| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Election 2012 |
| Acting on Intel, Secret and Otherwise |
| 2012-10-31 |
| by Steve White You will enjoy the article, What Did He Know and When Did He Know It? The Shadow Knows... at the source. Michael Ledeen, the respected foreign analyst at the National Review and PJ Media, nails it -- rather, James Jesus Angleton nails it and Ledeen just channels. Mr. Ledeen's first point is so obvious that it needs to be amplified over and again, and I shall do so here. The whole point of intelligence work, government-gathered and otherwise, is to understand the world around you so that you make good decisions. Not all the intel required to understand a situation is gathered in secret: some of it is right in front of you. As but one example:
Answer: not much. And how much more intel did they need once the attack commenced and the images from the drone were being beamed back to the White House? Mr. Ledeen thinks Champ refused to order a rescue because the President was afraid of a failure, of a downed AC-130, of more dead Americans, of a catastrophe just before the election. Mr. Ledeen is wrong. I know the reason why, and I shall tell you: Champ was afraid. Period. He couldn't and wouldn't make a decision because he was paralyzed by fear. He is, deep down inside, a coward. He's never made a decision in which failure could come back to hurt him. He refused to make one this time. Two SEAL guys ran towards the sound of gunfire. Our president ran to catch a plane to Vegas. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #26 This is the latest research findings, which seems to explain a lot about the inaction of so-called intelligent people. Empathy Represses Analytic Thought, and Vice Versa: Brain Physiology Limits Simultaneous Use of Both Networks |
| Posted by: tipper 2012-10-31 21:48 |
| #25 "I have some friends, both with extremely high IQ's -- but can't make a decision. " Sherry - very correct. We call it "analysis paralysis" and it often affects very intelligent people. They get bogged down by their own lack of decision making. The old saying still applies ... "not making a decision" is also a decision. :-) |
| Posted by: Raider 2012-10-31 18:34 |
| #24 Ship -- that was my decision... |
| Posted by: Sherry 2012-10-31 17:33 |
| #23 Not even generating the strike package is criminally negligent, and smacks of cowardice or political calculation from the NCA in the Situation Room at the White House. Posted by: OldSpook I suspect forces were in orbit and on stand-by as you have indicated. Why would anyone risk the potential spread of hostilities to Tripoli, and not be prepared to interdict ? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-10-31 16:35 |
| #22 Also Sherry... the answer is always Savannah. :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2012-10-31 16:31 |
| #21 But the President curled up in a ball while men died is so shameful that it cannot see the light of day. This has the feeling of ugly truth. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2012-10-31 16:30 |
| #20 There is a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence will inform you of facts, but wisdom will inform you of right and wrong. Intelligence means you know smoking is bad for you, but wisdom means you know you must make the hard effort to quit. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2012-10-31 16:05 |
| #19 I have some friends, both with extremely high IQ's -- but can't make a decision. Spent two hours with them at an Atlanta restaurant as they spent the entire time trying to decide whether to go to Savannah, or Columbus, GA. I left before the decision was made... Barack didn't make a decision.... IQ has nothing to do with making a decision... my cat makes a decision every time she goes into pouch mode to jump up on the kitchen counter -- will I stop her or will I not -- she makes a decision and usually jumps... |
| Posted by: Sherry 2012-10-31 15:59 |
| #18 that Obama has a tested IQ of 165 Where's the proof? I've seen "Test Your IQ" ads for years that claimed President Obama had an IQ of 125. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2012-10-31 15:38 |
| #17 What I don't understand is why they didn't launch QRF via jet aircraft (they had a laser on the ground and a trained spotter using it), and a support element (AC130) launched pretty much immediately after that. You can generate a FRAGORD and get things wheels up, complete planning, issue the full OPORD en-route, and make a final go/no-go as late as the approach to near the IP. Quick response is why we have top notch aircraft, pilots, aircrews, ground crews and operations planners: they are trained and able to do this on-the-fly if needed. That's where I have the problem: By not launching at all you effectively terminate all chances for any sort of response. If you launch immediately, you can always call the strike back, or have them orbit (generate a tanker sortie if needed), waiting for orders (strike or return) - and if things get worse (as they did) you can order them in fairly quickly, and if things are too dicey, order them to RTB. Not even generating the strike package is criminally negligent, and smacks of cowardice or political calculation from the NCA in the Situation Room at the White House. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2012-10-31 15:36 |
| #16 The best timeline I have yet seen. Let's just say decision time should have been around 22:00. The event lasts until 04:00 in the morning. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-10-31 14:15 |
| #15 There is an Obama supporter in the neighborhood who gets his news from MSNBC and The Daily Show. I suppose he and others like him are not going to get much information about Benghazigate. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-10-31 13:42 |
| #14 Got into an argument with somebody who said the President couldn't have known about it. Even after I pointed out the attack lasted 7hours. And he cited as a response, that Obama has a tested IQ of 165, so of course he didn't know. The response wouldn't have been what it was if he had. Lets just say the idiot was stammering by the end of it, trying to use his current response to Sandy as an excuse of fitness to be President(Never let a crisis go to waste). I could feel him on the ropes. He just didn't know how to respond. Guy's ok, smart, into IT, but just... Ugh. Academia infected him. |
| Posted by: Charles 2012-10-31 13:37 |
| #13 Benghazi seems to be a major question and concern among voters. Only a subset of voters care about this. Obama's true believers DON'T, at most they view concern about Benghazi as a delusion of the vast right-wing conspiracy. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-10-31 13:31 |
| #12 Since Obama been murdering US servicemen with his ROE for years, why you all so excited over Benghazi? It's not "his ROE", though as CinC he's ultimately (and technically) responsible for it. That's like saying he's responsible for establishing combat air control zones; authority for matters like that is delegated. The difference is that Mr. Obama had direct command-decision responsibilty with regards to Benghazi. The impression is that he either bailed on the decision either through inaction or improper delegation, or decided 'No' and refuses to explain why. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-10-31 13:22 |
| #11 Bing West stated last night that there ought to be an Execution Order by the President if there was a "Go order for help and rescue" or a "Stand Down order." There should be a paper trail of some sort according to West: Gingrich on more WH emails? and Benghazi paper trail |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-10-31 12:31 |
| #10 Had he acted correctly, we may not still have been able to get them out, but repercussions wouldn't have been instant, and you may have thinned the herd of evil in Libya, and other cretins would be loathe to target US again. And yes, people get killed, or maybe not. Action was not taken. Now, some creepies may think it's rather easy to target US Staff. These things set precedence. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-10-31 12:25 |
| #9 McCain was on Huge Hewitt Monday -- his voice was full of anger and he even stated, "If I sound angry it's because I am." Stated he would push this -- "The President is either being deceitful or is incompetent. Either way, he is not fit to be Commander in Chief." He added, "If the Republicans are elected to the majority, I will be Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee, and this matter will go to the top." |
| Posted by: Sherry 2012-10-31 11:35 |
| #8 Many know John, few are talking. I suspect they remain silent out of fear. Perhaps those in the upper echelons who have knowledge of the truth, will have "more flexibility following the election". |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-10-31 10:39 |
| #7 Benghazigate (or Obamagate if you prefer) will be pursued after the election later in November. Issa did what he could to bring this to the forefront. The MSM fell down on their job which is shameful--unless their job is to be partisan and get the ONE re-elected. Benghazi seems to be a major question and concern among voters. Benghazi speaks to the fitness of Obama to be President. More information prior to the election would have been appropriate. Voters are entitled to this information so they can make an informed decision about the fitness of this Commander-in-Chief. The fact that Benghazi is being covered up is treasonous. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-10-31 10:34 |
| #6 No such mechanism exists for SecDef or POTUS other than the political arena, in which case the public acts as the board of investigation or courts martial board. The "political arena" to include (for better or worse), elected representatives of the people as to be found in the Congress of the United States. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-10-31 10:11 |
| #5 I'd say g(r)om because there's a mechanism in place to address that for uniform personnel. Anyone subject to the UCMJ can prefer charges against anyone else. There's a procedural nuke handgrenade [meaning it takes out the complainant and the subject] in Article 138 to force an investigation to any act. So those who compose RoEs for the theater of operations do have an accountability no matter how infrequent or unused it might be. No such mechanism exists for SecDef or POTUS other than the political arena, in which case the public acts as the board of investigation or courts martial board. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-10-31 10:03 |
| #4 And Steve, I think you're right. The underlying question is, why the coverup? A decision not to risk more Americans, disgusting though we here might find it, is at least rational. A secret arms deal could be cloaked in impenetrable diplomatic bullshit. But the President curled up in a ball while men died is so shameful that it cannot see the light of day. |
| Posted by: Matt 2012-10-31 07:51 |
| #3 #2 Because there is something especially repulsive about leaving a man behind on the field of battle. Even the al Qaeda guys try not to do that. (Which is not to say that you don't have a point about the ROE.) |
| Posted by: Matt 2012-10-31 07:38 |
| #2 Being a foreigner, I have a question. Since Obama been murdering US servicemen with his ROE for years, why you all so excited over Benghazi? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-10-31 03:38 |
| #1 Reading the comments on Ledeen's article was as informative as the article itself. When all the elements are racked & stacked and truth finally surfaces, I still believe there will be ugly weapons transactions or possible anti-Assad rebel force training events which will surface. Fearing he himself has been targeted, a very security conscience and concerned US ambassador visits one of the most volatile cities in the muslim world one of the most volatile date of the muslim world, under the pretext of a ribbon cutting ceremony of a library to also meet a Turk ? None of it passes the smell test. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-10-31 00:42 |