By Jed Babbin on 10.29.12
What more does anyone need to know than that Americans are under
attack before ordering a military response to suppress the attack
and possibly rescue our people?
Even if the initial response isn't exactly what you'd want it to
be, even if you don't have every asset available that you might in
a perfect world, isn't it your duty -- whether you're a lowly
second lieutenant or the Secretary of Defense -- to do everything
you can as quickly as you can?
Of course it is, at least unless you're President Obama and his
minions. His two principal flunkies -- Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta -- had a lot of options
on September 11 during the seven-hour attack on our Benghazi
consulate and the CIA house about a mile away. According to a Fox
News report based on several sources, the people under attack pled
with the CIA for help three times during the attack and all three
pleas were refused. Team Obama did nothing to save their lives.
The accuracy of the Fox report is easily derived from other
facts. One element of proof that the requests were made -- by
people under fire -- comes from Panetta's whining. According to a
report, Panetta said there wasn't enough information to
responsibly deploy forces to Libya during the attack. "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
Really, Mr. Secretary? Let's set aside the fact that one or more
drones were over the consulate during the attack, sending back the
information Panetta says he needed. But the drone issue begs the
question: Panetta cannot really believe that sending armed aircraft
from our base at Sigonella, Italy -- about 350 air miles away --
wouldn't have given him both the capability of suppressing the
attack and whatever other information he thinks he needed.
Panetta's whine is as evasive as his actions were treacherous.
President Obama was apparently so fearful of offending some
Islamic mob that he preferred to let our people be killed than send
a couple of F-18s from Sigonella to Benghazi. Flight time -- for
fully armed aircraft at about 0.7 or 0.8 Mach -- is less than an
hour. The attack went on for seven hours. If the fly-guys busted
Mach, they could have been there in about a half hour. Plenty of
time to pop a sonic boom over the consulate which -- as we've seen
in Afghanistan many times -- is enough to send the terrorists
running. And -- if there wasn't time for the first flight to be
armed -- it would have been able to recon the situation and give
the time for fully-armed aircraft to arrive about fifteen or twenty
Obama's fingerprints are all over this refusal to come to the
aid of our people when they were under attack. The CIA --
implicitly confirming the pleas for help -- denies that anyone in
its chain of command rejected any such request. The specificity of
the CIA denial gives us another proof that the requests were made,
but it carries a second aspect of responsibility for the failure to
send help. CIA Director David Petraeus must have passed the
requests up the chain of command and someone higher than him -- the
president is the only one higher than a cabinet member -- denied
Clinton has to have known what Charlene Lamb -- her head of
embassy security -- knew during the attack. (Lamb testified at a 10
October congressional hearing that she was in real-time contact
with the consulate during the attack.) So must have Petraeus,
because his CIA operators -- former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glenn
Doherty among them -- were making the pleas for assistance and
asking permission to rush to the consulate's defense. Woods and
Doherty were told to "stand down." As Fox reports, the two
apparently ignored the orders and rushed to the consulate to help.
Unable to find the ambassador, they withdrew to their CIA outpost,
which then came under attack. Both were killed there.
President Obama is still fumbling and lying about the whole
incident including the refusal of the pleas for help. In a Denver
interview on Friday, Obama ducked questions about the Benghazi
incident twice. He's also saying that he ordered support for the
consulate personnel as soon as he heard about the attacks.
Why, then, weren't the available forces deployed immediately to
save American lives? If no one in the CIA chain of command refused
aid, the failure has to be Obama's. No one else could have denied
the real-time requests.
Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, said that those who
denied the requests for help murdered his son. Woods's anguish is
understandable. His son was a hero, and paid with his life for
Obama's failure to send military force to attack the enemy that was
Naturally, Obama and his minions aren't owning up to their
treachery and the media -- except for Fox News -- are burying the
The Washington Post and the New York Times --
both of which have endorsed Obama -- aren't reporting the story on
the rejected pleas for help. ABC, CBS and NBC aren't either.
To its credit, CBS did break the story last week on the State
Department emails that show Obama's administration knew that the
Benghazi attack was made by terrorists, not some mob distracted
from a protest against an anti-Islamic video. The other big liberal
media -- i.e., most of the major media -- gave little or no
coverage to the CBS scoop.
As huge a scandal as the Benghazi incident is, it's not possible
for it to become an issue in the election unless Mitt Romney makes
it one. So far, he hasn't and he isn't likely to in the final week
of the campaign.
Don't expect to hear much about Obama's conduct of the Benghazi
incident before the election or after, if he is reelected. The
effect of Obama's refusal to come to the aid of people under attack
is best understood by the terrorists still walking the streets of
Benghazi, and their allies around the world.