Posted on Jan 18, 2016
Military Support Offered In Benghazi — Why Would White House Say No?
4.54K
91
57
9
9
0
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/ [login to see] 59-military-support-offered-in-benghazi-but-administration-did-not-want-it.htm
"Emails released this week by Judicial Watch show that a Defense official offered armed intervention that could in the official's opinion have provided help. ‘We have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi,’ chief of staff Jeremy Bash said in an email sent to State Department leadership. ‘They are spinning up as we speak.’
But military support would have drawn attention to the administration's failed Middle East policies. And it couldn't afford that in an election year.
So, it appears a White House decision was made to let the violence play out without intervention, then make up a lie that the attacks weren't terrorism but merely a protest over an anti-Islamic video that just got out of hand.
The White House has repeatedly denied a stand-down order given to the military response to Benghazi. But as the Bash email confirms, support clearly was offered — yet never arrived. Did someone in the administration turn it down, or was it utterly ignored?"
"Emails released this week by Judicial Watch show that a Defense official offered armed intervention that could in the official's opinion have provided help. ‘We have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi,’ chief of staff Jeremy Bash said in an email sent to State Department leadership. ‘They are spinning up as we speak.’
But military support would have drawn attention to the administration's failed Middle East policies. And it couldn't afford that in an election year.
So, it appears a White House decision was made to let the violence play out without intervention, then make up a lie that the attacks weren't terrorism but merely a protest over an anti-Islamic video that just got out of hand.
The White House has repeatedly denied a stand-down order given to the military response to Benghazi. But as the Bash email confirms, support clearly was offered — yet never arrived. Did someone in the administration turn it down, or was it utterly ignored?"
Military Support Offered In Benghazi — Why Would White House Say No?
Posted from news.investors.com
Benghazi
Politics
Middle East
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
9
9
0
To everyone in the military I simply ask, do you believe that our military ignored the issue and decided alone to not try to intervene?
Sorry, but I can not believe that is what happened.
Sorry, but I can not believe that is what happened.
(9)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I can't believe a stand down order was obeyed, every military officer needs to watch the movie Patton, speaking about dumb orders "That's what you think it says, I think it was garbled in transmission, ask them to resend it and take your time while doing it, better take at least three hours," or something to that effect.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col Stephen Petzold
Every flag officer that had some responsibility for that part of the globe during that time was either fired or made to retire. Something happened between the high level military commanders and the political leadership. Probably won't find out for sure until the next time a Republican is in the White House.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Mike Simpson
MAJ (Join to see) - In this day and age of the military commander "Purge" if you don't follow orders, you are removed from command. Officers are playing a political game of keep quiet, do what your told to do, you keep your job. Same thing happened under the Clinton administration.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Absolutely not. We always go to the calls from fellow Americans! And of we can't rescue them, then it becomes a vengeance mission!
S/F
III%
S/F
III%
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Massive breakdowns in the State Depts command and control, Intelligence assessments and warning, force protection, and probably providing adequate funding as well. Any other president after such a failure and breakdown would have called for the resignation of the cabinet member but she had too much power with the party.
(5)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Lack of Budget Not a Factor in Benghazi Security Decisions
Excerpt from testimony given 10/10/12. Rep. Rohrabacher asks State Dept.'s Charlene Lamb "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you...
LCDR Rich Bishop, according to testimony of person in charge of providing security assets, funding was not an issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meIL1QaOt1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meIL1QaOt1s
(1)
(0)
LCDR Rich Bishop
13 Hours in Benghazi truth exclusive interview Kris Paronto 3 firefights that night Brent Holland...
https://www.youtube.com/user/nightfrightshow http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=48091&refid=stpr Kris Paronto 1st person witnesses who was there that night and fo...
Benghazi truth exclusive interview Kris Paronto 3 firefights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLmma9k8K-U
(1)
(0)
LCDR Rich Bishop
Capt Seid Waddell - I am not sure that the Rep. Rohrabacher question and testimony response tells the story. Sometimes, you have funding but are not allowed to spend it on personnel or equipment....many rules and constraints
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
LCDR Rich Bishop, agreed, sir. It was evidently a command decision above Ms. Lamb that caused her to refuse the additional security assets requested by the Ambassador, and not a lack of funding.
This is what the investigation should determine; it might shed light on the reason that no help was sent when the compounds were under attack.
This is what the investigation should determine; it might shed light on the reason that no help was sent when the compounds were under attack.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
There were assets available in the region. They may not have been the "perfect response" to the attack but better to do something, anything, then do nothing at all. I think these next two paragraphs say all we need to know:
"But military support would have drawn attention to the administration's failed Middle East policies. And it couldn't afford that in an election year.
So, it appears a White House decision was made to let the violence play out without intervention, then make up a lie that the attacks weren't terrorism but merely a protest over an anti-Islamic video that just got out of hand."
"But military support would have drawn attention to the administration's failed Middle East policies. And it couldn't afford that in an election year.
So, it appears a White House decision was made to let the violence play out without intervention, then make up a lie that the attacks weren't terrorism but merely a protest over an anti-Islamic video that just got out of hand."
(5)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
One more point people fail to grasp. Lets say help couldn't get there in time...Which BTW I don't believe. I think it could have gotten there. But lets say it couldn't. Doesn't someone still need to be held responsible for sending a US Ambassador into an area like that without proper security??? Heck he even complained and asked multiple times. Wasn't that HRC's job? and If it as her job, she didn't such a poor job at it can we really give her a chance as President to get even more of us killed for her stupidity?
(3)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Hillary Clinton Ad - 3 AM White House Ringing Phone
No_Description
PO2 Mark Saffell,
Unfortunately, when the phone rang in the White House nobody answered...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg
Unfortunately, when the phone rang in the White House nobody answered...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg
(2)
(0)
CWO2 Eric Peterson
Similar in that the administration didn't want any political fallout from the incident. I suspect the crew was instructed to cooperate and do whatever the Iranians said, including apologizing profusely.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google