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

If Mr. Hicks is right, is this an impeachable offense?

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

God I want to slap Obummer

LeftCoastRight on May 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM

This is unreal.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on May 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM

IF, I said IF, this proves to be true, bho/hill/team in a normal world should be held accountable for the murder of four American’s!

But this is NOT a normal world since bho was first elected!
L

letget on May 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

If Mr. Hicks is right, is this an impeachable offense?

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

In a just world, yes. In the world of the teflon race card president, not so much.

Aviator on May 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Flop sweat.

a capella on May 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Agreed. However who has enough gonads to actually follow through in both the house and senate to see that it happens.

chemman on May 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

If Nixon can be forced out over Watergate Obama can and should be IMPEACHED over this. A disgrace.

Jack_Burton on May 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

General Ham needs to testify….and Clinton needs to be recalled…to address her obvious obfuscations that happened on her watch.

journeymike on May 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Rush is saying that Obama and the gang refused to believe that an attack was happening, because that would make them wrong.I don’t believe that he has seen this report, yet.

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

If Mr. Hicks is right, is this an impeachable offense?

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:24 PM

I think there is something or other in that oath of office that’s protect and defend er humina humina….

MontanaMmmm on May 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

“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

Wasn’t General Ham in charge of SOCAFRICA at the time?

a capella on May 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Barky’s golfing today, two packs or three?

MontanaMmmm on May 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

CBS’s Sheryl Atkinson is the only national news reporter on this story with any alacrity or interest, all the rest want desperately for it to go away so as not to harm The Precious or Madame What Difference Does it Make.

Over/under on number of days before CBS/Les Moonves gets back-to-back phone calls from Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett “suggesting” that Atkinson be fired?

“Nice network you have here Les, be a shame if something happened to it.”

Sacramento on May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Benwhatie?

*Oh, that video bomb thingy in that Sandy place? Oh, yeah whatever happened with that? Hillary did such a great job. I know I watched CBS one night and that Ambassador gal said it was a video and Hillary did a great job. She’ll make a great President. Will Bill be able to be Vice President? Yeah, he had a scandal come up about something with a blue dress but what difference did that make? Lots of politicians are kind of sleazy. Besides I read that young girl was a naughty girl.

*Yahoo News voter responds.

PappyD61 on May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM

General Ham needs to testify….and Clinton needs to be recalled…to address her obvious obfuscations that happened on her watch.

Even more frustrating is knowing that NOTHING will be done.

It was a long time ago

It doesn’t matter anymore

Bumps in the road

Anyone doing the right thing will be accused of trying to score political points. Oh, and be called a racist of course, that goes without saying.

LeftCoastRight on May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM

If not an impeachable offense, it’s for sure, not a morale booster! In any case, we are witnessing the cluless, low testosterone results of the past 40+-years of the feminization of our military! Not to mention society, in general!

tomshup on May 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

What? I remember being assured that I was
paranoid

more paranoid

and more recently, still paranoid.

forest on May 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

If a C130 Spectre gunship had been put in the air as soon as the attack was reported, not only would lives have been saved, but the attackers could have been wiped out. Those things have infrared and night vision, and precision-targeting weapons, cannon and 50-cal guns. The laser would not have been needed.

Anybody know the time of the hearing on Wednesday, and if it will be on C-Span? I may be (cough-cough) “sick” that day, and have to stay home and watch it.

iurockhead on May 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Imagine if it had been Bush in charge.

Hussein gets a mulligan even when Americans are killed on his watch. I’m beginning to believe the media will look the other way even if the Norks nuke us. They’ll probably run a new expose on Cheney or Haliburton or revisit Nixon’s failings.

Complicit traitors all.

fogw on May 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Barky’s golfing today, two packs or three?

MontanaMmmm on May 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Yeah,”golfing” again.
Getting some comforting sugar from the Looooove man.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on May 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

This was basically corroborated months ago by Panetta when he said that you do not send in forces without knowing whats going on. Still can’t believe he said that, as if any military man or women would ever come up with a policy like that when your fellow countryman are screaming out for help and under attack.

Spit double spit.

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

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.

Oops, guessed wrong. I thought they were still trying to blame Romney (in keeping with their election-season theme that every incompetent part of Obama’s foreign policy was Romney’s fault).

AZCoyote on May 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Gaahhh…all this is bringing back unwelcome memories of election night when I sat in stunned disbelief that O wasn’t roundly dismissed by the electorate on the strength of Benghazi alone.

I guess I’m just a way over-informed voter.

Xasprtr on May 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Hey, AP: May I suggest a live-blogging thread for the hearing on Wednesday? Just in case I’m not “sick” enough to stay home and watch?

iurockhead on May 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

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?

That was my initial impression last fall. That this wasn’t so much about maintaining the narrative that al-Queda was on the run(although the coverup is in part about that). But rather that Obama simply didn’t wanna risk another Black Hawk Down situation 2 months before the election, so he figured just leave the handful of personnel in Benghazi to fend for themselves. It’s a lot easier to stonewall when you’re dealing with a handful of dead bodies than when you’ve potentially got dozens of dead Americans in what at that point would obviously have been a terrorist attack.

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I only wish that I had a Way-Back-Machine, and that I could put Commander Transparent and the Unmade Bed in the compound, instead.

Massive military support initiated in 3 … 2 …

You talk about a couple of Commie pigs, sweatin’ bullets, and praying to Lenin that the military gets there, yesterday.

OhEssYouCowboys on May 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Wasn’t General Ham relieved of duty or retired or something like that soon afterward the attacks? Hmmmm!

journeymike on May 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Do they no longer teach the concept of Immediate Action, even if the action can later be found to be detrimental, there is supposed to be an immediate action, in this case No action at all was the response and as usual it is the worst decision the chain of command could possibly make.

fourdeucer on May 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

How long before McCain and Boehner circle the wagons around Hillary and Huma to defend them?

Progressive filth.

PappyD61 on May 6, 2013 at 1:38 PM

They’ll be nothing about this on any of the “big three” networks.

However, we’ll probably get fascinating 3 minute infomerccial on kid’s school lunchs from mcgilla.

acyl72 on May 6, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Won’t matter. President Obama announced an immigration “prosecutorial discretion” amnesty of laws on the books on the eve of a national election, and nobody did anything. He invented a claim of “executive privilege” overnight after years of stonewalling regarding Fast and Furious, and nobody did anything. He is utterly lawless, and his cult will defend him over anything. He could kick a puppy in the face while smoking a joint made out of the original copy of the Constitution and they would line up to protect him. Benghazi will amount to nothing, and in practical terms it already has.

JeremiahJohnson on May 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

If Nixon can be forced out over Watergate Obama can and should be IMPEACHED over this. A disgrace.

Jack_Burton on May 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Rayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyycist.

PappyD61 on May 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

I can see this going the way of the Calley trial and the cover-up of My Lai: The ‘investigation’ stopped at a lowly field lieutenant who claimed to have received radio orders that the village was hostile and needed to be removed as a base of Viet Cong operations. I believe Calley’s captain got in trouble, too, but no one wanted to go higher up the chain of command.

Unless two or three witnesses can drop the same name(s), I fear this mess might stall again.

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Sounds like the Obama Administration sent Ambassador Stevens out to get slaughtered on purpose.

What did Chris Stevens know and why did the administration want him silenced?

portlandon on May 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Wasn’t General Ham relieved of duty or retired or something like that soon afterward the attacks? Hmmmm!

journeymike on May 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/was-africom-general-replaced-for-his-efforts-to-save-benghazi-security-officials/

MontanaMmmm on May 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM

When I saw this headline I knew it had to be Sharyl Attkisson.

Over/under days before she is fired?

commodore on May 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Lets be realistic here:
Obama Hillary and the rest just look at
the deaths in Benghazias as
4 Late Term Abortions.
What’s the big deal?

SayNo2-O on May 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM

I suggest that the phrase ‘turn-about is fair play’ should be considered when sentencing Hillary AFTER SHE IS FOUND GUILTY OF PERJURY. By that I mean Hillary should be reinstated as a member of the State Department – NOT as Secretary of State but as Ambassador to Libya, specifically in Benghazi, relocated to the newly renovated & re-opened Benghazi Compound. She should be stationed there immediately with the same security detail Stevens had on 9/11/12….which as we know now was ‘ZERO’ – no U.S. protection. She should be assigned there for 3 months during which time all requests for additional security will be denied…and THIS TIME any attempts to come to her rescue (which after being betrayed on 9/11/12 I am sure there will be none) will be told to ‘Stand Down’.

If Obama is so sure that Al Qaeda is on the decline & the War on Terror is over, let him prove it by going with Hillary to Benghazi under the same conditions for his next vacation with Tiger Woods…

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Rush is saying that Obama and the gang refused to believe that an attack was happening, because that would make them wrong.I don’t believe that he has seen this report, yet.

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

I still wonder if one of the reasons the Obama/Hillary administration were afraid/unwilling to respond and try to help the trapped Americans was because they were afraid that the AQ terrorists were using U.S. weapons they’d obtained as a result of Barry’s unilateral decision to intervene in Libya’s civil war.

It would not have helped Barry’s re-election if the U.S. public learned that American diplomatic personnel had been killed with U.S. weapons supplied to AQ terrorists in Libya by Barry. That fear would also explain why it took three weeks before the F.B.I. showed up to investigate the “crime scene” in Benghazi. That delay helped insure that all the most important evidence of what had happened was long gone from the scene.

AZCoyote on May 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Sounds like the Obama Administration sent Ambassador Stevens out to get slaughtered on purpose.

What did Chris Stevens know and why did the administration want him silenced?

portlandon on May 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Running guns to Obama’s boos in the Mohammedian Brotherhood.

tom daschle concerned on May 6, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Won’t matter.

JeremiahJohnson

This. He is as untouchable as Chavez and Castro. Except that he won’t be Pres for life, the system is not undermined enough yet for that.

Xasprtr on May 6, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Who told SOCAFRICA they couldn’t go to Benghazi?

As I said in another thread, it was the acting commander.

The security detail from Tripoli, which was much closer, had only just arrived in time for the second firefight, at 1:45. Bear in mind, though, that the Tripoli detachment came on their own rather than waiting for orders from State, which were not forthcoming anyway

Coming back from a work trip from Cairo, I bumped into someone who works for the US government in North Africa. We got to talking about Benghazi, and he told me that there was a small SF unit in Tripoli, but was told to STAND DOWN by the acting general in charge of them. They requested to go on that flight with the State personnel, but were DENIED. That bird stood on the tarmac in Tripoli for some time before taking off. The reasoning; they didn’t know what was happening on the ground. Everything was not done to assist the Annex in Benghazi.

Patriot Vet on April 30, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I still have the guys card that I met. As far as not knowing what was going on, a guy I went throught BUD/S with runs the UAV program out of North Africa. Here he is talking with another buddy I served with at ST-3, Brandon Webb. He says that the administration is lying about the clarity of the imaging.

Wasn’t General Ham in charge of SOCAFRICA at the time?

a capella on May 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Yes, but he was in washington at the time, meeting with the president. So, his second was in charge.

Patriot Vet on May 6, 2013 at 1:45 PM

If Mr. Hicks is right, is this an impeachable offense?

Yep. Within the next month or so we should get to see just how spineless the Republicans are.

Obama lied, our diplomat died.

Seriously, I can’t think of a more significant case of gross negligence in the history of the American presidency.

Obama knew running guns to the Islamists was dangerous, and yet he pulled out most of our security to more easily keep it quiet. Then, when one Islamist faction attack us he forced the military to stand down to try and cover up his gun running. Finally, desperate to find anything to distract from what was happening he called in a favor and got a random film director arrested.

18-1 on May 6, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Sweep this under the rug….let’s talk about palin and the NRA convention instead
-msdnc talking heads

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I blame_________ and _______.

Sequester/Congress
Bush/headwinds
poor messaging/youtube
Republicans/fox news
unpaid interns/poor cell phone coverage
Aliens/healthcare

Which will it be MSM??

Gatsu on May 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM

You people are all over-reacting. To what, four measly deaths of State Department officials? Come on. They knew the risks when they put on that Armani.

Geez, it’s not like the Obama admin has been running guns to Mexico or something. Get a grip.

Chris of Rights on May 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Who ordered the phucking Code Red Standdown?

BuckeyeSam on May 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

This. He is as untouchable as Chavez and Castro. Except that he won’t be Pres for life, the system is not undermined enough yet for that.

Xasprtr on May 6, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Yet. If he magically gets his wish and gains back the House and keeps the Senate, well, you never know.

iurockhead on May 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Be assured, just as Vietnam Ops were run from the WH and Pentagon, this BHO Administration is running everything from the WH and the DNC, State and Pentagon, in that order!

tomshup on May 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Ambassador Stevens remains unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM

We hot your back dear leader
-lsm

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Got… dang it

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Treason, dereliction of duty, violation of oath of office, criminal negligence, perjury. Minimum.

cornbred on May 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Don’t blame me in 5….4….3

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Working on my screenplay: A Few Dead Men.

The stars.

Eddie Murphy as CIC Barky Obama
James Earl Jones as the Mooch
Jason Collins as Reggie “Bodyman” Love
Chris Farley as Hilary “Cankles” Clinton
Gary Busey as Joe “the sherrif” Biden
Whoopi Goldburg as Susan “it wasn’t terrorism-terrorim” Rice

Act III, scene 44

Obama: You want answers?

CBS Reporter: I think the public is entitled to them.

Obama: You want answers?

CBS Reporter: The public wants the truth!

Obama: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has a 24/7 news cycle. And those news cycles have to be guarded by women with pre-arranged talking points. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Ed Henry? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Ambassador Stevens and you curse Hillary. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Steven’s death, while tragic, probably saved my campaign. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, provides billions to my campaign donors and political cronies…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places they don’t talk about at parties, they want me in the oval office. They need me in that oval office. You use words like honor, code, loyalty…I use ‘em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a public who rises and sleeps knowing every detail of keeping up with the Kardashians, then questions why I fly off to a fundraiser with Beyonce! I’d rather you just keep watching Dancing with the Stars and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up your checkbook and write a check. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!

CBS Reporter: Did you order the stand down?

Obama: I went to bed.

CBS Reporter: Did you order the stand down?

Obama: You’re god*mn right I did!!

HumpBot Salvation on May 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

We hot your back dear leader
-lsm

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Got… dang it

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Actually – your first was probably more accurate.
Sort of like heart something – but they’re hot for it….

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM

We hot your back dear leader
-lsm

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Got… dang it

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Not that far off. Call it a Freudian slip on behalf of the LSM :-)

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Treason, dereliction of duty, violation of oath of office, criminal negligence, perjury. Minimum.

cornbred on May 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

conspiracy to commit murder

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

As Michael Walsh of the NY Post opined:

‘And hell is what is coming, one way or the other, because this time — unlike the Clinton impeachment — the big dogs are in play, in the form of a hordes of very pissed-off special ops agents, patriotic spooks, forcibly retired generals and clandestine operatives who know where the bodies are buried. If the Obama administration turned its back on Chris Stevens and the three other brave Americans who died that day for crass political purposes — and, worse, if it let them die as collateral damage in its own gunrunning operation to Syria — the men and women who stand watch for this country all through the night are going to come out of the shadows, quickly.’

Damn right. One should know better than to f*ck with the spooks, who were originally the ones thrown under the bus.

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Sounds like the Obama Administration sent Ambassador Stevens out to get slaughtered on purpose.

What did Chris Stevens know and why did the administration want him silenced?

portlandon on May 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Running guns to Obama’s boos in the Mohammedian Brotherhood.

tom daschle concerned on May 6, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Makes sense.

Chris Stevens did NOT need to be in such an unsecured outpost on a High Alert target date such as 9/11.

This guy was sent out to slaughter.

portlandon on May 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

It’s a lot easier to stonewall when you’re dealing with a handful of dead bodies than when you’ve potentially got dozens of dead Americans in what at that point would obviously have been a terrorist attack.

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM

The death toll of Americans could have been a lot higher than a handful. There were dozens of people trapped in the consulate. Most were able to get out because of the extraordinary bravery of ex-SEALs Woods and Doherty, who defied orders to make a rescue attempt.

That was what Joe Biden was referring to when he made the remark to one of the SEALs father’s about his son having had enormous b*lls. I don’t remember the exact quote, just remember thinking it was grossly inappropriate and offensive to say something like that to a grieving father over the dead son’s coffin.

AZCoyote on May 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Actually – your first was probably more accurate.
Sort of like heart something – but they’re hot for it….

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Not that far off. Call it a Freudian slip on behalf of the LSM :-)

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

cuz we all know where their noses are firmly planted….

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM

What president, in their right mind, sends an openly Gay US Ambassador to a radically Islamist country with an unstable potlical situation, to begin with? They behead gay folks in Muslim countries, simply because they are gay.

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM

you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on

As to this, several people have mentioned Blackhawk Down scenarios. This is very likely a result of Hillary and Panetta being the most experienced folks engaged in this. Blackhawk Down happened on Bill Clinton’s watch as president. The primary problems there were a mentality of being convoy guards and a seriously underwhelming force (due to underestimating the enemy). (Yes, there was also the aspect of the battle taking place in a nominally civilian-inundated area.) Ironically, this wouldn’t have been a problem last September, as most of our military commanders (and troops) have the experience of a decade in Iraq and Aghanistan to draw from, where they re-learned that overwhelming force is the way to go. It *couldn’t* have turned into another Battle of Mogadishu… unless, of course, the civilian powers-that-be had hung them out to dry. Which they actually did – just without the military deaths that would have brought back old memories.

They actually *DID* produce another Blackhawk Down scenario, just this time there was no Blackhawk, just some poor State Department and CIA schmucks who were expendable.

GWB on May 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Sounds like the Obama Administration sent Ambassador Stevens out to get slaughtered on purpose.

What did Chris Stevens know and why did the administration want him silenced?

portlandon on May 6, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Sounds like this bandwagon is open to any and all.
(But perhaps I should await to see how portlandon gets responded to here.)

verbaluce on May 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Thanks dent and liam

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

President Obama told them to stand down. Probably on the advice of Hillary.

thgrant on May 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

The President of the United States & Hillary Clinton knowngly aided & abetted the terrorists who killed Ambassador Stevens by refusing to provide security to Stevens after 2 previous terrorist attacks & after the rebel group that was hired to protect him announced 2 months prior to his death that they would no longer provide him security. Obama and Clinton KNOWINGLY abandoned & betrayed Americans under fire, Americans who fought for 12 hours while waiting for help to arrive – help Obama & Clinton ensured would never arrive!

It was done to continue to perpetrate their flimsy lie that Al Qaeda was on the decline, that they were no longer a threat, & that there was no more on terror. In order to have any chance to pull off the lie and cover up that Benghazi was just a demonstration over a YouTube Video they could not allow anyone into Benghazi to witness for themselves the on-going terrorist attack by approximately 100 AK-47, Mortar, & rocket lanuncher-carrying terrorists. They counted on most, if not all, witnesses being killed – the others could be silenced by threats from the administration.

Unfortunaetly for them their flimsy lie began to unravel almost immediately. Still, with the help of the media Obama was able to hold it off – almost getting away with it totally – until after the election. Hillary bailed almsot immediately to get away from it, to preserve any chance at having a Presidential run in 2016. With help from the media & the same Justice Dept that would not press charges against it’s boss Holder for perjury regarding fast & Furious, Obama & Hillary will probably still get away Scott Free.

Nixon got booted for helping hide several minutes of audio tape…& Obama will have lied, covered up, his part in aiding terrorists assassinate the 1st Ambassador to be killed in over 30 years & the abandonment/betrayal/treason of Americans under fire on 9/11/12.

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

HumpBot Salvation on May 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Humpbot, you don’t have to wear a press-badge to have honor.

oldroy on May 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Well, we know that obama wanted Stevens (specifically) eliminated – but, we don’t know exactly why. What did Stevens know / what was he involved in, that made him a problem for obama?

Pork-Chop on May 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Thanks dent and liam

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

It may not have been intended – but it was a darn good and funny comment anyway.

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

This witch hunt is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Just had to find the barrel.

Jabberwock on May 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Where are the families of these murdered Men?

sandee on May 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on

We DID know what was going on in Benghazi. Former Charlene Lamb, who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for embassy security, said that she watched it in ‘real time’ in Washington. There was a drone overhead sending images back to the White House’s Situation Room, the State Department, and elsewhere.

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

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.

Wow, follow that link back to the original Salon source and read the comments. It’s springtime and liberal hate is in full bloom.

Chris of Rights on May 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM

verbaluce on May 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

So what do you have to say to all of this?

Just a RW conspiracy?

MontanaMmmm on May 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM

“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it,”

holy freaking horse thieves…..

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Correction:

Charlene Lamb, who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for embassy security until she resigned…

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Panetta says we didn’t have enough intelligence to act?

Napoleon had standing orders to his generals: when in doubt, march to the sound of the guns and attack. Somebody should inform our Dear-Leader-From-Behind of such principles. Also that “leading from behind” has historically been considered synonymous with cowardice.

John Reece

kd6rxl on May 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I pray the family members of those killed will finally get to the truth of what happened. They have been stalled long enough by bho/team. We haven’t heard from them in many months as I recall.
L

letget on May 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Sounds like this bandwagon is open to any and all.
verbaluce on May 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Folks on HA have been PULLING this “band wagon” since 9/12/12.

Democrats are welcome to hop on, though.

Jabberwock on May 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Just a RW conspiracy?

MontanaMmmm on May 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Oh no…just another example of a noble intent.

BobMbx on May 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM

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?

EXCELLENT QUESTION!

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM

As Michael Walsh of the NY Post opined:

‘And hell is what is coming, one way or the other, because this time — unlike the Clinton impeachment — the big dogs are in play, in the form of a hordes of very pissed-off special ops agents, patriotic spooks, forcibly retired generals and clandestine operatives who know where the bodies are buried. If the Obama administration turned its back on Chris Stevens and the three other brave Americans who died that day for crass political purposes — and, worse, if it let them die as collateral damage in its own gunrunning operation to Syria — the men and women who stand watch for this country all through the night are going to come out of the shadows, quickly.’

Damn right. One should know better than to f*ck with the spooks, who were originally the ones thrown under the bus.

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Oh. Now doncha know this is all just…

…based on the unsupported assertion of one, right-wing partisan who has a vested interest in muddying the waters on behalf of her client.

“All the subtly of a flying mallet.”

chumpThreads on April 30, 2013 at 8:02 AM

Or something.

bigmacdaddy on May 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I would still like an explanation of why one of the men who died was painting those trying to kill him with a laser if there was nothing upstairs for which to paint???

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/bombshell-us-troops-would-not-have-been-painting-assets-on-ground-unless-their-was-air-support-overhead-but-white-house-called-off-attack/

Mongo Mere Pawn on May 6, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Panetta says we didn’t have enough intelligence to act?

kd6rxl on May 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I would agree the entire Administration didn’t and still doesn’t have the collective intelligence to act on anything anywhere. And I don’t mean the kind that comes from CIA in daily briefings (which Obama refuses to attend, anyway).

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 2:09 PM

They’ll be nothing about this on any of the “big three” networks.

However, we’ll probably get fascinating 3 minute infomerccial on kid’s school lunchs from mcgilla.

acyl72 on May 6, 2013 at 1:38 PM

They will have to cover it. It’s going to explode and they won’t have a choice. They won’t like it though.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

And is it uniform policy for diplomats in peril

Evacuating these types of installations is common. The armed forces TRAIN specifically for it! I have trained to do NEO operations when in the military. It is ABSURD to think, or say, that you need 100% knowledge of what is going on on the ground. If that is how our SecDef viewed it, he should have stepped down.

Here are some excerpts from a FAS document on NEO operations:

c. Uncertain Environment. An operational environment in which host government forces, whether opposed or receptive to the NEO, do not have total effective control of the HN territory and population. Because of the uncertainty, the JFC may elect to reinforce the evacuation force with additional security units or a reaction force. Approved ROE are disseminated early to ensure that the joint force has knowledge of and is sufficiently trained and proficient in application of the ROE. Planning for NEOs conducted in an uncertain environment must always include the possibility for escalation to a hostile environment.

a. Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 3025.14, Protection and Evacuation of US Citizens and Designated Aliens in Danger Areas Abroad, assigns the responsibility to plan and conduct NEOs in support of DOS to the GCCs.

Here is the key bit:

b. Military Response. Normally, the JFC receives authorization from the supported CCDR before using any forces and facilities in a foreign country for protection and evacuation. However, if a JFC receives a request from the ambassador or responsible US diplomatic representative to provide assistance and the delay in obtaining authorization would jeopardize the safety of US citizens, the JFC should respond to the extent deemed necessary and militarily feasible.

The acting commander in North Africa, should have sent troops when the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) requested them to be sent to Benghazi. That was the acting senior dilomatic person in charge since the Ambassador was missing. Why no one is bringing up the normal way in which evacuations used to take place is beyond me.

Patriot Vet on May 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

If I type an appropriate comment, the secret service will knock on my door.

Ronnie on May 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

a capella on May 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM
And everybody else

There is only one person that can order US forces across a national boundary (also known as an invasion).
Just one.
So while we have all the ability in the world to have stopped this,
While we had the troops ready to go
What we didn’t have was permission.
And that is why Stevens and the others died, the cavalry was told to stay home.

LincolntheHun on May 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Tin foil hat on:

Weapons from libya bound for Syrian rebels (AQ) pissed off Turkey (and were being held in a mideast port). Ambassador Stevens meets with Turkish official just prior to the attack commencing.

Tin foil hat off.

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Why no one is bringing up the normal way in which evacuations used to take place is beyond me.

Patriot Vet on May 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Because it doesn’t fit well with the lying regime’s storyline.

dentarthurdent on May 6, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Well, we know that obama wanted Stevens (specifically) eliminated – but, we don’t know exactly why. What did Stevens know / what was he involved in, that made him a problem for obama?

Obama was lying to the American people, lulling them into a false sense of security about how Al Qaeda was on the decline, how Al Qaeda was no longer a threat, & how there was no ‘war on terror’…

In the meantime, Stevens was generating reports about how Al Qaeda was increasing it’s presence in Benghazi – their flags had begun to be seen flying over Libyan Govt Buildings, & how Al Qaeda had started up 10 new terrorist training camps – camps we used to target & dstroy whenever they started popping up.

We know by released documents that the rebel militia that the State Department hired to protect Stevens (rather than have our own troops/personnel protect him) informed the State Department 2 months before Stevens’ death that they would no longer protect him…because they were associated with Al Qaeda & Al Qaeda’s increased presence in Benghazi was a ‘deal breaker’.

Hillary was the 1st to openly mention Obama’s policy in Libya was a ‘Low Profile’ strategy, & not having a U.S. military or otherwise contingency on Benghazi to protect Stevens was critical to that ‘Low Profile’ strategy.

Obama’s whole ‘Al Qaeda is no threat … no war against terror’ lie was unraveling with Major Hassan’s Fort Hood terrorist attack as he had been in contact with Al Qaeda Leaders. If everything Stevens was reporting got out – especially that over 100 Al Qaeda terrorist stormed the compound & killed Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11/12 the lie would be shattered…and his record for not allowing any terrorist attacks after 9/11 (a record Bush could brag about) ws also threatened.

The truth is, there have been 5 terrorists ‘successfully’ carried out attacks on US soil since 9/11 – all of them on Obama’s watch: Underwear bomber (he got to his destination and detinated his bomb, which thankfully was a dud), a Marine recruiter was killed by an Extremist, Major Hassan at Ft Hood, & now the 2 Boston terrorists.

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 2:16 PM

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.”

we knew what was going on well enough, Mr. P. US personnel were in harms way and were asking for help. You send in the roughnecks who can figure out the rest on the fly while helping our peeps out. That’s what we train for–-contingencies. by the time you have access to all the information, the smoke is cleared and you’re just left with dead bodies.

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Panetta’s remark 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” is plain idiotic and wrong. It would be the reverse of reality for the military to send personnel into harm’s way only when there’s a good level of intelligence as to the situation on the ground. Most of the time you have some bits and pieces of information, e.g., “consulate under attack by X number of people with ABC types of weapons,” and you do the best you can. In this case, the military likely had a satellite view of the area surrounding the consulate and sketches of the consulate itself. That is more than enough information for a company of Marines to land and secure the facility.

JoeShmoe99 on May 6, 2013 at 2:16 PM

bigmacdaddy on May 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Add Bayam and Nobrain…

bengazi is a political witchhunt by a congressman trying to make a name for himself

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 5:42 PM

People need to grow up and stop assuming that there’s always a cover up or government incompetence involved.

bayam on May 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM

yeah, they were wrong about it being a youtube video that sparked it. ok, thats not a crime. we have more pressing issues to deal with.

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

No one cares about Benghazi in the context of American ventures in that part of the world over the past decade.

Why doesn’t anyone on the right demand investigations that explore the failed war strategy in Iraq that’s ultimately descending into another era of chaos where terrorists thrive? Thousands of lives and trillions of dollars lost is suddenly less important than the death of a few Americans in Libya?

bayam on May 1, 2013 at 4:42 PM

what does that have to do with the witchhunt?

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM

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?

we knew what was going on well enough…

Also, the SpecOps team that was told to ‘Stand Down’ is specially trained for the EXACT situation they faced in Benghazi…

The Americans who were under attack & who fought for their lives for TWLVE HOURS WHILE WAITING FOR HELP TO COME were betrayed & abandoned!

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Sounds like this bandwagon is open to any and all.
verbaluce on May 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Folks on HA have been PULLING this “band wagon” since 9/12/12.

Democrats are welcome to hop on, though.

Jabberwock on May 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Your thoughts on portlandon’s accusation/assumptions here?
My comment was in response to that.

verbaluce on May 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4