Article

2015-12-12 Africa North

Military Support Offered In Benghazi ‐ Why Would White House Say No?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2015-12-12 01:16|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 Because certain ambassador knew too much?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2015-12-12 03:15|| 2015-12-12 03:15|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2015-12-12 07:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Why Would White House Say No?

Cause those in Benghazi were just 'little people'?

Posted by Procopius2k 2015-12-12 08:29|| 2015-12-12 08:29|| Front Page Top

#4 What does it matter now?

Posted by Sloluth Protector of the Weak7539 2015-12-12 10:31|| 2015-12-12 10:31|| Front Page Top

#5 Is it too simple to say they refused because they are traitors?

Posted by JohnQC 2015-12-12 11:35|| 2015-12-12 11:35|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2015-12-12 11:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2015-12-12 12:17|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2015-12-12 12:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2015-12-12 17:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2015-12-12 18:25|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2015-12-12 21:25|| Front Page Top

23:59 Zenobia Floger6220
23:16 Alaska Paul
22:20 Procopius2k
21:56 linker
21:53 Silentbrick
21:43 SteveS
21:25 rjschwarz
21:22 rjschwarz
21:19 Pappy
21:15 Pappy
21:12 Pappy
20:22 Rob Crawford
19:32 badanov
19:16 trailing wife
19:13 Lone Ranger
19:12 trailing wife
19:08 Claising Flavimble5530
19:03 Claising Flavimble5530
18:25 Pappy
18:24 Frank G
18:23 lord garth
18:13 Sloluth Protector of the Weak7539
18:09 AlanC
18:07 Sloluth Protector of the Weak7539