Military Support Offered In Benghazi — Why Would White House Say No?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121015-784759-military-support-offered-in-benghazi-but-administration

Military Support Offered In Benghazi — Why Would White House Say No?

Scandal: The administration says there just wasn't enough time to send military help for the four Americans murdered by terrorists in the Benghazi attacks. Newly released emails show that's another lie.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta swore during congressional testimony in 2013 that "without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond" to Benghazi.
Killed by terrorists in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks were U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
In a televised interview, also in 2013, Panetta, who served as the Obama defense secretary for nearly two years, said "you cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time."
So the administration's official line has been that no help was sent because events happened too quickly.
But the facts are catching up with the story. 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."
We don't know what those "forces" were because the reference has been redacted. But they likely didn't need to have the strength of an invading army.
It wouldn't have taken much to instill terror in the terrorists. As noted by Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information lawsuit, State Department Mission Deputy Chief Gregory Hicks has said under oath that even scrambling "a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced" would have prevented the mortar attack on the State Department annex and caused the Libyans to " split."
"They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks said.
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.
It was a tale that Hillary Clinton was most certainly involved in concocting. Was she also involved in turning down the offer of military support?
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?
Either way, the White House and the Democrats' leading presidential candidate look bad. It was Secretary of State Clinton's war, so she owns Libya and every disaster related to it.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121015-784759-military-support-offered-in-benghazi-but-administration-did-not-want-it.htm#ixzz3u7yDGD5V
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

[Kathianne]

This IS a scandal. Obama is spending his time on 'legacies' he should recognize that eventually the truth of this whole fiasco will come out.

[Black Diamond]

This IS a scandal. Obama is spending his time on 'legacies' he should recognize that eventually the truth of this whole fiasco will come out.

He doesn't care about the truth. In fact, he is allergic to it.

[Gunny]

This IS a scandal. Obama is spending his time on 'legacies' he should recognize that eventually the truth of this whole fiasco will come out.

No it won't. Need to look at the history of the Dems.

1. Everything that Clinton jacked up or allowed to happen was Bush's fault.

2. Everything bad that has happened since 08 is Bush's fault.

3. The MSM perpetuates those myths. They've rewritten more history in past 7 -15 years than they first 40 years of my life.

[Kathianne]

No it won't. Need to look at the history of the Dems.

1. Everything that Clinton jacked up or allowed to happen was Bush's fault.

2. Everything bad that has happened since 08 is Bush's fault.

3. The MSM perpetuates those myths. They've rewritten more history in past 7 -15 years than they first 40 years of my life.

Nah, the truths are still only trickling out regarding as far back as Wilson, Coolidge, etc. Speculation is ongoing with FDR, Japan, coordination with Churchill, etc.

I said 'eventually,' not soon.

[Gunny]

Nah, the truths are still only trickling out regarding as far back as Wilson, Coolidge, etc. Speculation is ongoing with FDR, Japan, coordination with Churchill, etc.

I said 'eventually,' not soon.

Doesn't matter if the truth comes out after I'm dead. Doesn't Not going to matter about Clinton either if the truth comes out -- which it already has -- after she gets a hitch in office to further destroy our country.

[Kathianne]

Doesn't matter if the truth comes out after I'm dead. Doesn't Not going to matter about Clinton either if the truth comes out -- which it already has -- after she gets a hitch in office to further destroy our country.

Hillary should be unelectable, hell she belongs in jail. That the reality is she's likely to be president can be laid at Trump's feet and the other GOP candidates that have failed to do what is needed to break out of his shadow.

[Gunny]

Hillary should be unelectable, hell she belongs in jail. That the reality is she's likely to be president can be laid at Trump's feet and the other GOP candidates that have failed to do what is needed to break out of his shadow.

I actually lay Hillary at the left's feet. You know I'm no fan of Trump. But for the left to just ignore her criminal acts puts it on THEM, not Trump. I DO agree Trump is the fault of the right.

[Elessar]

Hillary should be unelectable, hell she belongs in jail. That the reality is she's likely to be president can be laid at Trump's feet and the other GOP candidates that have failed to do what is needed to break out of his shadow.

She and Obama played the denial game and got our people killed.

There were requests for assistance that were ignored, all
because of politics going into an election year.

Remember her statement of "Who would you want answering the phone at 3 a.m.?
She sure as shit did not answer any of those calls.

That same thing exists now, leadership inability and denial of fact.

Woe is us if that Hag makes it to the top.

[Kathianne]

I actually lay Hillary at the left's feet. You know I'm no fan of Trump. But for the left to just ignore her criminal acts puts it on THEM, not Trump. I DO agree Trump is the fault of the right.

Oh I blame Obama as much as the right. For the simple reason he created the void for Trump to blast through by his inactions and divisiveness. Hillary is just the beneficiary of them all.

[Kathianne]

Doesn't matter if the truth comes out after I'm dead. Doesn't Not going to matter about Clinton either if the truth comes out -- which it already has -- after she gets a hitch in office to further destroy our country.

Nearly by definition, history of current leaders-legacies-will be determined when they and us are dead. Obama is delusional if he thinks that these Paris environmental actions and closing Gitmo are going to land him on the top of Presidential contenders. LOL! Don't get me started on his non-actions and actions regarding foreign affairs or Obamacare. He is destined for the pits of history.

[Black Diamond]

Nearly by definition, history of current leaders-legacies-will be determined when they and us are dead. Obama is delusional if he thinks that these Paris environmental actions and closing Gitmo are going to land him on the top of Presidential contenders. LOL! Don't get me started on his non-actions and actions regarding foreign affairs or Obamacare. He is destined for the pits of history.
He will be in the bottom echelon for sure. With Carter

[Kathianne]

He will be in the bottom echelon for sure. With Carter
Wilson, don't forget Wilson! (Not because he was a racist, though he was. For his divisiveness, much like Obama.)

[Gunny]

Wilson, don't forget Wilson! (Not because he was a racist, though he was. For his divisiveness, much like Obama.)

Woodrow Wilson would not even have been President had not TR decided to run third party and divide the right. Deja vu?

[Black Diamond]

Woodrow Wilson would not even have been President had not TR decided to run third party and divide the right. Deja vu?

Don't talk like that :scared:

[Gunny]

Don't talk like that :scared:

You mean like both Trump and Carson threatening to run independent? He supported Taft and when Taft didn't do it his way, he ran against him with his "Bull Moose" crap and the Dems rook control of both Congress and the White House in 1912?

Thought we were supposed to learn from our mistakes? What is telling is these people are more concerned with themselves than what is best for the Nation. They'd rather beat on each other than achieve the greater goal.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Military Support Offered In Benghazi — Why Would White House Say No?

Scandal: The administration says there just wasn't enough time to send military help for the four Americans murdered by terrorists in the Benghazi attacks. Newly released emails show that's another lie.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta swore during congressional testimony in 2013 that "without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond" to Benghazi.
Killed by terrorists in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks were U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
In a televised interview, also in 2013, Panetta, who served as the Obama defense secretary for nearly two years, said "you cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time."
So the administration's official line has been that no help was sent because events happened too quickly.
But the facts are catching up with the story. 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."
We don't know what those "forces" were because the reference has been redacted. But they likely didn't need to have the strength of an invading army.
It wouldn't have taken much to instill terror in the terrorists. As noted by Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information lawsuit, State Department Mission Deputy Chief Gregory Hicks has said under oath that even scrambling "a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced" would have prevented the mortar attack on the State Department annex and caused the Libyans to " split."
"They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks said.
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.
It was a tale that Hillary Clinton was most certainly involved in concocting. Was she also involved in turning down the offer of military support?
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?
Either way, the White House and the Democrats' leading presidential candidate look bad. It was Secretary of State Clinton's war, so she owns Libya and every disaster related to it.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121015-784759-military-support-offered-in-benghazi-but-administration-did-not-want-it.htm#ixzz3u7yDGD5V
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook




"They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks said.
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.

They killed our guys to insure obama got his second term. We are not dealing with weak or gentle people here folks>
We are dealing with murderers=--starting with the top guy.
And including that snake called Hillary..

Wake the hell up!

Obama , Hillary, Lynch --- all three cut from the came lousy HATE AMERICA, POWER HUNGRY, POWER MAD GROUP. All three are socialist dogs of the very lowest order IMHO.. --Tyr

[Russ]

Military Support Offered In Benghazi — Why Would White House Say No?

Scandal: The administration says there just wasn't enough time to send military help for the four Americans murdered by terrorists in the Benghazi attacks. Newly released emails show that's another lie.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta swore during congressional testimony in 2013 that "without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond" to Benghazi.
Killed by terrorists in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks were U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
In a televised interview, also in 2013, Panetta, who served as the Obama defense secretary for nearly two years, said "you cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time."
So the administration's official line has been that no help was sent because events happened too quickly.
But the facts are catching up with the story. 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."
We don't know what those "forces" were because the reference has been redacted. But they likely didn't need to have the strength of an invading army.
It wouldn't have taken much to instill terror in the terrorists. As noted by Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information lawsuit, State Department Mission Deputy Chief Gregory Hicks has said under oath that even scrambling "a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced" would have prevented the mortar attack on the State Department annex and caused the Libyans to " split."
"They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them," Hicks said.
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.
It was a tale that Hillary Clinton was most certainly involved in concocting. Was she also involved in turning down the offer of military support?
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?
Either way, the White House and the Democrats' leading presidential candidate look bad. It was Secretary of State Clinton's war, so she owns Libya and every disaster related to it.


Unfortunately, this is not a shake-your-head type of scandal. This is a several-very-high-up-people-need-to-go-to-jail type of scandal. This is a scandal where a President and his inner circle needlessly let people die who were serving their country, and then conspired to lie about it - all for the purpose of helping that "President" prop up a false narrative he was using for his reelection campaign.

This is a scandal on the order of Watergate, for which Nixon was impeached, forced to resigned, and permanently vilified in history. And that is exactly what should happen to Obama for this scandal. And also to Hillary, and probably Panetta. This is a national disgrace.

There is a difference, though. In the case of Watergate, the press fought to expose the story. In this present case, though, the most of the press is "in on it". They don't want to expose stories about Obama, or about Hillary. Between the years of Watergate and now, the press chose sides. Or maybe they chose sides before that, I don't know, but suffice it to say that most of the press is more interested in Ben Carson's experiences as a kid than they are about getting to the truth of this story.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Unfortunately, this is not a shake-your-head type of scandal. This is a several-very-high-up-people-need-to-go-to-jail type of scandal. This is a scandal where a President and his inner circle needlessly let people die who were serving their country, and then conspired to lie about it - all for the purpose of helping that "President" prop up a false narrative he was using for his reelection campaign.

This is a scandal on the order of Watergate, for which Nixon was impeached, forced to resigned, and permanently vilified in history. And that is exactly what should happen to Obama for this scandal. And also to Hillary, and probably Panetta. This is a national disgrace.

There is a difference, though. In the case of Watergate, the press fought to expose the story. In this present case, though, the most of the press is "in on it". They don't want to expose stories about Obama, or about Hillary. Between the years of Watergate and now, the press chose sides. Or maybe they chose sides before that, I don't know, but suffice it to say that most of the press is more interested in Ben Carson's experiences as a kid than they are about getting to the truth of this story.

The stinking traitor obama will not be touched. He is protected by our media, the dem party and his other American allies, powerful government officials and most importantly the other most powerful people on earth- The Globalists!
Now hillary-that stinking beast, is protected by the same people but her head may be allowed to roll so to speak if it gets hot enough for her from the American people and she does not win the Presidency.
I predict major moves by muslim terrorists here soon, major corruption to try to destroy Trump, major voter fraud to steal the election for the Un-American and totally traitorous dem party!

Perilous times ahead my friend.
Hope you have guns and ammo, with well stocked supplies. Not joking... --Tyr