You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Africa North
Military Support Offered In Benghazi ‐ Why Would White House Say No?
2015-12-12
Scandal: The administration says there just wasn't enough time to send military help for the four Americans murdered by terrorists in the Benghazi attacks. Newly released emails show that's another lie.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta swore during congressional testimony in 2013 that "without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond" to Benghazi.

Killed by terrorists in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks were U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

In a televised interview, also in 2013, Panetta, who served as the Obama defense secretary for nearly two years, said "you cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time."

So the administration's official line has been that no help was sent because events happened too quickly.

But the facts are catching up with the story. Emails released this week by Judicial Watch show that a Defense official offered armed intervention that could in the official's opinion have provided help. "We have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi," chief of staff Jeremy Bash said in an email sent to State Department leadership. "They are spinning up as we speak."

We don't know what those "forces" were because the reference has been redacted. But they likely didn't need to have the strength of an invading army.

It wouldn't have taken much to instill terror in the terrorists. As noted by Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information lawsuit, State Department Mission Deputy Chief Gregory Hicks has said under oath that even scrambling "a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced" would have prevented the mortar attack on the State Department annex and caused the Libyans to " split."

"They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks said.

But military support would have drawn attention to the administration's failed Middle East policies. And it couldn't afford that in an election year.

So, it appears a White House decision was made to let the violence play out without intervention, then make up a lie that the attacks weren't terrorism but merely a protest over an anti-Islamic video that just got out of hand.

It was a tale that Hillary Clinton was most certainly involved in concocting. Was she also involved in turning down the offer of military support?

The White House has repeatedly denied a stand-down order given to the military response to Benghazi. But as the Bash email confirms, support clearly was offered -- yet never arrived. Did someone in the administration turn it down, or was it utterly ignored?
Nah. She probably didn't get the 03:00 email because she was sleeping. Besides, she thinks the military is for losers.
Either way, the White House and the Democrats' leading presidential candidate look bad. It was Secretary of State Clinton's war, so she owns Libya and every disaster related to it.
Posted by:gorb

#11  My guess is that they felt it would be over before the military support got there and wrote it off rather than risk incursions into foreign airspace. Then those two CIA guys showed up and held them off the jihadi hour after hour buying the necessary time, exposing the whole thing.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2015-12-12 21:25  

#10  So many messy questions.....

The answers are likely based on four possibles, all of which could be linked together or considered discrete missions:

1. Coordinating the flow of arms to approved recipients.
2. Restricting the flow of arms (i.e., no MANPADS)
3. Stopping the flow of arms.
4. Monitoring/tracing the flow of arms.

My list of possibles from back then included, in no particular order:

Egypt (Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood regime)
Iran and surrogates
Russia
Turkey
Hamas
One of two possible Arab-peninsula countries
An un-named nation with ties to the US
Libya's then-rump government

For reasons:

1. Stopping the out-flow of weaponry
2. Resuming the out-flow of weaponry
3. Disrupting and removing a US IC presence in Benghazi
Posted by: Pappy   2015-12-12 18:25  

#9  Do not forget that the admitted reason that the Ambassador was there was top meet with the Turkish Ambassador for a private meeting. Since it seems likely they were talking about the arms flow from Libya via the CIA Annex to Turkey surrogates and then to the Syrian rebels, and since the mortar attack had a skilled registration on the annex almost immediately when it commenced, does the dual attack bear any connection to Russian/Iranian surrogates to make a point about stopping that arms flow? So many messy questions.....
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2015-12-12 17:09  

#8  * Temporary consulate with security arrangements any 'sane' government official would have questioned, given the conditions on the ground.

*Repeated refusals to upgrade security by the Foggy Bottom Home for Questionable Ethics.

* FSO who was playing "Klingon" with the Islamist anti-Qadaffi forces prior to his appointment as ambassador to Libya.

* An annex facility larger than the consulate itself.

* Significant message traffic from the temporary consulate indicating reconnaissance prior to and the day of the attack.

* Unexplained pull-back from the area by local police.

*Initial refusal to respond by OIC of the annex.

* Lack of proactivity by the US Embassy in Tripoli.

One might think that everything was intended to be expendable from the start.
Posted by: Pappy   2015-12-12 12:20  

#7  Now Hillary is basically accusing the family members of lying when they relate that she told them it all about an internet video. F&*king lying bitch
Posted by: Frank G   2015-12-12 12:17  

#6  Losing an embassy and some good people wasn't their biggest concern. Losing the election was.
Posted by: Iblis   2015-12-12 11:41  

#5  Is it too simple to say they refused because they are traitors?
Posted by: JohnQC   2015-12-12 11:35  

#4  What does it matter now?
Posted by: Sloluth Protector of the Weak7539   2015-12-12 10:31  

#3  Why Would White House Say No?

Cause those in Benghazi were just 'little people'?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-12-12 08:29  

#2  For starters, someone needs to ask former Congressman Mike Rogers (R), (former head of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) some pointed questions.

Perhaps one could begin by taking a look at the U.S. State Dept's no bid Benghazi facility security contract with UK's Blue Mountain Group. I doubt any digging will be done however, dirt on both sides the isle so to speak. In the end, Pub or Dem, it's a beltway fraternity.

Link
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-12-12 07:32  

#1  Because certain ambassador knew too much?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2015-12-12 03:15  

00:00