Image via Pseud O’Nym
The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.
“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action.
But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said.
“They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen,” he fumed.
“There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments.”
The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details.
Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.
How did Obama even go to bed, that night, knowing what was happening?
Watch this video of all the lies and obfuscations Jay Carney told in the days following the attack. We now know beyond a shadow of a doubt – they knew the whole time that it was a terrorist attack. They were obviously a covering-up the inconvenient facts because 1. it interfered with their preferred narrative, and 2. it was their lack of security, and lack of any kind of rescue effort that allowed those four Americans to be slaughtered in the nightmarish way they were.
Danielle Pletka of AEI:
There are a few basics about being president which not incidentally coincide with the responsibilities of being an adult. One is that you cannot lie. Two is that if caught in a lie, you should ‘fess up. And three is that if you lie to cover up your original lie, that’s called malice aforethought (often leading, in Washington, to criminal investigation and obstruction of justice charges, at least if the perp is a Republican). Now, Benghazi. It is perfectly fair for the White House to assert that in the fog of an attack on U.S. facilities, facts were mistaken. It’s important to emphasize that almost anytime one sees a senior official muddling his facts, odds are he’s got bad data, he’s incompetent, or whoever was briefing him was wrong. But… That is clearly not the case in the Benghazi scandal.
Rather, the story of Benghazi is that while the White House’s initial response may have been confusion (because other attacks were taking place at the same time), very soon thereafter, the outright lying began. And now that we have seen the emails that went to the White House within two hours of the attack naming the perpetrators — a known terrorist group operating in eastern Libya — the fact that officials from the President on down were intentionally and falsely insisting the 9/11/12 attack was not an act of terrorism is screamingly obvious.
Is the man the Obama administration appointed on October 4 as key investigator for the terror attacks in Benghazi an Islamist-sympathizer? According to recently published reports, the new chairman of a State Department’s “Accountability Review Board,” which is heading the federal investigation into the Benghazi terror attacks, has been accused of being an “apologist for Islamic terrorism who has a cozy relationship with Iran.”
What’s more, the man in question — former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering — has documented ties with the controversial group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR, of course, is a documented Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and was named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial — the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history.
To make matters worse, Pickering is also co-chairman of the board of George Soros’ International Crisis Group who has ties to other Islamic organizations as well, including the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has been described as pro-Iran “front group.”
NIAC lost what Matthew Vadum at FrontPageMag describes as ”an important defamation case in federal court last month in which it unsuccessfully argued the group was not a tool of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Ace of Spades HQ: White House: Just Because Ansar Al-Shariah Claimed Responsibility For The Attack, And In Fact Were Later Connected To the Attack, Doesn’t Mean You Should Think They Were Connected To The Attack:
And the White House claims: just because Ansar al-Shariah claimed responsibility for the attack, and in fact was responsible for the attack, doesn’t make them responsible for the attack.
The White House’s position is preposterous. Their early intelligence was correct, and is vindicated by later intelligence. They’re claiming, basically, that in the “middle period,” right around Susan Rice’s press blitz, suddenly they had intelligence casting doubt on the early intel and so, for a couple of weeks, had it wrong, but blamelessly so.
So: The early intel said planned terrorist attack, and the final intel said planned intelligence attack, but somewhere in the middle there they were misled by intelligence that disagreed with the first reports and the later reports.
One problem: We see lots of leaked cables (not leaked by Obama, by the way, but by whistleblowers) demonstrating that intelligence pointed to a planned terrorist attack, and none at all supporting this claim of a “fog of war” where suddenly there was intelligence strongly indicating this was a “sponatenous attack” over a “YouTube video” that got “out of hand.”
Where is this intelligence? Because as the actual intelligence stands, there seems to be no “fog of war.” There seems instead to be a bright stab of light, constant throughout the entire affair, pointing at one and only one conclusion.
Dedicated Tenther: Criminal Negligence: Benghazi Files Part 9:
The ninth, and penultimate, entry in the Benghazi Files- the documents dropped on Friday, October 19th.
By rights, the next document I should review is U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 12 – Diplomatic Security. I am not for a couple of reasons. First- it bores me. If it bores me, it would probably put many, if not most, of my readers to sleep. Second, I don’t know enough about the contents to digest them. I’ll leave my “review” of that document to this, then: It starts on page 59 and continues through page 66. The most important thing it says is that any of the requirements contained therein must be waived by the Secretary of State. Since we can be fairly certain that some of those standards were not met, we must assume, then, that Hilary Clinton directly signed off on those choices. It is unbelievable that the disposition of the delegation to a country Barack Obama had been hailing as a foreign policy success would not have been discussed with him. In short: he and Hillary both knew the precise dangers to the Libyan detachment, both in Tripoli and Benghazi.
The next document I will review is perhaps the most depressing. It is a litany of the “Security Incidents Since June 2011.” It begins on page 67 of the documents and continues through 117. Obviously, just reviewing this document could be the subject of several posts. I’ll just take some highlights. These will focus on events in Benghazi, or US Embassy staff directly.
Continue reading at link…
Blackfive: The Consequences of Benghazi:
So what is worse than our State people now knowing that the President will do nothing if they are attacked?Al Qaeda knows that now, too.
Ugh. So true.
Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!