Re: Benghazi, Elite Teams, and US Military Readiness

Posted by Tina

Most of the American people know very little about the military so it is not at all surprising that the current administration could claim that our military could not respond to attacks on Benghazi in less that 9 to 12 hours and get away with it…so sorry, it just couldn’t be done. But some Americans probably felt uneasy when told this explanation and others may have thought it just wasn’t plausible…something didn’t sound right. Objections aren’t generally raised, however, when unease and questions of plausibility are the main arguments. Most shrug, it’s up to others to figure this out. And yet there remains that persistent nagging thought: What do you mean the US military couldn’t respond? We’re talking the United States Military here…what about our elite response teams? What about the military as a band of brothers…what about the, “I got your back” mentality?

Indeed. What about it?

If you’re one of those Americans who, for whatever reason, doesn’t quite buy the administrations story about Benghazi you need to read “U.S. Military: We Could Have Saved Ambassador Stevens,” by Jonathon Moseley – The American Thinker. Do so and your unease will turn to anger, your discomfort will turn to sadness and feelings of deep inexplicable betrayal.

Think of it…our government playing like our military could not possibly respond. I know what military guys would say about that…NFW!

Something is terribly rotten in DC.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Re: Benghazi, Elite Teams, and US Military Readiness

  1. Soaps says:

    It does not really matter how long it would have taken to do the rescue, because no one knew how long the attack would continue. We should have tried anyway. Can you imagine a 911 operator receiving an emergency call about a home invasion by murderers, saying, oh well I am not going to send anyone, because they probably can’t get there in time.

  2. RHT447 says:

    “In fact, it is reported that CIF elements assigned to AFRICOM were already mobilizing and preparing to respond in Southern Europe. But they were ordered to stand down.”

    And that is the $64 question. Who gave the order? We shall see.

  3. Peggy says:

    According to retired Adm. James A. Lyons he speculates the Benghazi attack was a bungled kidnapping attempt of Chris Stevens to exchange for the Blind Sheikh.

    I hope Adm. Lyons theory is wrong, but his knowledge of available rescue resources and time lines is worthy of consideration.

    From Roger Aronoff’s interview with Adm. Lyons.

    Adm. James Lyons (Ret.) on Growing Benghazi Scandal:

    ARONOFF: I want to give you, first, the opportunity to clarify a quote that has been widely attributed to you—it was on numerous websites. You were said to have told The Washington Examiner that Benghazi was actually a bungled kidnapping attempt perpetrated upon Ambassador [Christopher] Stevens, and that it was going to be part of a hostage exchange for the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, who sits in jail in the U.S. for his role in planning the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. I’m sure you’ve seen that—

    ADMIRAL LYONS: Right. First, yes, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify because, first of all, I’ve never talked to The Washington Examiner. Where this came up: I was on Lou Dobbs’s show, and somebody must have copied down from that show, maybe submitted a report or something, to The Washington Examiner. Lou asked me, “What do [you] think went on? What [do you] suspect happened?” I said, “Well, if I had to speculate, I believe this was a bungled, a bungled attack—a kidnapping attack, to kidnap Ambassador Stevens, and hold him in exchange for the Blind Sheikh.” You know there’s been a lot of pressure, certainly from [Egyptian President Mohamed] Morsi; that’s one of his objectives, to get the Blind Sheikh released. Now, again, [Dobbs] asked me what I thought, and I speculated, because nothing else made sense to me. We know that Ambassador Stevens was concerned over his safety there. I mean, why would he stay there—first of all, why was he even there on the night of 9/11? You have the significance of the date of 9/11—most places, people hunker down. Then we had a lot of not only tactical, but strategic warning of this attack. We can get into that now, if you’d like.

    Compete interview here:

    Sources suggest the Benghazi attack was a bungled abduction attempt:

    Failed kidnapping attempt theory proposed by Western Center for Journalism:
    In October 2012, the Western Center for Journalism released two separate articles suggesting the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the Benghazi attack was the result of a failed kidnapping attempt aborted by the complicit terrorists when they encountered the unexpected armed resistance at the U.S. Consulate.
    On October 20, Kris Zane published the center’s initial article “Muslim Brotherhood Behind Benghazi Attack with Link to Obama.” Zane suggests the “Innocence of Muslims” video was nothing more than a scapegoat the Obama administration utilized to distract the public from the incriminating information being gathered from the investigations into the attack at Benghazi, Libya.

    Within 24 hours of the incident, ground intelligence had already linked the assault on the compound to Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt. Therefore, the Obama administration had already determined by September 12 the online video had absolutely nothing to do with the armed assault on the American Consulate and CIA annex.

    Later in the article, Zane cites an anonymous source from inside the White House that explained the Benghazi debacle had been constructed in order to deliver an “October surprise for Obama.” The administration’s plan was to abduct Ambassador Stevens to ensure the release of Abdel Rahman would be more “palatable to the American people.”
    By winning the release of Stevens, Obama would have boosted his mediocre approval ratings just in time for Election Day, and Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood could have secured the freedom of their beloved “Blind Sheik.”

    Full article here:

  4. Tina says:

    Soaps: “Can you imagine a 911 operator receiving an emergency call about a home invasion by murderers, saying, oh well I am not going to send anyone, because they probably can’t get there in time.”

    If they did they’d be fired.

    Panetta in testimony before Congress:

    “On that day, we were postured to respond to a wide array of general threats around the globe.”

    “This was not a prolonged assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response”

    “The United States military is not, and should not, be a global 911 service, capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world.”

    According to he added that responses depend on actionable intelligence.”

    It just strikes me that none of these people know what they are doing or how our military works.

    I still can’t fathom having more security for relatively safe embassies and basically none for Stevens and his group in what has been described as a very dangerous area. Did anyone give a hoot?

    Also, this is something the Commander-in-Chief does not delegate!

  5. Peggy says:

    With all of the lying and covering up that’s going on one can only imagine just how bad what happened and why really is.

  6. J. Soden says:

    The bungled Benghazigate isn’t over, and will remain an issue until ALL those remaining questions are answered. And we have yet to hear from the 30+ survivors who were on the ground.

    Don’t think Hillary or Obumble are going to be successful in brushing off Benghazigate like they’ve tried to do so far. The fact that the IRS story was put out as a Benghazigate distraction that didn’t work is almost funny. All it did was enumerate ANOTHER Obumble scandal. After Sebeliusgate, EPA is next.

    And Hillary’s “What difference does it make” video clip isn’t going to help her if she decides to run in 2016.

  7. Harold Ey says:

    I posted the below comments prior about the recent beheading in London, however the same points prevail time after time with this Administration, if not Obama, then who is making all the decisions?. Or if Obama is making the calls, does he care one bit about America and the lives of our people he seems to be sacrificing for his own beliefs about America.

    “There is a point made in this article, which I feel is poignant:
    Getting word of the attack in Paris, Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron cut short his visit with French President François Hollande to return to London.
    “There are strong indications that it is a terrorist incident,” Cameron said.
    compare that to Obama’s action of just hopping on a plane that morning to raise money for his re-election champaign while we lost four American lives just hours prior to the same violent mindset!

Comments are closed.