Saturday, January 16, 2016

It’s Even Worse Than We Thought

     First we were told it was merely a “demonstration” over a YouTube video that got out of hand. Then we were told that there was no one to send to the rescue of the beleaguered Americans in Benghazi. Then we were told that in the “fog of war,” the order to go to their aid simply came too late. But none of that is true, and the evidence has just become irrefutable:

     The evidence is overwhelming that the United States had several rescue teams ready to go during the 2012 Benghazi attacks, but someone -- possibly the president himself -- prevented them from acting. So said Emmy Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson to talk show host Steve Malzberg in an interview on Wednesday.

     This week on her show, "Full Measure," Attkisson looked into the aborted rescue mission in an in-depth two-part report, "Rescue Interrupted," which you can watch here and here. She spoke with a Green Beret commander who told her that there were actually Special Forces on their way to Benghazi who were turned back.

     Col. Andrew Wood had once commanded a Special Forces anti-terrorism team protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens and other diplomats in Libya. In October of 2012, Woods told Congress that one month before the attacks in Benghazi, his team had been removed from Libya by the Obama administration, despite the numerous warnings of impending terrorist attacks. Wood told Attkisson that Special Forces (the ones mentioned in the "spinning up" email from Jeremy Bash) were on their way to Benghazi, but were ordered to turn back.

     Please read the whole thing. Then go to Sharyl Attkisson’s site for her meticulous reports.

     Apparently, for American forces to cross a border into another country requires presidential authorization – and Obama was asleep. No one thought to wake him. Why not? Surely Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have grasped the necessity. Was she asleep too? Or was she too concerned with preserving the Administration’s fiction that all was well in post-Qaddafi Libya to have him awakened?

     Sharyl Attkisson, a reporter’s reporter, can delve into the objective events of that terrible time, but she cannot read minds. Concerning the motives of those in Washington who collaborated, actively or passively, in condemning Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty to death by abandonment, we can only speculate.

     Americans are generally disgusted with our political class, the game has been cleverly rigged to impede the removal of those persons by electoral processes, and there’s still no planetoid in sight. Meanwhile, not only does the Washington tumor on our body politic continue to grow and absorb our rights and property, decent, patriotic Americans are being abandoned to die merely to prevent its beautiful theories from being killed by nasty, ugly facts.

     We lost quite a few of our best and bravest in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, we’re still losing them. There appears to be no defensible aim behind their deployment. Why are they where they are? To be used as target practice by those who hate us? If not, why has the Administration refused to reinforce them or, failing that, to bring them home?

     Likewise Benghazi. Embassies and consulates are issued security detachments as a matter of course. Why, if not to protect the persons and information within them? That being the case, why would the Administration deny them additional aid when besieged? Is an explanation even possible, if not to cover up the failure of Obamunist foreign policy?

     Many Americans have argued against the wars in the Middle East undertaken by the Bush II Administration. There are arguments on both sides, though recently it’s begun to look as if the opponents of those wars have the better case, if only for reasons of political discontinuity and the concomitant changes in policy. But whatever one’s stance on the wars, one cannot help regretting the loss of so many brave Americans’ lives. If those losses are ultimately revealed as sacrifices to the vanity of Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, no degree of outrage will be sufficient. It will be impossible to mete out an appropriate comeuppance to those villains. Indeed, drawing and quartering them on national television would hardly suffice.

     This horror demands the minutest possible scrutiny from Congress and the press. Sad to say, it isn’t getting it from Congress. Apart from the irreplaceable Attkisson, who demonstrates to us day after day what a treasure she is, it isn’t getting it from the press, either.


Avraham said...

What do you expect with a Muslim in office?

Navvet55 said...

It is terrifically easy to lay this at the feet of the current administration. Sadly, that is not the truth. The media and it's aledge.....err... certified bias against any and all who are not in agreement with their agenda(s) and or political stance (often times, but not exclusively, the same thing), will see little if any truth in the smoke and mirrors which pass as journalism (investigative or otherwise).

I was presented with the opportunity, some 20 odd years ago, to join the ranks of the journalistic masses. Was giving serious thought to taking up the offer to cross rates in the Navy from the aviation side of the house to the journalism field. Had the blessing, support, and considerable horsepower, of my (then) boss, who would have made that happen, But even at that point in time I could see the progressive handwriting on the wall. The truth was only secondary to the message "they" wanted to put out. Now, if you are part of an organization, working on their trade paper/magazine, is almost expected things published "in house" are going to be slanted in their favor...or to shine the best light possible on their opportunities, mission, lifestyle, etc. But this is not supposed to be the case in the public forums.

Traditionally, you are supposed to provide "all the W's", along with any other pertinent information and let the reader reach whatever conclusion they will. This has not been the case in at least 50 years, and in some instances eve longer than that.

Look at Cronkite, for example, regarding his "reporting" of the war in VietNam. And for that matter look at how Congress "honored" our agreement with the South Vietnamese. Yeah, both bodies have a long history or failing to carry out their respective responsibilities. And we, the American public, are very much poorer for it.

Guy S

Anonymous said...

I saw "13 Hours" today. I left with two firm thoughts. We need to pull everyone from the Mideast, with the possible exception of supporting Israel, and BHO and HRC need to hang and burn in hell.

Tim Turner said...

What saddens and disappoints me is that "journalists" at CBS, ABC and NBC do NOT follow Attkisson's lead. They actually try to revile her or cast aspersions on her motives WITHOUT doing any fact collection on their own.

Instead, they quote GOVERNMENT sources as saying, "this was all looked into. There's nothing there."

And Salon, Dailykos and 49% of the American people keep marching in lock-step with this leftist, statist, mind-numbing agenda.

"It's ok if we say it is."

"We need to bail out Lehman and Goldman-Sachs because they parleyed you money, even if their bets screwed them 9 times and you 4 times.
You need them and us to keep you from being in the real world of supply, demand, and logical, 'fast-on-your-feet' reality."

"Never mind that capitalism had an automatic governor that, if something didn't work, it would fail. We'll protect you. You DESERVE to be protected."

"Come to me, my child. Suckle at my teat. Purr and be happy, because you don't need to think or face reality while I am here."

Reg T said...

It is my understanding - and I believe it was from something Matt Bracken wrote - that ONLY Obama had the authority to call back forces already en-route, or to have forces designated to respond "stand down", as National Command Authority.

I'm tired of hearing them spout crap about "Obama was asleep". That is just a cheap cop-out on his part. Like no one would wake him for something of this importance? Give me a break. It's bad, but not as bad as turning back assistance that would have saved their lives, so that is the excuse they are floating. Imagine the outcry if it was made known he turned back men that could have saved them all?

Someone could have had the balls to go anyway, even if it meant courts martial for themselves and their team. Do you doubt that some of the operators involved would have gone anyway? Even if the political brass above ordered a team already en-route to return? Maybe the pilots refused to continue, under threat of Leavenworth and what that would do to their families.

Hillary, as Sec State could have insisted, to protect her ambassador (yeah, right). Sec Def could have had the balls, but if Obama - as National Command Authority - could (and probably did) order the unit(s) responding to return and/or stand down, the others would have meekly accepted it, IF they had had any inclination to grow a pair in the first place. I am convinced that is what happened.