| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Africa North | |
| AC-130U was overhead during Benghazi attack, Obama said don't fire | |
| 2012-10-27 | |
| |
| Posted by:Frozen Al |
| #25 Obama released a statement through 'surrogates' that basically says the same thing the CIA said. So that leave SecDef. It could be the assets were told to get into the air, started getting into position, then were told to 'await further orders'. Remember the stories on Obama's dithering in raiding Abottabad? Or when he ALMOST let the Libyan resistance get crushed? It wouldn't surprise me if he was waiting until the very last second, the last possible moment, until he HAD to make a decision. Then everything that had been holding for hours suddenly came unraveled, perhaps one of our two Ex-seals went down from a lucky shot. Things collapsed faster than an order could get through and suddenly they can't attack without hitting our own people. This would explain why they 'didn't give the order not to assist'. They didn't MEAN for it to happen, and nobody gave the order not too. They intended to send in the rescue team. The idiot (Obama) tried to do his special strategy of waiting with a firefight and lost. It's incompetence on a grand scale that nobody wants to admit being involved. Can you imagine any military officer, staffer, politician, advisor, ect, ever admitting to being involved in this and going for the ride? You'd be sludge-covered by proximity. |
| Posted by: Charles 2012-10-27 18:46 |
| #24 Who's in charge here? The Goldwater-Nichols Act stipulates that the operational chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders of the Combatant Commands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the Commanders of the Combatant Commands from the President and Secretary of Defense and advises both on potential courses of action, but the Chairman does not exercise military command over any combatant forces. IF General Ham, USAFRICOM, was relieved as suggested there are only two people who could have done it, the CinC or SecDef. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-10-27 17:50 |
| #23 Retire and spill the beans, General |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-10-27 16:26 |
| #22 ...per Art 99 of the UCMJ Text. “Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy— (2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend; (3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property; (8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or (9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.” Seems like someone might know what it is all about. The key word is 'lawful'. 'Stand down' may or may not meet the criteria in the circumstance. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-10-27 16:05 |
| #21 Very interesting, KBK. Fits all the data released so far. Makes sense. Explains why he was replaced (lawful orders MUST be obeyed!) Leaves unanswered the critical question of WHY it was important to 1) not risk a Carter rescue FUBAR, 2) not violate Libyan 'sovereignty, or 3) (some other reason.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-10-27 15:45 |
| #20 Rumor: Gen Ham decided to intervene and was immediately relieved?? |
| Posted by: KBK 2012-10-27 15:35 |
| #19 Maybe he meant with Barry? This time of year, especially with a group with a bad golfer, if ya ain't on 12 by 16:00 hours you run out of sunlight. In the White House hell, its trail time buddy, time to hit the circuit. Vegas Baby, Vegas! Whoooooo! |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-10-27 14:46 |
| #18 Panetta said that they didn’t have enough “real-time information” to send military forces to respond. What better intelligence do you want than two SEALs, with a laser and active video and comm? |
| Posted by: Sherry 2012-10-27 14:19 |
| #17 Security forces: Police etc... not embacy guards, JQC |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-10-27 13:36 |
| #16 it's on now, and several times during the day |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-10-27 13:32 |
| #15 bret bair was supposed to have a special on fox news at 1;00. but it's not on. instead a stump speech from romney and no explanation of why the special was pulled. anybody know |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-10-27 13:15 |
| #14 A simple thing, making the right decision, being a stand-up guy with a big stick, DEFENDING AMERICANS IN TROUBLE, would have better served this guys election. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2012-10-27 12:23 |
| #13 Glenn Reynolds posts from a commenter: 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" |
| Posted by: Sherry 2012-10-27 11:47 |
| #12 General Carter Ham, AFRICOM was asked if he had assets in the area that could have helped and he said he did. He also said he was never asked If JSOC had proponency for the mission, General Ham the AFRICOM Commander would have indeed been relegated to an advisor/observer role. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-10-27 11:31 |
| #11 Thought they bugged out? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-10-27 11:05 |
| #10 How come nobody asking what the local security forces were doing during the protracted assault? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-10-27 10:41 |
| #9 General Petraeus stated: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” General Carter Ham, AFRICOM was asked if he had assets in the area that could have helped and he said he did. He also said he was never asked. Looks like responsibility lies in the WH with "O." Looks like getting a good night's sleep, going to Las Vegas the next day to hustle re-election votes and bucks was more important than making the call to save Americans caught up in a 8-hour firefight in Libya. There is a certain v0yeurism and p0rn0graphy about watching all this all unfold in real time in the WH and doing nothing. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-10-27 10:27 |
| #8 Mark Twain - "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-10-27 10:04 |
| #7 has anyone noticed how the story about Benghazi changes every day? In hope that eventually one will stick. Or everyone loses interest in ...SQUIRREL! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2012-10-27 10:04 |
| #6 has anyone noticed how the story about Benghazi changes every day? |
| Posted by: Raider 2012-10-27 09:33 |
| #5 If available (which it appears they were) armed preds and a Spector on-station would be essential elements of a non-permissive extraction. The only element missing or not mentioned yet would be a Tier-1 or 2 SOF element orbiting high overhead, waiting to HALO into the compound, or air-land via rotory wing aircraft. Absent a timetable, it is beginning to look as though JSOC did in fact execute a NEO (non-combatant evacuation). The original plan may have been to get everybody out, to include the KIA Smith on the OGA bird at the airport. Doherty and Woods continued to stay behind to possibly look for Stevens and engage the enemy force VIA Specter gunship and Pred. Appears POTUS pulled the plug. We should know very soon. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-10-27 05:40 |
| #4 quis·ling [kwiz-ling] noun a person who betrays his or her own country by aiding an invading enemy, often serving later in a puppet government; fifth columnist. After Major Vidkun Quisling (1887--1945), Norwegian collaborator with the Nazis;shot for treason after Ger. defeat. First used in London "Times" of April 15, 1940, in a Swed. context. |
| Posted by: Au Auric 2012-10-27 02:25 |
| #3 Please look at my question in the Obama Won't Answer Whether Americans in Benghazi Were Denied Help |
| Posted by: Sherry 2012-10-27 01:19 |
| #2 The newly minted sovereignty of the Libyan govt not withstanding, sometimes it is better to ask forgiveness than ask permission. We can always assuage hurt feelings with some soothing money. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2012-10-27 00:51 |
| #1 I am more and more convinced we were unable to get permission from the Libyan government and unwilling to violate their sovereignty and international law by firing without permission. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-10-27 00:12 |