The Missing Piece of the Puzzle?

Adm. James Lyons in the Washington Times:

Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi


We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.

Our Benghazi mission personnel, including our two former Navy SEALs, fought for seven hours without any assistance other than help from our embassy in Tripoli, which launched within 30 minutes an aircraft carrying six Americans and 16 Libyan security guards. It is understood they were instrumental in helping 22 of our Benghazi mission personnel escape the attack.

Once the attack commenced, Stevens was taken to a “safe room” within the mission. It is not known whether his location was betrayed by the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the local force providing security to the consulate, which had ties to the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group conducting the attack, and to al Qaeda. Unbelievably, we still do not know how Ambassador Stevens died.

The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.


I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.


Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

There was always something strange about the attack on our Benghazi consulate but I couldn’t put my finger on it until now. What I want to know is what was the purpose of the attack?

First of all, the attackers were not highly trained commandos or special forces operatives. A few of them may have had terrorist training from somewhere but that’s still not the same thing as a trained military unit. Handing guns to a mob doesn’t make them an army, it just makes them an armed mob.

That’s why I didn’t find it that strange that the attacks lasted as long as they did. It takes training and discipline to get people to get up and advance in the face of opposing fire. Militia troops are notorious for taking pot-shots from behind cover but otherwise refusing to expose themselves.

But even a poorly trained group should have been able to quickly overwhelm the security at the consulate – and in fact they did. Ambassador Stevens and two others quickly retreated to a safe room in the consulate. So the terrorists set the place on fire. One of the men was able to escape.

Ambassador Stevens and information officer Sean Smith died in the consulate. A quick reaction force from the nearby CIA annex was able to find Smith’s body in the consulate but they could not find Stevens. About 1 am (a little over three hours after the attacks started) some Libyan nationals entered the consulate and found Stevens. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed later at the attack on the CIA annex.

So where were the terrorists and what were they doing all this time? The attack on the nearby CIA annex didn’t take place until about 4 am, over six hours after the initial attacks started. The terrorists had to expect that we would respond with air support if not boots on the ground, but they still hung around? Why didn’t they immediately attack the CIA annex? They had to know about it, it was only a couple blocks away and would have been known to the locals.

Admiral Lyons provides the answer to my questions. They were loading up and moving the contents of the warehouses. Obtaining those weapons was the primary purpose of the attack – killing or capturing Americans was secondary. After setting fire to the consulate they turned their attention to completing their primary mission. Then, after the weapons were loaded and moved, the remaining terrorists launched the attack on the CIA annex.

If you want to get really tin foily, consider the possibility that this was a back-door plot to give weapons to the Islamic extremists in Syria. Think of it as “Iran-Contra Meets Fast & Furious on the Road to Benghazi”. Rather than give the weapons to the extremists directly and risk the bad publicity maybe the Obama administration was going to let them appear to “steal” them.

The terrorists sure didn’t seem to be trying very hard to kill or capture anyone. Both Stevens and Smith died from smoke inhalation. Could their deaths have been accidental? Perhaps they thought the consulate was empty when they set it on fire. Maybe the people who found Stevens’ body were actually the terrorists and they rushed him to the hospital trying to save him? None of the Libyan guards was killed. Doherty and Woods were killed when a mortar round landed on their position. The terrorists never pressed home the attack on the CIA annex.

That theory makes as much sense as the official version.

This entry was posted in Libya and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

115 Responses to The Missing Piece of the Puzzle?

  1. myiq2xu says:

    If the terrorists were still hanging around, how come the Libyan nationals were able to get into the consulate?

  2. Lulu says:

    Is this Obama’s really incompetent Iran Contra? They wanted terrorist associated boobs to have the weapons but they had to appear to steal them so they could be sent somewhere without the consent of Congress (who Obama despises) or the knowledge of the voting public (whom he also views with contempt). It makes as much sense as any other idiotic Rube Goldberg plot these low rent Chicago hacks could have come up with. And of course gunships could not have been called in to blow the hell out of the very people who were carrying out the foreign policy Harvard clique’s B movie level plot. It is so supremely stupid it makes sense for this group.

  3. Mary says:

    Did a little channel surfing; Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd practically giggling at the prospect of Obama getting 3 days to look presidential and Romney’s out of the picture. Totally disgusting conversation. Flipped away as quick as I could.

    • Lulu says:

      Acting presidential for three days out of four years is not so great. It is too late.

      • Mary says:

        Oh, I agree. But watching those 2 Obama fluffers work the political end (which O is saying he won’t do) really, really pissed me off.

      • 49erDweet says:

        Too stressed. Quick, get him a tee time.

      • swpanna says:

        At least Reagan WAS an actor. This hoax – as I heard elsewhere – has none of the skills beyond his hypnotic, rapture inducing speechifying. And even when a hypnotist works, only a handful of the participants in the audience prove susceptible to hypnotic suggestion. And they become the comic relief.

  4. Lulu says:

    Obama wants a Secretary of Business in a second term. I have been calling him an idiot for a while but this is pathetic. Does he not know what the Secretary of Commerce does?

  5. 49erDweet says:

    So in Benghazi we have Furtive and Fatal, this time with IMPOTUS’s prints all over it.
    Remind me again. How many died at Watergate?

  6. Mary says:

    OT: Latest Rasmussen projecting Romney gets at least 279 electoral votes.

    • leslie says:

      Well, the NYTimes is working hard to change that. I just got in from driving home, and the NYT reported Obama had over 290 EV. They are really trying to drive people away from the polls, aren’t they?

      • angienc says:

        That idiot Nate Silver is a certified Obama flack who doesn’t realize that kind of stuff is only helping Romney get BIGGER turnout.

        • leslie says:

          I don’t know what he realizes. But my guess is that he is being paid to manipulate those numbers in O’s favor simply because he works for the NYT.
          asshats all of ’em.

        • He doesn’t have to get paid for it. He got his start at the great Orange Cheeto. He’s a Kossack, which means he works for Ramen Noodles. Politico asked if he was going to a one-term wonder earlier today. I think he is.

        • angienc says:

          One term wonder is right — after the 2008 campaign where Silver “made his name” with his mysterious, magical “model” it was revealed that the Obama campaign had been sharing their internal polls with him, which is why he was SOOOOO accurate. Notice he blew the 2010 mid-terms & he’s blowing the 2012 GE too because he’s really just Tokyo Rose, not a poll whisperer.

  7. piper says:

    Finally finished my outdoor work – tomorrow the bags go to the dump.

    Re Benghazi – this explanation makes a lot of sense.

    OT – those posters who live in the storm affected area – stay safe and indoors.

  8. gxm17 says:

    There has to be something big they are hiding. Otherwise, there was no need for the cover-up. Will we ever find out? I sure hope so. I said to my husband weeks ago: This is worse than Watergate because nobody died with Watergate. If the fourth estate won’t get the truth out, then the American people need to demand it.

  9. “If the fourth estate won’t get the truth out, then the American people need to demand it.”

    We have been TRYING – calling the WH, calling the MSM all to no avail. And the really shocking thing (to me) is that it seems “benghazi” has never in the last week “trended” on Twitter. Impossible in reality, but in just a few short hours today “Tomb of the Unknows” had.

    Twitter is Big Brother too.

    Hope all is well in Storm-ville.

  10. gram cracker says:

    Bret Baier of Fox is investigating Benghazi. Some of the video’s are lengthy but very informative.

    Since it appears that the State Department was involved in covert operations with the CIA and or Pentagon in Libya no wonder Hillary, Panetta and Obama give conflicting versions of what happened. You would think that they would have quickly gotten together and agreed upon a story that would back up each other.

    • DM says:

      The State Department doesn’t run intelligence operations. Those operations may be housed in diplomatic missions, and the secretary of state may be kept informed, on a need to know basis, about what is going on and who is doing what, but the state department has no say in the operation. It’s not how the command structure is set up.

      • gram cracker says:

        Was State Department employee Ambassador Stevens playing a central role in recruiting insurgents to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria?

        Was Stevens serving as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya who were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces.

        If Stevens was, and that’s a big “if”, then Hillary should damn well have known about it! If she didn’t know that her employee Stevens was working with Defense and or CIA as a liaison for jihadist recruitment and a gun-walking operation in the ME then she should resign in protest.

        Hillary may not have had a say in how the actual operation was discharged, but it is hard to believe she didn’t know Stevens was personally involved in intelligence activities outside the usual diplomat’s responsibilities.

        • DM says:

          Of course Hillary knew Stevens was was an agent. I’m also sure she knew everyone in the complex was an agent, housed in the “consulate”. Knowing something doesn’t make one responsible for the operations that fall under whatever agency was controlling the work Stevens was involved. In fact, Stevens, like all agents, know the dangers of working undercover. Stevens arrived in Benghazi to work with the insurgents that would topple Gaddafi. It seems to me that Stevens never left his main job as undercover agent, working before he died with the rebels that are working to topple Assad. That Stevens wore two hats is very clear. It appears his main job was that of an agent, and his “ambassador” title gave him cover.

    • DM says:

      Also, what’s supposed to happen when there’s a competent president, is that the president tells Americans as much of the truth as possible. But what we have is an incompetent that went out with a stupid lie that backfired.

  11. gram cracker says:

    A mysterious Libyan ship — reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels — may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Fox News has learned.

    Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.

    On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.

  12. DM says:

    Sh*t happens. This whole thing is an intelligence operation gone wrong, and Ambassador Stevens was in charge of that operation in Libya, getting orders from people in Washington. My guess is that the person in charge of the operation was an intelligence unit under Panetta, not the Petraeus. That’s why Petraeus came out and said that nobody in the CIA gave orders to “stand down”. He didn’t own that operation.

    • gram cracker says:

      State Department employees world wide are endangered when it becomes public knowledge that the State Department is involved in covert operations such as recruiting “freedom fighters” and arranging arms shipments. Looks like the “consulate” was a “storefront” for a covert Pentagon and or CIA mission. How many ordinary Libyans went there to get a visa to come to the US?

      Unfortunately Sandy gives BO and the fourth estate cover to divert attention from Obama’s Iran Contra fiasco.

      • DM says:

        State Department employees world wide are endangered when it becomes public knowledge that the State Department is involved in covert operations

        Do you think that other countries don’t know that all U.S. diplomatic missions house covert operations? Diplomats become persona non grata and are expelled because they are caught spying all the time. Counties also know that USAID offices are intelligence officers. This is no secret. The housing of those operations in embassies doesn’t mean that the State Department has intelligence operations. Those operations are directed by CIA and other intelligence units.

        Other countries accept that embassies house spies because there’s no choice.

        • gram cracker says:

          I never said that State has intelligence operations or runs them. I said “since it appears that the State Department was involved in covert operations with the CIA and or Pentagon”. By “State” I meant State Department as represented by Ambassador Stevens.

          You said, “this whole thing is an intelligence operation gone wrong, and Ambassador Stevens was in charge of that operation in Libya, getting orders from people in Washington.”

          Appears to me that you and I essentially saying the same thing. “State (Stevens) was in involved in covert operation (was in charge of that operation) with the CIA or Pentagon (getting orders from people in Washington).

          I’ll concede that you are much better with words and more knowledgeable about the workings of State, Defense and CIA than I am, but I am not a fucking moron. Yes, I am aware of what you wrote about USAID, embassies and the rest.

          However Stevens wasn’t expelled, he was murdered. Maybe housing covert intelligence operations in State Department facilites in the ME and other known hot spots isn’t such a good idea. If they are jointly housed then our diplomatic employees should be getting at least as much security protection as does Valerie Jarrett.

  13. ME says:

    Just saw Ty Woods father on Hannity. 😦

  14. OldCoastie says:

    I don’t usually trust the Washington Times but it does make sense. The whole Benghazi situation rather reeked of “CIA”. I guess I wonder who thunk this up? Was it Patreus? And did the lot of them think we were so stupid we would buy the Offensive Video Explanation hook, line and sinker.


  15. Perhaps F&F was the pre-game to see how well it worked. Guess the results of that confirmed it did….

    Game on.

    • kanaughty says:

      yeah because in what other administration does eric holder have his job still in… i mean the guy totally got away with it. it totally got shoved under a rug. and he still have his job. he is the worse attorney general we have ever had in the united states… so they thought, well, fast and furious is no longer a story, so we can shove benghazi under the carpet too… hopefully ob will lose so all these losers lose their jobs…

  16. fif says:

    OT, but this is quite interesting: so much for early voting favors Obama, and why is Gallup burying these leads?

    **GALLUP SHOCK** Romney Up 52-45% Among Early Voters
    Very early on, before this campaign started in earnest, live or die, I publicly cast my lot with Gallup and Rasmussen. As a poll addict going back to 2000, these are the outlets that have always played it straight. It’s got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with credibility and not wanting to kid myself. So when an outlet like Gallup tells me Romney is up seven-points, 52-45%, among those who have already voted, that’s very big news.

    Just as Gallup did with their bombshell survey showing that 2012 is looking like a year where Republicans will enjoy a record three-point turnout advantage over Democrats (a ten-point shift from 2008), for whatever reason, they buried the lede with this latest bombshell, as well. When you consider the fact that the CorruptMedia’s been talking for weeks about how Obama’s crushing Romney in early voting, you would think Gallup proving that Narrative a big fat phony lie would be news. Instead, though, they bury this explosive news at the bottom of a piece headlined: “In U.S., 15% of Registered Voters Have Already Cast Ballots”.

    • DM says:

      Gallup has been taking polls for decades and is not going to screw up its credibility and independence for any candidate.

    • lyn5 says:

      The Oregonian’s poll shows Obama ahead by 6 points–47 to 41. Obama won Oregon by 17 in 2008.

      • DM says:

        If I were an Obama supporter, I’d be scared by that poll. It’s not so much that the spread is much lower in 2012, but that The One is at 47%, well below 50%. In situations like that, most undecided don’t break for the incumbent. If that poll is right, the final will be very close in Oregon, a state more conservative than California.

        • lyn5 says:

          That’s what I’m hoping for. In 2008, my county (Klamath) went for McCain/Palin, and Hillary won the primary.

        • angienc says:

          It’s very possible, in a place like Oregon especially, that a lot of the undecideds are going for 3rd parties (such as Gary Johnson or Jill Stein). A lot of the polls only ask “Obama/Romney/Undecided” so if you are supporting & planning to vote for a 3rd party candidate you get counted as undecided.

        • Erica says:

          Hey lyn5, my mom is up in Ashland. She was for Hillary and was fuming because her yard signs kept disappearing off her lawn. And fast, too.

        • lyn5 says:

          Erica, that sounds like Ashland, which is over the hill (about 60 miles) from us.

      • It looks like Obama is down about 10 pts across the board from 2008 numbers if those two states are any indication…

  17. “Counties also know that USAID offices are intelligence officers.”
    I had a fiend in Navy Intel for years. She alluded to this over 10 years ago. And they (her branch) never had great things to say about CIA, They were NSA loyalists.

    • DM says:

      Btw, “Countries also know….” I missed the typo.

    • Mary says:

      I have several friends who went Peace Corps after college. They told me later that most Peace Corps reps are CIA/CNI, too. And that most host countries know it.

  18. DM says:

    It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle

    I don’t believe that all these people would abandon a single American in an attack. That Hussein lied and would not admit the failure is understood. That Hussein would use a lie that would unravel because he’s an incompetent president is also understood. What I do not believe, unless there’s unquestionable proof, is that people in the military and in the intelligence units would abandon any American under attack.

    • lyn5 says:

      No one wants to be blamed if/when Obama loses the election. This is so fucking crazy. The bastard gets protected by everyone.

      • DM says:

        Being incompetent and a coward is not a crime, but deserve to get fired and demoted. What I’ll never understand how Hussein bamboozled and hoodwinked the American voter.

  19. trist says:

    Have I somehow just been oblivious all this time to this info that we’re supplying weapons to al Qaeda, or is this just coming out? Even if it’s just an affiliated group, it’s still al Qaeda. I mean seriously, having our Amb. and the others killed on 9/11 by an al Qaeda group that Obama may have been arming himself….yeah I can see why the need for a cover-up.
    But, didn’t the group who claimed credit for the attack say they were al Qaeda? I don’t know how many of these groups have ties, but why would they attack the consulate if they were already getting weapons from them? Unless it was just a different group.

    I suppose one could make the case that video itself was planned as part of the cover story from the get go, if you’re going to say Obama, et all knew beforehand of the attack and that is why limited security was there and no assistance provided. Hell for all we know, they’re the ones that pushed the video to the forefront on Arab tv just before 9/11 so they COULD claim it as the reason for the attack. The timing of that has always seemed suspect to me. In the digital age where something new and controversial online is everywhere in hours, this video sits on youtube for months until just before 9/11 then pow! What the hell would they have given as an excuse if there hadn’t been this video?

    Honestly, you can just go nuts, spinning these theories
    This is why we need real answers, I hate getting into all this conspiracy crap!

    • DM says:

      Trist, I’ve seen articles saying it, but I don’t believe we have enough information to know that weapons have been going to al-Q groups. I have an opinion on the matter, but it’s not based on any fact. I think that giving weapons to mercenaries to help fight certain governments, like Libya and Syria, involves risks because we don’t have good background information on the fighters. It’s possible that groups, like al-Q can infiltrate too easily into the operation.

    • DM says:

      if you’re going to say Obama, et all knew beforehand of the attack and that is why limited security was there and no assistance provided.

      I think that the accusations that Obama knew beforehand about the attack is without merit. I refuse to believe without any hard fact that anyone did not help Americans under attack in Benghazi. I’d have to believe that the military, Panetta, intelligence officers, and others abandoned their duties and those besieged by the attackers. That kind of tin foil hat sh*t is not believable.

      • myiq2xu says:

        Tin foil hat shit? Ever heard of Gary Webb?

        He was a reporter for the San Jose Mercury that wrote a series of articles claiming the CIA was working with the Contras to smuggle cocaine into the US in order to finance their secret war in Nicaragua. The government denied it and pressured the Mercury into firing Webb. His career was ruined and he later committed suicide.

        It turned out that Webb was right.

      • trist says:

        So you don’t believe the requests for assistance being denied are true?

        • DM says:

          No. I think those in charge were doing their best to help under extremely difficult scenario. It doesn’t make sense that so many good people would not help. My conclusion is what I said. To help the Americans under attack was difficult without endangering them. An arial attack may have killed the enemy but also the Americans.

      • trist says:

        DM, someone had posted this re; the linked article in Myiq’s post.

        I don’t know how much this person really knows about this stuff, but if accurate it might explain why no help came.

        “Long ago I was a navspecwar officer, and I think the “firewall” for this fiasco was the POTUS refusing to grant the crucial “cross-border authority.” The rescue begins as soon as the alarms from Benghazi go out. But the inbound air-armada including transport planes and jets, fighters, gunships and helos cannot cross into Libyan air space without explicit permission from POTUS and only POTUS. If at the 5pm DC time meeting with Panetta Obama said, “No outside military intervention,” then that would constitute his “standing orders” until he changed his mind. If he became “unavailable” after that, or went to bed, his standing orders would stand. The Benghazi holdouts, fighting for their lives, could only get help from assets already “in country” in Libya. The military could be screaming for hours for permission to cross into Libyan air space, but Obama’s “standing orders” given at 5pm would stand. Even if he went to bed to rest up for his more important next day in Las Vegas. The most damning aspect of this is that Obama went to bed while Ambassador Stevens was still missing, and presumably had been kidnapped by the original attackers, an Al-Queda group. Stevens might have soon been on a youtube video getting the Nick Berg and Danny Pearl treatment, and OBAMA WENT TO BED. And doomed the SEALs to die while calling for air support.”

        • DM says:

          I don’t believe that POTUS would not have given the order to help. No POTUS can figure out military or intelligence operations. A POTUS will give a green light after weighing pros and cons, but I don’t doubt that political considerations are put aside on situations like this. Panetta, intelligence people, and advisors came up with the best way to move forward and help the Americans. There’s no way that Panetta and all those who oversee intelligence operations would not give POTUS the best options to help the Americans. I don’t know, but one of the options might have been to bomb and kill the enemy, with the understanding that the Americans might die too. POTUS might have decided to go with the one that would endanger the least number of Americans, even if it took longer. In fact 22 individuals were rescued and 4 died. Maybe the option for an air attack gave POUTS the choice of killing the enemy and the Americans. Those are difficult options, and POTUS did what he thought was best. People may disagree with the decision, but that’s another matter.

        • DM says:

          Trish, I will not vote for Obama, but I do not believe that he did not choose what he believed to be the best option. It’s fine to disagree with Obama on policy, but to believe that stuff is without merit, and I dismiss it as tin foil stuff.

        • DM says:

          One more thing:

          he military could be screaming for hours for permission to cross into Libyan air space, but Obama’s “standing orders” given at 5pm would stand.

          That’s just nonsense. I believe Obama when he said he gave the order to his people to do the best to help the Americans under attack. In other words, it was a blank check to everyone to go with the best option. He said that was his order in a radio interview. I believe him because he’s that kind of leader. He’s not someone who would get too involved in the details. I like more hands on leaders, like Bill Clinton. I think Romney would have been more involved too.

        • trist says:

          Well my last comment on this is that he was barack obama before he was pres. someone through his actions and in-actions has proven himself time and again a deceitful amoral thug who has shown there is no on one, and no principle that will ever superseded his personal needs. putting a person without honor into a honorable position doesn’t change a damn thing!

  20. swanspirit says:

    Krauthammer: Obama Has ‘Forfeited’ The Stature Of The Presidency

  21. swanspirit says:

    The problem with the theory of selling arms to an affiliate of Al Qaeda , is that it is entirely too plausible . It would also explain any stand down orders . You don’t want to bomb your business partners .

    • DM says:

      That assumes that we have traitors in our top echelon of the military and intelligence units. I don’t believe that.

      • myiq2xu says:

        It’s not treason if you are following orders. In some parts of the world we only have frenemies.

        • DM says:

          I was referring to this part of the comment:

          It would also explain any stand down orders . You don’t want to bomb your business partners .

          I don’t believe that anyone in our military or Panetta or intelligence units would not destroy those who are attacking Americans because the attackers are “frenemies”. They were not frenemies; they were enemies. Has anyone considered that attacking the enemy would put in peril the lives of the Americans? That’s what I think. I think it was too difficult to surgically kill the attackers without also putting the very lives we were trying to save. It’s the only logical conclusion.

          • myiq2xu says:

            Who do you think originally armed the Taliban? Who sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons?

            Our government is capable of some really sneaky under-handed shit.

        • DM says:

          Sorry, but I keep making edit errors. Here is what I wanted to say:

          I think it was too difficult to surgically kill the attackers without also putting in peril the very lives we were trying to save.

        • trist says:

          So rather than try and send help they do nothing for fear of killing those who are in the process of being killed anyway? I’m sure sending aid carries risk, but they were watching and listening and they were hearing them beg for help. So they wouldn’t have been going in blind. I don’t know anything about military tactics, but I do know having that scenario play out on tv wasn’t going to make them seem like the competent leaders they claim to be.

        • DM says:

          Trish, the U.S. has the best military and intelligence people, but sometimes the best gets into problems. I don’t know if Obama chose the option, or if he gave a blank check to his people to choose the best option. Only those who know the facts can say what the options were and why the help came from Tripoli to get those 22 Americans. The administration may not look competent, but we don’t have enough information to say that they were incompetent.

  22. This image, compliments of Romney Truth Team, is going viral on FB right now. I shared on RD and it has 60 shares in a couple of hours. It’s everywhere else, too.

  23. FWIW –

    Commentor Wbboei at Hillaryis44 posted this in partial response to the Panetta Doctrine story.

    But if the CIA was supplying al Qaeda, then why bite the hand that feeds you.
    I do believe that this attack was initiated by Iran, with the concurrence of Russia.
    And that gives rise to the third agenda–to prevent a larger war.

  24. DM says:

    NOAA: “Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy made landfall at 8pm ET on October 29, 2012 about 5 miles southwest of Atlantic City, NJ,”

  25. yttik says:

    I want to know where all the people are, the survivors? If we had a real press, they’d be all over our TV giving interviews and telling what they saw. The silence is kind of spooky.

    • Great point. We’ve seen after every other fiasco. Why not this time?

    • swanspirit says:

      I have been wondering that myself , and also wondering if someone is keeping them quiet?

    • kanaughty says:

      that’s what i have been thinking. there were people who were saved, so i want to hear their parts of the story. something like 30+ people know what actually happened there and got out, so i want to hear that part, so where is it? they could certainly clear some things up since they are first hand witnesses. when i was watching the bret baier report, there was one guy who was at both locations who survived, i would like to hear his part of the story. if none of these people are coming forward or being questioned, then it is so easy to suspect that this is a coverup for sure…

    • DM says:

      They are spooks. Do you want to blow their cover? That would be done for political reasons, and just forget it. It won’t happen.

      • gram cracker says:

        So were there no State Department personnel there other than Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith? Everyone else there was a spook? Huh?! Who would have thought that a consulate would have no support staff on hand when the Ambassador is there conducting official business?

        Obama was pretty quick to reveal that Seal Team 6 executed his order to kill Osama. Then he gave screenwriter Mark Boal and director Kathryn Bigelow access to classified information.

        Don’t think Obama’s Hollywood friends will want to make a movie about Benghazi. Don’t see how this can be spun to make him look good.

        • DM says:

          Ambassador Stevens was an agent first, imho, and the title of “ambassador” was his cover. He was in Benghazi, if the story is right, meeting with a Turkish consul (another agent using “consul” as his cover) to get arms to the rebels fighting Assad. Stevens was the main agent working with the rebels to bring down Gaddafi. There’s no mystery about what Steven’s job was.

  26. tommy says:

    The recent poll on the Brown-Warren contest is interesting. They remain statistically tied but Warrens unfavs have risen, and may play out on D-day.

  27. myiq2xu says:

    Every damn news channel is showing clips of satellite images of Sandy reaching shore and reporters standing in the dark wearing raincoats.

    It’s been the same thing for 6-7 hours.

  28. yttik says:

    “The terrorists sure didn’t seem to be trying very hard to kill or capture anyone. Both Stevens and Smith died from smoke inhalation.”

    I know. It’s really awful to contemplate, but only four Americans died in the entire 7 hour attack and two of them were accidental or unintentional or something. That certainly doesn’t sound like an “angry mob.” but it doesn’t sound like a group of terrorists out for revenge, either. What was the purpose of the attack and why did it take so long? If you’re a crazy extremist who hates America, your goal is to kill as many people as possible and send a message.

  29. DM says:

    Myiq: With this bunch I am assuming incompetent until proven otherwise.

    It’s a funny comment. LOL
    But I will give my two cents worth. Much has been said of the hero who disobeyed orders and died. In the meantime, the 22 agents who stayed put were rescued. Those giving orders could see everything with the drone, and the order to stand down seems to have been the best. Don’t you think?

    • smile says:

      I am sorry DM, but I disagree. Due to the seals bravery and “doing the right thing”, they were able to rescue all the remaining american personnel from the embassy, including bringing back Smith’s body.

      And also don’t agree with this: … “and the order to stand down seems to have been the best. Don’t you think?”

      Isn’t it possible that had the reconnaissance & rescue teams been mobilized, that Stevens and the 2 seals lives would have been saved as well. And even if 10 more lives were lost as a result of our rendering them aid, isn’t it the right thing to do? Isn’t that what our civilization is based upon? Isn’t that the basis of our fire departments and police departments all over the world? Firefighters, police, special ops risk their lives willingly with the hope that they can save other’s lives. One does not take a head count of potentials deaths before going into a burning building or responding to a 911 call, except a hostage situation. Even in a hostage situation, help is sent regardless. We as civilized people do not ignore requests for help, SOS calls.

      And how about those who did die knowing that their own country refused to help them like they were supposed. Isn’t it a better death knowing that your loved one (in they case, your country) is answering your call for help? What betrayal this is to those who died, and in their moment of death, for them to have known that they were betrayed. And what message does it send to all our deployed troops, to our CIA agents overseas, our diplomatic staff overseas, and to our friends and enemies? And what effect does it have on their morale and their effectiveness in the future?

      Sorry, if I came across too strong in my disagreement. Especially since I rarely comment.

    • lorac says:

      I thought I read that those two shooting from the roof provided cover so that the others could be evacuated….?

      • smile says:

        My understanding is that personnel from the annex arrived at the consulate and assisted with the fight. When they could not hold off the fight and defend the consulate, they decided to evacuate all americans and abandon the consulate and went to the annex. Once at the annex, the attacked occured shortly or was in progress when they arrived, I am not sure exactly. During the course of the fight at the annex, the americans laser painted the enemy mortar that had been firing upon the annex. The idea was that once the mortar was painted, it was supposed to be fired upon by american spectre or the drone, but the mortar was not destroyed by the air support. And apparently, one never paints the target unless it is going to be destroyed, because by painting it and not having it be destroyed, you become a target for the enemy. This might have been when and how the 2 seals died. At some point the decision was made to abandon the annex, evacuate and leave for tripoli.

      • DM says:

        Here is the section regarding the death of the two agents on the roof. They were part of the security of the building. I seems to me that there were more than two agents on the roof. I will bold that part.

        Rather than get stuck in the traffic, the agents careen their car over the median – there is a median, a grassy median – and into the opposing traffic, and they go counter-flow until they emerge into a more lightly trafficked area and ultimately make their way to the annex.

        Once at the annex, the annex has its own security – a security force there. There are people at the annex. The guys in the car join the defense at the annex. They take up firing positions on the roof – some of them do – and other firing positions around the annex. The annex is, at this time, also taking fire and does take fire intermittently, on and off, for the next several hours. The fire consists of AK-47s but also RPGs, and it’s, at times, quite intense.

        As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound – to the annex, I should say. And I should have mentioned that the quick reaction – the quick reaction security team that was at the compound has also, in addition to my five agents, has also returned to the annex safely. The reinforcements from Tripoli are at the compound – at the annex. They take up their positions. And somewhere around 5:45 in the morning – sorry, somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning – I have my timeline wrong – somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning the annex takes mortar fire. It is precise and some of the mortar fire lands on the roof of the annex. It immediately killed two security personnel that are there, severely wounds one of the agents that’s come from the compound.

  30. tommy says:

    Oliver Stone’s new book rips Obama. ‘The biggest winner under Obama was Wall Street’. ‘Obama asserted Presidential powers in ways that must have made Dick Cheney jealous’. Lol

  31. DM says:

    Who do you think originally armed the Taliban? Who sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons?
    Our government is capable of some really sneaky under-handed shit.

    Most of the time our actions work, but sometimes we see boomerangs. The list of blowbacks from undercover operations is long.

  32. lyn5 says:

    The administration still blamed the crappy anti-Islam video guy for Benghazi. That should haunt every American. I don’t care what its purpose was. Americans died and Obama lied. Benghazi should bring this administration down, but a complicit MSM won’t touch it. Muslim appeasement won’t work, because they want to kill us.


Comments are closed.