http-equiv='refresh'/> Consfearacynewz: Former Seal says Obama cancelled Benghazi rescue mission!

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Former Seal says Obama cancelled Benghazi rescue mission!

Originally posted at

Reposted verbatim as follows:

From Matt Bracken

Did Obama Withhold Cross-Border Authority?

Please help me. 

I am trying as hard as I can to get out the word about cross-border authority (CBA). 

I just can’t believe reporters don’t know enough to ask the right questions! It’s infuriating. 

Libya, as far as standing down the rescue, is 100% Obama’s show, and nobody else’s. Only he can grant CBA, not Biden, not Panetta, not Dempsey, not Hillary, and certainly not Ham in Germany.

The entire episode is explained perfectly inside the context of not granting CBA. The CIA QRF in Tripoli? No problem, send them on the local Tripoli station chief’s say-so. He merely informs up COC that he has done so. CCs them so to speak. “This is what I am doing.” Ditto if Predators were in country, no problem using them.

But the big rescue air armada streaming toward Libya right away after the alarm got to Stuttgart and Africom? That has to stop. I believe at the 5pm meeting with Panetta and Biden in the Oval Office, he said, “No outside military intervention,” on the basis that the last report was the “lull” from the consulate, at about 1030 p.m. in Benghazi, when the attack appeared to be over and the situation stabilizing.

(As a soft exception, Obama may have authorized sending an unarmed Predator from outside of Libya, but I am thinking the two Predators were already in-country, and hence available to use within “no CBA granted” rules.)

“No outside military intervention” equals “no cross-border authority” and that constitutes “standing orders” until POTUS changes them. Nobody else can “un-decide” the POTUS decree. The rescue air-armada of C-17s, C-130s and SOF helos like MH-47 Chinooks and Pavehawks cannot proceed directly to Libya without CBA being granted, so instead they are all staged at Sigonella, Sicily.

USN ships are in position to “lilypad” helos for long over-water flights. Airborne tankers are coming into position. SOF forces in Sigonella are going over their gear for different contingencies. Fuming all night as officers keep checking in with operational commanders. “Hold in place, no rescue yet. We can’t find the President, it sounds like,” say the colonels to the majors and captains. 100s of military must know about this. I keep waiting for the conclusive whistle-blowers to come forward BEFORE the election. After won’t matter, it will be for the historians.

Panetta is falling on his sword for Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, “The military doesn’t do risky things” defense of no rescue. Panetta is destroying his future reputation entirely, to save Obama. The question is why? Loyalty?

Petreaus was probably “used” in some way early, about the supposed CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his PAO, “The stand-down order did not come from CIA.” 

Well, what is higher than CIA? Only White House. Obama, nobody else. Petreaus is naming Obama without naming him.

Now, as far as Obama / Huma Abedin / Valerie Jarrett etc actually wanting Ambassador Stevens dead, to terminate the end of the very dirty Libyan arms to Syrian AQ programs, I can’t speculate. Obama is not competent enough, I’m thinking.

But for sure, the ambassador going to unsecure Benghazi on 9-11 of all days stinks to me of a setup. You can bet Stevens would have told the Turks, “No, 9-11 is not a good day for us,” and stayed in Tripoli behind many high and thick walls. For him to go to dangerous Benghazi on 9-11 means the Turks totally insisted, but why would they care about the meeting date, unless they were in on a “hit” as the Judas goat?

Alternatively, ordering Stevens to meet the Turks in Benghazi on 9-11 may have come from down OUR chain of command. Stevens seems to have been wearing two hats as ambassador and CIA arms shipper. Moving between more-secure Tripoli, the Benghazi “consulate,” and the CIA “annex.” So orders to him might come down the State or the CIA commo channels, or both. I am unclear on his job title and true position, but either the CIA or State sends him final instructions. How this works with “dual-hatted” ambassadors, I haven’t a clue.

But Stevens meeting the Turks at the unsecure Benghazi “consulate” on 9-11 stinks to me of a deliberate setup. The Turks left the meeting and probably flashed their headlights to the attack team commanders lurking in shadows. A coded text, a word on a phone, meaning, “The ambassador is there, with minimal security: proceed with the attack plan.”

That is all pure speculation. What I know FOR SURE is that the big “stand down order” issue revolves around granting or withholding cross-border authority.

Every SOF officer and ops officer all the way up has this drummed into his head. We can make Obama respond to this question, even if reporters must shout it at him while he’s doing storm cleanup photo ops. If the reporters KNOW enough to ask the quesion. 

That’s why I am shouting all over the internet about CBA.

I can’t believe cross-border authority permission is not one of the top discussion points about Benghazi.

That, and who “set him up” by sending him to Beghazi to meet the Turks on 9-11, with them leaving after dark.

And of course, down the road, was the military rescue-in-progress turned back because Obama actually wanted to make sure the consulate was wiped out? Is that why the spooks at the annex were refused permission to travel the under one mile to intervene? That would connect it all together, but for now, the best focus is on Obama either granting or withholding cross-border authority for the rescue.

Feel free to repost these musings of a long-ago SOF officer anywhere you please.

by Earl P. Holt III
The September 11th siege of our Benghazi Consulate — in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were murdered by Islamic terrorists — was the Obama Administration’s attempt at an “October Surprise.” Like everything else Barack Hussein Obama and his minions have touched, it went awry with catastrophic results.
This theory explains all of the currently available facts better than any other, and is eminently plausible: It is exactly the sort of tactic the Obama Administration would use as a diversion, upon finding itself trailing in its reelection efforts.
First of all, it explains the glaring lack of security at the Benghazi Consulate. Security Guards in the form of Special Forces personnel were not issued ammunition for their weapons. Moreover, Consular personnel had made multiple frantic requests for additional security for several months, only to see these requests rejected every time by the Obama Administration.
In addition to the absence of an armed Marine Guard, a 16-Man security team at the consulate was disbanded and sent home approximately a month before the attack.
We have also learned that much of the assault on the Consulate was viewed by the National Security Agency and State Department in “real time” — thanks to our drone technology — but no forces were scrambled in an attempt at a rescue mission. Even the DC-3 that could have whisked these people away was removed before the attacks.
These facts lead to the unavoidable conclusion that a terrorist assault on the Consulate in Benghazi was both inevitable and eminently predictable. Indeed, it was invited: What was not anticipated was that Ambassador Stevens and three others would be killed, rather than merely taken hostage.
Second, it explains the Obama Administration’s motive. The attack on an American Consulate and the capture of Consular Personnel would have afforded President Obama an opportunity to negotiate with Libyan Authorities for their release.
With the assistance of the Corrupt Leftist Media in the United States, any successes would have been portrayed as the greatest humanitarian effort since the Normandy Invasion, and would probably have ensured Obama’s reelection and a second Nobel Peace Prize. His triumphant return would dwarf Julius Caesar’s return from the Gallic Wars.
Third, it explains the puzzling blizzard of lies in the aftermath of the attack. This theory also explains why key administration figures — such as President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Official Prevaricator Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — stuck to their puzzling narrative about “spontaneous” demonstrations, while attributing the whole incident to some phony anti-Islamic video that no one ever viewed or heard of.
Indeed, they stuck to the narrative for days and weeks after it was decisively disproved, suggesting that the game plan was already drawn-up, but when things fell apart, they had no alternative but a resort to their pre-written script.
If this theory is correct, then Ambassador Stevens and these other three Americans were sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s reelection effort…
Benghazi Coverup - Obama Getting Rid Of Military Brass To Hide Scandal
Navy replaces admiral leading Mideast strike group
Published October 27, 2012

The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis' home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.
It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of "inappropriate leader

ship judgment" that arose during the strike group's deployment to the Middle East. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's chief spokesman, declined to discuss the investigation.
The Stennis group deployed from Bremerton in late August and had entered the Navy 5th Fleet's area of operations in the Middle East on Oct. 17 after sailing across the Pacific. The Stennis made port visits in Thailand and Malaysia on its way to the Middle East.

Read more:

Benghazi  Coverup Scandal - obama Regime Getting Rid Of Military Brass To Hide Scandal
Obama’s Guillotine has Found its Target: Covering Up the Benghazi Blemish 

(L General Ham, R Admiral Gaouette)

As more light is beginning to peer through the Benghazi cover-up and the world is seeing more and more of Obama’s indecisive leadership, the President has taken steps to purge the commanders who refused to stand idly by as Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detachment were murdered by al-Qaeda.  When the attack broke out, the ambassador’s security detail requested backup from their CIA detail a mile away.  The order came down from the CIA’s high command that action should not be taken, that the garrison should not intervene.  Tyrone Woods and a small contingent of security personnel defied those orders and went to the compound to relieve the strained contingent.  Woods and his team were unable to locate Stevens who had been lost in the confusion in a burning building.  As Woods and his team retreated back to the CIA safe house, that complex, over one mile away, also came under fire.  

Once under fire, the CIA began to call for military assistance, as al-Qaeda began shelling the building with mortar rounds.  General Carter Ham at AFRICOM received the same e-mails sent to the State Department by Stevens and, by this time had mobilized a rescue team and was awaiting permission from the Pentagon.  At this point General Ham was told to stand down and not send the rescue mission into Benghazi.  Ham, having assessed the urgency of the situation, decided to ignore the Pentagon and President’s orders and send the team in.  Once again, he was ordered to stand still – as the calls for backup continued to rain from the embassy and the safe house.  After protest, Ham was relieved of his command.  Ham’s second in command took over, and remained in charge until his handpicked successor, General David Rodriguez, could take the helm.  Rodriguez was nominated by Barack Obama and still must be confirmed by the Senate.
This change of leadership also comes as Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis carrier battle group, has been drawn from the field and ordered back to home port for an investigation of “inappropriate leadership judgment.”  The underbelly of the blogosphere has been speculating that Gaouette has been so hastily removed for supporting Ham, and for wanting to send aerial support to the embattled compound.  It has also been further speculated that Gaouette has been highly critical of the Obama administration.  The reason behind Gaouette’s removal has been shrouded in mystery, but there is growing belief that the White House is trying to cut off at the legs any military opposition to the Administration’s refusal to assist the attacked diplomatic mission.  

The Obama administration has been hit hard by this failure of leadership, and still there are questions that have not been answered.  One, the President had a live feed of the situation on the ground – why did he not properly assess the situation and allow, first the CIA and later the military to launch a rescue mission?  Two, why has the administration purged the military of the leaders who have provided the local leadership that they could not supply?  And, three, why does the president continue to politicize the issue and why does the president continue to shift away from the blame?  
The sacking of General Ham and Admiral Gaouette is an irresponsible reaction by an irresponsible administration.  When these men should be praised for their actions, responding to the situation instead of letting the situation spin out of hand.  Just as an uneven, spinning wheel will thrash the movement of a well-oiled machine, so too will the uneven leadership of a failed president lead to the destruction of a fine military and diplomatic system.  The Generals and people on the ground knew the situation called for a military escalation, but the politicized Department of Defense would not act – the White House, marred in an already failed Middle Eastern policy, could not afford to have the light of this planned, coordinated terrorist attack to flaunt in the face of a sleeping populace.  Instead, the White House passed this horrid diplomatic interference as a protest. The blood of the four dead Americans is directly on the hands of Barack Obama.  The traditional trust between a president and the people has been scarce in this presidency, and it has become a non-existent theory.  During the 2008 campaign, the Obama and Speaker of the House promised to have the most open administration in modern times – with each passing crisis, with each dabbling of corruption, with every cover up, it is clear the this promise has not been kept, and was never intended to be more than political rhetoric.  

Is a U.S. general losing his job over Benghazi?

Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation. ...

“Rogue” U.S. General Arrested for Activating Special Forces Teams; Ignoring Libya Stand-Down Order

General Arrested for Activating Special Forces Teams; Ignoring Libya Stand-Down? 

Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area.

According to reports, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.
Also, just a warning... look at who is 'releasing' all this information... the MSM. Why?

Barry is being set up for his fall and replacement by Rombama, just as Alex said would happen, when Barry was anointed as POTUS.

Remember that? Paraphrasing Alex - 'Obama's mission is to do as much damage as possible, wreck the country as much as possible, and TAKE THE BLAME AS THE FALL GUY. They, the PTB, will dump him. when you see the media turn on Obama, you will know he has been slated for replacement by the GOP-branch of the globalists.'

Does anyone else have a feeling we the people are being played, here?

I mean, seriously, a scandal of this magnitude, involving these people... at this time... how convenient for the Romnesiacs to use as a lever to justify Romney's 'election'. Not saying that is what is going on, but just saying... we the people NEVER really know what the inside details are regarding all this cloak and dagger, smoke pickle and mirrors garbage that goes on daily.

Just sayin'...

President Obama’s once seemingly unstoppable march toward re-election hit what he might call “bumps in the road” in Benghazi, Libya, late on Sept. 11, 2012. It might be more accurate to describe the effect of the well-planned and -executed, military-style attack on a diplomatic facility there as the political equivalent of a devastating improvised explosive device on the myth of the unassailability of the Obama record as commander in chief.
Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting — notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at and Clare Lopez at — and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as Benghazigate.
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.
One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.
What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison.
Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a “mission.” What Mr. Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” that lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”
We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
It gets worse. Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed — and were known by the local jihadis to house — arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens.
What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”
In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.

Read more: GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

the USS Eisenhower vanished from the status of the Navy report anywhere where it went....almost at the same time a factory in Sudan is leveled by a highly sophisticated air force...including radar jamming.....

Now of course everyone is blaming Israel BUT there has been no word out of Israel that they're we have a missing carrier...and a blown up target in Sudan done by a modern air power....hmmmmmm

So where was the Eisenhower when this factory went up?

The Eisenhower has been off the page since at least the 24th...

The USS Eisenhower is back on the Status of the Navy page after being absent since October 24th. So where could that carrier have gone round trip in one week? Remember, complete media blackout for a week...

Who knows...the navy moves in mysterious ways

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't Troll, if you can't add anything helpful, don't post.