Sunday, October 28, 2012

GOSH, WHICH COULD IT BE? "Either Fox is making stuff up, or the administration is lying through its teeth"

Rick Moran deconstructs the latest Benghazi-gate revelations and finds only one possible scenario: the White House is lying.

The CIA is denying. The Pentagon is denying. And now the White House is denying that anyone refused to send help to our embattled CIA and State Department personnel engaged in a seven hour running firefight with more than 150 jihadists.

It just doesn’t get any lamer than this:

The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.

“Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.

Why was this so hard for President Obama to say on Friday when asked a direct question about assistance to Americans under fire?...

...How do we know that the White House is lying about denying requests for military assistance from our beleaguered diplomats? Consider: If a news story is published basically accusing the President of the United States of standing by while Americans were killed, shouldn’t the reaction from the White House be a little more indignant? A little more agitated? Perhaps a lot angrier?

All of these denials point to one of two conclusions; either Fox News is making stuff up, or the administration is lying through its teeth. There is no other possible explanation.

And I would note the extraordinary detail in the Fox article, including specific communications between the various locations in Libya and national security people in Washington. If Fox is making stuff up, someone has a pretty vivid imagination.

Jennifer Rubin observes that the Benghazi cover-up now has three distinct facets, none of which have been suitably addressed by the administration.

The Benghazi debacle has three parts: how we neglected security while al-Qaeda was building a presence in Libya; whether the administration tried to mislead the public as to the nature of the attack; and now whether the administration denied pleas for help from operatives on the ground at the consulate.

Daniel Gardner goes further, labeling the president a "coward and a disgrace":

Obama was meeting with national security leaders when the attack in Benghazi went down. Unclassified documents reveal he received emails directly from Benghazi within minutes of the beginning of the attack, staff in Benghazi were in real-time contact with the State Department, and two drones overhead in Benghazi showed Washington exactly what was happening on the ground there.

Unclassified emails reveal three requests were made from Benghazi for help, and all three requests were rejected with orders to “stand down.” Special Forces troops were available and within two or three hours could have saved at least two of the four who died at the end of the seven-hour attack.

Obama literally watched the seven-hour battle refusing to send troops to save Americans…or, he didn’t care to watch or to intervene. Regardless, he didn’t care enough to save American lives when he had the opportunity.

The mainstream media is not even covering this story, but is [instead] parroting Obama’s talking points...

And all of this misdirection, all of the lies, all of the cover-ups detract from the simple truths of heroism that have been all but ignored by antique media:

A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping. They were in Libya as independent contractors working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy. They also happened to be former Navy SEALs. When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight. Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound.

Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two SEALs set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.

As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry. As we know now, that was not to be. I’m fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gun fight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them!

Consider these tenets of the Navy SEAL Code: 1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate, 2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield, 3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit, 4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates, 5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation, 6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation’s Enemies, and 7) Earn your Trident every day.

Thank you, Tyrone and Glen. To the very last breath, you both lived up to the SEAL Code. You served all of us well. You were courageous in the face of certain death.

And Tyrone, even though you never got to hold your newborn son, he will grow up knowing the character and quality of his father, a man among men who sacrificed himself defending others. God bless America!

Last night, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said his sources revealed that Obama was one of the people in the room watching the Benghazi attack occur in real-time.

This entire administration needs to go.


DavidD said...

Can two former Navy SEALs be given the Medal of Honor? Can they be posthumously, and retroactively, recalled to active duty so they'd be eligible?

John The River said...

"Can two former Navy SEALs be given the Medal of Honor? Can they be posthumously, and retroactively, recalled to active duty so they'd be eligible? "

Thought it, hadn't said it. From your mouth to God's ear. Second the motion.

Mike aka Proof said...

Since the MoH is awarded by the sitting president, let's wait until at least late January to put this in motion. There's no way we want BHO to have any part of this.

Chris Arsenault said...

Where did the 60 casualties figure come from?

I saw what looked like the original write-up this morning from a retired pastor on Cape Cod, but I don't recall the origin of the number. While I'm not doubting a couple of highly experienced SEALs could put a serious hurt on the enemy, the fact our guys fled the perimeter at dawn makes a body count highly suspect. Additionally, it's more likely terrorist casualties would have been retrieved as quickly as possible as to avoid external reporting of the damages. I'm also suspect of the grabbing of enemy weapons, as opposed to loading up at your own armory, for numerous reasons. There's also the question of how the SEALS sparkled the mortar positions for an overhead strike. Not making sense. If you can put a designator on them, you can suppress them with regular fire.

All that said, clearly Woods and Doherty took some initiative. I have no reason to doubt VP Biden's cue-ball reference re: Woods to Ty's father, was due to personally watching those actions via an IR video feed.

I have no problem with speculation/scenarios, as long as they're clearly labeled as such, but I'm concerned erroneous material might be interjected to undermine the facts that are emerging.

bobby said...

Here's what I'm sure we'll eventually confirm happened:

BO watched the initial assault on the facility via drone fed..

He knew that, if he ordered rescuers onto the scene, he would be stuck there for the duration, until all of the Americans were pulled out and safe.

He really, really wanted to go to Vegas the next morning and hang out with hundreds of people who adore and worship him.

If he had ordered in a rescue team, he'd be spending the rest of the night with a bunch of intelligence and defense people, and he knows by now that most of them hold him in contempt.

When he balanced out the options - fly off to Vegas the next morning and be adored for the day, or spend all night in a sweaty situation room with people who despise him - (and make no mistake, those were the only criteria that mattered to him) - he told everybody that the consulate staff would be "just fine", and he ducked out and went to bed.

And then those stupid, disloyal, probably stealth-neocon consulate staff went and died, probably just to spite him.

But Vegas was fun!

Unknown said...

Hi Chris Arsenault. Where you said "Not making sense. If you can put a designator on them, you can suppress them with regular fire." I would have to disagree with you there because you don't have to come directly down on top center of a target in order for your ordinance(s) to have devastating effect on the target. I was an FO (in more ways than one, for 20 years) and lazed many targets that were behind obstacles that were not too substantial in size to make the fire-for-effect call ineffective.

Chris Arsenault said...

Devin McGowen - you're right. I stand corrected. In fact after I posted it, I realized the night situation might have revealed the mortar firing position and they could easily have been in defilade without distinct LoS.

Thanks for your service - I did my time back during the late 70's, early 80's as a redleg delivering rounds from the other end. Was in service when the Iranian hostages were taken, and know there is a direct line between that event and 9/11.