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

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

Not exactly a NEO, but more of a straight up rescue or hostage retreival.
With NEOs you usually have permission of the host govt, and from the Joint pub Chapter I, 5. Military Planning and Forces

“Actual evacuation assistance can only be provided
upon the request of the Secretary of State (SECSTATE) to either the Secretary of Defense (SecDef)
or the President.”

We had the people, but what we didn’t have was permission to cross the national boundary.

LincolntheHun on May 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

It’s good to always have a scapegoat.

Cindy Munford on May 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

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

…ouch! :)

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

The Salon claim that it’s Fox news and conservatives fault that the media-left hive has ignored this is so convoluted ,absurd and indecipherable that it reads like the word salad rantings of a schizophrenic teenager.
The mind boggling thing is that these writers in the media hive have such confidence in their influence and credibility that they have no compunction about putting out this patent idiocy .

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on May 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Alex Seitz-Hyphen is also the beta male leading the whole “Michele Bachmann is so in trouble despite her instructing her underlings to follow the law” brigade.

Good luck on both counts, boy.

MNHawk on May 6, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Power don’t come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and gettin’ the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you’ve got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true, you’ve got ‘em by the balls. Senator Roark

novaculus on May 6, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Well whoever had the bright idea of a Courageous Restraint medal should be proud to pin it on Clinton, Panetta and Obama.

fourdeucer on May 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Add Bayam and Nobrain…

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

Huh. They’ve been noticeably absent.

I wonder why?

bigmacdaddy on May 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM

The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi had clear al-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page some months before the deadly attack.

That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack.

Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for the deadly attack on the mission.

On April 23, House Republicans released an interim progress report on their investigation into the Benghazi killings. It cited “numerous reports” that “the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.”

The report also stated that just a few days before Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the Martyrs Brigade informed State Department officials they no longer would provide security as members of the mission, including Stevens, traveled through the city.

From June 2011 to July 2012, Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer for Libya at the time, documented more than 200 security threats and violent incidents threatening to U.S. personnel in Libya. Some 50 of those incidents occurred in Benghazi.

Yet despite those threats, repeated requests for additional security from the mission went unheeded by the State Department, for reasons that remain unclear.

Is it any wonder why the Martyrs Brigade took the job and then left it?

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM

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

And that will damn Emperor Zero.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Not exactly a NEO, but more of a straight up rescue or hostage retreival.
With NEOs you usually have permission of the host govt, and from the Joint pub Chapter I, 5. Military Planning and Forces

“Actual evacuation assistance can only be provided
upon the request of the Secretary of State (SECSTATE) to either the Secretary of Defense (SecDef)
or the President.”

We had the people, but what we didn’t have was permission to cross the national boundary.

LincolntheHun on May 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Actually, that is exactly how I trained for it in the Teams. We would use the helo squadron personnel as role players as our embassy personnel. We would fly or drive in, secure the compound, and get the personnel out. The “N” in NEO means Non-combat. But, it can be:

d. Hostile Environment. Noncombatants may be evacuated under conditions ranging from civil disorder, to terrorist action, to full-scale combat. Under such conditions, the JTF must be prepared for a wide range of contingencies.

Yes, normally you would get that. In the “Uncertain Environment” section, is says that the host nation may be ‘opposed’ to a NEO operation. That would mean that the host nation wouldn’t want it done. But it is OUR LAND. Having said that, if there isn’t time, or your president is a moron, and a commander gets a request, like happend in North Africa, he could have sent the troops. Like I said, this 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.

That key bit is his authorization to do SOMETHING to support the annex. His troops were ready, willing, and able to support. He denied their request because he said that they didn’t know the situation on the ground. Well, he didn’t need to know that. He only needed to know that the annex was under attack, and support was requested.

Remember, those troops were in TRIPOLI. They were denied going with the State personnel.

Patriot Vet on May 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

this is going like friggin’ COL Nathan R Jessup scandalous now biotches.

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Scandal Depraved indifference

VorDaj on May 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Ever since September 11, 2012 Obama, Clinton and their media enablers have been trying to bury the truth under a tsunami of BS, from “demonstration out of hand” to “no help was available to send” to “what difference does it make?”.

WHY WASN’T HELP SENT IMMEDIATELY TO AMERICANS UNDER ATTACK?

I don’t give a damn how inadequate and how far away the resources are, it is the duty of the Commander in Chief to do everything in his power to protect Americans serving America. Failing to do so is a grotesque dereliction of duty.

novaculus on May 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

So Hicks was told that it would take 2-3 hrs to launch Aviano birds and no tankers were in theater. Unbelievable.

Q: Was there ever any thought at that time of the night to have an F-16, you know, fly over?

A: I called — when we knew that — I talked with the Defense Attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and I asked him, “Is there anything coming?” And he said that the nearest fighter planes were Aviano, that he had been told that it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from Aviano.

******

A: And for the second time that night [Before 5:15 AM attack], I asked the Defense Attache, is there anything coming, is there anything out there to help our people from, you know, big military? And the answer, again, was the same as before.

Q: And what was that answer?

A: The answer was, it’s too far away, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond.

Source: CBS

luckybogey on May 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I wonder if any of those on the ground in Benghazi will be testifying..?

d1carter on May 6, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Benghazi revisited.

JR on May 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

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

Still, according to Panetta (and Obama and Hillary), unless we knew the terrorists’ shoe sizes and favorite colors, we just didn’t have sufficient information to try and rescue the trapped Americans.

Besides, the monitors in the White House were all switched off so that Barry could get his beauty sleep. Had a big day in Vegas to get ready for — important stuff to think about like campaigning and raising money; he couldn’t be bothered with trivial stuff like imperiled American lives.

AZCoyote on May 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Sharyl Attiksson of CBS better be watching her backside…

d1carter on May 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

The clear and obvious link between “Fast and Furious” and Benghazi – Depraved Indifference to human life by Obama.

VorDaj on May 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Gen. Carter Ham to the white courtesy phone please.

Stu Gotts on May 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Looks like someone drew a redline and absolutely NO ONE was allowed to cross this one…..

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Patriot Vet on May 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I agree with you the DOS, the Sec Def, and the President left them to die.
For the troops in Italy, they needed the President’s permission to enter Libyia.
They never got it.
For those in Tripoli, I again refer you back to Chapter I section 5 of JP 3-68
“Actual evacuation assistance can only be provided
upon the request of the Secretary of State (SECSTATE) to either the Secretary of Defense (SecDef)
or the President. Once requested, approved, and directed; the CCDR will order assigned and/or attached forces to conduct evacuation operations in support of DOS and the US ambassador.
The ambassador is not in the military chain of command, but as the senior US official on scene is responsible for the NEO and protection of US citizens, citizens of the HN, or TCNs who have
been designated for evacuation.”
.
So either Hillary never contacted the SecDef, or the SecDef said “No,” or, most likely, the President said “No.”

LincolntheHun on May 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Obama Failed…Then he went to sleep and then he lied and then he went to a fundraiser….and then he told DOJ Atty. Gen. Holder to go after the film-maker in LA.

Depraved Indifference & Dereliction of Constitutional Duty.
Lying to the American People.
Abuse of Office.
Obstruction of Justice…Impeding an Official investigation and Congressional Inquiry.

workingclass artist on May 6, 2013 at 3:00 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

Unfortunately, I must give Portlandon’s thoughts some consideration.

Given the latest developements, and add in this administration’s absolute incompetence in addressing the situation from the getgo. I find myself in the very uncomfortable position of not being able to believe anything they say about Benghazi.
First, they said video.
Second, they said bureaucratic SNAFU
Third, they said ” long time ago” forget about it.

Verbaluce, those compounds were attacked with purpose. That the administration has not been clear about this, and they do know, is bothersome to me.

Jabberwock on May 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Per Hillary, What difference does it make?

RJL on May 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Sharyl Attiksson of CBS better be watching her backside…
d1carter on May 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Last I heard her contact wasn’t renewed for some reason.

GardenGnome on May 6, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I wonder if these reporters can hear these stories and just go home and sleep or if they see the big story? The big story being the biggest failure of a commander in chief and a secretary of state and others…EVER. I doubt they can grasp the magnitude of what they’re reporting. Perhaps someday the American people, left and right, will be forced to admit this administration is chock full of self serving incompetent liars who will stop at nothing in order to further their political careers and they’ll come together, sit down and say “this is wrong on so many levels, we’ve got to give the families some justice and throw these incompetent liars out of office.” Yea, right.

scalleywag on May 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Tripoli and Benghazi aren’t border crossing areas. They’re in the same country —- Libya — and is in fact around an 1 hour fight apart from each other.

journeymike on May 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Add Bayam and Nobrain…

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

Huh. They’ve been noticeably absent.

I wonder why?

bigmacdaddy on May 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM

We have a few new trolls that have checked in the last day or two. Funny how that happens.

slickwillie2001 on May 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Now there are witnesses to what obviously happened.

The question remains, why?

Most people will not go there, but I will not discount the rumor that moved fast after the attack, that the ambassador was left defenseless on purpose, to create a hostage situation. Which would then be triumphantly negotiated by the President/and or State, to an exhange of the American prisoners, for the Blind Sheik, whose release had been a muslim Brotherhood prioity.

IN this scenario, the video was chosen precisely because it was not known, since the ‘riots’ had to be timed for cover to the attack on the embassy. What went wrong? Some brave Americans refused to stand down, interfered with the attack, which caused the terrorists to assume they were betrayed in the deal, so the Ambassador got reamed, and those who staged the sham had nothing left but a video, so they ran with the video to create diversions away from the truth.

They had to find the right video, one without web hits, whose maker could be arrested any time they needed to haul in a scapegoat. The video, to me is the clue. Youtube has everything, but they had one that fit the bill

I go with the rumor, because otherwise the ‘attack’ would not have destroyed Obama, even if the rescue failed. Obama has been president over many external failures. The public would have rallied, if Obama did nothing but made a good speech.

Of course Obama could have been high on weed in the lair with larry, and so missed about 8 hours, so State panicked and called a stand down? IMHO it would not have caused a panic because this was a failure external to soil of the US. One good speech, some weeping and he is home

Recall both Obama and Hillary visited the families of the dead heroes and were very unenthusiastic in their sympathy. That would match the anger over a great plan being foiled by do gooders

This of course will never make it to a Senate hearing but only to conspiracy theory books. I go with it

entagor on May 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Hillary is as stupid as Obama at 3:00a.m. when the phone rings.

The HA trolls are truly the most idiotic people around. OfA pays you all for not much. I’d fire you all.

Schadenfreude on May 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

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

Excellent Post!

Marco on May 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

“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.”

F-16′s in Italy coulda been providing sonic booms at 500 feet to scare away the rodents within an hour or so. Akzed on April 30, 2013 at 10:28 AM

A loaded F-16 wouldn’t have had the hi-lo-hi combat range to get from Aviano to Benghazi and back.

blink on April 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Sigonella is 450 miles from Benghazi. Why choose Aviano?

Akzed on May 1, 2013
at 9:14 AM

Because the US military doesn’t station any any tacair aircraft at Signonella. Why would you assume that Sigonella would have a ready-alert F-16. This seems like an incredibly strange assumption
blink on May 1, 2013 at 3:23 PM

google f-16 Sigonella Sicily

I’m not sayin nothin I’m just sayin.

Akzed on May 6, 2013 at 3:17 PM

The question remains, why?

entagor on May 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Incompetence and Elections.

workingclass artist on May 6, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Chip Woods ‏@chipwoods 1h

“Who made the decision not to save my son?“~Charles Woods(Father of Slain Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods) #Benghazi pic.twitter.com/McYH7OkALG

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Stephen Hayes ‏@stephenfhayes 1h

Jay Carney still pointing to State Dept’s ARB report on #Benghazi as authoritative. That will become more difficult in the coming days.

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM

WhiteHousePressCorps ‏@whpresscorps 2h

Vindicated: Charges Of A #Benghazi Cover-Up No Longer ‘Fox-Induced Hysteria’ http://bit.ly/12bwBlS
Expand
______________________________________________
Eli Lake Eli Lake ‏@EliLake 2h

Read my piece on #Benghazi whistleblower. 2nd SOF team was told to stand down, scrambled jets may have saved lives http://thebea.st/12KHGt3

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 3:23 PM

d1carter on May 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Hmmmm, I wonder who will get her?

Cindy Munford on May 6, 2013 at 3:23 PM

A week before the anniversary of 9/11 and just over two months before the election the incumbent President made the (disputed) success of his anti-terrorism policies a cornerstone of his re-election campaign, claiming before a national audience at his nominating convention that al-Qaeda was on the run and all but defeated.

A week later four US diplomatic personnel, including an Ambassador, were slaughtered on the anniversary of 9/11 in an Arab country.

The President and his people told the US electorate that Muslim protesters spontaneously, and understandably, outraged over a video that was disrepectful of Islam were responsible. The protest got out of hand. They found a pretense they used to very publicly arrest the filmmaker.

We are now learning that two months before a Presidential election “All The President’s Men” covered up and lied about a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists who slaughtered US diplomatic personnel in an Arab country on the anniversary of 9/11.

Eight months ago the MSM uncritically accepted, without any curiosity, the WH explanation at the time. Imagine if GWB was the incumbent when this occurred. Imagine what would happen now eight months later as these revelations unfold if the current President’s name was George W. Bush.

It is time to ask… What did Obama know and when did he know it?

farsighted on May 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Noble intentions huh?

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM

For the troops in Italy, they needed the President’s permission to enter Libyia.
LincolntheHun on May 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Lincoln, the troops were not in Italy. They were in TRIPOLI, Libya. They were already in country. They were denied clearance from the North African General in charge to get on the plane.

a. …Actual evacuation assistance can only be provided upon the request of the Secretary of State (SECSTATE) to either the Secretary of Defense (SecDef)or the President.

Yes that is how it is SUPPOSED TO go down, in a neat little world. But, they understand that that doesn’t always happen, so they give the Ambassador a way to request support if the need arises. From the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH:

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 first sentence outlines exactly the way it should happen, just like you quote from ‘a’. In the second sentence, it allows the Joint Force Commander, who falls under the Combatant Comander, the ability to support the Ambassador, or a ‘responsible US diplomatic respresentative’ should they request it. That representative was the DCM who was in charge and asked for it. It goes on to state that if delay will cost US lives, that they should respond to the extent which they can.

So, you’re telling me that the Amabassador, if he is under attack, and he requests assistance from the military, he can’t get it unless the SECDEF or SECSTATE give the OK?

Sorry, in certain circumstances, he can request, and get, assitance while notifying DOS. Also, from Chapter III, 1, part b:

b. Military assistance is provided in a variety of circumstances, not just when requirements exceed the capability of the diplomatic mission. When SECSTATE requests military assistance from DOD, approval and the military response is directed by the President or SecDef through CJCS to the appropriate CCDR, who will initiate military operations. When hostilities or disturbances occur with complete surprise or appear imminent, the ambassador may invoke such elements of the EAP as the situation warrants, including requesting assistance of the appropriate military commander, while simultaneously informing the DOS.

Yes, the president and SecDef are culpable, but so is SecState and the commander on the ground who denied the team to fly out of Tripoli and Italy. Failure on many levels.

Patriot Vet on May 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

We are now learning that two months before a Presidential election “All The President’s Men” covered up and lied about a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists who slaughtered US diplomatic personnel in an Arab country on the anniversary of 9/11.

Eight months ago the MSM uncritically accepted, without any curiosity, the WH explanation at the time. Imagine if GWB was the incumbent when this occurred. Imagine what would happen now eight months later as these revelations unfold if the current President’s name was George W. Bush.

In answer to your question, “All the President’s Men” now includes the men and women of the main stream media. As long as the president has a (D) after their name, the current media establishment is as much a part of the White House cabinet as any official member thereof. The current media establishment, the one that most folks in the country are exposed to, i.e, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PMSNBC, NPR are merely the media and public relations arm of the DNC. It’s not just the news, it is also the entertainment side as well where the media manufactures little statist morality plays, portraying corporations as evil and greedy, activists as pure and honorable, and deviancy as normal while those who oppose deviancy are bigoted and racist. Watch any show and you can see the bias and underlying message.

AZfederalist on May 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Just heard Hannity call this a “scandal” on his radio program. It isn’t a scandal. It is a criminal conspiracy. Shrillery lied under oath, and was aided by Zero in doing so. They falsified government documents, and conspired at the highest levels of government to lie about the entire event. They got an innocent filmmaker locked up — still in jail — based upon their criminal conspiracy. And they threatened a number of federal employees who tried to tell the truth. People should be going to prison. They won’t be — we live in a banana republic now — but they sure as hell should be.

Rational Thought on May 6, 2013 at 3:40 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.

So…

The failure of the MSM to thoroughly investigate and report on the assassination of a US Ambassador two months before a Presedential election is not the MSM’s fault. They uncritically reported what Comrade O and his people said about it — just the facts, according to the admin. The MSM was not their usual curious, skeptical, hyper-critical, and suspicious selves because FOXnews was skeptical and critical. FOXnews made them not do what they always do when the President has an R next to his name.

What would Orwell say about that?

farsighted on May 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM

AZfederalist on May 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I was reading the article Allah linked and writing a similar comment when you posted that.

My guess is much of the MSM will go full Alinsky on the whistleblowers, aided and abetted by the admin.

But at some point some of the more moderate left-of-center members of the MSM may begin to dream of a Woodward-like career in the future if they set aside their partisanship in favor of self-interest.

farsighted on May 6, 2013 at 3:49 PM

The State Run Media puts all Americans in danger but these poor souls in Benghazi were sacrificed for the re election of the POTUS…

d1carter on May 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Per Hillary, What difference does it make?

RJL on May 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

It makes all the difference between her possibly going on to run for President in 2016 or her career beiung over & possibly weraring an orange jumpsuit, which she desperately deserves….

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 3:52 PM

The clear and obvious link between “Fast and Furious” and Benghazi – Depraved Indifference to human life by Obama.

VorDaj on May 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

They are both gunrunning operations that the MFM doesn’t want to talk about because either would be impeachable operations done with the full knowledge of the WH and Obama.

Say, weren’t there naval assets from the 6th off-shore monitoring the situation? Why weren’t a few SSMs deployed… if you think a laser will scare them, an SSM will turn them into bits and pieces.

ajacksonian on May 6, 2013 at 4:02 PM

ajacksonian on May 6, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Yup ! AQ has no love for our SSM.

Either missle or marriage.

Jabberwock on May 6, 2013 at 4:13 PM

AZfederalist on May 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I did not see the report but a MSNBC viewer calle me to say that they covered the Benghazi betrayal known as the “story” by them and the witnesses were referred to as “so called whistleblowers” and the vast majority of the report concerned a film review, yes film review, on a movie about how the military industrial complex and corporations fight whistleblowers.

This was awkward for them since the filmmaker cited our current AG as a problem.

IlikedAUH2O on May 6, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I’ve got your presidential library right here:

OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.
The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.
And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
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.

On infinite loop.

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 4:21 PM

I suppose it is too much to hope that O’s 2nd term ends up looking like Nixon’s 2nd term (the media will defend O to their deaths though).

krome on May 6, 2013 at 4:23 PM

The clear and obvious link between “Fast and Furious” and Benghazi – Depraved Indifference to human life by Obama.
VorDaj on May 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Add in his fierce protection of Planned Parenthood for the triple.

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Potential support for the embassy was told to stand down, Obama/Hillary/et all lied about the attack being a response to a stupid YouTube video that no one had ever heard of, they covered up the lies with more lies, the media sold and sold and sold those lies, and now that the some truth is finally trickling out, we’re told it’s the fault of the conservatives and libertarians for the non-reportage because racism or something. Uh huh.

There are days when I think that humanity isn’t worth saving and that a cleansing SMOD is our only hope. Shit like this makes me realize that those are my optimistic days.

Physics Geek on May 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Lefty mag, Salon: Benghazi ‘Big scandal,’ whistleblowers ‘credible’

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM

the pot is finally boiling over.

Vindication

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Hannity says he’s about to speak with the drone operator from over Benghazi that night !
Not certain of validity, but will find out ..
Waiting for on the hour local news, atm.
Hmmmmmm.

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Lefty mag, Salon: Benghazi ‘Big scandal,’ whistleblowers ‘credible’
Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Yes, but don’t forget the ending dig at the fox that cried wolf:

If the three new witnesses don’t get the attention they deserve, Fox News and its ilk deserve much of the blame.

M’kay?

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Patriot Vet on May 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

You are awesome. Failure on many levels , indeed.

It has to be added that anyone with knowledge of WH operations has said on camera, and would say under oath, that information concerning this situation had to be taken to the POTUS.

farsighted on May 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM

The State Department review board and media got it past the election. Wait for the next line of Kamikaze officials and their rush to join the UN Ambassador in the pantheon of Democrats looking really stupid.

Maybe we can do a Rushmore for them?

IlikedAUH2O on May 6, 2013 at 4:38 PM

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I didn’t miss it.

The point is that the Left’s claim that this is a non-story is collapsing.

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 4:39 PM

I would never accuse you of missing anything RWM (I’m too wise for that ;) )
Just wanted others that didn’t follow the link catch that ridiculous dig at Fox and the big bad “conservative, scary, tea party lovin, chik-fil-a chewin’ hillbilly media. Yeeeeehawwwwww!

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Whoa .. if this drone operator on Hannity is legit, he needs to be a witness !!
Says his watching of attack was dissem7nated to various agencies, yet, he’s never been approached.
Also, he/they were trained on embasy, because THER HAD BEEN WARNINGS OF AN ATTACK !!!

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Drone operator says they were not allowed to be armed that night.

Instantly knew the WH stories were pure BS, ‘from the get-go’

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Negligent homicide is the impeachable offense here.

crosspatch on May 6, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Hannity needs to pull a Larry King and keep this guy on for DA FULL HOWAH!

This is fascinating.

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon’s political reporter…what an azzhole extraordinaire.

Schadenfreude on May 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM

In light of the MASSIVE cover-up this administration did & all the lies we now know they perpetrated, as well as betraying and abandoning Stevens & Navy SEALs under fire for 12 hours in Benghazi, how laughable (& scary)is Obama’s ‘indoctrination’ speech to that graduating class?! LOL!

“Forget all about thoses voices telling you that government is evil & how I would betray/abandon you to die for my own political benefit! And ummm, go outside/play your video games or something for the next week or 2 — just don’t watch the Benghazi hearings!”

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 4:56 PM

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM

He asked him to stay on hold when commercials came up again.
My guess is they’re arranging a TV appearance.

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

pambi

The drone operator said NO ONE on the investigation committee has requested he testify and he was not aware of anyone requesting a copy of the tape(s). Chairman Issa please answer the phone.

luckybogey on May 6, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Say what you will about Hannity, but, every now and then, he comes up with a real gem.

kingsjester on May 6, 2013 at 5:02 PM

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 4:45 PM

:-)

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Hope so. They better check out his creds before getting too into it.
Kinda like the lsm did for Obama. Oh wait….

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Yup,Hannity gave the family of Ty Woods repeated segments to call out Obama. They were heart wrenching. He gets a pass from me just based on that.

can_con on May 6, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Speaking of the absence of trolls, has SecDef Panetta blink been here defending the administration for abandoning the embassy in Benghazi and causing the deaths of 4 Patriots?

D-fusit on May 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Whoa .. if this drone operator on Hannity is legit, he needs to be a witness !!
Says his watching of attack was dissem7nated to various agencies, yet, he’s never been approached.
Also, he/they were trained on embasy, because THER HAD BEEN WARNINGS OF AN ATTACK !!!

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM

WTF is going on? Was hannity intervieweing a drone driver??

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM

luckybogey on May 6, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Yup, and when he said that Sean said … well, I’ll see they learn, now.
Operator stressed that several agencies have those tapes … just who ???

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM

“Drone operator says they were not allowed to be armed that night.

Instantly knew the WH stories were pure BS, ‘from the get-go’

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM”

One of the Navy SEALs lased the mortar pit attacking them, which they would never do unless there was an asset that was armed…or one supposed to be armed that could strike.

Pair this news that the State Department ordered the marines at the Cairo Embassy NOT to carry live ammo on 9/11/12, the day the Embassy was overrun.
– Pair THAT with an Intel report of how a rival terrorist group wanted to overrun the Embassy in Cairo & threatened to accuse the Brotherhood of being soft/allies / a puppet of the U.S. if they did not allow the attack. The report goes on to say the Brotherhood agreed to let the group overrun the Embassy compound as long as no Americans were killed. Having already made a deal with the group that included no Americans killed it only stands to reason that the Brotherhood notified Obama & in a desire that NO ONE got hurt cut a deal with them for the Marines to be Dis-armed. THAT way the Brotherhood does not lose face, the other group gets to riot/overrun the Embassy, & no one on either side gets imjured/killed!

Benghazi was a different story, though – it belonged totally to Al Qaeda with no one with whom to make a deal. Obama was just praying it wouldn’t happen & when it did tried to convince us it was a demonstration so it wouldn’t affect his re-election!

If you subscribe to these 2 then you obviously believe (or wouldn’t put it past Obama that…) Obama sacrificed the U.S. Embassy compound in Cairo to the benefit the terrorist group he put in control of Egypt. Despite the government of the nation our Embassy is in being required to provide security for that Embassy, both Obama & the Brotherhood knew how important an ‘attack’ on the Embassy was on the anniversary of 9/11, especially with attacks at at least 8 Embassies throughout the middle east carried out that day. So the Brotherhood works a deal to save face, allow the attack, & ensures no one gets hurt….that means you subscribe to the idea that Obama was complicit with the Brotherhood in that attack….which means you believe Obama is capable, as in Benghazi, of betraying his own for personal / political gain, not just for himself but for Islamic Extremists who attacked Americans/American soil….

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Hannity says he’s about to speak with the drone operator from over Benghazi that night !
Not certain of validity, but will find out ..
Waiting for on the hour local news, atm.
Hmmmmmm.

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 4:32 PM

D
U
D
E
!

Sh!t status: Fo Real

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Maybe we can do a Rushmore for them?

IlikedAUH2O on May 6, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Can we put them under Rushmore?

GWB on May 6, 2013 at 5:12 PM

WTF is going on? Was hannity intervieweing a drone driver??
ted c on May 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Yes, according to the caller, he was in charge of the camera/s (not the pilot) and witnessed the attack, embassy on fire, etc.

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 5:12 PM

“Drone operator says they were not allowed to be armed that night.

so the stand down order PRECEDED the attack…..

Congress??? hello….. Article 1 powers?

Bueller?
Bueller?

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Speaking of the absence of trolls, has SecDef Panetta blink been here defending the administration for abandoning the embassy in Benghazi and causing the deaths of 4 Patriots?
D-fusit on May 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Standard lib responses:

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

This is the first time in weeks I’ve listened to Sean … LOL.
Glad my hands were too dirty to turn off the feed.

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM

The Boss on Hannity now.

VegasRick on May 6, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Drone operator says they were not allowed to be armed that night.
Instantly knew the WH stories were pure BS, ‘from the get-go’

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Democrats to blame sequester.

Jabberwock on May 6, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Standard load for Drones…they were supposed to be carrying that night, just as the Marines at the Cairo Embassy were supposed to be carrying live ammo on 9/11/12 but were ordered NOT to by the State Department.

Again, the Navy Seal, fighting a LARGE number of terrorists carrying AK-47s, mortars, & rocket launchers will NOT stop fighting to lase a target for a pending strike if there is no asset carrying a weapon capable of doing so…or one that is supposed to be carrying such a weapon.

This shi’ite has the makings of a MASSIVE treasonous cover-up, the likes of which movies are made & Presidents are Impeached…or a tale of such raid slefish power-hungry desire mixed equally with world record-setting stupidity & Incompetence that the world has never known, equally deserving of Impeachment &/or jail time for some!

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 5:19 PM

so the stand down order PRECEDED the attack…..

Congress??? hello….. Article 1 powers?

Bueller?
Bueller?

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Why was the Marine Unit defending the Cairo, Egypt Embassy ordered by the State Department NOT to carry live ammo on 9/11/12, the day – like many Embassies that day – they were attacked & overrun?!

DAS WHAT I AM SAYING!!!

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Wonder who Hillary is meeting with today – her lawyers or her 2016 Campaign manager?

albill on May 6, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Wonder who Hillary is meeting with today – her lawyers or her 2016 Campaign manager?

albill on May 6, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Her lawyers are her campaign managers…

oldroy on May 6, 2013 at 5:28 PM

“The coordinated attacks of U.S. embassies on 9/11/12 was successful and the agitated angry followers of Islam took to the streets in 20+ Islamic countries causing mischief, death and mayhem.”

Benghazi was unique in many ways, but on 9/11/12, America was under Islamic Extremist coordinated seige all throughout the Middle East. The security was not lacking – we had fair warning that it was coming.

So how in the h@ll does the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, & the Secretary of Defense ignore those warnings, refuse to provide crittically needed additional security, DISARM troops protecting our Embassies, leave others completely unguarded, NOT put response teams on alert, order weapons systems like the drones to be disarmed, and order highly trained response teams trained for this exact attack in Benghazi to ‘Stand Down’….on the d@mn anniversary of 9/11?!

Whoever is capable … and responsible for … this amount of incompetence should be immediately relieved of their positions of responsibility. Anyone found to have given orders and made decisions found to be treasonous or criminal (Hillary’s perjury) should go to jail for a very long time!

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 5:37 PM

(CORRECTION: “The INTEL was not lacking – we had fair warning…”

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM

There is an 800 lbs gorilla in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring – now retired Gen. Ham, then CG of the U.S. Africa Command on Sept. 11, 2012. He has not been interviewed nor made a statement, but he was relieved of command early within two months of the attack. He is the person I want to hear from under oath.

Wolf Howling on May 6, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Wolf Howling on May 6, 2013 at 5:42 PM

I’m hoping to God he’s under extreme security, atm.
Sure would be an awesome ace in the hole.

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 5:45 PM

(CORRECTION: “The INTEL was not lacking – we had fair warning…”

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM

No one needed to be the Amazing Kreskin to see those attacks coming. 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.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2013 at 5:49 PM

I am a little concerned about General Ham. Men like him are men of extreme honor. is he willing to drag his nation down and through the muck and mire that this disgusting revelation will surely do? Or is he insensed over the fact that Americans were betrayed & abandoned to die, enough to step forward and testify honestly. Was he forced to sign a document swearing his secrecy over the issue for years to come, as all of us in the military on the way out have had to do over classified information/projects? Would he break that oath/legally binding agreement? there are a lot of ‘if’s there, which is surely why we have not heard from his so far…

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 5:51 PM

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Something about what happened in Benghazi stinks way beyond the usual smell of leftist ignorance and incompetence. As in, it almost looks deliberate.

rightmind on May 6, 2013 at 5:55 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

Unfortunately, I must give Portlandon’s thoughts some consideration.

Given the latest developements, and add in this administration’s absolute incompetence in addressing the situation from the getgo. I find myself in the very uncomfortable position of not being able to believe anything they say about Benghazi.
First, they said video.
Second, they said bureaucratic SNAFU
Third, they said ” long time ago” forget about it.

Verbaluce, those compounds were attacked with purpose. That the administration has not been clear about this, and they do know, is bothersome to me.

Jabberwock on May 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Your use of the word ‘they’… I think it illstrates how easy it is to construct a narrative that wouldn’t be possible if facts/specifics were required.
As far as having to give thought to the possibility of portlandon’s line…that Obama/Hillary deliberately set out to kill Stevens because of ‘something he knew’…I don’t even know what to say to that.
It’s where you walk across the edge and get to the fringe.
In the end, it’s fantasies like that (borne not from anything that actually happened here but from a delusion that existed long before) that reveal what motivates many claiming concern over the actual incident.

verbaluce on May 6, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I’m almost afraid to listen to Levin, in a few mins.
LOL

pambi on May 6, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4