Libyan Government Commemorates September 11 by Refusing to Arrest Benghazi Killers

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.


benghazi-1

This isn’t particularly shocking news as

1. The Libyan government abandoned its own capital after attacks by Muslim Brotherhood militias. The New York Times article never mentions which Libyan government it’s even talking about. It may be the rump Muslim Brotherhood coup one still in Tripoli.

2. The Libyan government doesn’t really control any of the cities. Militias do. The militias are Islamist and many are allied with our attackers.

3. There was never any serious prospects of arrests. The only way we were going to get them was through the use of armed force. Obama chose not to allow armed force to be used to save diplomats under attack. He certainly wasn’t going to use it to hunt down their killers.

A year after the attacks in Benghazi that killed the United States ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, the Justice Department has indicted suspects. Intelligence officials have a general idea of where they are hiding. And the military has a contingency plan to snatch them if that becomes necessary.

But the fledgling Libyan government, which has little to no control over significant parts of the country, like Benghazi and eastern Libya, has rebuffed the Obama administration’s efforts to arrest the suspects.

That is why you send in the military. Not the FBI.

President Obama promised the day after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks to bring the killers to justice, and the fact that this has not happened has led Congressional Republicans to renew their criticism of the administration for its handling of the Benghazi episode as officials have made the case that Congress should authorize a military strike against Syria.

“You cannot have an attack on the mission, 12 months later identified a good number of the participants, and have absolutely no consequences for the taking of American lives,” Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview.

Can we get one of those “unbelievably small” strikes on Libya?

 Several senior F.B.I. officials and members of the F.B.I. team based in Tripoli, Libya, who have been building the investigation for the past year believe the White House should be pressing harder for arrests. Among the decisions that the new F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, will be confronted with in the coming weeks will be how hard to lobby the White House to exert more pressure on the Libyans.

“Whether he likes it or not, he is going to have to deal with this issue,” said a former senior American official, referring to Mr. Comey. “There’s a huge frustration on the issue among the agents about why nothing has happened to these guys who have killed Americans.”

Or he’ll go on ignoring it.

“The Libyan government has to wrestle with this idea: ‘What would that mean to us if we apprehended some of these people, if we tried them, if we handed them over?’ ” Gen. Carter F. Ham, a former head of the military’s Africa Command, told a conference in Aspen, Colo., in July. “It’s a very, very complex issue.”

No it’s actually very simple.

1. The Libyan government has no enforcement abilities

2. Neither apparently do we

  • Norm Koch

    There is no Libyan government.

    • kimberly537

      what Patrick responded I didnt know that a person can profit $9090 in 1 month on the internet. this post w­w­w.J­A­M­20.c­o­m

  • cathy

    Libyan Government Commemorates September 11 by Refusing to Arrest Benghazi Killers – Daniel Greenfield

    ++++++

    …. and Kerry commemorates September 11 by refusing to allow Benghazi survivors to be interviewed by Congress.

    KERRY NOT ‘PREPARED’ TO LET CONGRESS INTERVIEW BENGHAZI SURVIVORS – Jason Howerton
    Sep. 10, 2013
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/10/cbs-reporter-kerry-tells-congress-he-wont-make-benghazi-survivors-available-for-questioning-subpoenas-could-be-coming/

  • Jeff Brown

    “Obama chose not to allow armed force to be used to save diplomats under attack.”

    That’s a lie.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Really? Because your savior would never do anything wrong…

      • Jeff Brown

        ~~~ begin quote ~~~

        In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey was specifically asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, “Did Gen. [Carter] Ham [Commander of U.S. Africa Command] order a military asset in motion and someone told him to stand down?” Dempsey responded, “No. In fact he was with us in the Pentagon.”

        This issue was also explored extensively by the ARB which found,“The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. In addition, at the State Department’s request, the Department of Defense also provided a Marine FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) as additional security support for Embassy Tripoli on September 12.” [Martin Dempsey via USA Today, 2/8/13 . ARB, 12/12 ]

        ~~~ end quote ~~~

        source: http://nsnetwork.org/myth-vs-fact-on-benghazi-hearing/

        ~~~ begin quote ~~~

        Furthermore, it is known that “there was nothing within range that would’ve made a difference” because those assets were deployed. During a February 7 Senate hearing about the Benghazi attack Defense Secretary Leon Panetta explained that President Obama ordered him to “do whatever you need to do in be able to protect our people there.” In that vein, Panetta ordered two anti-terrorism security teams stationed in Spain to deploy to Libya and another special operations team to deploy to the region. The anti-terrorism team headed to Libya arrived after the attack. From the November 2, 2012 CBS News timeline of the Benghazi attack:

        Midnight (6 p.m. ET) Agents arrive at the annex, which receives sporadic small-arms fire and RPG rounds over a roughly 90-minute period. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse.

        Over the next two hours, Sec. Panetta holds a series of meetings and issues several orders: Two Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons stationed in Rota, Spain prepare to deploy – one to Benghazi and the other to the Embassy in Tripoli; A special operations team in Europe is ordered to move to Sigonella, Sicily – less than one hour’s flight away from Benghazi; An additional special operations team based in the U.S. is ordered to deploy to Sigonella.

        [...]

        Around 7 p.m. (1 p.m. ET): Americans are transported out of Tripoli on a C-17 military aircraft, heading for Ramstein, Germany.

        Around 8 p.m. (2 p.m. ET): U.S. special forces team arrives in Sigonella, Sicily, becoming the first military unit in the region.

        Around 9 p.m. (3 p.m. ET): A FAST platoon arrives in Tripoli.

        ~~~ end quote ~~~

        source: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/13/the-wall-street-journal-ignores-troop-deploymen/194026

        The claim that the Obama administration did not mobilize military assets in response to the attacks on the Benghazi consulate is a proven lie.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “The claim that the Obama administration did not mobilize military assets in response to the attacks on the Benghazi consulate is a proven lie.”
          Pawns were moved. What they didn’t do was defend our sovereignty and our interests. The embassy was sacrificed while 0′Bame was worried entirely about political “optics.”
          There were a number of obvious options that were not employed. That’s the claim, and that’s not a lie.

          • Jeff Brown

            “There were a number of obvious options that were not employed. That’s the claim, and that’s not a lie.”

            False. Greenfield does not make that claim in this article. He claims that “Obama chose not to allow armed force to be used”, and he is lying when he makes that claim.

            You are lying when you attempt to cover Greenfield’s lie by redefining what he said. This surprises no one — lies piled upon lies are the hallmark of the modern American conservative movement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are lying when you attempt to cover Greenfield’s lie by redefining what he said. This surprises no one — lies piled upon lies are the hallmark of the modern American conservative movement.”
            Armed forces were not used TO PROTECT THE EMBASSY. Get it? There were obvious options that could have been employed, but were not. That doesn’t mean people weren’t shuffled around and made to look busy.
            That’s the claim. If you can’t understand it then you’re too much of a partisan.

          • Jeff Brown

            “There were obvious options that could have been employed, but were not… That’s the claim.”

            You’re lying. That is not the claim that Greenfield made in this article.

            Please do continue to lie. I could not possibly do a better job of discrediting you than you have done yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Please do continue to lie.”

            Sure. So according to you, anything that happens shows that 0′Bama was directed a response the best of his effort. The fact that all of the effective options were waived off and that all we were left with was a few locals who may have even violated orders to back off, that’s meaningless because 0′Bama is your savior.

            You actually think that 0′Bama acted in the best interests of the United States, and that his response was acceptable for a POTUS that wanted to defend our interests and in particular our embassy in Benghazi.

            Is that what you’re saying? What did 0′Bama do to affirmatively play his part in good faith to protect US interests in the Benghazi event? Please name one thing. We don’t even know if he bothered to stay awake that night. As far as we can tell, he did nothing but impede. Is that precise enough for you? I somehow doubt it. Eventually we’ll have the timeline and details with a lot more precision, and then we’ll see where you are…

            You’re a lunatic.

          • Jeff Brown

            “The fact that all of the effective options were waived off…”

            That isn’t a fact. That is a claim that you have made, and it stands bereft of any supporting evidence.

            Your fact-free assertions are worthless.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Please review the timeline and see if we can stipulate to the Pentagon claims:

            edition.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/benghazi-consulate-attack-fast-facts/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And what is your position on Gregory Hicks? Is he a liar?

            What is your position on your savior 0′Bama? Do you look to him for salvation as a national socialist or as an International socialist / communist? Or do you like his moves vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood and the greater Sunni jihad for the caliphate?

            It’s relevant because credibility will come in to play. The evidence that is available all points to 0′Bama doing precisely what we’ve said but you quote people politically aligned with him as “evidence” that things in Benghazi just so happened to help out all of his anti-American causes but hey, it just isn’t so. In spite of his anti-American agenda and in spite of the fact that what did and did not happen in Benghazi seems to have been steered in the direction of 0′Bama’s anti-American agenda is just phooey that we can’t consider. You’re asking us to trust 0′Bama as an objective witness, when he’s the one with the most to gain from covering up.

            By far the most credible witness so far is Gregory Hicks. He claims that we could have saved lives and that someone up the chain of command directed against a response that could have at least tried to defend those lives.

            Call us liars as many times as you want. The evidence is not on your side. The power of the Whitehouse is on your side because you’re on the side of the accused.

            It’s not that impressive.

            And as we review the case as revealed so far over the next few days, we’ll see how your confidence holds up.

            But you boldly call people liars when they follow the most reasonable and objective evidence available. You’re not the first deranged leftist to show up here, so keep up the laughs. It will only get sweeter if you can handle walking through the evidence.

            I recall doing this exact same thing a few months ago. The other troll disappeared within 2 days of our conversation. For all I know, you’re the same guy trying the same failed approach.

            I hope you stick around.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            From the article: “Obama chose not to allow armed force to be used to save diplomats under attack.”
            Armed forces were “used” because they’re already in the feild with protocols to follow. They didn’t vanish in to thin air. They were not employed or “used” to “save diplomats under attack.” They were kept busy and you report this business as contradicting the statement that they were not used to protect the diplomats.
            You’re English is not too good, or you’re an unhinged partisan.
            It reminds me of an old Bill Cosby joke. It ends with something like; “yyou go long.” Meaning that on the football feild I’ll give you something to do, but I don’t want you actually involved in the action.

          • Jeff Brown

            “They were not employed or “used” to “save diplomats under attack.””

            You are lying. Military help was dispatched to the Benghazi consulate.

            “Glen Doherty, the former Navy SEAL who was working for the CIA’s Global Response staff in Libya on Sept. 11 last year… was part of the quick reaction force that left Tripoli to help rescue the ambassador and his team at the consulate, as well as the 21 CIA personnel at the CIA annex one mile from where Stevens’ and the others came under attack.”

            Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/26/who-was-glen-doherty

            Please do continue to lie. I could not possibly do a better job of discrediting you than you have done yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Military help was dispatched to the Benghazi consulate.”

            Dispatched by who? They responded according to protocols already in place.

            http://freebeacon.com/hicks-possible-glen-doherty-and-tyrone-woods-could-have-been-saved-if-action-was-taken-sooner-in-benghazi/

            “Please do continue to lie.”

            You’re not too bright, are you? You’re not the first person to blame his confusion on others.

            “Obama chose not to allow armed force to be used to save diplomats under attack.”

            The forces that did respond went according to protocols and requests from the scene, not directed by 0′Bama or commanders under his direct and immediate control. Put another way; 0′Bama impeded the response as far as I can tell, as best he could. The response was nonetheless greater than nil in spite of 0′Bama’s apparent wishes.

            Is that your point? Then I’m a liar. Keep enjoying your fantasies.

          • Jeff Brown

            “They responded according to protocols already in place.”

            Nothing in the article you linked to supports your claim.

            “0′Bama impeded the response as far as I can tell, as best he could.”

            There is no evidence that President Obama did anything to impede the military response to the Benghazi attacks.

            http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/explainer-a-year-of-benghazi-myths/195821

            We do know that the President ordered all available DOD assets to respond to the attack.

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/panetta-benghazi-hearing

            Please do continue to lie. I could not possibly do a better job of discrediting you than you have done yourself.

            Oh, and you might want to consider changing your handle on this site. You have made it quite clear that facts of any kind don’t mean a damn thing to you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nothing in the article you linked to supports your claim.”

            You’re not very objective. Protocols are in place. What that means is that for example when you call 911 for help with a fire or other emergency, they don’t need permission from Homeland Security.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protocol

            pro·to·col
            noun ˈprō-tə-ˌkȯl, -ˌkōl, -ˌkäl, -kəl

            : a system of rules that explain the correct conduct and procedures to be followed in formal situations

            I’m very sorry if you don’t believe that we have protocols in place for our governmental organizations or perhaps you don’t even know what my statement is saying. It truly is common knowledge…for the most part. Leftists are always questionable about such matters.

            “There is no evidence that President Obama did anything to impede the military response to the Benghazi attacks.”

            He refused to carry out his duties in good faith both during and after as evidenced by his lack of explanation about where he was, what his response was etc. He’s acting in bad faith to this day. We simply don’t have all of the details and that makes you think you win the argument.

            He has obligations to act. His “disappearance” impeded our ability to protect the embassy, and there is strong evidence that his bad faith was more than mere passivity.

            “We do know that the President ordered all available DOD assets to respond to the attack.”

            We do know that the wagons are circling to protect the radical leftist sitting in the Whitehouse. Your maniacal partisanship or insanely low and ignorant expectations mark you as a delusional leftist with an agenda who thinks that quoting politicians makes for ipso facto arguments.

            The evidence will continue to trickle out. You pretending to be objective is just hilarious.

          • Jeff Brown

            “perhaps you don’t even know what my statement is saying.”

            I know exactly what you are saying. You are saying that President Obama did nothing. You’re lying.

            Please do continue to lie. I could not possibly do a better job of discrediting you than you have done yourself.

          • Jeff Brown

            “The evidence will continue to trickle out.”

            That’s quite amusing, considering that you have not presented one shred of evidence for the claims you have made thus far.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Some of us have been around for longer than 2 days. We’ll see if you stick around for a review of the evidence.

    • Dan Mesa/AZ

      Enlighten us, Mr. Jeff Brown, as to why that’s a lie.

    • Jeff Brown

      ~~~ begin quote ~~~

      In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey was specifically asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, “Did Gen. [Carter] Ham [Commander of U.S. Africa Command] order a military asset in motion and someone told him to stand down?” Dempsey responded, “No. In fact he was with us in the Pentagon.”

      This issue was also explored extensively by the ARB which found,“The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. In addition, at the State Department’s request, the Department of Defense also provided a Marine FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) as additional security support for Embassy Tripoli on September 12.” [Martin Dempsey via USA Today, 2/8/13 . ARB, 12/12 ]

      ~~~ end quote ~~~

      Source: http://nsnetwork.org/myth-vs-fact-on-benghazi-hearing/

  • Jeff Ludwig

    It’s nauseating to read this. The horrors of our lassitude and/or incompetence and/or kowtowing to the islamists are overwhelming me. Thanks for the article even though the truth is so painful to read.

  • timpottorff

    I want to recommend Mr. Greenfield as a cabinet member in the Rand Paul or Ted Cruz administration.

  • Jeff Brown

    “The entire conservative line of attack fell apart in a single sentence: “Help did go to Benghazi.””

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/watch-as-a-benghazi-lie-is-shot-down-live-on-fo/195836

  • Jeff Brown

    The facts about the Benghazi attack and the Administration response to it do not support the right-wing hysteria. Get the facts.

    Explainer: A Year Of Benghazi Myths

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/explainer-a-year-of-benghazi-myths/195821

  • Jeff Brown

    “Obama chose not to allow armed force to be used…”

    Daniel Greenfield is lying. The claim that military assets were not deployed to Benghazi is false. The wingnuts’ own star “witness” confirms this.

    “During questioning, [former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya Gregory] Hicks confirmed that the [Special Forces] team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi

    Lying is a sacrament among American conservatives.