Benghazi whistleblower: U.S. special forces were told to stand down during attack

posted at 1:21 pm on May 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

The alleged source: Greg Hicks, the same State Department deputy whose jaw dropped when he heard Susan Rice equivocating about whether the consulate attack was pre-planned or not.

Who told SOCAFRICA they couldn’t go to Benghazi?

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”…

“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them,” Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.

More from Hicks via the Examiner:

“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it,” Hicks added. “So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson, he said, ‘I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.’ A nice compliment.”

He added that “at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.”…

Hicks is certain that the special forces team was needed. “We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum,” he said in the interview.

No way to know if Gibson’s team would have made it to the scene in time to save Doherty and Woods from the attack on the annex if they had received the order to leave promptly, but that’s beside the point. The point, as Stephen Hayes notes, is that it was unclear at the time if the fighting was over, in which case there’s no obvious reason to have them stand down. On the contrary, if Hicks is right about a threadbare security presence at the consulate — and we know from many, many revelations last fall that he is — then the White House had every reason to err on the side of sending extra military assets. When asked why that didn’t happen, Hicks replied, “I guess they just didn’t have the right authority from the right level.” Any theories as to why that might be? Remember, when Martin Dempsey testified three months ago as to why U.S. troops weren’t sent to the scene, he said, “we never received a request for support from the State Department.” Hicks, who was Stevens’s deputy at State, obviously thought support was needed. Who intervened above him to make sure the request wasn’t sent?

Question: Are we to understand that it’s official Obama administration policy not to intervene in attacks on U.S. diplomats unless intelligence on the ground is perfect, or near perfect? I ask because last year Panetta attempted to wave away all these concerns about troops not being sent to the consulate during the fighting on grounds 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.” That logic, as applied to the “bare minimum” security presence at Benghazi, suggests that the White House decided to leave whoever was left on the ground at the consulate to fend for themselves while waiting for “help” from Libyan security so that it didn’t have to take the political risk of another Mogadishu by sending American troops on a chaotic rescue mission. Is that what happened here? And is it uniform policy for diplomats in peril, or just ones who happen to come under attack two months before a presidential election?

Update: Any guesses as to whose fault it is that Benghazi hasn’t gotten better coverage until now? Hint: It’s not the media’s, and it’s certainly not the left’s. C’mon, you know who.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

IMPEACH

WisCon on May 6, 2013 at 10:12 PM

This may well be the defining week for the Obama presidency.

At last. Finally, at long last.

petefrt on May 6, 2013 at 9:33 PM

I admire your optimism. Alas, see above.

Jaibones on May 6, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Typical liberal responses: in lieu of notably absent trolls

What about Bush’s WMD claims?
This is just a political witchhunt. And raaaaaacist!
They knew the risks of the job when they signed up.
At this point, what difference does it make?
The death of four Americans is “not optimal”
Can’t a guy just eat his waffles in peace? Golly.
can_con on May 6, 2013 at 5:15 PM

And then along comes Bayam:

Perhaps but it fails to impress in comparison to Iraq.

bayam on May 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Just. Go.

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Issa says the Obama regime now says that for classified reasons, we had to lie about Bengahzi.

petefrt on May 6, 2013 at 9:23 PM

I proposed this same ludicrous lie for the Obama gang within the first week after Benghazi.

I thought it would take till this Summer before Benghazi blew up in Barack’s face.

Right on schedule, so far.

profitsbeard on May 6, 2013 at 10:14 PM

So,

Blink, try to guess how many Captians Mast I had in my 2 years and 6 months in the I-Corps from late 1966 to 1969.

Then try to guess the charges.

Then what the Captians and one Gen. had to say and the level of the fines.

I will give you the answer when you at the “can’t do that” deal later when you pop your head up once more.

bad habit at times some say

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 6, 2013 at 10:19 PM

bayam on May 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Wow..Just Wow..:(

Dire Straits on May 6, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Obama 2nd Debate: “And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.”

Ya don’t say Mr President.

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Of course, Hillary will say that she knew nothing of this and anyway those kind of decisions would be “left to the experts.” It seems in her department all critically important life or death decisions are left to subordinates – and just try to find out who.

She reminds me of Jon Corzini of MF Global with the same kind of low-life excuses no one believes. They are beneath contempt.

Chessplayer on May 6, 2013 at 10:40 PM

The lib argument here is offensive to me.

There were no alert birds on 9/11?

Really? In or around Libya.?

You can’t explain this away.

I was Navy and you can bet your ass we had assets floating off the coast, alert 5. SEAL Team ready. Benghazi is on the coast.

They could have lit that place up in under an hour. More like 10 minutes. F-16′s breaking some windows. AC-130 guns enroute.

Any of you libs think otherwise? That a Team couldn’t have gotten there?

REALLY?

Barky went to bed. Hitlery was probably drunk.

Your nonsense arguments won’t erase reality.

wolly4321 on May 6, 2013 at 10:55 PM

It’s fairly obvious Ogabe, ValJar and Shrilary wanted to be sure those four didn’t survive Benghazi.

Precisely why is something hopefully can be found out before Just-Us or similar corruption can Reno-ize er, destroy all evidence if they haven’t already.

viking01 on May 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Perhaps but it fails to impress in comparison to Iraq.

bayam on May 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Bayam, are you kidding? To you,Bengazi fails in comparison to ‘Mission Accomplished’.

socalcon on May 6, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Associated Press has FINALLY come out with a “Big Story” on this:

DIPLOMAT: US TEAM STOPPED FROM GOING TO BENGHAZI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four members of Army special forces ready to head to Benghazi, Libya, after the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission had ended were told not to go, according to a former top diplomat.

Gregory Hicks also argued in an interview with Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that if the U.S. military had flown aircraft over the Benghazi facility after it came under siege it might have prevented the second attack on the CIA annex that killed two CIA security officers.

Excerpts of the interview with the former deputy chief in Libya were released Monday in advance of Hicks’ testimony on Wednesday before the panel.

The Sept. 11, 2012, assault killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Nearly eight months later, Republicans insist that the Obama administration is guilty of a cover-up of the events despite a scathing independent report that faulted the State Department for inadequate security at the diplomatic mission.

More here

The only problem is……will the mainstream media dare print/publish what AP has written?

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 11:31 PM

The denial continues. This is one of the biggest stories since Watergate and liberals are trying their hardest to pretend it’s just “a bump in the road.”

MrX on May 7, 2013 at 12:32 AM

There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world.- Susan Rice
My take.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 6:37 AM

Bayam, are you kidding? To you,Bengazi fails in comparison to ‘Mission Accomplished’.

socalcon on May 6, 2013 at 11:10 PM

You gotta cut it a little slack. The better trolls got sequestered.

bigmacdaddy on May 7, 2013 at 7:26 AM

There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world.- Susan Rice

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 6:37 AM

Updated.

Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 7:46 AM

Bayam, are you kidding? To you,Bengazi fails in comparison to ‘Mission Accomplished’.

socalcon on May 6, 2013 at 11:10 PM

You gotta cut it a little slack. The better trolls got sequestered.

bigmacdaddy on May 7, 2013 at 7:26 AM

OT

A couple of those trolls are in mourning. They just lost their girlfriends in Cleveland.

Bayam, on the other hand has not left his mommy’s basement the last 10 years so he had not found himself a women yet.

Not sure what the big deal is here. What difference does it make that our ambassador was sodomized to death and dragged in front of a cheering throng of subhuman filthy animals cheering allah akbar and beating his body as it was dragged by. Why would anyone care that we had a squad of special forces ready to go in and wipe these scumbags out but instead were ordered to stand down while our head muslim went to bed for the night and concocted this “video story” in his brilliant rem state.

Like North Korea nothing will happen to our kenayn demi god

acyl72 on May 7, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Of course, Hillary will say that she knew nothing of this and anyway those kind of decisions would be “left to the experts.”

Issa has a document SIGNED BY HILLARY personally denying Ambassador Stevens’ request for additional security, a direct contradiction to her testimony under oath the 1st time before Congress on this matter. In short, Issa has the evidence that Hillary perpetrated the Felony CRIME of Perjury. If anything, I am sure Hillary will blame a faulty memory, and hopefully it will do no more good than that excuse worked for Scooter Libby. Hillary does not just ‘deserve’ to go to jail but ‘NEEDS’ to go to jail to prove to this country that the laws of this nation still apply to everyone.

Eric holder has already gotten away with 3 Felony Crimes of Perjury before Congress over Fast & Furious simply because his hand-picked Justice Department cronies refused to do their job and press charges. Because of that I don’t have much hope that ‘justice’ will be done in this case regarding Hillary’s crimes, either.

If the GOP/Issa does NOT push for criminal charges against Hillary, having such d@mning evidence in hand, then that just proves Washington is just one big elitist club that believes they are above the law, protects eah other from the law, & there isn’t one Republican worth a d@mn up there!

easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 8:27 AM

So, to make a long story short,

An American Embassy comes under attack,

The C.I.A. and the Military were forced to watch and do nothing about it, while Americans were being killed.

Because to do anything would have POLITICAL implications.

And, Cankles says, “What difference does it make?”

franksalterego on May 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM

franksalterego on May 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM

- Sorry, you didn’t do it justice & came up short:

Obama ordered the U.s. Military, that had been fighting & killing Al Qaeda for the last 8 years, to HELP Al Qaeda-backed rebels take over Libya. He then imposed a Libyan Foreign Policy of ‘Low Profile’ which consisted of hiring those same Al Qaeda-backed/associated rebels to protect OUR Ambassador rather than have a U.S. military contingency do so. After 2 failed terrorist attacks on Stevens, after Intel reported threats, after Stevens warned of 10 new terrorist training camps in Benghazi/Al Qaeda flags over Benghazi govt buildings/that he would die without additional help, & after the Brigade (rebel ‘protecton’) ‘quit’ 2 months before 9/11/12, Obama & Hillary proided no additional security & did not order stevens out of Benghazi. At the start of the attack the CIA notified both Obama & Hillary, who at that point decided in order to perpetuate their lie that Al Qaeda was ‘finished’/there was no ‘war on terror’ & to avoid a successful terrorist attack resulting in the 1st dead Ambassador in over 30 years being pinned on Obama before the re-election they came up with the lie about a ‘demonstration’. This administration then doctored/re-wrote Intel reports & engaged in lareg-scale lying and deception of the American people. Rescue forces were not permitted in because they had to contain the area & story – no one in to refute their ‘demonstration’ lie…the survivors could be threatened/bribed/silenced. Obama & Hillary committed the heinous act of treason, betraying Americans who fought for their lives for apprx 12 hours while waiting for help that would never come. Obama/Hillary/Rice lied, stalled, and covered-up all of this for his re-election, hoping with the media’s help that it would all just go away.

SIDE-STORIES/STORY: INCOMPETENCE OR TERRORIST COLLABORATION?

On the anniversary of 9/11, despite numerous pieces of Intel reports warning of pending Terrorist attacks, 20 (TWENTY) US Embassies were attacked, many ransacked/overrun/burned. This is a MASSIVE FOREIGN POLICY / SECURITY FAILURE — This administration did not only FAIL to prepare & have those Embassies well defended & prepared, there is evidence to suggest the Obama administration was in direct collaboration in regards to at least 1 or 2 of those attacks.

For example, Intel reports stated a rival Terrorist Organization to the Brotherhood in Egypt informed the Brotherhood of the coordinated attack on Embassies throughout the Middle East on 9/11/12 & insisted they were going to attack the Embassy in Cairo. If the Brotherhood opposed they threatened to spread the word that the Brotherhood was nothing more than a U.S. puppet. Accordig to the Report the Brotherhood allowed the attack on the Cairo Embassy as long as no Americans were killed. Just before that attack the State Department ordered the Marines guarding the Cairo Embassy to NOT carry live ammo that day on 9/11/12. It appears the Brotherhood informed the U.S. of the pending attack, the agreement that no Americans would be killed, & possibly negotiated for the Marines to be disarmed so no Muslims would be killeed, either. This way the Brotherhood gets to save face by allowing the attack, the Terrorists got to take part in the Middle East-wide attacks on US Embassies, & neither side lost lives.

If this administration was willing to not only sacrifice Stevens but sacrifice the lives of 2 Navy SEALs who fought for their lives for almost 12 hours, does anyone think they would not sacrifice a few buildings? The administration could not have been complicit in all 20 Embassy attacks but were guilty of complete incompetence & underestimating the enemy and therefore did not have those Embasies prepared for attacks on the anniversary of 9/11!

easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM

“Some one put forward on the radio this morning that the entire Benghazi attack was a staged setup to swap the blind shiek for Stevens and the two seals who intervened threw a wrench in Zero’s plan.”

Now that is a stretch…

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 6:10 PM

If you’re going to comment on something I said, at least mark the quotation.

I posted what I heard and I’d like to ask; In light of Fast & Furious, Solyndra and other duplicitous actions taken by the current regime, why is the scenario outlined by the caller “a stretch?”

I wouldn’t put anything past Zero. He’s perfectly capable of doing something like this.

Other callers posited that Zero was sending arms to Syrian rebels through Benghazi. Is that a stretch?

I don’t think so.

dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM

On WRKO this morning, Jeff Kuhner said he thinks Fox can blow this thing wide open and really make a name for themselves if they keep on it.

The rest of the media will have to cover it.

dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 9:49 AM

I posted what I heard and I’d like to ask; In light of Fast & Furious, Solyndra and other duplicitous actions taken by the current regime, why is the scenario outlined by the caller “a stretch?”

Willing to sacrifice American lives after the attack is already going down I can definitely believe, but – and maybe I am just hoping – that even O would not pre-coordinate an agreed swap of people as described.

Other callers posited that Zero was sending arms to Syrian rebels through Benghazi. Is that a stretch?

By refusing to poot boots on the gorund in Libya & secure the more than 2,000 rocket launchers in Libya’s arsenal Obama allowed those weapons to travel already as far as Egypt & Gaza, into the hands of Terrorists throughout the Middle east. We saw some of those being carried by terrorists who attacked Stevens in Benghazi that night. If Obama wanted to arm Terrorists in Syria he would just have the CIA do so, just as they did with the Al Qaeda-backed rebels in Libya…all in the name of ‘freedom/democracy’ in those nations…just as he touted for Egypt while helping the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood seize power in Egypt.

“I wouldn’t put anything past Zero. He’s perfectly capable of doing something like this. “

I hate to admit it but you are probably right…

easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 10:06 AM

That being said, Obama and Panetta should have been much more aggressive with their response. They should have both been awake and pushing from the top down.

blink on May 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM

If an F-16 made a couple strafing runs that night or even used a missile or two and then had to ditch in the Med, the outcome at Benghazi would have been different.

I’ll gladly trade a plane for American lives.

dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM

It’s not BS. The military is NOT adequately funded to be a worldwide 9-1-1 service.

It IS ‘BS’ because the military does not operate that way, anyway! We have A/C on alert to respond to potential Troops In Contact in certain areas. We often have aircraft for potential SPECIFIC threats. We train & have SpecOps personnel trained in the EXACT TYPE of Situation that happened in Benghazi for that EXACT type situation that occurred in Benghazi – not by accident but by design!

Of course we don’t have assets just sitting alert 24/7 all over the place like cabs waiting to pick up a fare or cops waiting to respond to ANY event…. thus making the comment moronic.

We had intel that there was a good chance this attack was going to go down. Al Qaeda leaders had already called for it in response to a Libyan-born Al Qaeda having been killed several months earlier – there had already been 2 previous terrorist attacks on Ambassador Stevens in the months leading up to 9/11/12 – AND 9/11/12 was coming up. Who the H#LL would NOT put assets on alert to respond to a potential threat in Benghazi based on all of that, especially knowing Stevens had no security any more after the Brigade they hired had quit 2 months earlier?!

No we should not have had assets prepared and on alert BY COINCIDENCE – they should have been prepared BY DESIGN! Of coure, if this President, Sect of Stae, & Sect of Defense had been worth a d@mn 20 Embassies throughout the Middle East would have been prepared, the Marines in Cairo would have been fully armed & would have lethally repelled the Islamic Extremist attack rather than been overrun, & Stevens & the 2 Seals would be alive today!

easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Yes, air defense of CONUS and search and rescue (non-combat SAR) are the two biggest uses of alert aircraft. Neither of these are a primary responsibility of the US overseas.

That is why this SpecOps Specially Trained Unit was specifically trained in this EXACT type of mission! Just like Air Defense assets are used for Air Defense, just like SAR asstes/teams are used for SAR events – each specifically trained for their missions, THIS TEAM was specifically trained for ITS mission…and they could have and would have been there in time if not ordered to ‘Stand Down’ bo whoever betrayed those SEALS who fought for their lives while waiting for help that neveer came!

easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Gen Ham was not relieved of command that night for just TALKING about an intent to send those SpecOps QRF Team, which according to Obama could never have made it there in time. Ham was relieved of command for deciding to send that team which he determined could make it there and time, the team he determined were fully capable of carrying out their mission & saving those 2 SEALs.

Had the order not been given to dis-arm the drone, the lasing of the mortar would have resulted in that mortar team being taken out & potentially begun changing the tide. Had that Team been allowd to launch they would have been there in time to also strike the mortas being lased and definitely change the course of battle. Panetta is right that the military doesn’t operate like a 9-1-1 service that stands around waiting for ANY event – we have specific missions and specific teams that respond to specific events. Panetta knows d@mn well that on 9/11/12 we had one of those specially trained teams that were trained & qualified to handle what was going on in Benghazi preparing to go, would have reached Benghazi in time, & they were told to stand down. THAT is why his ’9-1-1′ comment is BS and just part of the cover-up!

easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

It is inconceivable for an American president to act as Obama does. But.. if one views him as the de facto leader of the Muslim world..his actions make perfect sense! He is doing more harm to this country from within the white house than the world trade terrorists did on 9/11! Look at all of his behavior through that prism and it will make perfect sense!! He needs to be impeached before any more damage can be done by this Muslim imposter and fraud!

Marco on May 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Was the UAV ordered to be disarmed, or was the mission never planned to be armed from inception?

blink on May 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Based on what the drone op said on Hannity, they usually go armed. He was surprised they were told to go out empty.

dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 1:58 PM

blink on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

While it’s true the military doesn’t offer a 24/7 911 service, they ARE charged with protecting US Embassies and their personnel. And rescuing them if necessary.

dogsoldier on May 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM

bink, I am not disagreeing with the idea that the military Is not a ‘generic 9-1-1’ response service. We both know there are many different situations, many different locations, many different whens/wheres/whys, etc when A/C and assets are placed on alert. I am not going to delve into debating every minute detail of those. Here is my point — When those A/C / assets are put on alert they are placed there for a specific reason. Panetta knew that better than anyone, and he also knew that in the case of Benghazi there was no need for a generic ‘9-1-1’ service – there should have been specific assets on alert on 9/11/12 based on very specific reasons. Words mean something & Panetta used the ‘9-1-1’ reference to paint a picture to the average American that the military are not ‘cops’ waiting on a ‘9-1-1-‘ call and any expectation that someone / forces should have been sitting by waiting for an emergency in Benghazi that day is ‘ludicrous’ or just plain silly. The fact is it is NOT ‘ludicrous’ or silly.

You and I BOTH AGREE that forces SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON ALERT ON 9/11/12 specifically for Benghazi BECAUSE 1) Stevens had been attacked twice before, 2) Al Qaeda leaders were calling for a 3rd attack for retaliation for a Libyan-born Al Qaeda Leader being killed months earlier, 3) the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up, 4) the primary/only security Stevens had – the Brigade, an Al Qaeda-associated militia – quite, stopped protecting him, 2 months earlier, & 5) Stevens reported himself the growing presence of Al Qaeda (10 new camps, flags, etc) & the fact that if he was attacked a 3rd time he would die! Based on all that, based on the fact that forces should have already been on alert, THAT is why Panetta’s ’9-1-1’ comment was BS.

Obama’s Libyan ‘Low Profile’ policy, which placed Stevens’ security/American lives in the hands of Al Qaeda (9/11)-backed/associated rebels rather than having Americans protect them was an immediate ‘death sentence’ – it wasn’t a matter of ‘IF’ but rather ‘when’! Two previous terrorist attacks in which the Brigade failed to show in time (2hr response time) PROVED to the administration that Stevens was in danger & should have forced their hands to either assign more security in Benghazi or order Stevens out of Benghazi. WHILE that additional security was being provided (or immediately after the FIRST failed terrorist attack) forces should have been put on-call for Benghazi. Of course, Obama / Hillary / Panetta did nothing. 2 months prior to 9/11/12 the Brigade ‘quit’, declaring they could no longer protect Stevens (DUH!). Again, this should have forced their hands to either assign more security in Benghazi or order Stevens out of Benghazi – forces put on call for Benghazi. Again, the 3 Amigos did nothing.

Knowing Al Qaeda leaders were calling for a 3rd attack…knowing the security they had hired for Stevens had quite 2 months earlier…knowing warning of a pending attack were there…knowing Stevens had reported a massive increase of Al Qaeda in Benghazi & that if a 3rd attack occurred he would die….knowing the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up…even Panetta knows/knew that there should have been a dedicated set of assets – like that highly trained SpecOps team – should have been put On-Call versus some stupid idea of a ‘generic 9-1-1’ idea. THAT is why Panetta’s comments are ‘BS’! He KNEW they F*ed up by completely ignoring all the warning signs/Intel, by trusting the terrorists would not kill Stevens because we helped give them Libya to rule, by not preparing for a 3rd attack &/or for the anniversary of 9/11, by not having a team even semi-ready to go, & finally by ordering a team of highly trained military specialists taught to handle that specific event going down in Benghazi to ‘Stand Down’.

easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM

This would certainly be a big deal is this is true. Can you support these claims? Ham seemed to be EUCOM for a couple months after September 12, so was he only temporarily relieved?

Can I support these claims? If you are asking for video, audio, or a signed document, no. If you are asking for 1st-hand info that is a different story. Temporarily relieved – yes. Eventually forced to leace entirely – yes.

easyt65 on May 7, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4