. . . . . . Reinforcements should have been brought in HOURS (days?) before the attack.

Why weren’t they?

listens2glenn on February 11, 2013 at 7:59 PM
.
Your criticism of Obama over this has NOT been accurate and has therefore been completely ineffective.

You need to tailor your comments so that you don’t keep writing stupid things – and making Hot Air commenters look stupid in the process.

blink on February 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM

.
I don’t believe my criticism is either inaccurate, or ineffective.
.
You should overjoyed, at the prospect of “Hot Air commenters being made to look stupid”.

In fact, here … I’ll do it again. Reposting:

There’s NO valid explanation/reason why an emergency contingency plan wasn’t already in place then, or even now for that matter.
There should be emergency contingency plans ready to GO at a moments notice, for rescuing and evacuating American diplomats everywhere we have them.

With Libya and Egypt being the “tinder boxes” everyone knows they are right now, there should have been multiple teams and contingency plans ready for the call.

Obama’s guilty of either GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY, or (as I believe) a premeditated and planned murder/cover-up.

listens2glenn on February 11, 2013 at 2:26 AM

Why weren’t they?

Gee, I don’t know. Maybe the State Department thought that the CIA should have been able to assess the threat and protect themselves for their own operation????

Did you really intend to ask such a stupid question?

Justification for criticizing Obama over this is NOT contingent on me explaining how I would get assets into the scene (after the attack initiated) “if I were in charge.”

Your criticism of Obama over this has NOT been accurate and has therefore been completely ineffective.

You need to tailor your comments so that you don’t keep writing stupid things – and making Hot Air commenters look stupid in the process.

Also, feel free to tell us exactly how you would get the assets to the compound in Benghazi.

blink on February 11, 2013 at 3:48 PM

.
Moot point. Reinforcements should have been brought in HOURS (days?) before the attack.

Why weren’t they?

Repeating: Justification for criticizing Obama over this is NOT contingent on me explaining how I would get assets into the scene (after the attack initiated) “if I were in charge.”

They would haven been able to watch the attack on-screen as it unfolded.

Events on the ground can be incredibly difficult to understand from over-head surveillance video (which I shouldn’t need to remind you – have no audio).

Amateurs should stop pretending that they understand what they’re talking about.

That’s NOT what “moments notice” means as I used it.

listens2glenn on February 11, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Well feel free to tell us exactly what response time you want.

Without an incredible amount of support being put on instant and time-sensitive stand-by, response times easily slip to being measured in hours.

Also, feel free to tell us exactly how you would get the assets to the compound in Benghazi.

A “moments notice” means that we have ground assets sitting strapped in aircraft at the end of a runway. But even this takes more than a “moment” since departure clearance would certainly be obtained from local ATC – and even Search-And-Rescue departure clearance takes a bit of time.

blink on February 11, 2013 at 12:12 PM

.
That’s NOT what “moments notice” means as I used it.

However, in this case it could have meant that.
Christopher Stevens and his body guard knew in the days before that something really bad was brewing.

From the dailymail.co.uk (2012-10-19):

American drones were in the skies above the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as the deadly attack that killed ambassador Christopher Stevens unfolded, it has been revealed.

Defense department officials considered sending troops in to rescue the ambassador and staff, according to CBS News, but ultimately decided not to .

They would haven been able to watch the attack on-screen as it unfolded.

The revalations came a day after it emerged that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens repeatedly pleaded with the State Department to ramp up his security team in Libya — requests that the Pentagon ultimately denied — in the weeks, days and hours leading up to the terrorist attack that killed him and three other Americans, newly released cables have revealed.

Stevens, who was killed in the 11 September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, warned the State Department of a ‘security vacuum’ in Libya ‘that is being exploited by independent actors’ in one cable that described rapidly deteriorating security conditions.

‘Islamic extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with impunity,’ he wrote. ‘What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity but rather targeted discriminate attacks.’

Whole article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220153/Christopher-Stevens-Ambassador-pleaded-extra-security-Libya-hours-killed.html#axzz2KcDNYr77

.
I’m sticking with murder/cover-up. But it’s at least “dereliction of duty.”

There should be emergency contingency plans ready to GO at a moments notice, for rescuing and evacuating American diplomats everywhere we have them.

listens2glenn on February 11, 2013 at 2:26 AM

A “moments notice” means that we have ground assets sitting strapped in aircraft at the end of a runway. But even this takes more than a “moment” since departure clearance would certainly be obtained from local ATC – and even Search-And-Rescue departure clearance takes a bit of time.

Now, how long can you keep these ground assets in the aircraft? What’s the “most tired” you would want these assets to be when they arrive? 12 hour day? 18 hour day? 24 hour day? This will decide how often you need to rotate these assets – which determines the amount of assets that you are “tying up” simply to have this “moments notice” alert that you want.

So, you might say, well, they don’t need to be at the end of the runway, they can just be in rooms on base resting for “the call.” Fine, so now we are pushing the launch time back to 1 hour (most likely), and we need rooms on a base dedicated for this.

Do you want them to be at home ready for a recall? Well now you’re likely talking about a 3 hour launch time.

Now, how do you want to get ground assets to a compound? Do you want to have them jump into an urban environment, or do you want to land at an airport and have them drive organic vehicles? Because this would require many more aircraft to transport these vehicles – aircraft that would need to sit around doing nothing while they wait for the call.

Additionally, tell me if you want to get diplomatic clearance to fly into Libya, or if you want to risk the lives of all these ground assets by going up against Libyan air defense systems? Dip clearance will take more time, but there’s probably not that much risk from air defense so you’d probably want to risk that, right?

I’ll await your answers to these questions.

How could anyone say that there was not enough time to send help since no one could know how long the attack would be?

jpcpt03 on February 10, 2013 at 9:51 PM

There enough time to initiate help, but not necessarily enough time for help to arrive.

Look, I’m really sorry that these type of operations take a long time to plan and execute, but this is reality right now.

Btw, help was sent and did arrive in Benghazi if you count the Marines from Tripoli – which you do seem to be counting.

And someone tell me what the plan would have been to get teams to the compound in Benghazi.

blink on February 10, 2013 at 5:34 PM

.
I don’t have to “divine” or figure out what the plan would have been, to justify and validate the extreme harsh criticism I have been unloading on the White House.

There’s NO valid explanation/reason why an emergency contingency plan wasn’t already in place then, or even now for that matter.
There should be emergency contingency plans ready to GO at a moments notice, for rescuing and evacuating American diplomats everywhere we have them.

With Libya and Egypt being the “tinder boxes” everyone knows they are right now, there should have been multiple teams and contingency plans ready for the call.

Obama’s guilty of either GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY, or (as I believe) a premeditated and planned murder/cover-up.

How could anyone say that there was not enough time to send help since no one could know how long the attack would be? Regardless of whether one wishes to except that there were two half hour attacks with a 5 hour separations or one seven hour attack the following points still remain unanswered:

During this time there were only two boots on the ground.
During this time they could not find or rescue the ambassador.
During this time no security of the area could be done.
During this time no security sweep could be placed on any Embassy classified documents.

All or at least some of this could be avoided if support aid was dispatched regardless of the time it would take to get there. What did it take for the FBI to get there. Two weeks?

Examples: If time of battle is 7hrs

jpcpt03 on February 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Two half hour attacks separated by 7 hours isn’t 7 hours of battle.

Are we sure that stand down orders weren’t given after the end of the second attack?

Does anyone on this thread think that teams on the east coast of the United States had time to ready, launch, and arrive in Benghazi in time to do much good?

jpcpt03 on February 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM

.
You’re welcome . . . . .

Out of your your list above, I’ve already chosen “offering” and “cover-up.”

The White House killed (no pun intended) two birds with one stone.

Was the Embassy considered a lost and the Ambassador a waste?

Expendable? Collateral damage? Offering? Part of the plan? Write off? Negative asset? Cover-up? Pick the “NEW SPEAK” definition of your choice. They all come to the same point, “The Powers to be have had 6 months to muck this up big time.

This is the worse, most inept job of coverup I have ever seen our Government try. I go back President Eisenhower’s explanation to Khrushchev that Frances Gerry Powers was not real and that the U-2 plane did not exist.

Thank-you for reading my opinion.

jpcpt03 on February 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM

.
In reference to your line above:

a. Was the Embassy considered a lost and the Ambassador a waste?

… are the terms “a lost” and “a waste” equivalent to “expendable?”

Lets take this question of ‘Who was told to stand down’ a little further.
If it was just the two CIA Operatives then the question is why give the order.

a. Was the Embassy considered a lost and the Ambassador a waste?
b. Was this was a small part of something bigger and the two operative would mess it up?

The argument put forth that there were no assets that could be deployed in a reasonable time frame is predicated on time how much time was the attack would last.

Let’s try this like simple math: 7-3=4
(Time of Battle)- (Time to Deploy) = (Effectiveness of Deployment)
Examples: If time of battle is 7hrs and time to deploy is 3hrs then the effectiveness is 4hrs. This is good.

Simple math: .25-3=-2.75
If time of battle is .25hrs (typical fire fight) and time to deploy is 3hrs then the effectiveness is -2.75hrs. This is not good.

Here’s the RUB: How did anyone know how long the attack would take? This begs the same questions as above but now to the Secretary’s of Defense and State and the White House.

a. Was the Embassy considered a lost and the Ambassador a waste?
b. Was this was a small part of something bigger and the two operative and the Military would mess it up?

blink on February 9, 2013 at 6:56 PM

If all military assets were told to stand down and not to deploy….That order can not be given by the Department of the Defense

This isn’t true. SecDef has operational chain of command of all military. He most certainly could have ordered this.

You are right.

jpcpt03 on February 9, 2013 at 4:17 PM

.
Thanks for the comment, jpcpt03.

According to the excerpt in my 2:10 pm Feb 8 comment,

excerpt: Robert Klein Engler @The Conservative Atheist

The command was given to a “counter terrorism team”, who must have already started activity towards purporting a rescue attempt.

Based on “e-mail evidence from…the office of National Security Advisor James Jones“, the order given to this counter terrorism team to CANCEL the rescue, came directly from the White House.

But do the sources cited by Robert Engler, bear sufficient credibility?

easyt65 on February 8, 2013 at 12:56 PM

+1000, and far more truth than anything Panetta said before the Committee.

The United States military is not and should not be a global 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world.

We weren’t asking for a global 911 service. We were, of course, expecting a global 9/11 service.

If all military assets were told to stand down and not to deploy….That order can not be given by the Department of the Defense

This isn’t true. SecDef has operational chain of command of all military. He most certainly could have ordered this.

If only the two CIA Operatives that were killed were told to stand down that order could have been given by the Station Commander.

Thank you. That’s my point. The only people who have claimed that they were told to stand down were the two CIA ops guys.

It’s a slow Saturday afternoon so I’ll jump into this late.

Who is told is very important, it’s called the chain of command. Who is told is indicative of Who gave the order. As a Platoon Commander I could tell my Platoon (within reason) to stand down but not the platoon next to me. As A company commander I could order any section in my Company to stand down but no one next to me. If only the two CIA Operatives that were killed were told to stand down that order could have been given by the Station Commander. If all military assets were told to stand down and not to deploy, That order can not be given by the CIA, That order can not be given by the Secretary of State, That order can not be given by the Department of the Defense and the Chairmen of the Joint chiefs is not in the command structure.

The order for all to stand down can only be given by one and only one individual and can not be delegated to anyone else. That order can only be given by the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

See the importance of ‘who’ was told to stand down. It is indicative of who gave the order. It can blow the Plausible denial thing out the window.

What difference does it make, as to ‘who’ was told to ‘stand down?’

listens2glenn on February 8, 2013 at 7:59 PM

The only stand down order that sources agree about is the one that was given to the former SEALs already on the ground in Benghazi.

blink on February 8, 2013 at 3:20 PM

This is the one stand down order that seems to be agreed upon. Your info doesn’t conflict with this.