BenghaziGate: Was it Hillary’s Fault?

In the latest chapter of the rapidly developing real story of the mass murder at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12, it appears the Former First Lady may have refused to send military backup that fateful night.

Eli Lake reports for The Daily Beast:

On the night of the 9/11 anniversary assault at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Americans defending the compound and a nearby CIA annex were severely outmanned. Nonetheless, the State Department never requested military backup that evening, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the details of military planning tell The Daily Beast.

In its seventh week, discussion about what happened in Benghazi has begun to focus on why military teams in the region did not respond to the assault on the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex. The only security backup that did arrive that evening were former special-operations soldiers under the command of the CIA—one from the nearby annex and another Quick Reaction Force from Tripoli. On Friday, Fox News reported that requests from CIA officers for air support on the evening of the attacks were rejected. (The Daily Beast was not able to confirm that those requests were made, though no U.S. official contacted for this story directly refuted the claim either.)

It’s unlikely any outside military team could have arrived in Benghazi quickly enough to save Ambassador Chris Stevens or his colleague Sean Smith, both of whom died from smoke inhalation after a band of more than 100 men overran the U.S. mission at around 9:30 p.m. that evening and set the buildings inside ablaze.

But military backup may have made a difference at around five the following morning, when a second wave of attackers assaulted the CIA annex where embassy personnel had taken refuge. It was during this second wave of attacks that two ex-SEALs working for the CIA’s security teams—Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods—were killed in a mortar strike.

Normally it would be the job of the U.S. ambassador on location to request a military response. But Stevens likely died in the first two hours of the attack. The responsibility for requesting military backup would then have fallen to the deputy chief of mission at Benghazi or officials at the State Department in Washington.

“The State Department is responsible for assessing security at its diplomatic installations and for requesting support from other government agencies if they need it,” a senior U.S. Defense official said. “There was no request from the Department of State to intervene militarily on the night of the attack.”

The president, however, would have the final say as to whether or not to send in the military. By 11 p.m. Benghazi time, 90 minutes after the assault began on the U.S. mission, Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the attack. NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said the president “ordered Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies” at that meeting.

Last summer, the second “issue” of  reutersmagazine.com debuted at the Aspen Ideas Festival. This edition featured an article titled “Hillary vs. the World”.

While actually a Liberal Fluff Piece, it does offers some insight into the way the Liberals and the Former First Lady view her job as the US Secretary of State, a job she has proven to be woefully unqualified for:

…Three and a half years later, there have been remarkably few accounts of feuding between Obama’s White House and Clinton’s State Department—and virtually none between the president himself and his celebrity diplomat. Even so, no one even attempts to claim that Clinton and Obama have forged anything other than a solid professional relationship. If there’s an inner circle of Obama decision-making, Clinton is not in it. And the optimistically ambitious foreign policy agenda of early 2009 has inevitably collided with reality; long since jettisoned are many of the early ideas about reshaping the world for the Obama era—from talking directly to Iran’s ayatollahs to forging a durable Mideast peace built on an American-led push to end Israeli settlements in the West Bank. On the campaign trail, Obama has transformed himself instead into an unlikely tough guy, emphasizing his decision to launch the risky special ops raid that killed Osama bin Laden (which Clinton supported), as well as his moves to draw down the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Clinton and then-Defense Secretary Bob Gates argued in favor of Obama’s 2009 troop surge.)

For her part, Clinton tends to tout a list of accomplishments that are somewhat short of transformative, if still substantial—from her leadership in pushing a strategic “pivot” to Asia, announced last fall in an article for Foreign Policy, to the extensive personal diplomacy she poured into quickly mobilizing the NATO coalition that launched air strikes to topple Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. More broadly, if less tangibly, she has put new emphasis at a time of global financial crisis on the role of what she calls “economic statecraft,” including the appointment of the State Department’s first chief economist. She has launched a major reboot of American development efforts modeled on the Pentagon’s quadrennial strategic reviews and has called for an “Internet freedom agenda” that would mobilize new technology on behalf of democracy activists and dissidents the world over, an agenda that has seemed both problematic—bad guys have these tools too—and prescient in anticipating the technology-fueled protests that swept the Middle East during last year’s Arab Spring.

Then there’s managing her in-box, where never a day goes by without some new global headache being added to the mix, a headache that will inevitably require a Clinton phone call, or a meeting, or a flight halfway around the world after having just gotten off a plane. Asked how she approaches the job, Clinton often replies by saying she has to do it all. She has to watch, as she puts it, “the trend lines and the headlines.”

Hillary, along with her boss, President Barack Hussein Obama had a lot to lose, if the Islamic Terrorist attack on the Consulate in Benghazi was revealed to be what it actually was, to the world, in real time. That’s why they came up with the cock and bull story about the “offensive Youtube Video”.

The Benghazi mass murder at our Consulate by those Muslim Terrorists would blow “Smart Power!” all to Hades and back, again. And, the CIC and the SOS simply could not allow that to happen.

Unfortunately for them, their lies are rapidly being replaced by the truth.

Just in time for Election Day.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to “BenghaziGate: Was it Hillary’s Fault?”

  1. notmarvin Says:

    Mass murder?

    • kingsjester Says:

      There was 4 Americans slaughtered. I could have called it a quadruple murder, but the Libs who read this blog, would not have known that word.

      • notmarvin Says:

        Good point. I think you give the Libs too much credit. They are botching the cleanup in NY and when it gets really cold it’s gonna get ulgy. If they do the marathon this weekend as planned there may be some real problems. Nothing but Libs in NY.

      • kingsjester Says:

        I know. IN NJ, they are turning away the Utility crews we sent from Dixie because they are non-Union.

  2. Gohawgs Says:

    The obamanation and Hillary, a stain on humanity…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,570 other followers

%d bloggers like this: