+ Comment now

1.9k

153

18

0

1

President Barack Obama pauses as he makes a statement in response to the attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya September 12, 2012 at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC.  (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

There are some large disconnects between Obama administration explanations concerning security and response actions taken before, during and after the disastrous terrorist attacks on our Benghazi consulate and accounts, compared with those  which continue to emerge from outside sources. Following numerous White House claims now known to be inaccurate and intentionally misleading, we are repeatedly  assured that we will get the real scoop in due time after full investigations are complete. One perplexing issue, among many, revolves around conflicting accounts regarding requests and denials of military aid which might have saved American lives.

Further delays only increase wide-spread suspicions that there are no legitimate answers, and that the president’s strategy is to run out the clock until after his final election is over. If this were not the case, it would seem logical that he would seize upon every opportunity to demonstrate evidence of the leadership and transparency he has repeatedly promised. Meanwhile, those who dare to raise those questions and express such suspicions are often subjected by his supporters to scornful reproach. And yes, I speak from experience on this…a subject I will get to later.

Putting serious questions aside regarding why early requests for enhanced consulate  security had been repeatedly denied, along with misplaced blame for the attack on an obscure anti-Muslim video, let’s focus exclusively upon controversies surrounding that fateful seven-hour assault period.

During an October 16 interview, Denver’s WUSA-TV reporter Kyle Clark asked President Obama a two-part question: “Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya denied requests for help during that attack, and is it fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation until after the election?”  Expressing his regret about the casualties and sympathy for their families, plus a determination to bring the perpetrators to justice, the president didn’t answer either question.

After dodging, Clark asked the first and most important part again: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” And once again Obama offered a non-answer, saying: “I can tell you as I have said over the last couple of months since this happened, that the minute I found out this was going on, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.” He continued, “I guarantee you that everybody in the State Department, our military, CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe. These are our folks. And we’re going to find out exactly what happened.”

So are we to take it from this that President Obama expressly said that in the very beginning he issued a  clear directive instructing that all possible means be employed by his National Security Council to  secure our personnel? Such a directive would constitute an “Execute Order”, an official mandate that would carry the inviolate authority of our nation’s commander-in-chief. Where is that document?

The New York Times reported that defense department officials said they did not receive a request for help from the State Department as the attack unfolded. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who was with President Obama in the Oval Office for a regular meeting when the first attack reports came in, then later said: “There’s a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here”, adding that “the basic principle is 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.”

Yet the administration had already put our people in harm’s way…and did so without providing adequate protection. So if the president had issued a formal order to “employ all possible means to secure our personnel”, then wouldn’t the correct decision be to deploy aid to save them? And in not doing so, didn’t the defense secretary countermand the alleged direct order? On the other hand, it wouldn’t seem very likely for that to occur when his military superior, the president, was right there in the Oval Office with him.

According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty (who were later killed), were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack. The first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired, informed higher-ups at the CIA annex, and requested permission to go to the consulate to help out. However, they ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate, which by that time was on fire. The rescue team then returned to the CIA annex about midnight after evacuating those who remained at the consulate and retrieving the body of Sean Smith. They had not succeeded in locating Ambassador Stevens.

Woods and Doherty called again for military support as they began to take on gunfire at the annex. Again, the request was denied. According to those present at the compound, there were no communications problems at the annex, and the team was in constant radio contact with headquarters. Ty Woods was manning a machine gun on the annex roof at the time. He painted a targeting laser on the enemy mortar that later killed him after calling for support from a Spectre gunship that never arrived.

The fighting at the CIA annex lasted for more than four hours. That provided plenty of time for American aircraft and commandos based at our Sigonella Air base in Italy 480 miles away to intervene.

Two separate Special Operations forces were instructed to stand down. Senior military and intelligence sources informed Fox News that a force specializing in counterterrorism rescues which was already in place at Sigonella could have reached Benghazi within less than two hours. The other team had previously operated in Central Europe, and was being moved to Sigonella.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied claims that any requests for support were turned down. She said: “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need: claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” So if not the CIA…then who did issue the stand down orders?

Larry Womack, writing in the Huffington Post, did a hatchet piece which referred to my earlier October 24 article titled “White House Watched Benghazi Attacked And Didn’t Respond” as a “jumble of lies” and a “rant”. He asserted I had erroneously stated that European military forces that might have rapidly responded did not arrive at Sigonella “until after the attack was over”. However this is directly at odds with reports that at least one counterterrorism force was already in place there ready for immediate deployment.

Womack also challenged my “outlandish claim” that “absurdly” misrepresented drone footage of Benghazi events as “live video” and my assertion “that a series of email alerts received late Tuesday evening provides additional information that was known to Obama administration officials shortly after the attack commenced.”

Well actually…yes! Two surveillance drones had been redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack began, and were already hovering over the compound. One was sent to relieve the first, perhaps due to fuel issues, and both were capable of sending real-time visuals back to Washington. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others could continuously call up that video on their computers.

As for real-time emails, there were lots of them also. According to reports, between 300 and 400 national security figures received these real-time updates throughout the attack. The first one came in about 20 minutes after the fighting began. Another, received just two hours into the raid, advised White House and State Department officials that an Islamic militant group called Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit.

Just to prove that I really can’t be trusted to present accurate information, Mr Womack pointed out that I’m “a climate change denier!” (exclamation emphasis in original). Although I really don’t appreciate the Holocaust implication of that “denier” term, he’s at least correct that I’m a bone fide skeptic on that subject… to the extent this conceivably matters. He also cited a reference to some related statements I have made on that subject which appear in an alarmist blog link. Frankly, I enthusiastically stand by all of them.

Womack concluded his article expressing angry disdain for conservative blogs which he believes callously exploit the Benghazi tragedy for political purposes. Here, he echoes a defense repeatedly voiced by the president. Yet if President Obama is offended that people suspect he hasn’t been forthcoming, there’s a very simple solution. Just provide real evidence to back up his administration’s claims…perhaps starting with that three point order he purportedly issued immediately upon learning of the attack.

Until he does so, this clearly is, and should be, an important political issue. Senator John McCain articulated reasons for this very clearly: “This tragedy, turned into a debacle and massive cover-up or massive incompetence in Libya, is having an impact on the voters because of their view of the commander-in-chief.  It is the worst cover-up or incompetence I have ever observed in my life. Somebody the other day said to me, ‘This is as bad as Watergate…[but] nobody died in Watergate.”

__________