Benghazigate: Did Obama Abort a Rescue of the Consulate? (VIDEO)

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


You know the scandal is tightening when everyone enters denial mode. The CIA spokesman has said,  “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

The White House is denying that Obama had anything to do with denying any requests for aid. “Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.

A local reporter committed the unpardonable sin of asking His Highness about the denial of aid.  Obama immediately went into the “We are still finding out what happened mode.” That’s also known as “I knew nothing” mode and it’s what you say when you want to claim that you never had anything to do with it.

This performance should be familiar from the Gary Condit press circuit.

Obama’s version of “I know nothing” is, “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.” That sounds assertive, but it’s actually fairly ambiguous. On paper, the ground level evacuation was covered by securing and whatever we need to do.

Former Assistant Defense Secretary Bing West has pointed out that if Obama had given an order then there would be a paper trail. But we know how much issues the most transparent administration since Kaiser Wilhelm has giving up information.

The specific question that Obama is avoiding is who gave the order not to send in a gunship.

Defense Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey have so far taken “credit” for denying aid claiming that they didn’t have enough intel to put people on the ground. But as has already been indicated, there were already gunships there and either moving in or ready to move in.

Blackfive quotes a retired Delta operator as follows;

The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

So we go right back to Obama. And let’s parse those denials, and remember that we are dealing with people who have creative definitions of “it” and “sex”. They certainly have creative definitions of denials of assistance. They could have provided some assistance by calling in to the Libyan government for support while refusing armed intervention. If they choose to define armed intervention as not being assistance, but something else, then their denials stand.

From here we go to the Rush Limbaugh interview with a retired Special Forces Lieutenant Colonel and Special Operations planner via Right Scoop.

Here’s the important part

So no one in the White House can deny that — well, they can deny it, but the fact is the protocol says someone marched their happy little ass up to the senior guy standing next to POTUS and said, “Sir, ambassador in Libya is in peril.” And if he was missing, that is even a higher precedence. And then the chain would have also gone out automatically to the geographic combatant commander, AFRICOM, and he would have then turned to his special operations commander and said, “I want the In-Extremis Force, you know, strip ready in five minutes.” And evidently they were strip ready in Sigonella and they would have the assets to penetrate the airspace, you know, an MC-130 papa, which is a C-130 specially equipped with electronic countermeasures. They didn’t need permission to enter Libyan airspace, okay?

I’m giving you a lot of Inside Baseball stuff, and maybe putting myself in a little peril by doing it, but the In-Extremis Force, they would have been chomping at the bit to do this. It was turned down, POTUS, at his five p.m. Eastern time meeting with the principals, that’s when he put the kibosh on everything. It was a conscious act. It has to be because, you know, the In-Extremis Force is required to be prepared to do In-Extremis non-combatant evacuation operations for its geographic responsibility, the entire continent of Africa. So there’s always somebody ready to go, and the aircraft are always prepared to go.

And with further confirmation from Lt. General Tom McIerney.

Everyone is giving very formal denials and redirecting the question into investigation territory. But if indeed a rescue was underway and was shut down, then that is the question that needs to be asked as directly as possible.

Panetta and Dempsey and Ham have taken part of the fall. Panetta knows that a big part of his job is the willingness to take responsibility for his boss’ actions. But his denial has to do with a lack of intel and the intel wasn’t lacking. That was never the issue. It was the politics and the optics of it.

Obama wanted the locals to deal with it. Anything else would ruin the image of the Arab Spring and our Islamist allies. And so the locals dealt with it. And four Americans died.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marilyn.moore.92798 Marilyn Moore

    This sure has the ring of truth to me. Good job of reporting!

  • PaulRevereNow

    A video on http://www.westernjournalism.com, dated 10/25, titled "Obama linked to Benghazi Attack," gives some very pertinent facts. First, the narrator points out that the Ansar Al-Sharia thugs that attacked the consulate did so in a way that was designed to flush out the occupants of the compound, not kill them. The narrator states to the effect that if the attackers wanted to simply kill people, they could have bombarded the consulate with mortar fire and other heavy weapons, which they didn't do. Second, on 9/13, a Libyan newscast connected Egyptian President Morsi with the attack on the consulate. A video of this broadcast was uploaded to YouTube, but subsequently disappeared. Third, on October 8th, Kevin DuJan of Hillbuzz.org, wrote an article, with the following title, "Did Obama deliberately try to stage a hostage taking in Benghazi as an "October Surprise" PR stunt that blew up in his face?" You say again, "Why didn't Obama order increased security, and simply watched the attack happen?" The above facts point to something very ugly, indeed.

    • https://www.facebook.com/possumntaters Frank Orlando Wilson

      Bingo! That's about what I think is to the left of BANG. Now we need everything immediately to the right. I recall all the buzz from Morsi re the Blind Sheik and the light came on when the whistle blower E-mails become public. I pretty much have no problem believing the specops guy's input as ex-military with experience in comsec, ie, flash message handling/routing, EAM's, and the In-Extremis protocol and NAVAIRSTA Sig. Feel bad for EX- AFRICOM. Looking back on somebody like Colin Powell, yes and in a heartbeat! Stormin Norman ….. oh hell no!

    • jdog

      So maybe the ambassador is captured and held hostage, then traded for the blind sheik in a brilliant act of diplomacy/October surprise? I wouldn't put it past this bunch. And why else would the people on the ground have been denied help? Could well be another half-baked plan like fast and furious, not thought out, and resulting in numerous casualties. Bumps in the road I guess.

      • https://www.facebook.com/caos.sinclair Caos Octavia Sinclair

        I agree I have been in mourning , incredulous what they went through no wonder when my son was in the battle of Al anbar known as bloody Anbar he said mom you pray they we die here not ever get captured, ,, so torture and sodomy in the name of ALlah , I am sure the Sharif Barry enjoyed his muslim brothers dragging them in the streets gave him joy to go off to Vegas and get all his comrades to lIE LIE LIE<< to us the American people , MY God even Watergate is more like a water leak they went to Prison, Incredulous ,, !!

    • s graham

      And the two ex-seals who wanted to help were told to stand down because this was a snatch.They,being out of the loop, charged in…..and why was the blind sheik release mentioned early in this story?Because that was the planned exchange….and the video story took blame for the snatch away from anyone but the horrible movie maker…

      • inthisdimension

        Exactly. And remember – the two SEALs were NOT part of any security force They were there on a completely different mission and just COINCIDENTALLY stayed the night at the annex. Point: POTUS & SECDEF…. DID NOT KNOW THEY WOULD BE THERE.

        My bet – Obama pulled nearly ALL security back in Aug to facilitate this snatch of an American Ambassador… and some unforseen SEALs HAPPENED to be there, unknown to the traitor in the WH who got them – and the others – killed for campaign event. The SEALS evac'd the others, lost the Amb, and got hung out to die by POTUS watching the whole thing. And then POTUS scaked the commanders (Ham, Gauette) who responded but were not allowed to engage.

        POTUS should be up on charges of treason.

  • MrBreeze

    I think they were recruiting Arab and Al Quaida fighters to go to Syria to fight Assad. I think they were paying and arming Al Quaida, and that is what they are hiding.

    • https://www.facebook.com/possumntaters Frank Orlando Wilson

      Yes. I just saw a piece öfficial statement from State Dept rep denying Russia's accusation of same. No one is talking about all the arms and money being kept at the ännex". Did you see the wharehouses over there!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!"

    The plot thickens. With a little luck, the next days and weeks might actually be fun of some of this stuff starts to break.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "And so the locals dealt with it. And four Americans died."

    The locals started it, ran with it and finished it. Thanks Barack. I hope to see you hang for treason.

    Wait, that was racist. I hope to see you get the lethal injection for treason.

  • danseagull

    WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT RADICAL ISLAM , BUT WE ALLOW MADRASSAS DISGUISED AS MOSQUES AND FUNDED BY THE SAUDI ARABS TO CONTINUALLY BE CONSTRUCTED ACROSS THE U.S. !!!!!!!

  • Robert Klein Engler

    If POTUS or someone in the White House inner circle gave the order to stand down at Benghazi, then we must ask a serious question. Has POTUS and the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff lost control of the US military and ancillary agencies because of politics? This question is raised by the significant fact that the order to stand down was disobeyed. Two brave Americans disobeyed the order to stand down, and as we now know, helped save 30 other men and women. This was an act of bravery that must be praised. But it was also a break in the chain of command. What other orders will be disobeyed in the future when our men and women in service of the United States realize that those giving the orders are incompetent and will not come to their aid? For two weeks members of the current administration lied to the American people and blamed the death of our ambassador on a video that few have ever seen. Can our servicemen and women, going forward, take orders from a Commander-and-Chief who is so dishonest? Can we survive as a nation when our military and foreign service is so abused?

    • Dagny

      That’s an interesting question. We should ask the people that survived the attack if “we can survive as a nation” brave men like those SEALS disobey orders and act like Americans. Perhaps it is the only way we will survive. Let’s suppose the attack wasn’t there but here. Would Obama do the same thing? Would he revoke a response because he’s ideologically opposed to combating these terrorists? Interesting supposition.

    • inthisdimension

      Frankly, here is a better question.. and the answer may be that some in the military are tired of it..
      http://inthisdimension.com/2012/10/12/can-serving

  • Teresa Cooper

    What if our Ambassador was expendable for some reason only known to the Administration. I think the little sheep was left in the pen, all alone, on the night of a wolf visit. Did the Ambassador pee in Obama's Wheaties, or did he know something someone was afraid he would tell? I think he was expendable and the drone let the White House watch him die, Chicago mafia style.

  • Russell

    This is treason bar none. I do not care how you slice it. Obama and everyone in his admin. needs to be up on charges for this crap. Remember to vote and vote appropriately.