and let it proceed, with a diplomatically important sacrificial lamb (a U.S. Ambassador!), as an opportunity for Obama to either direct a guns-blazing rescue or a guns-blazing retaliatory strike to look strong, forceful and... presidential less than two months before the election? -but- What if things didn't go as planned and/or people didn't obey orders (Woods, etc.) or refused to follow orders (Ham?), leading to the resulting clusterfuck that they are now trying to bury and ignore?

Anonymous Noah B. October 29, 2012 9:31 AM  

"He understood the precarious position he put himself in… while arming the very people we say we are fighting against."

Who is it you're claiming Stevens was arming, and what is your basis for this statement?

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 9:57 AM  

> "Who is it you're claiming Stevens was arming, and what is your basis for this statement?"

I have to get ready for work...

I don't know where you have been, but we are in fact, while droning them on the one hand, arming them with the other hand.

We armed the Libyans and we are arming the so called Syrian Free Army. Do get your head out.

But you have better things to worry about, like Muslims taking away our freedom of speech.

Anonymous Mike43 October 29, 2012 10:02 AM  

"Also, (military types jump in here) why would the issue go all the way up to the president? I would assume that there are standing protocols for this kind of thing, and that it's been gamed out and so forth, after all it's the Middle East, they know they are under constant threat. Isn't there a regional commander who had sufficient power to act under his own judgement without asking the White House?"


I spent 30 years in, both enlisted and commisioned, in combat units, both in peace and war. I'm too no nonsense and traditional to get promoted too high, but I did retire as an infantry major.

Contingency plans and Rules of Engagement have been heavily politicized since 2003. And there's serious protocol issues in a non-military entity (CIA) asking for the assistance of Force Recon or Delta. Such a request has to enter the military chain of command at some point, with all the bureaucratic problems and associated bs, and above all the lawyers. This has been over-lawyerized and over-politicized for years.

I've also read that there was a concern with the possiblity of civilian casualties. Yeah, okay. Anything to justify inaction, I guess.

Bottom-line though, attacking an Ambassador is an act of war. Any and all military actions were justified, in my mind. Unfortunately, it seems the administration continues to over think the problem, instead of solving it.

Wasn't it a Roman emperor who said that one of the benefits of being a Roman was that you could walk the Empire without being bothered because you were a citizen?

And now we can't even say that about being an Ambassador of the United States.

For gosh sakes' Valerie Jarret has a bigger security detail that the Ambassador to Libya.

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 10:05 AM  

"Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"

"The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?"

"The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)"

"Bombers, Bank Accounts and Bleedout: al-Qa'ida's Road In and Out of Iraq"

Just a few to choose from...

Anonymous Noah B. October 29, 2012 10:08 AM  

"I have to get ready for work..."

There's a shocker. What does that involve, browsing Infowars all day?






Anonymous Noah B. October 29, 2012 10:11 AM  

"I don't know where you have been, but we are in fact, while droning them on the one hand, arming them with the other hand."

We've been arming jihadists since WWI, so while it's not a huge surprise, I haven't heard any direct information about it.

Anonymous Stickwick October 29, 2012 10:12 AM  

Is it possible that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi doing some sort of covert work that was so delicate and sensitive and secret that that played a role in the decision? I don't quite know how it would work that way, but there are of course missions that officially "don't exist". Maybe this was one of them.

For whatever it's worth, this was posted by Ann Barnhardt last Friday:

The Obama regime has been running guns and BIGTIME armaments and munitions, including MANPADS, which are shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles designed to shoot down commercial jetliners, to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is just Fast-and-Furious except that the people being armed are musloids tasked with reforming the Islamic Caliphate instead of the drug cartels. But it is exactly the same thing. Ghadaffi was overthrown because the Obama regime wanted to use a chaotic, destabilized "wild west" Libya as the doorway to the Caliphate to get the arms in for distribution to Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt and eventually Saudi Arabia. Egypt would have been too risky.

Ambassador Chris Stevens and the CIA were somehow, some way running or heavily involved this armament pipeline.

The Obama regime wanted and "needed" Chris Stevens dead, probably to cover the gun and armament running, so they killed him. Word was sent to the Muslim Brotherhood to attack the Benghazi facility. The Obama regime promised that there would be no retaliation and that a cover story about "slandering the prophet" would be provided. The Muslim Brotherhood wins all around. They get to keep all of the arms and MANPADS supplied by Obama with no whistleblowers AND they get their bullshit sharia law agenda advanced and explicitly ratified by the government of the United States.

Anonymous The other skeptic October 29, 2012 10:12 AM  

I have heard people suggest it was a power struggle between the Clintons and Obama. Sounds right to me.

It is a bitch being collateral damage.

Anonymous Daniel October 29, 2012 10:17 AM  

Panetta: We — we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

But — but the basic principle here — 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. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

++++

And yet...there was a CIA security officer who had a laser painted onto the mortar team. There was a gunship with the enemy in its sights! The unsupported battle took four hours. The math here, even without the rumors points directly toward orders from above, and it makes no sense that it would have been a Panetta-level decision. It was obviously an Obama call - or, more likely, another Clinton call, simply adopted by the sleepwalker President.

What isn't remarkable is that the Clintons would repeat the idiocy of Somalia, but that so many seemed genuinely surprised that they would make the same "mistake" twice!

Reconstructing the chain of command and what exact words were used in the scandal will take a combination of re-enactment, chasing rumor, and leaks. But what is patently obvious (pretty much from day one) is that the Administration sacrificed its own people for politics...and they couldn't even get the politics right without, and instead crapped themselves.

How pathetic that they ended up having to employ a journalist to "moderate" references to a Most Obvious Conspiracy out of the public eye. It is like watching turkeys mate through an electric fence. A comically ugly sight that doesn't end well.

And yet, they keep at it and think it passes for romance.

Anonymous JCB October 29, 2012 10:17 AM  

"Bottom-line though, attacking an Ambassador is an act of war. Any and all military actions were justified, in my mind. Unfortunately, it seems the administration continues to over think the problem, instead of solving it."

Lol, we had just finished participating in the assassination of Libya's leader. You don't think that's going to piss a few people off? Is that an act of war? Is any response by the Libyans justified?

It should tell you something when the U.S. had no problem bombing the shit out of Libya (killing many innocents) to get rid of Gadhafi, but won't authorize force to protect its own ambassador. I don't claim to know what it is, but there is a dark & sinister motive behind this, held by someone at a very high level.

Anonymous RC October 29, 2012 10:21 AM  

Limbaugh received a call from a Lt. Col. SO planner that obviously knows of what he speaks. You can see it on therightscoop.com, 2nd page. I wish Limbaugh would have not cut him off but, regardless, I think the man will pay a price for the call.

I've found only two plausible reasons for this situation:

1) Obama was trying to set up a pre-election rescue of some sort that would have given a portion of the electorate either tingles or gained their respect.

2) Ambassador Stevens had become a severe liability and needed to be Ron Browned.

Either way, things didn't play out well.

Anonymous The other skeptic October 29, 2012 10:41 AM  

A song for the times

And the joke's on you.

Anonymous Josh October 29, 2012 10:44 AM  

The Obama regime wanted and "needed" Chris Stevens dead, probably to cover the gun and armament running, so they killed him. Word was sent to the Muslim Brotherhood to attack the Benghazi facility. The Obama regime promised that there would be no retaliation and that a cover story about "slandering the prophet" would be provided. The Muslim Brotherhood wins all around. They get to keep all of the arms and MANPADS supplied by Obama with no whistleblowers AND they get their bullshit sharia law agenda advanced and explicitly ratified by the government of the United States.

She sounds like a slightly less crazy Pam Geller, with the same need to change out her feminine hygiene product.

Anonymous Jerome Horowitz October 29, 2012 10:53 AM  

The Great Martini October 29, 2012 8:13 AM
Technically, this doesn't qualify as a military failure….
..
Really, So technically Ambassador Stevens wasn’t raped, since he is dead, and we can’t ask him if it was consensual, or not. Right?

Blogger Hammer6 Actual October 29, 2012 10:53 AM  

Short Answer: Hell No.

The reason that the CIA answers they didn't ORDER "Stand Down" to a military response/QRF is that they can't. DOD doesn't answer to CIA unless they are actively tasked by the National Command Authority.

If the Theater Commander didn't have the resources to respond, requesting resources from CENTCOM would have required NCA authorization and orders.

Once a request for support got into the military chanin-of-command, SOP would have been to respond, so that means that someone ORDERED "Stand Down".

Irregardless of how/why we put our people in that hell-hole, we owe them to find out why they were actively refused support. Ask any veteran - cowards and traitors are despised above all else.

Anonymous Daniel October 29, 2012 10:56 AM  

JCB I don't claim to know what it is, but there is a dark & sinister motive behind this, held by someone at a very high level.

You don't have to be Encyclopedia Brown to figure it out, though, either. Obama attempted immediately to benefit politically from the original story line. H. Clinton had talking points of strength, sacrifice, national honor, we know what we are doing, stick with us in this existential war, fed into the media cycle. Panetta emphasized ignorance and darkness, and was set up to be the repository of a black box of questions.

Obama has consistently had political designs and political cronies who profit from distraction, disruption, and justification for a host of foreign wars. He's a neocon's ideal: an automatic warmaker without a conscience. Bush's problem was that he believed in the neocon ideology: that slowed him down. Better to have a guy who's first instinct is to send war and wonder what diplomacy is.

As long as the story holds together long enough, they benefit. Their big problem is that this story was crap.

They miscalculated and overreached on the naughty movie thing. Tone deaf. They needed a simpler story: Gadhaffi loyalists' last gasp, in a league of convenience with Al Qaeda. Two birds, one stone, plausible (to most) distraction. They also should have given them a really big bomb to make sure that the fight was under an hour.

Blogger Hammer6 Actual October 29, 2012 11:01 AM  

Correction - not why, but WHO. NAME THEM.

Damn shame the civilians who order the military don't have to answer to a Courts-Martial for Cowardice in the Face of the Enemy.

Anonymous JW October 29, 2012 11:02 AM  

"The movie about the Benghazi incident will be called "Black Man Down."

I think it would be called "Black Man Skates Again".

Anonymous Noah B. October 29, 2012 11:13 AM  

"Damn shame the civilians who order the military don't have to answer to a Courts-Martial for Cowardice in the Face of the Enemy."

Fast & Furious was already treason, quite literally. Those despicable SOB's armed enemies of the US in order to build support for undermining the Constitution.

Anonymous Daniel October 29, 2012 11:21 AM  

RC
I've found only two plausible reasons for this situation:

1) Obama was trying to set up a pre-election rescue of some sort that would have given a portion of the electorate either tingles or gained their respect.

2) Ambassador Stevens had become a severe liability and needed to be Ron Browned.


I'm not saying these are necessarily wrong, but you are missing a few obvious ones:

3) Obama wanted the attack to proceed successfully without intervention to "Remember the Maine." He has demonstrated, at every turn, the desire to be an everwar candidate. I've honestly lost count on the number of wars he's involved us in since inauguration.

4) Obama had a relationship with terror groups to overthrow Assad in Syria, and the stand down, if the official story was accepted, would have justified Obama's avenging stroke in Libya (Obama vowed that he would avenge Stevens shortly afterward. Simply linking the terror group to Syria would have justified all sorts of Libya-style "support" for the civil war there.

5) Domestic politics: a pre-election foreign disaster is something that a sitting President can use as a cone of silence. How dare you, Mr. Romney, dishonor the dead and disrupt the investigation, response, and our national interests by questioning the POTUS at this desperate hour? What kind of an opportunist are you?

There are a lot of good possible reasons and secondary benefits to a false flag operation like this.

The question I have isn't who stood to benefit, but who should hang for treason first? Of course, I also know the difference between should and will is a wide gulf.

Anonymous RedJack October 29, 2012 11:27 AM  

There are. There is. His name is General Carter Ham, a four-star general who, until recently, was the commander of the US forces in Africa. That's why so many people are suspicious about his very recent reassignment. The rumor is that he informed his superiors of the planned response, received orders to stand down, indicated his refusal to obey them, and was thereby relieved of his command at gunpoint.

It sounds a little too Hollywood to be true, in my opinion, but the fact of his post-Benghazi removal from the Africa command is a matter of public record.


Interesting.

Anonymous aero October 29, 2012 11:30 AM  

The navy seals had the training and equipment to provide accurate coordinates of the enemy's position to any Gun Firer Support vessel such as aircraft ship or submarine. The accuracy here is within feet. How fast is a cruise missile? they can be launch by any of the above vessels.

The fog of war. if innocent people are killed blame it on the enemy.

Anonymous aero October 29, 2012 11:36 AM  

Fog of war Bill Clinton blows up a pharmaceutical company. Kills a bunch of innocent people. wag of the dog

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic October 29, 2012 11:46 AM  

From what I have read of Stevens, he was a naive, probably gay, under-qualified lawyer in way over his head. That's what happens you have a neo-con/neo-lib foreign policy establishment run by menopausal women. A sensible State Department would have waited at least a year to see if the "Libyans" even had a coherent nation-state before extending diplomatic relations. But it's always Year Zero for the Trotskyites.

Blogger James Dixon October 29, 2012 11:52 AM  

> For gosh sakes' Valerie Jarret has a bigger security detail that the Ambassador to Libya.

Well, of course. Don't you know that people like us and the Tea Parties are a much worse threat than any Muslim terrorists?

Anonymous patrick kelly October 29, 2012 12:05 PM  

"Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi doing some sort of covert work that was so delicate and sensitive and secret"

People in power were nervous about something he knew.

Anonymous Cheddarman October 29, 2012 12:17 PM  

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-28/israel-conducts-air-strike-sudan-missile-base-dry-run-iran-attack

A little off topic here, but Israel recently attacked a missile building factory in the country of Sudan, a few days ago, i don't recall seeing it in the mainstream news.

Anonymous Anonymous October 29, 2012 12:58 PM  

"Fog of war Bill Clinton blows up a pharmaceutical company. Kills a bunch of innocent people. wag of the dog"

Positive side: Less Africans. If only a missile or 2 could hit Detroit.

- B. Gott

Anonymous glacierman October 29, 2012 1:04 PM  

This dog-and-pony show has more trails than Yosemite Park.

There are a lot of questions but the lips are pretty tight. Taking responsibility in and under this administration is career ending, at best, life ending otherwise.

Bill Clinton has now come out saying that Hillary had called for more security for the Ambassador the night before the attack. Not sure if this is confirmed yet, but would fit the meme.

Obama has done his level best to lose the election, he really doesn't want to be the president. Hillary DOES!!!

This scenario has Obama being blamed for deaths, but it was Valerie Jarrett who actually made the decision, so he is off the hook and gets to sleep at night, and ride off into the sunset and live his life in Hawaii starting in January.

The Chicago mafia plays the media and the American people to then accept their story, then attack Romney/Ryan for the next 4 years for not being able to fix the economy and the disintegration of America.

In rides Hillary in time for the election of '16, reminding everyone that she was the one who tried to do the right thing, had some knowledge of the events, but what could she do? She was out of town doing her job as SOS making friends with all the peoples of the world and trying to obtain world peace. She comes out smelling like a rose and secures her plan of making the Cherry Blossom Throne finally hers.


Vox's prediction of her rise to St. Hillary will have take a few more twists and turns, but accomplished none the same.

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 29, 2012 1:08 PM  

patrick kelley: People in power were nervous about something he knew.

Yassir Yubetcha. (The Palestinian Minnesotan agrees). Poofter Stevens and those tasked to protect him were deliberately tossed beneath the bus in the classic Chicago manner so that the Moose-limb brotherhood could have their 20,000 shoulder-launched missiles. Stevens knew too much as he was one a major nexus in the whole 'Springtime for Allah' campaign cooked up by the oligarch-squids. Ann Barnhardt's October 26 entry (scroll down to see) offers one plausible theory as to exactly why he was thrown to the brothers for a grand finale of poofterdom.

Blogger JD Curtis October 29, 2012 1:10 PM  

Remember free speech? That was awesome, wasn't it?

Anonymous Athor Pel October 29, 2012 1:11 PM  

Link for perusal.
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2012/10/up-on-frequency.html



Latest post about it.
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2012/10/options-in-benghazi.html





" VD October 29, 2012 7:50 AM
...
There are. There is. His name is General Carter Ham, a four-star general who, until recently, was the commander of the US forces in Africa. That's why so many people are suspicious about his very recent reassignment. The rumor is that he informed his superiors of the planned response, received orders to stand down, indicated his refusal to obey them, and was thereby relieved of his command at gunpoint."



I wonder what kind of friends a four star general accumulates over a lifetime of military service? A situation as you described is the kind that pushes fence sitters off the fence to start making plans.

Anonymous Gerd October 29, 2012 1:16 PM  

Obama is not fit to run a dry cleaning business.

"Moochelle,baby, what happened to this man's leather jacket? I can't seem to find it on the rack.
Oh, Barack, remember, we gave to that poor fellow on welfare. You know how we love to spread other's wealth around!! She then strolls off chewing on a milky way.

Anonymous Noah B. October 29, 2012 1:42 PM  

It doesn't take a major conspiracy to explain why Obama ordered the military not to defend Stevens. He's just being the same fearful, indecisive guy he's always been. As a friend of mine put it, when Obama was forced to make an important decision under pressure, he voted "present."

Anonymous JW October 29, 2012 1:49 PM  

'Springtime for Allah'

Great stuff Gen. Kong'

Anonymous Noah B. October 29, 2012 2:17 PM  

"Poofter Stevens and those tasked to protect him were deliberately tossed beneath the bus in the classic Chicago manner so that the Moose-limb brotherhood could have their 20,000 shoulder-launched missiles."

Question: couldn't the regime have achieved the same result by doing nothing? Isn't that what would have happened if they had never sent an ambassador to Libya at all?

Anonymous Daniel October 29, 2012 2:54 PM  

Noah B.Question: couldn't the regime have achieved the same result by doing nothing? Isn't that what would have happened if they had never sent an ambassador to Libya at all?

On one hand, yes, possibly. Perhaps they installed the Embassy to early in typical bungle-first bureaucratic fashion, and the opportunity for a pre-election false flag came up later. Maybe the terrorists targeted the embassy and the administration took advantage of a bad situation: after all, the successful "defense" of an embassy in the vibrant capital of the Arab Spring is, in effect, bad PR. It would be a Rourke's Drift against mob rule, when up until that point, the story had been that Libya finally had the Rule of Law.

Although long-range, well planned conspiracy could have led to this, it is such a complete cluster that I wonder if it was a conspiracy of opportunity.

I don't think (to the extreme end on one side) that Obama pre-meditated the murder of an old boyfriend and then tried to take advantage of a political cover-up. Nor do I think that it was just a clueless cluster cover up after the fact. The attack was known to be coming. The stand down was discussed between Panetta and Obama and Biden, and it was implemented. The cover-up, although quite silly, was not unplanned.

What is crystal clear is that the embassy in Benghazi was a pawn, willfully sacrificed in advance, and it was an attempt to curry both domestic and foreign political favor. It is also equally clear that it was far more successful on the foreign side of things, which makes me suspect that the domestic opportunity was secondary.

Which makes me suspect guns, money, and political access to terror groups or Iran or Syria via terror groups or something like that.

Anonymous Daniel October 29, 2012 3:08 PM  

For the Ann Barnhardt-averse, here's a BI contributor's take on Stevens' knowledge and/or participation in Syrian gun-running.

Anonymous Anonymous October 29, 2012 3:24 PM  

For clarification...GEN Ham has not been relieved.

However, a replacement has been named for him, but that takes place around next April--his 2 year mark. that's the norm.

frenchy

Anonymous Daniel October 29, 2012 3:36 PM  

Frenchy, that isn't the norm at all. Are you reading a talking point or something? Ham's predecessor was in place a lot longer than him, and just now, following Benghazi, he announces his "retirement?" It has allegedly been planned as an order of succession, but is never mentioned during the aftermath?

"Norm," "clarification" and your post are three things that have nothing in common.

Anonymous Stilicho October 29, 2012 3:44 PM  

Remember free speech? That was awesome, wasn't it?

I laughed. Then I wept.

Anonymous Noah B. October 29, 2012 4:46 PM  

Oh nevermind, the ASUS processor is quad-core.

Anonymous Good Will October 29, 2012 6:26 PM  

Amb. Stevens = Uriah the Hittite

Anonymous The other skeptic October 29, 2012 7:54 PM  

I thinks the Benghazi Bungle will be remembered for some time to come.

Anonymous stg58 October 29, 2012 8:00 PM  

Springtime for Allah In Libya

The Ummah is happy and gay

I was born in Dusseldorf

that is why they call me Rolf


Same difference...

Anonymous The other skeptic October 29, 2012 8:35 PM  

The questions get stronger

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 9:36 PM  

Noah B. October 29, 2012 10:08 AM

"I have to get ready for work..."

There's a shocker. What does that involve, browsing Infowars all day?

********

No dickhead, I have a job. You're probably the idiot who came in today complaining your check engine light came on last week, 6 months after you had a tire rotation and brake check.

"You must have done something to my truck."

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 9:43 PM  

Foreign Policy Experts Urge House Republicans to Support U.S. Operations in Libya

An Open Letter to House Republicans

We thank you for your leadership as Congress exercises its Constitutional responsibilities on the issue of America's military actions in Libya. We are gravely concerned, however, by news reports that Congress may consider reducing or cutting funding for U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military operations against the oppressive regime of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Such a decision would be an abdication of our responsibilities as an ally and as the leader of the Western alliance. It would result in the perpetuation in power of a ruthless dictator who has ordered terrorist attacks on the United States in the past, has pursued nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and who can be expected to return to these activities should he survive. To cut off funding for current efforts would, in short, be profoundly contrary to American interests.

We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted and justified this operation. The problem is not that the President has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.

What would be even worse, however, would be for the United States to become one of those irresolute allies. The United States must see this effort in Libya through to its conclusion. Success is profoundly in our interests and in keeping with our principles as a nation. The success of NATO’s operations will influence how other Middle Eastern regimes respond to the demands of their people for more political rights and freedoms. For the United States and NATO to be defeated by Muammar al-Qaddafi would suggest that American leadership and resolution were now gravely in doubt—a conclusion that would undermine American influence and embolden our nation’s enemies.

In Speaker Boehner’s June 14, 2011, letter to President Obama, he wrote that he believes “in the moral leadership our country can and should exhibit, especially during such a transformational time in the Middle East.” We share that belief, and feel that now is the time for Congress to exhibit that moral leadership despite political pressures to do otherwise.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Bruce Pitcairn Jackson John Podhoretz

Gary Bauer Ash Jain Stephen G. Rademaker

Max Boot Frederick Kagan Karl Rove

Ellen Bork Robert Kagan Randy Scheunemann

Scott Carpenter Lawrence Kaplan Gary Schmitt

Liz Cheney William Kristol Dan Senor

Seth Cropsey Robert Lieber Michael Singh

Thomas Donnelly Tod Lindberg Henry D. Sokolski

Colin Dueck Michael Makovsky Marc Thiessen

Eric Edelman Ann Marlowe Kurt Volker

Jamie Fly Clifford D. May Kenneth Weinstein

Reuel Marc Gerecht Joshua Muravchik Paul Wolfowitz

John Hannah Martin Peretz R. James Woolsey

William Inboden Danielle Pletka

Anonymous stg58 October 29, 2012 9:46 PM  

Thanks, I hadn't eaten yet. Now I don't think I will.

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 10:02 PM  

Libya's Test of the New International Order

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/02/26-libya-shaikh

"It is a test that the international community has to pass. Failure would shake further the faith of the people's region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law."

But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.


http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

Meh. Most people thunketh presidents make foreign policy.

When one actually reads foreign policy papers by various institutions with various known names that keep popping up, it becomes easier to put it all together.

Here, let Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) tell you...

http://youtu.be/TY2DKzastu8

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 10:26 PM  

And you know what! Isn't it a real shocker that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood raped Qaddafi's weapons stores!

Who woulda-thunk it! Not our government! Who, at the behest of NWO sleazeballs, bombed the crap out of Libya and put SO forces and CIA assets on the ground.

Some people are so blinded by Obama who is just continuing where Bush, Clinton, Bush and etc. left off.

Anonymous Battlefield USA October 29, 2012 10:39 PM  

In other news:

The US Army plans to increase integration of active duty and Reserve forces and to align reserve units to regional commands to better meet their needs.

SNIP

US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), for example, has never really been able to field the kind of force it would like to provide military civil support for all of its missions, said Lt. Gen. John Campbell, Army deputy chief of staff. Assigning dedicated reserve units to NORTHCOM under regional assignments would provide it with resources to deploy forces it may need.


Army to Assign Reserve Units to NORTHCOM, Other Regional Commands

http://tinyurl.com/9pj6495

Because there are Muslims under your bed ready to Boo you! Boo.

Anonymous Elmer Fudge (friend of Sexual Chocolate) October 29, 2012 11:09 PM  

Again, what does one expect from a Red Diaper Baby? Ah, a failed false-flag October (in September [1]) surprise? Gee, that's just not fair!

Far a larger view, see source article. Comments by Klaatu. Did Stevens just happen to have some knowledge of Golden Lily, similar to those victims of Cantor Fitzgerald on floors 101-105? That was 600+ of them dying on that one day. Oh, and that wasn't a military operation as well. Even though NORAD apparently had some orders to stand down...



----------
[1] Did it absolutely have to be on September 11? Talk about telegraphing Cabala.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts