Unless you read Drudge or the (Republican) weekly standard, you probably don't know that Benghazi exposed either ignorance, or a major malfunction.
Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi...
Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi...
Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under seize, "up to us."
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Panetta said that, save their 5 o'clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
So, Hillary wasn't even informed about it, even though she was Secretary of State.
Neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, "In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?"
"We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton," Panetta responded.
"And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?" Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this.
She denied seeing a cable by the ambassador in August that asked for more protection.
so is she lying, or as the first link suggests, was the Obama administration keeping her ignorant (given the amount of time she has spent lecturing us about our RH bill, not the Chinese threat, or giving lectures about rape in Africa, not about corruption and the Alqada threat, one wonders if she is being ignored in the real decisions.
GENERAL: 'We Never Received Request for Support'...
"Why didn't you put forces in place to be ready to respond?," Senator John McCain asked the general.
Dempsey started, "Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we --"
McCain iterrupted, "You never heard of Ambassador Stevens's repeated warnings?"
"I had, through General Ham," responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. "But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces--"
"So it's the State Department's fault?"
"I'm not blaming the State Department," Dempsey responded.
General Ham? The (right wing) WashingtonTimes wrote last October that he was relieved over the Benghazi incident
And they added this anonymous quote from a MilBlog:
This version of events contradicts Mr. Panetta’s October 25 statement that General Ham advised against intervention. But so far there is nothing solid to back it up.
However on October 26, "Ambassador" posted the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft):
I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely....
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham's place as the head of Africom.
So why the coverup of the real story?
45 minutes before the attack was coming, gamers knew that an attack was coming,
On the day of his death, Smith typed a message to the director of his online gaming corporation that read, "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures."[11but has anyone checked if Vile Rat didn't just warn his gaming friends but emailed the state department and the head of security in the area?
From way down deep in NYTimes articleon Panetta's testimony:
So do you mean that the gaming community had a "headsup", but that the State Department didn't? (Or did they ignore it and later accidentally discard it?) At least the article does say although Panetta claimed there were no local assets to do a rescue, that there was a question on WHY there were no assets moved to this volitile region before the anniversary of 911:Mr. Panetta said that the Pentagon was not able to respond more quickly to the Benghazi episode because it had not received an intelligence alert about animpending attack.“Without adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond,” Mr. Panetta told the committee in his prepared statement.
But of course, this is not just about Benghazi: It is about channeling Libya's guns to Syrian rebels via Turkey.In his prepared remarks, Mr. Panetta did not address the question of whether the Africa Command had requested any of these forces to be on hand on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nor did he say whether Mr. Panetta or General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had given any thought to moving forces to the region as a precaution before the attacks in September last year.
Again, from way down deep in NYTimes articleon Panetta's testimony:
a less partisan article on what happened is this AFP report via the Australian
contrasting views of the Arab spring:
Spengler says Egypt go kaput.
TPMBarnett says: Patience, patience: Eventually twitter will change minds. http://thomaspmbarnett.com/globlogization/2013/2/7/arent-all-those-islamists-now-in-power-supposed-to-keep-glob.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true