Article

2012-11-17 Home Front: Politix

Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack

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 tipper 2012-11-17 03:14|| || Front Page|| [336091 views ] Top

#1 By blaming the First Amendment.

Posted by Perfesser 2012-11-17 03:37|| 2012-11-17 03:37|| Front Page Top

#2 ......but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

The fact that Petreaus would offer such an explanation confirms his own collusion in the matter. If not in the hours immediately following the attack, certainly now.

It is most unfortunate that "security concerns" were not extended the pleadings of Ambassador Stevens and his RSO. Very, very disappointing.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-17 03:45|| 2012-11-17 03:45|| Front Page Top

#3 With regard to "tipping off" terrorists and other security concerns, just think how angry the general will be if he is informed that his very own biographer was disseminating Benghazi related classified traffic from her private residence in Charlotte, NC.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-17 04:26|| 2012-11-17 04:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Lame. Very disappointing. Adds to growing stack of evidence that promotion above O-6 leads to corruption. Not that all of our O-6's are lily pure.

Dear Gen. Petraeus. You are corrupt. In spades.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2012-11-17 05:53|| 2012-11-17 05:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Very very disappointingly weak.

Posted by Shipman 2012-11-17 08:19|| 2012-11-17 08:19|| Front Page Top

#6 The tweet admitting and taking the credit for the raid from Ansar al-sharia hours after the battle belies the secrecy 'concerns' excuse. It is a bald faced lie.

Posted by Mugsy Glink 2012-11-17 09:00|| 2012-11-17 09:00|| Front Page Top

#7 Protecting sources and methods? I can understand that. But to do so with a deliberately manipulative and politically convenient lie, when there are better ways to cover it? That's slimy at best, criminal at worst. And it still doesn't answer why they denied help to those men under siege.

A better cover would be the old covers that have been used for decades - and used whether there were sources and methods, or not (so it doesn't give the game away). "We are investigating the incident", "An attack on US personnel and US Embassy will not be tolerated", "The criminals that did this will be found" (that's always a good misdirect, let them think its a criminal matter), etc. Given the kiss-ass press and how they would have run with this uncritically (as they did with the stupidly obvious youtube thing), those would have been adequate enough to stall suspicions of the groups for long enough to allay doubts about any sources that would have been put at risk.

Sorry General, this doesn't wash - you are covering for brute politics being played by the current regime, given your silence prior to the election on this. Silence is complicity in this case, withholding the truth for political gain of your masters was a seriously unethical act. Then again, it looks like immorality is a habit of yours.

More proof that the CIA is politically corrupt and dysfunctional, and in dire need of being dismantled and its functions distributed to the proper places.

Posted by OldSpook 2012-11-17 09:02|| 2012-11-17 09:02|| Front Page Top

#8 "we didn't want them to know that we knew they were claiming credit on Facebook and the media"

doesn't wash. Try V2.0

Posted by Frank G 2012-11-17 09:37|| 2012-11-17 09:37|| Front Page Top

#9 So
The plan was to give up the Ambassador and let the bad guys purposefully get away so you could track them to their base of operations. That is the story, but the play action was to jail a film maker and blame the 1st Ammendment with an all-apology tour and a series of UN resolution attempts to outlaw free speech.

Posted by swksvolFF 2012-11-17 09:47|| 2012-11-17 09:47|| Front Page Top

#10 The terrorists already know what happened. They did it.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-11-17 09:55|| 2012-11-17 09:55|| Front Page Top

#11 The delay to admit the cause was intentional to avoid being asked or having to answer several questions which would have brought Mr. Obama's direct decisions or involvement during the 7 hour attacks in Bengazi into the campaign. The question of Who relieved General Ham from command for his refusal to obey the stand down order to give the requested assistance remains unanswered. (You may have noticed the General was in charge of African Command and was in the DC situation room at the time.) Question #2 is who relieved the Admiral from his Mediteranian command for the same refusal to stand down. If it was the CIC, then yes it would have affected the election substantialy since 4 American deaths are involved and zero help was forthcoming. That is directly pertinent.

It also begs the question of Who at the State Department put together the written statement for the Cairo Embassy that was issued four hours before those riots started. That statement you recall, was an appology for the anti-muslim video that was on the internet since June, and seen by only a few hundred on that medium. Who dug that up, and why the appology was issued, says that was the administrations meme and they stayed with it for weeks. That decision maker would have been part of the campaign rhetoric and escalated from there to Hillary to Obama.

My short form bottom line is it was, and remains, covered up for political reasons. Those reasons will not cast Mr.Obama in a favorable light.

Posted by Mugsy Glink 2012-11-17 11:46|| 2012-11-17 11:46|| Front Page Top

#12 It was not really convincing.

Posted by newc 2012-11-17 11:54|| 2012-11-17 11:54|| Front Page Top

#13 Besides Sicily, the US also SPECOP andor ground assets in Israel + Jordan + Kuwait + Kenya.

Although undoubtedly preferred, it is NOT an absolute that any Benghazi rescue force had to be dedicated anti-Terror or even Embassy rescue units, + only such - ARMED US SOLDIERS + SUPPORT ARE ARMED US SOLDIERS + SUPPORT.

I highly doubt the Benghazi attackers would have known or cared at that moment how US INTEL determined it was terror attack. THEY WOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT AMB. STEVENS OR OTHER WOULD HAVE CALLED, OR ATTEMPTED TO CALL, FOR MIL PROTECTION ANDOR REINFORCED LOCAL ARMED SECURITY.

"AVOID TIPPING OFF THE GROUPS" DOESN'T WASH.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-11-17 22:01|| 2012-11-17 22:01|| Front Page Top

#14 Easy explanation: Petraeus traded favorable testimony for a lighter sentence when the rest of the charges the Obama administration is holding over his head are rolled out.

Posted by gorb 2012-11-17 22:38|| 2012-11-17 22:38|| Front Page Top

23:29 gorb
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:00 Raider
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:44 gorb
22:38 gorb
22:32 Frozen Al
22:30 Water Modem
22:29 Water Modem
22:22 Unang Omeans6347
22:16 swksvolFF
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:01 JosephMendiola
21:48 JosephMendiola
21:40 JosephMendiola
21:35 swksvolFF
21:20 JosephMendiola
21:13 Pappy
20:59 trailing wife
20:43 ranchhand stranded
20:41 brassy caught in Viagra
20:39 ele sinai dugit