• Facebook Apostles

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 10,916 other followers

    • 75,805 Visits
  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi By Karin McQuillan

November 2, 2012

Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi

By Karin McQuillan

The burning question is why Obama didn’t give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi.  The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation of their inaction. 

To the president’s surprise, he chanced on an honest reporter during a local interview on the campaign trail in Denver.  On October 26, for the first time, Obama was asked directly about the explosive reports on CBS and Fox News, a week earlier, that the CIA and our military denied direct requests for help by the Americans fighting for their lives during the seven-hour battle in Benghazi.

Denver TV’s Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”

Obama’s answer is the proof of his guilt, and it gives us a clue as to the doctrine informing his decision to do nothing.  The most damaging part of Obama’s evasive answer is this:

… the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. … I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.

This is the blatant lie that condemns the liar.  The president says here that immediately, “the minute I found out what was happening,” he gave the order to the military, the CIA, to everyone, to secure our personnel in Benghazi and do “whatever we need to.”

Yet the undeniable fact is that nothing was done.  We know that the CIA security agent in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods, asked for permission to rescue Ambassador Stevens when Stevens was still alive and in the safe room.  Woods was told twice by the CIA to stand down.  He then disobeyed direct orders and rescued the survivors at the consulate, but it was too late for Stevens and Sean Smith.

Secretary of Defense Panetta tells us the military had gunships and Special Forces less than two hours away in Sicily but felt it was too “risky” to send in reinforcements or air cover.  It would have been normal military procedure to pre-position air cover and assets from Sicily to Benghazi, but Panetta says this was not done.  The air support and FAST platoons, we are told, were left in Sicily.  All the U.S. military did was send two unarmed drones to observe the battle.

So if President Obama is not lying about his directives, he is saying that the CIA and the Defense Department and our military chain of command disobeyed the direct order of our commander in chief to do everything in their power to rescue our people under attack in Benghazi.  And that as commander in chief, Obama did nothing in response to their dereliction of duty.

That doesn’t happen.  No one believes that; the president is lying.  He did not issue directives to the CIA, our military, and State to “secure our personnel” and “do whatever we need to do.”

We know it was not the CIA on its own that made the decision to abandon Ambassador Stevens and the eight others with him in the consulate.  The CIA say they did not advise anyone in the administration to deny help to the Americans in Benghazi.  A CIA spokesman on October 27 issued this statement:

No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.

General Carter F. Ham, the combatant commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM), says he was never asked to send help

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi.

On October 18, General Ham resigned. 

Panetta explained why no help was sent on October 26, the same day Obama was telling the Denver reporter he had ordered the military to do “whatever we need to.”

Panetta admitted we did nothing.  He says the military had the readiness and capability to help.  He says the military responded quickly and deployed forces close to Benghazi, ready and capable of responding “to any contingency.”

We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region.  We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

Panetta then tells us why the forces were never deployed.  He says the top leadership of our military didn’t want to send reinforcements, even air support, into harm’s way.  It was too risky.  Panetta does not indicate that he knew of Obama’s supposed directives to do “whatever we need to” to save the Americans trapped in the 9/11 attack. 

“[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,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Note that General Ham had already told Congressman Chaffetz he was never asked to provide military support. 

Panetta’s statement that we didn’t have enough intelligence to risk sending air or combat support is not credible.  We had real-time information by video, radio, and e-mail.  We had laser targets painted on their mortar nest.  When else do you send reinforcements, if not into dangerous situations? 

Max Boot writes in Commentary:

Special Operations Forces and other military forces are used to acting on incomplete information, especially in a situation where Americans are under fire and in danger of being overrun. At that point, caution is normally thrown to the wind, and Quick Reaction Forces are launched.

We certainly could have saved the lives of CIA agents Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty if  President Obama had given orders to do so.  There were two drones and perhaps a gunship overhead.  The two men died because they painted laser targets on the jihadi mortar nests.  They were radioing for air cover, expecting that the target would be bombed and the jihadi attack ended.  This is what Navy SEALs do.  We have learned from experts that American Special Forces paint such laser targets only when air cover is immediately available, as it gives away your position to the enemy.  According to these experts, Woods and Doherty must have believed that air cover was immediately available.  Their calls for air support went unanswered, and they died.

If there weren’t a manned drone and a gunship sent out — it was now six hours into the battle — that indicates that Obama and Panetta did not direct the military to be ready to intervene if necessary.  If the drone was sent unarmed and the gunship never sent, it says the military never intended to help under any circumstances. 

Bing West, a distinguished combat correspondent and former assistant secretary of defense, has produced a timeline of the Benghazi attacks, which went on for most of the night, suggesting there was plenty of time for substantial U.S. forces to scramble from the U.S. base at Sigonella, Sicily, located almost exactly as far away from Benghazi as the Libyan capital of Tripoli, from whence a small, ill-armed quick-reaction force of 22 men was finally sent. “Stationed at Sigonella,” he notes, “were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft – a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy.”

President Obama says, “I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”  It is clear that he did not issue such a directive, or else the CIA and the military defied him.

Why would our president not come to the defense of our consulate under attack?  This is an attack on American soil.  This was a 9/11 attack by an al-Qaeda branch in Libya.  Therein lies the answer.

Obama does not believe in using the military to defend our national security, which he sees as aggressive, Republican, and cowboy.  This was Obama’s 9/11, not Bush’s.  He did not see the attack on our embassy as a jihadi attack on American soil.  He saw a group of aggrieved Muslim citizens, with good reason to be angry — the spontaneous mob enraged by an offensive video.  He would follow a Democrat policy of promoting peace, not war, in which avoiding civilian casualties is the paramount goal. 

The other answer is directly political.  It would be damaging for Obama’s already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring.  Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama’s foreign policy all too evident.  An American military response would have undercut one of Obama’s main campaign slogans: “GM is alive and Osama is dead.”

Treating Benghazi as a spontaneous mob attack inflamed by an offensive, Islamophobic video was a flimsy story, but the liberal media was quite willing to accept it without question.  Our politically corrupt media not only went along with that nonsense, but so crucified Romney for daring to comment on what happened that Romney shut up.  The story of the offensive video played to Obama’s progressive base, which believes that there is no war on terror — just bad behavior by bigoted Americans that causes Muslims to attack us.

Obama’s ideology blinded him to the need to defend American lives under al-Qaeda attack on 9/11/12.  He put his ideology and his politics ahead of Americans lives.  He let four brave men serving our country fight without help and die. 

This decision will doom Obama’s chances of re-election if widely known.  That is why our politically corrupt media is censoring this news as hard as it can.  They do not want the majority of Americans to know.  But they cannot keep the lid on.  It is too big, and too awful.  The only question is one of time before Election Day.



Obama Destabilized the Middle East on Purpose by Karin McQuillan

September 16, 2012

Obama Destabilized the Middle East on Purpose

By Karin McQuillan

On Fox News Wednesday night, both Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity were full of self-congratulatory comments about how they had easily seen the Muslim Brotherhood problem with the “Arab Spring,” and how could Obama have failed to see it?  Duh.  Of course, our State Department and White House knew that the Muslim Brotherhood would be taking over Egypt.  It was obvious to any reasonably informed ordinary citizen.

The same debate we’ve seen over Obama’s destruction of the American economy has already begun over his Middle East policy.  Did Obama hand Egypt over to jihadis, and is he giving a green light to nuclear Iran, because of incompetence or his leftist ideology?

John Hinderacker over at Powerlineblog.com writes:

You could call his actions in the region incoherent, except that it’s worse than that, especially if you take into account his hostility toward Israel. If a consistent principle can be deduced, it is that Obama wants to avoid doing anything that might advance U.S. interests. Maybe that’s the answer, or maybe he just doesn’t care enough to formulate a real policy.  Be that as it may, one thing is clear: but for Obama’s feckless participation in the overthrow of Egypt’s and Libya’s governments, yesterday’s events would not have happened.

The answer, of course, is both incompetence and ideology.  Muddle-headed ideologues of the left, such as our president, want America to be brought down to size.  They truly believe that violent jihadi hate-groups can be tamed by appeasement, because the evil parties are Israel and America.  So Obama helps depose Mubarak and Gaddafi, knowing they will be replaced by Islamic supremacists.  He tells Israel they are on their own, we didn’t really mean it about being allies.  He blocks attempts to prevent a nuclear Iran, even by economic sanctions, because he doesn’t like American shows of force and thinks we can live with a nuclear Iran.  We lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, didn’t we?  Are we against Arabs, that we think they shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, too?  It sounds like a joke, but it isn’t.

Incompetence was also in full force this 9/11.  The attacks in Egypt and Libya were preventable.  Why weren’t our embassies and consulates in the Middle East properly protected?  Why are fifty Marines sent in after the fact?  Why didn’t we have intelligence in advance?  When the mob was gathering outside the Cairo embassy, the frightened staff issued an apology.  What is wrong with our diplomatic corps if that was their response?  Clinton should have gotten on the phone to the Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi and explained to him what would happen if he didn’t protect our embassy.  The rent-a-riot, inflamed purposefully by publicizing an obscure anti-Mohammed video, should have been stopped before they got anywhere close to our embassy.

When the embassy did issue their pathetic attempt at appeasement, and reissue it after our flag was torn down, Obama should have made a strong statement immediately, one that indicated that there are repercussions for attacking America.  Instead, he allowed the apology to stand (for nine hours) until Romney condemned it.  Desecrations of our flag didn’t get the president’s attention, but electoral politics did.

Obama’s incompetence is an outgrowth of a broadly based Democrat ideology that wants us to believe that the war on terror was a stupid Bush idea.  They accuse Republicans of exaggerating the jihadi threat.  They smear any public figure who is concerned about the global Islamist war with the label “Islamophobe.”

Obama, along with many liberal Democrats, believes that American strength is immoral.  We shouldn’t impose our views on other nations.  So when the Muslim Brotherhood made its move last year, using the “Facebook revolution” as cover (and a very transparent cover it was), we abandoned Mubarak and told the Egyptian military to stand aside.  We purposefully let the Middle East’s oldest terror organization take over the Middle East’s most populous country. 

The Muslim Brotherhood is considered the father of the jihadi movement.  It was adopted by Adolf Hitler under the Third Reich and grew from a languishing 10,000 members to a million strong by the end of World War II — Hitler’s permanent legacy for world destruction.  Yet our president and State Department believe in embracing the Brothers as modernizing moderates.

The Brothers started the modern jihadi movement, complete with a genocidal program against Jews. In the words of Matthias Kuntzel, “[t]he significance of the Brotherhood to Islamism is comparable to that of the Bolshevik Party to communism: It was and remains to this day the ideological reference point and organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas.”

Mubarak was the reason there have been no attacks by Arab states on Israel for thirty years.  The 1979 Camp David accords neutralized Egypt as a player in the Arab war against Israel.  To protect his own life and power, Mubarak kept the Muslim Brothers of Egypt under control.  In return, Egypt has been receiving a billion and a half dollars a year — payoff money from the United States.  Egypt didn’t agree to a friendly peace, and it wasn’t a democracy, but in terms of Middle East geopolitics, supporting Mubarak was a critical success factor.

Obama and Hillary threw all that away with their embrace of the Arab Spring.  It could have gone differently.  We could have spoken out in support of Mubarak, showing the world that we are trustworthy allies.  Instead, we abandoned a crucial ally when the mob howled.  We could have told the Egyptian military that they had better make sure the Muslim Brothers don’t take over the country.  Instead, we told them to step aside and usher the Brothers into power.

Hillary’s State Department proclaimed that the Muslim Brothers had become moderates.  Anyone having a flashback to the Carter era, when all the liberals knew that the Ayatollah Khomeini would be a partner for peace? 

The Obama Doctrine on the Middle East was hinted at in the president’s 2009 Cairo speech, during a Middle East tour in which Obama did not visit Israel.  Obama apologized for our war on terror.  “The fear and anger” after 9/11 “led us to act contrary to our ideals,” he told the Egyptian crowd.  In a speech in France, Obama declared that America must make deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal, because otherwise we don’t have “the moral authority to say to Iran, don’t develop a nuclear weapon.” 

President Obama fought Congress tooth and nail on imposing economic sanctions against Iran this year — already too little, too late.  According to vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, the White House did everything they could to stop Congress from requiring sanctions, and then they used the waiver provision to gut them.  There is no benign explanation for this.  Left-wing anti-colonialists — and our president is one — think Iran will use its nuclear weapons responsibly.

One of the most chilling visuals in 2016: Obama’s America is a map of the world’s nuclear arsenals.  Obama has already cut our nuclear warhead arsenal from 5,000 to 1,500 (in an “arms treaty” that allowed Russia to increase its arsenal).  He has asked the Pentagon to report to him on reducing our nuclear warheads to 300.  That’s about the same number as France.  Pakistan has 110 nuclear weapons.  Obama, it seems, believes in equality in national defense, as well as in class warfare. 

In July, five conservative congressmen, including Michele Bachmann, expressed alarm over evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has succeeded in placing operatives in key positions throughout the Obama administration.  In Bachman’s words, State Department polices “appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.”  Instead of backing up Bachmann, our Republican leadership joined in Democrat attacks on her.

The policies Bachmann listed are not trivial.  The Obama/Clinton team defied a congressional resolution to hold up our 1.5 billion dollars to Egypt until we knew they were still allies.  Paying off Mubarak made sense.  Handing billions to a Muslim Brotherhood Egypt, not so much.  Do you think Egyptian President Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, would have allowed a mob to attack our embassy if these funds were in play?

Congressman Bachman is concerned, based on Frank Gaffney’s analysis,  that our Department of Homeland Security may have eight Muslim Brotherhood members in key advisory roles, including the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)’s Working Group, which is responsible for training homeland security agents.  The CVE will be using federal Homeland Security funds to funnel money to Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States, in the name of a “community-oriented policing approach.”  The Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has established the policy of protecting “terrorism-precursor activities” as “cultural behaviors.”

Congressman Bachmann questioned why the DHS official lexicon equates jihadi extremists with “Christian patriots” and “Constitutionlists.”  She asked about Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser at State, who formerly worked for a Brotherhood organization, founded and funded by Abdullah Naseef, who also finances al-Qaeda.  There is no question that Abedin helps Clinton formulate U.S. Middle East policy.

The sorry list goes on and on.  (For more details, see Frank Gaffney’s “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration.”)

The point here is not only that the Muslim Brotherhood is influencing American foreign policy.  The arrow points in both directions: the Obama/Clinton policy of tolerating and even promoting the power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is the same policy that promotes their front groups in America.  It is the liberal idiocy that our enemies are friends, and our friends enemies.

Obama has signaled clearly and repeatedly that America no longer has Israel’s back.  He could not have done anything more effective to sabotage negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians than his public pressure on Israel to declare unilaterally they will withdraw to their 1948 borders.  Obama bypassed congressional limits on aid to the Palestinian Authority after their alliance with Hamas, putting $200 million into the hands of one of the most vicious and dangerous terror groups in the Middle East.  And he has signaled to the Iranians that Israel is on its own.  Then there are the personal but well-publicized snubs to the Israeli prime minister, and the open mike revelations of Obama’s contempt and dislike for Bibi.  Obama has time to go on the Letterman show in New York next week, but he refuses to meet with Netanyahu, as the go/no go decision on bombing Iran stares Israel in the face.  

Abandoning Israel invites war.  But in Obama’s mind, he is promoting fairness.  He thinks Israel is the problem.  He thinks that harming Israel will win America friends among Arabs.  He thinks he is pressuring the Israelis to stop being bad guys. 

Obama is purposefully harming American interests, but he thinks it will turn out okay.  He attacks the American economy and free-enterprise system, and he thinks it will turn out okay.  He attacks our energy industry, and he thinks it will turn out okay.  He attacks the rule of law and our Constitution, and he thinks it will turn out okay.  He undermines the hard-won stability of Egypt and thinks it will turn out okay.  We have a president who thinks American national security interests, power, and prosperity are the problem.  Then, when it’s a broken mess, he’s surprised, and he asks for more time to do more of the same.  Obama is the problem.

The Middle East is a harsh taskmaster.  It is no place for an aging schoolboy leftist like our president.  In the real world, stupid ideas such as the one dominant in Obama’s administration, that jihadis really want peace — such ideas have very bloody consequences.  The tragic deaths of our diplomats in Libya are only the beginning.  Iran looms over us all.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/obama_destabilized_the_middle_east_on_purpose.html#.UFV0WkXmHqk.facebook#ixzz26eb5ynVR

%d bloggers like this: