Article

2013-10-29 Africa North

Benghazi Attorneys Major Assertion: Reason to Believe People Who Insisted on Military Respo

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 Besoeker 2013-10-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 "What difference does it make?" We've been told so by "the next president of the US..."

Posted by M. Murcek 2013-10-29 06:18|| 2013-10-29 06:18|| Front Page Top

#2 I've racked my noggin over this disaster since the day it happened, attempting to find plausible answers as to why all the secrecy, denial, and obfuscation by the regime. Nothing seems to add up. Nothing seems to justify the deception and denial.

I've studied the numerous kidnapping conspiracy theories and have arrived at neither logical or illogical conclusion. I've examined the Turkish connection, the warehouse, and weapons cache ideas and cannot twist them in any shape which might justify the extent of the cover.

Reading these latest revelations, I stumbled upon something, a possibility so bizarre and out of the box, I almost hesitate to propose it. Let us suppose for a moment however, that this British chap's news and warning about the pending attack wasn't news at all. What if the regime had full knowledge of the pending seizure and had actually extended tacit approval of the take-down and handover? Given that scenario, what could possibly go wrong ?

Brit trainer was long gone and the facility was left to the security of corrupt guards. The so-called 'secret annex' was reinforced and stand-down orders were given to the staff of the consulate. So what went wrong? Why the cock-up? Did Stevens turn up unexpectedly, or fail to leave as ordered? Did anxious patriots [US Navy Seals] defy orders and rush to sound of the guns? With full knowledge the attack was pending, was the facility intended to simply be given away? Were these poor bastids simply caught in the crossfire ?

Even that, still doesn't justify the cover-up. What situation could so unacceptable, so hanus as to warrant such denial and spin? Hang on with me for one more short and very frightening bit.

For reasons unknown, could the attack and seizure of a hoped for, empty US facility been planned and trained up by some element of US personnel? At some phase of the operation, we're US advisors actually involved in the assault?

Posted by Besoeker 2013-10-29 07:09|| 2013-10-29 07:09|| Front Page Top

#3 What if the regime had full knowledge of the pending seizure and had actually extended tacit approval of the take-down and handover?
Seems strange, but also the least implausible explanation so far. Then the question is 'Why?'

Did anxious patriots [US Navy Seals] defy orders and rush to sound of the guns?
That part seems quite likely.

Whatever the plan was, it went tragicly wrong: Some breakdown in timing or communication in a complex plan? Some third party got involved by accident or leak? There seems to have been little in the way of a contingency plan though, because the whole follow-up/cover-up was pathetic. Still, it involved a lot of people, from multiple disciplines, all managing to/being forced to keep their mouths shut - not likely without, IMO, something substantive behind it all.

Posted by Glenmore 2013-10-29 07:51|| 2013-10-29 07:51|| Front Page Top

#4 #3 What if the regime had full knowledge of the pending seizure and had actually extended tacit approval of the take-down and handover?
Seems strange, but also the least implausible explanation so far. Then the question is 'Why?'

Good question. Securing and defending the facility would have entailed military action against potential AQ elements just prior to the election. Military action would have validated previously ignored security concerns. As I recall, the regime had declared "GM alive, Ben Laden and AQ dead". Military action at that junction would not have fit the pre-election narrative.

Had the facility been overrun and no one killed or injured, the evacuation of the dilapidated facility could have been portrayed as a prudent, cost effective choice, an intelligence coup.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-10-29 08:12|| 2013-10-29 08:12|| Front Page Top

#5 I think we're ascribing too much intelligence to these people. Benghazi was nothing more than sheer incompetence and panic on the part of the Tyrant Obama's admin. The coverup was simply an attempt to hide this. These people cover up and lie about EVERYTHING. No matter how minor. I think Hillary's 3am call came and she flat out panicked and refused to let anything happen because she could not make a decision. If you understand that other people aren't really 'real' to her, just pieces and tools for her to play with, it makes more sense.

Posted by Silentbrick 2013-10-29 08:19|| 2013-10-29 08:19|| Front Page Top

#6 The genesis of the Benghazi debacle is found in the US arming of rebel forces intended to bring down Muamar Qadafi. The Qadadfa clan hated the Benghazi people and Muamar was no different. During his four decades of rule he always kept them on a short lease. The forces that brought down Qadafi were led by Islamist elements, and Stevens was Hillary Clinton's liaison with them. Afterwards, Benghazi was a post-Qadafi collection point, with CIA funding used to re-purchase arms after the fall of Qadafi. Some bright guy at the CIA thought it wise to accept Gulf money to move arms to the rebels in Syria, and Benghazi was the point from which arms were shipped to receiving points in Turkey. Throughout, the CIA was aware of the dangerous conditions in Benghazi; it originally thought it could control the crazies, but by the time of the attack both the Agency and the Embassy, and Stevens were aware that effort had failed. The dangers to the operation were known in Washington, anc the key to events likely will be discerned some day by the publication of minutes of the meeting held by the President's security council on 10 September, the day before the attack.

Posted by Spigum Tojo8813 2013-10-29 08:44|| 2013-10-29 08:44|| Front Page Top

#7 The pre-apology by the Cairo Embassy for the obscure utube video more than 24 hours prior to the Benghazi attack, told me the die was cast by State...because they knew what was coming.

The authors of that apology have not been identified, Benghazi's consulate was not warned, the military was not given a heads up.

When you look at that sequence, the kidnap of Stevens for exchange of the blind shiek...who the MB's had previously requested be released to them...the plot thickens.

Posted by Mugsy Glink 2013-10-29 08:58|| 2013-10-29 08:58|| Front Page Top

#8 The question that has not been asked is why the Islamist elements decided to attack the US in Benghazi. Sure, they had warned the Brits and the Red Cross. And some on the ground say that the US was also warned it was a target. But what really puckered the AQ types was the fact that the arms collected in and shipped from Benghazi for the Syrian rebels particularly excluded Islamist units active in Syria. Thus the 9/11 attack served various purposes. Most importantly it told the White House that AQ was not dead and was at war with the US presence, first in Benghazi, and secondly in Libya.

Posted by Spigum Tojo8813 2013-10-29 09:06|| 2013-10-29 09:06|| Front Page Top

#9 I agree Mugs, the vid was a convenient (or previously coordinated) cover for action. An 'everything goes to hell' default. Running the traps on where Susan Rice came up with this bit of theater would tell us much. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone in Washington really wants to know.

However, in my view, the Blind Shiek and kidnapping theory fails to meet the pre-election narrative.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-10-29 09:09|| 2013-10-29 09:09|| Front Page Top

#10 In the conduct of prisoner snatches, raids and ambushes, and the like. Time and accurate sequencing of events is of the essence. A rebel assault force remaining on or near the objective for an extended period of time (eight plus hours fits this category) places the assault force at risk to counterattack and the relief of the objective by reinforcements.

Of course if you already know no one is coming, and are simply pinned down by a few stragglers, the risk of loitering about is substantially reduced.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-10-29 09:33|| 2013-10-29 09:33|| Front Page Top

#11 I tend to agree with Spigum. What I suspect is being missed here is that the four at Benghazi were caught in a policy shift. An op was being run by State/CIA to send arms to Syria rebels. But there was dissension within the administration about it because some (Valerie?) didn't want to get involved in Syria on either side for fear we would be drawn in as we were in Libya or to placate Iran. Nor did Obama want to get involved in yet another mid-east war. So the decision was made to cut the losses at 4 dead Americans. And who really wanted Stevens around to tell the press what he knew?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-10-29 09:45|| 2013-10-29 09:45|| Front Page Top

#12 Boes, if you consider the Alinsky mindset regarding don't let a crisis go to waste, and note the Cairo apology would have been planned around early August, (the video came out in July) the olde "don't change horses in the middle of a crisis/stream" fits a pre-election timing.

Posted by Mugsy Glink 2013-10-29 09:55|| 2013-10-29 09:55|| Front Page Top

#13 A "policy shift" is entirely likely. A surviving Stevens saying anything about anything in a post-Benghazi scenario.... highly unlikely. That's not how senior political appointees, career diplomats, and many senior military people reach and stay at the top. It's simply not in their make up.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-10-29 10:04|| 2013-10-29 10:04|| Front Page Top

#14 I believe that some guy in Cairo believed the youtube video was at fault and tweeted it and that confused matters and gave the State Department a fig leaf when they needed it.

I believe Obama knew better than experts on the ground (who tend to portray Islam as violent) and refused to listen until it was too late, and they didn't send help because the attack would be over by then, but the attack continued and continued exposing their inaction.

I believe there was an election going on and the Media wanted Obama to win so they played ball for a year.

I believe the political class delayed inquiry into this until the election was well over and the next one was over a year away to best allow them to recover and claim it was old news when the time comes.

I believe a lot of crazy things.

Posted by rjschwarz 2013-10-29 10:15|| 2013-10-29 10:15|| Front Page Top

#15 A surviving Stevens saying anything about anything in a post-Benghazi scenario.... highly unlikely.

Why take a chance?

Chicago rules.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-10-29 10:21|| 2013-10-29 10:21|| Front Page Top

#16 Bear in mind for a moment the proposed 'link analysis' (to be)performed in the Fast-n-Furious gun walking experiment. The end goal was to reverse engineer a C2 distribution network.

Some time after, from the same thinkers:
Imagine then tracking a warehouse of registered weapons, 'randomly distributed thru covert channels from a clustered point source'.

Pan doesn't like conspiracies. To me this smells of NGO modeling theatre behind a blind CIA OP. Bravely, SEALS did as SEALS do. The mortars were unexpected and Stevens was directed to be there to lend legitimacy.

Posted by Skidmark 2013-10-29 11:09|| 2013-10-29 11:09|| Front Page Top

#17 Nothing seems to add up. Nothing seems to justify the deception and denial.

How about simple force of habit?

Posted by Shipman 2013-10-29 12:14|| 2013-10-29 12:14|| Front Page Top

#18 Too much top down, lack of local and regional commander's ability to act independently, coupled with command paralysis at the top (Sec Sstate, CinC) due to inexperience, incompetence, negligence, and extreme risk aversion due to political calculations. That all hit in Benghazi, and the big news outlets provided cover for this in order to insure it was buried for the election, and attempted to further the coverup to this day.

How do we hold the news organizations responsible for what would be a criminal aiding and abetting a crime, then also conspiring to assist in the coverup?

Posted by OldSpook 2013-10-29 13:16|| 2013-10-29 13:16|| Front Page Top

#19 For reasons unknown, could the attack and seizure of a hoped for, empty US facility been planned and trained up by some element of US personnel?

Possible, but not likely on all counts. I'm with Pan - I don't go for conspiracies.

There are several military assets that would have been able to do this, some of them US-trained. You're as capable of coming up with a list as I am.

There are also jihadi elements that received training either directly from, or through trainers that had been in, the Soviet/Russian military.

As for "hopefully empty," the facility was under surveillance since early morning of the day of the attack. Ambassador Stevens was at the gate bidding farewell to the Turkish ambassador in the few hours prior to the attack. The probability of that going unobserved is low.

And yes- I don't think the unofficial SEAL/SPECOP response was anticipated.

Posted by Pappy 2013-10-29 14:10|| 2013-10-29 14:10|| Front Page Top

#20 Valid points Pappy. Beginning with the very obvious PR fiction of the lame video, I simply can't reconcile the extent the regime has gone to cover up this debacle. Gun running, poor facility security; ok, take your hits and move on....been there, done that with numerous administrations. Why the continuing cone-of-silence, secrecy, non-disclosure statements (NDS), senior officer retirements, obfuscation, and denial. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-10-29 14:50|| 2013-10-29 14:50|| Front Page Top

#21 I simply can't reconcile the extent the regime has gone to cover up this debacle

They just doing what comes natural.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-10-29 14:53|| 2013-10-29 14:53|| Front Page Top

#22 Let's make it rain. Issue Subpoenas.

Posted by newc 2013-10-29 17:11|| 2013-10-29 17:11|| Front Page Top

#23 Newc - with Holder on the Perp side it won't accomplish anything.

Posted by Tiny Trotsky8375 2013-10-29 17:34|| 2013-10-29 17:34|| Front Page Top

#24 This thread is Rantburg excellence.

A tribute to Ty Woods and Glen Doherty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfIMvfkYF0

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2013-10-29 20:19|| 2013-10-29 20:19|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:30 Steven
23:29 JosephMendiola
22:11 USN,Ret.
21:27 Thrans Splat1574
21:22 swksvolFF
20:54 CrazyFool
20:37 swksvolFF
20:32 swksvolFF
20:30 Pappy
20:19 Classical_Liberal
20:17 mossomo
20:01 Raj
19:57 J. Biden
19:49 SteveS
19:18 Rambler in Virginia
19:13 Fred
18:43 Enver Shaling4364
18:29 Herb Gloluger9960
18:15 Dale
18:02 Zenobia Floger6220
18:01 Barbara
17:34 Tiny Trotsky8375
17:17 swksvolFF