Barack Obama and Benghazi: What is the body count that separates the president from the candidate?

Loading

There have been three different parts to the Benghazi story. Not surprisingly, Barack Obama has managed to fail spectacularly in all three.

The first aspect of this failure has to do with the run-up to September 11th. Given terrorist’s general penchant for anniversaries and the fact that September 11th is such a trophy date for them, the Obama administration should have had every American embassy and consulate on the highest security level possible, with terrorist friendly places like Libya, practically on lockdown. Add to that the chaos associated with the fledgling government and Libya should have been ground zero for extra security measures.

Sadly, it was not. The State Department, in the specific person of Hillary Clinton, denied repeated requests for increased security. Indeed the American mission at Benghazi “was like a cardboard building, there wasn’t even bullet proof glass” and security personnel “were not even allowed to have bullets”.

The second aspect of failure at Benghazi was the response to the attacks themselves. The attack on the American compound began on September 11th at 9:40 PM local time, 3:40 Eastern time. In addition to dozens of people storming the front entrance to the compound the attack included small arms fire, mortars and RPG rounds. By 6:00 AM local time the attacks on the compound and the annex were essentially over and the survivors were being transported to the airport. During the 8 hour siege no support came from outside of Libya – although a six man security team from Tripoli (including 2 DOD employees) arrived at 1:30 AM to help evacuate personnel and retrieve bodies of those killed, including Ambassador Stevens. There was however never any military support sent. Of note is the fact that 3 hours after the attacks began, the Secretary of Defense ordered anti-terrorism security teams sent from Spain, but five hours later, by which time the attacks were over, they had not even gotten off of the ground. More consequentially however is the fact that prior to the attack on the annex a Special Forces unit in Tripoli was preparing to fly to Benghazi. They too never got off the ground because they were told to stand down, that they couldn’t go because they didn’t have authority. This is in stark contrast to the administration’s claim that no one was ever given a stand down order and that all available resources were used.

The third aspect of failure, and the most consequential for the American people as a whole, although certainly not for the families of the victims of the attacks, is the obfuscation and cover-up. Coming just 2 months before the presidential election, Barack Obama made the conscious decision to lie to the American people. Indeed, in an attempt to further his administration’s fiction that terrorism was on the wane and that America was once again loved around the world, Barack Obama tried to pretend as if nothing of consequence had happened as he jetted off to Vegas on a campaign stop. What’s worse, five days later, despite knowledge to the contrary, he trotted Susan Rice out in front of the nation to lie and blame the events in Benghazi on a YouTube video. Later, Hillary Clinton claimed that she had never denied any increased security requests from Libya. Today, eight months later we know that both were lies.

What is particularly disturbing about the events surrounding Benghazi is that they are sequential, i.e. they compound one another. After any one of the three they could have decided to make good, honest decisions. They didn’t and taken as a whole the Benghazi affair is a disaster. We all know that mistakes get made in life and in any organization, government or otherwise. As they say, nobody is perfect and we should not expect our politicians to be so. And we don’t. We do however expect them to be competent and honest. In this case Barack Obama and his administration showed themselves to be not only imperfect, but incompetent, dishonest, and most of all, self-servingly callous with the lives of four Americans who were in Benghazi serving as representatives of the American people.

It’s possible for Americans to believe that in the chaos of Libya in the summer of 2012, that somehow security measures were not quite what they should have been or that the security in place seemed adequate but turned out to fail in a perfect storm of events. After all, “No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy”.

What’s not possible for Americans to believe however is that in the midst of a raging battle of unknown duration, the President of the United States would refuse to allow Special Forces to attempt to protect and rescue those Americans who were being attacked. From the very beginning the administration understood the gravity of the situation – both on the ground and for their campaign. Rather than jettison the fiction of a terrorism free middle east, the president choose to order reinforcements to stand down. Additionally, later pronouncements that military aid from outside Libya would not have arrived in time are simply absurd. As far as we know the terrorists do not punch clocks for an 8 hour shift of causing mayhem. By definition a terrorist attack timetable is not coordinated with the victims beforehand. In the middle of the battle there was no way of knowing if it would last 5 more hours or 5 more days. In that light the decision to refuse reinforcements shows Barack Obama to be at best an incompetent Commander in Chief and at worst a narcissistic politician for whom his power is the only issue of concern.

Finally there is the cover-up. Every American understands that safety and security are messy affairs and that tragedy occurs and people die, often brave people who have willingly borne the burden of defending us. While Americans might be able to accept as human the misjudgments in preparation in the run up to September 11th, and while they might reluctantly accept the fact that they have elected an incompetent Commander in Chief, they will not, or at least should not, accept a president who, when four Americans die on his watch, lies to the American people about the cause so that he can win reelection. At some point you have to ask, is there nothing that rises above politics? What is the body count that separates the president from the candidate? What if the number had been 8 victims? Would 16 victims have been enough bloodshed to cause him to delay his trip to Las Vegas? Had 20 Americans died would they still have dared to blame it on the video?

Barack Obama has shown himself to be an incompetent president, an ineffectual Commander in Chief and most of all a pernicious politician. One has to wonder where things will go from here. Say what you will about Richard Nixon, when the time came he at least knew when the game was up and had the grace not to drag the nation into a constitutional crisis. If we get to that point with Barack Obama one wonders if grace will emerge as one of the character traits that’s been hidden for the last five years… Don’t count on it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
34 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well laid out summary, Vince.

In the middle of the battle there was no way of knowing if it would last 5 more hours or 5 more days.

Exactly. But Jarrett told him to go to bed, “we, warped adults that we are, have this under control, get lost” so off he went.

As much as the media conjures up excuses and wants to use the ghost of Nixon, Nixon was actually an intelligent human being, and no one died breaking into Watergate.

I really think V Jarrett is the puppetmaster behind BHO in all the scandals.

Ambassador Stevens thought that the security situation was good enough for him to go to Benghazi AND to ahve a meeting with the Turkish Ambassador immediately before the attack. If the local Ambassador thought it was safe, why would Obama think differently?
Siege implies forces surrounding both the annex and the consulate. That is incorrect. The SF “team” was 4 men. They had only sidearms. They were told to stand down because no one knew what the situation was. Former SOD Gates spoke about this, he termed the views of the critics on our military capabilities as beeing “cartoonish”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/
Anyone who thinks taht the US Air Force is going to send in a C 17 onto an airfield taht is guarded by a militia of unknown loyalties doesn’t know squat.
In their obsession to demonize Obama critics are now saying that the US military failed.

And the security team that arrived at 1:30 am, well that was when they landed at the airport. BUT they were not allowed to leave the airport for at least several hours they did not arrive at the annex until 5:00 am. You leave out what does not fit into your version of history. You want to find facts that only fit the story line you want to write.

“…What does it matter?” It was my child/son/father/brother/husband killed and they are just insignificant Americans who died so they aren’t really important seems to be the opinion of Hillary.

Well, these were the children/son/father/son/brother/husband of someone in America so it does matter.

Benghazi bombshell: Email supporting GOP “conspiracy” theory is fake
http://americablog.com/2013/05/white-house-email-benghazi-fake.html

Vince/FTA: The attack on the American compound began on September 11th at 9:40 PM local time, 3:40 Eastern time. In addition to dozens of people storming the front entrance to the compound the attack included small arms fire, mortars and RPG rounds. By 6:00 AM local time the attacks on the compound and the annex were essentially over and the survivors were being transported to the airport. During the 8 hour siege no support came from outside of Libya –

I’m as concerned as anyone else to have the Benghazi failures come to light. But I believe if we’re going to have an honest discussion about whether outside aid was feasible in light of the actual events, and judge on the ground decisions at the moment, then we’re also going to have to be honest about this, so-called, “8 hour siege”.

I’ve heard this same statement made by virtually every conservative talking head since the attack. Yet the only official timeline involving actual “siege’ing” going on was not eight hours… but about 1 hour 45 minutes spread out over that eight hour period. Over an hour and a half when it began, and 11 minutes at the end.

The Washington Guardian was one of the first to report it as a terrorist attack, and they were given an event timeline by officials. Now if there is a later one that indicates it was nothing but an all out firefight for eight hours at both locations, please feel free to link it. I’d certainly like to see any corrections.

But in the quest for some honest, and not partisan, evaluation as to military, agency and Admin responses, this is the only timeline I am aware of as the starting point.

Around 9:40 p.m. (local), the first call comes in to the Annex that the Mission is coming under attack.

Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team leaves the Annex for the Mission.

Over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons, and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire.

At 11:11 p.m., the requested drone arrives over the Mission compound.

By 11:30 p.m., all U.S. personnel, except for the missing Ambassador Stephens, depart the Mission. The exiting vehicles come under fire.

Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the Annex receives sporadic small arms fire and RPG rounds; the security team returns fire, and the attackers disperse around 1 a.m. local time.

At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport, negotiates for transport into town, and upon learning the Ambassador was missing and that the situation at the Annex had calmed, focused on locating the Ambassador and trying to secure information on the security situation at the hospital.

Still pre-dawn timeframe, that team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and armed escort and — having learned that the Ambassador was almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain — heads to the Annex to assist with the evacuation.

They arrive with Libyan support at the Annex by 5:15 a.m., just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the Annex. The two security officers were killed when they took direct mortar fire as they engaged the enemy. That attack lasted only 11 minutes.

Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrived to help evacuate the compound of all U.S. personnel.

We know that the GRS team (which included Tyrone Woods) was locally dispatched to the Mission w/in 25 minutes. Was the building ablaze then, and Amb. Stevens, Smith and Strickland still inside? No details on their movements within this timeline, but the drone – which didn’t arrive until 1’31″from approx start of the attack on the Mission – clearly showed a Mission that was in full blaze.

Later accounts seem to indicate that the Mission was overwhelmed with grenades and terrorists on the grounds almost immediately. However, most apparent is that the GRS rescued all, but two. Therefore special forces, jet fighters, reinforcements from Spain, etc wouldn’t have made a difference in that time. Two were doomed to be lost, and the rest lucky due to the GRS.

Nineteen minutes after the drone’s arrival, all US personnel had exited the Mission. At that time, the convoy they were in came under fire – presumably while enroute and not just parked like sitting ducks.

Do they think the worst of it is over, one hour and 50 minutes after it began? Personnel is rescued, and everyone is bugging out while the terrorists are firing at them as they leave. Remember, you don’t have the benefit of hindsight at this moment in time.

Meanwhile, at the Annex location, it was described as sporadic fire there until 1 AM, when the human cockroaches took off. No injuries, no major damage. Again… is it over?

So what do the military advisers think at this time? It’s 1AM Libyan time. In the span of 3 hours and 20 minutes – of which the last hour and a half was viewable via drone – the Mission is burning, Stevens and Smith have either been presumed dead, or found dead at that time, and the rest are gotten out of the Mission. Now all is quiet.

At 5:15AM, the additional security team, joining with the GRS, arrives at the Annex – which has been quiet now for over four hours.

Were they attacked in their vehicles with fire as they rode in? Not according to the accounts I’ve heard. Can we assume they drove right by the scum, hiding outside the Annex? Likely… because shortly after their arrival is when the rockets start flying… killing Woods and Doherty virtually immediately. Eleven minutes, it’s all over.

I don’t know about any of you, but during that night, and not having fortune teller skills, I’m not going to judge their decisions as correct or foolhardy in the light of the timing and location of events. Had it genuinely been “an eight hour seige”, non stop at a single facility, I think the perspective might have been different, and military/security reinforcements would be more obvious.

But that’s simply not how it came down, via the accounts in time that I’ve read. If all’s quiet on the Libyan front, do you armchair generals send in the US military – boots on the ground locked and loaded, and drones and armed jets in the skies – without permission of the Libyan government, risking diplomatic repercussions that could lead to additional deaths? Well, it sounds good in a John Wayne sort of way, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But you don’t know that it wasn’t over. And if it were all over – as it falsely appeared – that would be yet another dumb mistake.

My biggest beef is not that they didn’t put jets in the sky that could have been shot down, or drop special forces via ‘chute. It was that they dropped the ball well in advance of all this. Had they prepped that facility for the inevitable, last minute decisions about aid and rescues never would have been an issue. This was all writing on the wall with documented warnings, threats and pleas.

But when it comes to actions that night, two things need to be recognized outside of political rhetoric. It was *not* an eight hour siege. It was two separate battles at two separate facilities, with a lull of activity in between. So while we can Monday morning quarterback, and complain about the ineptitude and decisions of that night, whine about the choice of words and political games of one of the worst CIC’s in history, the true tragedy lies with the willing and deliberate blind eye of the State Dept to known risks and threats in the days that led up to this.

@MataHarley: The most logical analysis I’ve seen. Thanks

@This one: Much more has come out on this story since you posted, This One.
For one thing Jake Tapper was played by Obama’s White House as the perfect one to ”leak” one email to.

Many in the media bit on this bait from the Obama Administration today. The Administration released one (1) email, which differed from quotations of it in small respects. They are now claiming “doctored emails:”
[I]nvestigators were not permitted to make copies of the emails. They were only permitted to view them.

So of course there are going to be differences — the White House is refusing to allow people to have the actual verbatim copies! All of these quotes come from a limited reading period and note-taking.

White House conclusion? They’re doctoring emails!

Note the game they’re playing — they release one email, refusing to release the rest, just to quibble over phrasing in a quote of the email. And yet they themselves have it within their power to guarantee accurate quotes, by simply releasing the emails publicly.http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/14/The-White-House-s-New-Game-The-Benghazi-Emails-Were-Doctored

Lots of things don’t ring true (or completely accurate) about the ”leaked” email….see:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/more-details-on-benghazi-talking-points-emerge/
J. Karl concludes thusly:

The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year. If there’s “no ‘there’ there,” as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case.

Also see: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/was-jake-tapper-played-by-white-house-through-selective-leak-of-just-one-email/
Where you will find this:

[T]his entire diversion of leaking a single email out of a chain of emails to Tapper was simply meant to put critics of the administration back on their heels and to provide an excuse for White House defenders to throw around word like “doctored.”

@MataHarley: I agree that going in there may not have prevented anything. However, to sit back and not do anything while Americans are under attack is a ‘no go’ in my book. Those Americans were left to hang out and dry. According to the intel leaks (remember those?) an image was presented that POTUS was actively involved in the tactical decision making process to target terrorists with drone strikes thus portraying him as actively engaged. Now we are to believe that in this one particular case, he happened to ‘turn off the TV’ and go to bed early. I’m not saying it was his decision to pull the plug on the QRF, but it is feasible. There is a CYA cover up going on. It would have been much better if they would have started with the truth because that is where we are going to end up.

@MataHarley:

So while we can Monday morning quarterback, and complain about the ineptitude and decisions of that night, whine about the choice of words and political games of one of the worst CIC’s in history, the true tragedy lies with the willing and deliberate blind eye of the State Dept to known risks and threats in the days that led up to this.

I’ll admit to the Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I’m good with your timeline, but I see no reason for a stand down order to be issued. Why was a stand down order issued, and who issued it? So you have a drone overhead with real time intelligence, why would you sit there and not be making preparations to move in just in case.

But that’s simply not how it came down, via the accounts in time that I’ve read. If all’s quiet on the Libyan front, do you armchair generals send in the US military – boots on the ground locked and loaded, and drones and armed jets in the skies – without permission of the Libyan government, risking diplomatic repercussions that could lead to additional deaths?

It’s US soil, and the US has the right to defend it if the host country refuses to do so. They refused to do so.

…willing and deliberate blind eye of the State Dept to known risks and threats in the days that led up to this.

Now you’re just trying to bring Hillary into this. That’s a big no-no. The dems will have none of it and she’s covered in more teflon than Slick Willie.

So many good responses, I’ll address all of you here..

@Vince: I will suggest however, this is not a case of playing Monday morning quarterback. While the siege might be considered two different incidents, my issue is that in the midst of the episode it was impossible to know what the outcome was going to be. There were still over 30 Americans in the town sheltering in the annex. That could have easily become a bloodbath. How, given that situation, could they not allow reinforcements to go?

Now Vince, of course it’s Monday morning quarterbacking. Per the timeline, 3 hrs 50 minutes after the attack began Benghazi time, all was quiet. To drill it down a bit further, by 11:30pm Benghazi time, the convey with the rescued personnel was leaving the Mission with the GRS while the terrorists fired on them as they went. So how long after that were they no longer under fire? Could we perhaps agree that by midnight, the personnel were no longer within range?

Midnight Benghazi time translates to 6pm in Washington DC.

According to the CNS article on Obama’s briefing schedules, Panetta and Dempsey said they met with Obama at 5pm (11pm Benghazi time) and that the meeting lasted an hour (to midnight, Benghazi time).

Considering the timeline of events, it’s logical to conclude that Obama, Panetta and Dempsey were together long enough to know that the Mission personnel had been evacuated by the GRS team and out of harm’s way… save for the fate of the Ambassador and Smith.

After midnight, there was only sporadic fire at the Annex, which quit an hour later.

Once again… all is quiet on the Libyan front… and for hours. Could another bloodbath occur? Of course… and a brief bloodbath did. It was the Libyan military who cut that short, so evidently arrangements were made for not only the GRS team to be at the Annex when done with the mission, but for the Libyan’s to also step up to the plate for security they are responsible for.

So play armchair general for us. With apparent quiet, a GRS team enroute to the Annex, plus arrangement for heavily armed Libyan miltary, do you scramble the US military to invade Libyan sovereign territory and airspace, without permission, as a just in case? Are you willing to take responsibility for the increased violence that could occur by the US military taking such action?

Tough call. I’m not going to judge the men that are faced with these decisions. Either way was going to be potentially ugly.

@another vet: I agree that going in there may not have prevented anything. However, to sit back and not do anything while Americans are under attack is a ‘no go’ in my book. Those Americans were left to hang out and dry. According to the intel leaks (remember those?) an image was presented that POTUS was actively involved in the tactical decision making process to target terrorists with drone strikes thus portraying him as actively engaged.

I think this is just a difference of perspective. You think the US sat back and didn’t do anything. Were that the case, the GRS team would never have extracted the Mission personnel, collected out of area buds and headed to the Annex, despite it being quiet there. Nor would the Libyan military have been enlisted to do what they are supposed to do… provide security outside the walls of foreign diplomatic facilities.

I’d say that the US did, indeed, do something. Just perhaps not what many wanted to see. As far as the alternative “John Wayne” version, see above about even worse potential consequences.

INRE the “image leaked” of an engaged POTUS. I’m unaware of any sitroom image of anyone watching the drone feed. UBL raid, yes. Hurricane Sandy, yes. Benghazi? Nope. Perhaps you’re confusing it with the UBL raid live photo op?

But even if there were, the drone was equipped/intended for monitoring, not dropping bombs. So if there was some suggestion that Obama was there to order an unarmed drone to drop bombs, that would be one of those rare errors by the media (/sarcasm).

And lastly, remember the timeline. Obama, Panetta and Dempsey were together until 6pm, long enough to know that the Mission personnel had been rescued. By 7pm, all had fallen quiet… and stayed that way for just over four hours. Were they likely also in touch with the Libyan officials for aid? I would think so… and obviously they were since the Libyan military showed up at the Annex just after the GRS team.

If all these plans were in motion for the Annex, at that point, it would not be absurd to think the CIC retired to the WH residence quarters.

Did someone fail to wake him at 11pm for the Annex assault? And considering it only lasted eleven minutes, and the Libyan military was there, what was it he should do?

@Aqua: I’m good with your timeline, but I see no reason for a stand down order to be issued. Why was a stand down order issued, and who issued it? So you have a drone overhead with real time intelligence, why would you sit there and not be making preparations to move in just in case.

A stand down order for the special ops out of the area should be considered in the timeline above, and part of that tough call decision. I don’t know exactly what time that “stand down” order was given in that context.

But again, if it’s quiet on the Libyan front (after midnight or 1AM Benghazi time) – or the Mission personnel are being successfully evac’ed at 11:30PM – would bringing in special forces, putting boots on the ground, result in a far worse situation? After all, we would have just brought our military into a nation state, without their permission, and actively engaged in warfare… all at a time when nothing was happening. Not to mention since the Libyan military was also readying to engage, we would be usurping their (obviously lacking prior) security responsibilities.

As I said, both potentially ugly scenarios. Unsolicited US military presence, engaging in warfare, presents the possibility for even larger scale warfare.

Aqua: It’s US soil, and the US has the right to defend it if the host country refuses to do so. They refused to do so.

No, it was not an official consulate, and it’s not US soil. Even with embassies, the perimeter security responsibilities are that of the hosting state. And if the host country “refused” to step up to the security, then the Annex attack wouldn’t have only lasted eleven minutes.

Libyan security failures resemble US security failures… they did not prepare for what they had warning would happen to prevent the attack at the first facility. But they were there at the second facility.

@Vince: My bigger problem however is the coverup. As tragic as the four deaths are, the United States is a nation of 315 million and the most powerful nation on a planet of 7 billion people. In the midst of the most important election in at least a generation, they sought to manipulate the facts to cover up their incompetence.

@Aqua: Now you’re just trying to bring Hillary into this. That’s a big no-no. The dems will have none of it and she’s covered in more teflon than Slick Willie.

Aqua… LOL! And the reason I put your comment in behind Vince’s is to demonstrate that the focus on the failures is, IMHO, on the wrong target. Conservatives are so busy focusing on a lame duck POTUS, they are missing the larger story.

In summary, GOPers are incensed that Obama didn’t ID this as a terrorist attack from the first moment for political reasons. That may or may not be true, as you can see much of the opposition is happy to point out that he did use the word terror. The GOP is also incensed that the stupid video was used as a reason, which the CIA also said played a part in launching an already planned attack. Just a good pile on, ya know.

While these may be viable or not, they are utterly worthless in analysis, and in finding out where the failures lie. And that’s with the lead up to the event, and the State Dept’s refusal to prepare for the inevitable.

I don’t know if it’s occurred to any of you, but by your focus on Obama’s use (or not) of terrorists/terrorism, and his penchant to use the video, you are letting the more important failed leader get off scott free… Hillary.

Obama can well afford to take the media and blogger fire of distraction and accusations about choice of words and the video as a cause. He’ll also be happy to point out that he used the word terror, and paint the GOP/conservatives as hyperbolic. And it will work.

He’s on his last term. And truthfully, he’s got more teflon armor than both Hillary and Bill combined. I might remind you that lying about a reason for a terrorist attack falls far short of lying under oath to a federal court.. which *still* didn’t result in successful removal from office.

In the meantime, with your focus on deposing Obama, Hillary’s waiting in the wings, hoping that the citizenry and party will beg her to take up the Obama mantle in 2016.

There’s two objectives here.. and only two.

1: To clean up a State Dept, who’s obvious dysfunction resulted in unnecessary deaths.

2: To reveal, without question, to the nation that the person who would be POTUS in 2016 is the reason for that obvious dysfunction, ergo unqualified to serve as CiC.

Joe Biden and John Kerry know this.. hence why they are mumbling supporting words of “investigations” and “hearings”. They too want Hillary out of the way.

@MataHarley: #13,

. . . . lying about a reason for a terrorist attack falls far short of lying under oath to a federal court . . . .

Sure does, however, the underlying reasons for the lies would probably expose misconceptions which evidently a majority of voters hold about Obama and Clinton.

Politics, mismanagement, and incompetence played a role in the lack of protection provided to Stevens, but the more severe reasons will take some digging by Congress and will require some whistle-blowing. Four and a half years into this Presidency your point on “teflon” Barrack remains tangible, however, the AP and the IRS revelations may be cracking the love affair a few of the MSM hold for him, which will in turn change perspectives on Benghazi and may well change the dearth of research into the reasons for lack of response to requests for help well before the attack.
I don’t see the separation of Clinton from Obama on this. She’ll get grilled and so will those who reported to her, and the shrapnel will reach her boss. And Biden along with Kerry will be cheering from somewhere beyond the horizon. . . . . Still, NO chance Barrack gets impeached. Too many sycophants available to leap onto swords.

@MataHarley:

In the meantime, with your focus on deposing Obama, Hillary’s waiting in the wings, hoping that the citizenry and party will beg her to take up the Obama mantle in 2016.

I don’t have a focus on Obama. I think all of Benghazi lies at the feet of the State Department. However, they happen to work for him. I do understand the feelings of those that believe Obama’s inner circle is behind a cover up. This happened right before the election and it stinks.

@James Raider: Sure does, however, the underlying reasons for the lies would probably expose misconceptions which evidently a majority of voters hold about Obama and Clinton.

Well, James… that’s an admirable glass half full perspective. :0) Me? I guess I’m more cynical. I don’t think that the die hards, or majority of Dem voters, will ever consider either Obama or Hillary tarnished in any way. But there’s always hope…

And, of course, for that to manifest in an electoral win for a GOP candidate would depend upon whether they considered the GOP candidate a better option. It happened with Reagan, but I don’t see another Reagan out there in the conservative field.

@Aqua: I do understand the feelings of those that believe Obama’s inner circle is behind a cover up. This happened right before the election and it stinks.

Absolutely, it stinks to high heaven. But the 2012 election is over. He’s a lame duck, and it looks like his once pristine PR pond is filling up with oil, coating his peacock feathers.

But as to his behavior, it’s not unexpected from this POTUS and perpetual candidate. He’s always tried to do the fence walk… never being too specific in his rhetoric.

Nor will pursuing it for not using the acceptable words (terrorist attack or terrorism vs “terror”), result in positives for conservatives if it’s just seen as revenge and partisan ODS. I think everyone can rally around inept security and leadership, when placed in the proper context. My idea of “proper context” means focusing on getting better leadership for the State Dept, prosecuting or penalizing those responsible, and not just pointing out another reason why Obama is a loser… which, IMHO, he is as a POTUS and CiC.

Now, if they can come up with tangible proof that Obama, himself, was the party who ignored security concerns, and not the State Dept, all bets are off for staving off a warranted impeachment. But I wouldn’t be holding my breath.

Bottom line, this nation needs an effective and diligent State Dept, and Benghazi proves we don’t have that.

At this point I think we should be happy that much of the traditional liberal leaning media (CBS, CNN etc) are actually discussing Benghazi failures, and the more recent scandals, without filling it up with excuses and blind acceptance. There is no doubt that even the media recognizes this WH is cornered, and Obama is now fighting some of their own devotees in the press.

Better to bond with the normally opposed press on the important stuff, and let the niggly word parsing, that will never get him impeached, go. Focus on 2016, and making sure that another inept person like Hillary gets the reins.

@MataHarley: The turn off the TV comment was in sarcasm in reference to the OBL photo op combined with the fact that Obama had to go to bed for his Vegas trip. The bulk of the weight of this whole episode falls on the WH. Their claims of this being the result of a video was a lie. That lie now causes people to ask what else was a lie. The stand down order is really easy to clear up and should have been done already. You simply ask the commander of the team that was told to stand down, who gave him the order. Then go to that person and so on up the chain. The bottom line to me is this: if you send Americans into harms way you better support them. This clearly didn’t happen before or during the attack. If you are not going to give them the necessary support to ensure their safety, then you have business sending them there to begin with.

@another vet: The turn off the TV comment was in sarcasm in reference to the OBL photo op combined with the fact that Obama had to go to bed for his Vegas trip.

I get the sarcasm, AV. My point in the timeline still remains. If Obama, Panetta and Dempsey were together in a meeting that lasted until 6pm, or midnight Benghazi time, they were together long enough to ensure they had evacuated the Mission successfully. At that time, the Annex was not experiencing such an attack, but sporadic fire with no injuries and damage. If he monitored the situation for one more hour, or 7pm, Libya would have entered the quiet before the storm.

The stand down order is really easy to clear up and should have been done already. You simply ask the commander of the team that was told to stand down, who gave him the order.

I’m giving the benefit of the doubt that a stand down order for special ops was given… regardless of the party. I seem to remember Obama said “do what you have to”, paraphrased. There is no doubt that no military official could deploy those troops into a sovereign nation without the CiC’s approval.

So the more important questions are:

1: Was the stand down order given after the Mission’s personnel were successfully being evacuated?

2: Did the military commanders believe that since the Mission’s personnel were successfully evacuated, and Libya was quieting down, no call to Obama for permission to deploy was necessary?

In the case of #2, what would any CiC’s response be, if a general called and said, “Sir, we’ve gotten the people out of the Mission… permission to deploy special ops to Libya?”

I don’t have a problem with getting specifics on the when, in time, and who on the stand down orders. But I can certainly see no CiC sending boots into Libya if the attack appeared to be over. That’s a dangerous step.

The bottom line to me is this: if you send Americans into harms way you better support them. This clearly didn’t happen before or during the attack.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. If they did not support the Mission, the GRS wouldn’t have rescued the Mission personnel. If they hadn’t engaged the Libyan military, along with the GRS, to go to the Annex for protection – even tho all was quiet for four hours – that eleven minute battle wouldn’t have been so short.

So I think what it comes down to is that they did send support and aid – in the form of the GRS and by evoking the Libyan military – but just not the support you preferred they send in deploying special ops.

But I think I agree that the “State Dept” had no business being in Benghazi to begin with. It’s my understanding that, technically, the “mission” and “annex” were not official State Dept facilities, but more of a CIA disguised building front to deal with the Libyan WMD. Hence the reason the State Dept and CIA were trading finger pointing in the beginning.

@MataHarley:

Better to bond with the normally opposed press on the important stuff, and let the niggly word parsing, that will never get him impeached, go. Focus on 2016, and making sure that another inept person like Hillary gets the reins.

I have no idea why anyone in their right mind would want to impeach him. That leaves us with Biden and gives Biden too much power for 2016. Frankly, I’m more focused on 2014. I would love nothing more than to see Harry removed as Majority Leader. Don’t know if it’s in the cards, but I can hope.

Amen to that, Aqua… everytime some speaks of removing Obama from office, my eyes roll as “President Biden” rolls off the tongue. LOL

I’m with you. Prefer to focus on Congressional candidates. They are a permanent scar. A POTUS is a wart that can be removed.

There is no question the Dems. played politics with this. Election 2 weeks away and very close the “Al Queda on the run” needed to hold till after the election, and it did. I believe HRC with her unbelievable “who cares” comment is responsible for lax security and altered talking points. She will be damaged. Race for Dem. 2016 nom. will open up.
However,stock market is at an ALL TIME HIGH, Home values up 10-20%, new home starts up,unemployment coming down. These pocket book stats. favor the Dems. in 2014. I see a push in House and Senate.
2016 now wide open after HRC serious missteps. Still see Rubio as NEXT Conservative POTUS.

Semper Fi

@Aqua: I would love nothing more than to see Harry removed as Majority Leader.

Harry is on the hot seat for where he got his (false) claim that Romney didn’t pay his taxes.
He made sure to mostly say this on the floor of the Senate where he was shielded from slander/libel laws.
BUT, who told him this false ”fact?”
A ”rogue” IRS agent from Cinncinnati?

@MataHarley: I’m probably preaching to the choir on this, but there was or should have been a ForcePro level based on a ThreatCon level. What happened shows that either the ThreatCon level was way off or the the ForcePro level was woefully inadequate. In order to avoid future Benghazis, the truth needs to come out as to what really happened. You don’t get to the truth when people lie, change stories, intimidate witnesses/whistle blowers, and/or stonewall which is what is happening. Get the truth out and let the chips fall where they may. If they fall on Obama so be it. If they fall on Stevens, so be it. It could very well be he was being a cowboy placing his people at unnecessary risk. If we just blow this off (which is what this administration and its supporters want) then we may as well just accept the fact that this was a demonstration over a video that no one saw that got out of hand in which case we will have not learned anything and will most likely experience more Benghazis.

@another vet, “choir” here… yup the ThreatCom level should have been high because of the warnings, threats, not to mention the anniversary date. But that’s a “before” thing, not a “during” thing, if you want it to be effective.

The truth will come out. The House won’t let this go. Hang, even the liberal media isn’t coming up with excuses.

@Vince, I’m not going to bore you with much of a response. I think it’s safe to say that we agree that Benghazi is totally unacceptable, but not necessarily for the same reasons. I place import on a different aspect than you do. No biggie.

BTW, I’m not sure what you’re talking about INRE the Tripoli rescue team. Who do you think got there to join with the local responders? As a matter of fact, Retired Army Lt. Gen. Boykin was making the beef that the DOD could have gotten them there faster than the charter aircraft. According to the reports, it was a six or seven man security team, along with two DOD officials.

Altho, again looking at the timeline, the Mission battle was over in 110 minutes. Takes at least 45 minutes for the flight alone. Then there was the airport hold up. Either way it still looks like it wouldn’t have made a difference for the Mission. They were present at the Annex, so it’s a moot point.

But I will say I’m glad you’re not a POTUS/CiC. Nor a military commander. If you’re all for immediately, and spontanously, sending in US military might for every demonstration and attack – even after it dies down – based on that fact that there’s lots of darkness left and more *could* happen, I simply couldn’t vote for you. You’re just too dangerous a cowboy – so all fired ready and eager to race into foreign nations with guns a’blazing (and without a plan) for my tastes. :0)

@another vet: #24,

If they fall on Stevens, so be it. It could very well be he was being a cowboy placing his people at unnecessary risk.

In a universe of infinite possibilities, I somehow just don’t see this one as having much potential for likelihood. Stevens was a career diplomat, fashioned out of the very progressive clay from Berkeley, CA, and although he might have believed he could contribute to making the M.E. a better place, his nature suggested he would have been more inclined to step carefully. Plus, concerned with the potential for risk in his new Benghazi outpost, he ASKED for help with security. Even if he was involved, as has been reported, in movement of Gaddafi arms to Syrian rebels through Turkey, he would simply have been complying with orders from Clinton. He seemed not to have had a very forceful personality, and was probably obedient to whatever demands were made of him.

James Raider, I agree. I suspect this will fall somewhere between the CIA and State Dept. Hard to tell which since it was only a quasi “embassy”, and was really more a CIA facility, masquerading as a State Dept entity. In which case, who’s responsible for the security?

@Richard Wheeler:

There is no question the Dems. played politics with this. Election 2 weeks away and very close the “Al Queda on the run” needed to hold till after the election, and it did.

And you fully supported this when it happened?

@James Raider:

In a universe of infinite possibilities, I somehow just don’t see this one as having much potential for likelihood.

I based that comment on having seen people do exactly that. I agree that he seems an unlikely candidate to have done that. However, if he wasn’t the type to stand up forcefully for himself, he may have very well placed himself and others at unnecessary risk by following orders out fear of not wanting to rock the boat. It is another reason to get to the truth of the matter. If someone gave him an order knowing that it was placing him and his people at unnecessary risk, then that person needs to be held accountable, especially if concerns were raised.

@another vet: A.V. Didn’t see it as clearly at the time. Still would have voted BHO over Mitt who I saw as totally out of touch with his 47% and self deportation comments.I do think HRC is wounded and I ‘ll look closely at Rubio if he gets Repub nod.

All of the emails are here:

White House’s Benghazi documents

The White House has released 100 pages of e-mails and notes on the Obama administration’s response to the deadly attack on a US diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, detailing how the government developed talking points to describe the attack.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/05/15/white-house-benghazi-documents/?intcmp=related

State Department officials repeatedly objected to — and tried to water down — references to Al Qaeda and prior security warnings in the administration’s initial internal story-line on the Benghazi attack, according to all of them.

The White House, along with several other departments, played a role in editing the so-called “talking points,” despite claims from the White House that it was barely involved.

Then-CIA Director David Petraeus objected to the watered-down version that would ultimately be used as the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s flawed comments on several TV shows the Sunday after the attack.

NOTE: The early versions stated that “Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda” participated in the assault and discussed links to militant group Ansar al Sharia — and referenced prior attacks against western targets in Benghazi, as well as intelligence warnings.

More here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/white-house-releases-100-pages-e-mails-notes-related-to-benghazi/

@Richard Wheeler: unemployment coming down.

Surface fact only.
Remember, the number of people bothering to go looking is also coming down and more responsible for the official drop in % than the economy going up.
Also there has been a steady drop in hours worked by employed people.
Aggregate weekly hours dropped 0.2% in April alone. (12 minutes)
That is the equivalent of 500,000 people being fired out of this nation’s economy!

By YOUR ”logic,” if companies had hired all 12 million unemployed people in April, but had cut everyone’s hours in half, the unemployment rate would have fallen to zero, but we’d be all good.
The Fact IS we’d be much worse off as the economy would contract violently.

That’s old news….a month old.
And currently?
The number of U.S. workers applying for unemployment benefits for the first time rose sharply in the week ended May 11 with first-time claims jumping 32,000 to 360,000, highest since March.
Factory output fell sharply. But USAToday’s headline (at the time I posted this) said just the opposite!
It read, “Claims for Jobless Benefits FALL Sharply.”

@Nan G: The number of people not in the labor force has also risen by almost 1.6 million between April’12 and April ’13. But that figure wouldn’t have helped the attempt to steer the thread away from the Benghazi debacle to something supposedly more favorable to Obama.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

@Nan G: You getting nervous about your gold holdings? Credit those low interest rates and corporate profits with your stock gains.
No question Benghazi and IRS FUBAR (dismantle) will hurt Dems(especially HRC). Best hope for Dems. in 2016 is a Rand Paul or Paul Ryan run, rather than Rubio.