There are some large disconnects between Obama administration
explanations concerning security and response actions taken before,
during and after the disastrous terrorist attacks on our Benghazi
consulate and accounts, compared with those which continue to emerge
from outside sources. Following numerous White House claims now known to
be inaccurate and intentionally misleading, we are repeatedly assured
that we will get the real scoop in due time after full investigations
are complete. One perplexing issue, among many, revolves around
conflicting accounts regarding requests and denials of military aid
which might have saved American lives.
Further delays only increase wide-spread suspicions that there are no
legitimate answers, and that the president’s strategy is to run out the
clock until after his final election is over. If this were not the
case, it would seem logical that he would seize upon every opportunity
to demonstrate evidence of the leadership and transparency he has
repeatedly promised. Meanwhile, those who dare to raise those questions
and express such suspicions are often subjected by his supporters to
scornful reproach. And yes, I speak from experience on this…a subject I
will get to later.
Putting serious questions aside regarding why early
requests for enhanced consulate security had been repeatedly denied,
along with misplaced blame for the attack on an obscure anti-Muslim
video, let’s focus exclusively upon controversies surrounding that
fateful seven-hour assault period.
During an October 16 interview, Denver’s WUSA-TV reporter Kyle Clark
asked President Obama a two-part question: “Were the Americans under
attack at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya denied requests for help
during that attack, and is it fair to tell Americans that what happened
is under investigation until after the election?” Expressing his regret
about the casualties and sympathy for their families, plus a
determination to bring the perpetrators to justice, the president didn’t
answer either question.
After dodging, Clark asked the first and most important part again:
“Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” And once again
Obama offered a non-answer, saying: “I can tell you as I have said over
the last couple of months since this happened, that the minute I found
out this was going on, I gave three very clear directives. Number one,
make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need
to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make
sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we
can bring them to justice.” He continued, “I guarantee you that
everybody in the State Department, our military, CIA, you name it, had
number-one priority making sure that people were safe. These are our
folks. And we’re going to find out exactly what happened.”
So are we to take it from this that President Obama expressly said
that in the very beginning he issued a clear directive instructing that
all possible means be employed by his National Security Council to
secure our personnel? Such a directive would constitute an “Execute
Order”, an official mandate that would carry the inviolate authority of
our nation’s commander-in-chief. Where is that document?
The New York Times reported that defense department
officials said they did not receive a request for help from the State
Department as the attack unfolded. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who
was with President Obama in the Oval Office for a regular meeting when
the first attack reports came in, then later said: “There’s a lot of
Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here”, adding that “the basic
principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without
knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about
what’s taking place.”
Yet the administration had already put our people in harm’s way…and
did so without providing adequate protection. So if the president had
issued a formal order to “employ all possible means to secure our
personnel”, then wouldn’t the correct decision be to deploy aid to save
them? And in not doing so, didn’t the defense secretary countermand the
alleged direct order? On the other hand, it wouldn’t seem very likely
for that to occur when his military superior, the president, was right
there in the Oval Office with him.
According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former
Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty (who were later killed), were
ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack. The
first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired,
informed higher-ups at the CIA annex, and requested permission to go to
the consulate to help out. However, they ignored those orders and made
their way to the consulate, which by that time was on fire. The rescue
team then returned to the CIA annex about midnight after evacuating
those who remained at the consulate and retrieving the body of Sean
Smith. They had not succeeded in locating Ambassador Stevens.
Woods and Doherty called again for military support as they began to
take on gunfire at the annex. Again, the request was denied. According
to those present at the compound, there were no communications problems
at the annex, and the team was in constant radio contact with
headquarters. Ty Woods was manning a machine gun on the annex roof at
the time. He painted a targeting laser on the enemy mortar that later
killed him after calling for support from a Spectre gunship that never
arrived.
The fighting at the CIA annex lasted for more than four hours. That
provided plenty of time for American aircraft and commandos based at our
Sigonella Air base in Italy 480 miles away to intervene.
Two separate Special Operations forces were instructed to stand down. Senior military and intelligence sources informed Fox News
that a force specializing in counterterrorism rescues which was already
in place at Sigonella could have reached Benghazi within less than two
hours. The other team had previously operated in Central Europe, and was
being moved to Sigonella.
CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied claims that any requests
for support were turned down. She said: “We can say with confidence that
the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible
evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told
anybody not to help those in need: claims to the contrary are simply
inaccurate.” So if not the CIA…then who did issue the stand down orders?
Larry Womack, writing in the Huffington Post, did a hatchet
piece which referred to my earlier October 24 article titled “White
House Watched Benghazi Attacked And Didn’t Respond” as a “jumble of
lies” and a “rant”. He asserted I had erroneously stated that European
military forces that might have rapidly responded did not arrive at
Sigonella “until after the attack was over”. However this is directly at
odds with reports that at least one counterterrorism force was already
in place there ready for immediate deployment.
Womack also challenged my “outlandish claim” that “absurdly”
misrepresented drone footage of Benghazi events as “live video” and my
assertion “that a series of email alerts received late Tuesday evening
provides additional information that was known to Obama administration
officials shortly after the attack commenced.”
Well actually…yes! Two surveillance drones had been redirected to
Benghazi shortly after the attack began, and were already hovering over
the compound. One was sent to relieve the first, perhaps due to fuel
issues, and both were capable of sending real-time visuals back to
Washington. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance,
including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA,
Pentagon and others could continuously call up that video on their
computers.
As for real-time emails, there were lots of them also. According to
reports, between 300 and 400 national security figures received these
real-time updates throughout the attack. The first one came in about 20
minutes after the fighting began. Another, received just two hours into
the raid, advised White House and State Department officials that an
Islamic militant group called Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit.
Just to prove that I really can’t be trusted to present accurate
information, Mr Womack pointed out that I’m “a climate change denier!”
(exclamation emphasis in original). Although I really don’t appreciate
the Holocaust implication of that “denier” term, he’s at least correct
that I’m a bone fide skeptic on that subject… to the extent this
conceivably matters. He also cited a reference to some related
statements I have made on that subject which appear in an alarmist blog
link. Frankly, I enthusiastically stand by all of them.
Womack concluded his article expressing angry disdain for
conservative blogs which he believes callously exploit the Benghazi
tragedy for political purposes. Here, he echoes a defense repeatedly
voiced by the president. Yet if President Obama is offended that people
suspect he hasn’t been forthcoming, there’s a very simple solution. Just
provide real evidence to back up his administration’s claims…perhaps
starting with that three point order he purportedly issued immediately
upon learning of the attack.
Until he does so, this clearly is, and should be, an important
political issue. Senator John McCain articulated reasons for this very
clearly: “This tragedy, turned into a debacle and massive cover-up or
massive incompetence in Libya, is having an impact on the voters because
of their view of the commander-in-chief. It is the worst cover-up or
incompetence I have ever observed in my life. Somebody the other day
said to me, ‘This is as bad as Watergate…[but] nobody died in
Watergate.”
No comments:
Post a Comment