Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Moseley: The Obama Administration lied about Benghazi: CIF could have been on the ground in 3.5 hours

Written By: Bob - May• 25•13

Writing in The American Thinker, Jonathan Moseley exposes both former Defense Secretary Gates and current Defense Secretary Panetta as liars attempting to protect a feckless administration:

Elite U.S. troops were completely capable of saving Ambassador Chris Stevens during the Benghazi Consulate attacks on September 11, 2012.  Elements of the highly specialized Combatant Commanders In-Extremis (CIF) units are always on alert, on forward deployment, ready to respond.  Their job description is to hit the ground in 3 to 5 hours.  CIF elements are ready to engage in active combat anywhere in their region, 3 to 5 hours after the call.

Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense at the time, either misled the U.S.  Congress or was incompetent.  Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 7, 2013 that the U.S. military could not have responded in less than 9 to 12 hours.

Obama’s first secretary of defense, Robert Gates, told CBS’s Face the Nation on May 12, 2013 that “[w]e don’t have a ready force standing by” in that region.

But we absolutely do “have a ready force standing by” to reach any trouble spot in a few hours.  Insider reports previously revealed that CIF elements were training in Croatia and could have been in Benghazi in three and a half hours.

Although rotating out of the United States, some CIF elements are always forward-deployed within each military command region, always on stand-by.  Their training includes expertise within each local region.  Some of each region’s unit is always ready.  They don’t need to pack.  Being ready to go — immediately — is their job description.  It’s the reason they exist.

Note that Moseley doesn’t even touch on the 100-strong Recon Marine force spinning up at Naval Air Station Sigonella roughly two hours away, nor the Special Forces team already in Libya at Tripoli that was ordered to stand down when they were attempting to board a flight to Benghazi after the initial attack.

There were at least three special operations or special operation capable units within four hours of Benghazi numbering more than 120 men, along with ground attack aircraft, allegedly including an AC-130 gunship that CIA Operator Ty Woods was attempting to lase targets for, believing it was an on-call asset… just another one that never showed up.

The Fox News wiretapping scandal may bring down Eric Holder, and the IRS scandal may have more legs politically towards the impeachment of the President, being identical to the second count of what brought down Richard Nixon, but it was Benghazi that shows Barack Obama is a vicious political animal that thought nothing of abandoning more than two dozen Americans and allied forces under fire in order to continue a political narrative that “al Qaeda is on the run.”

We’ve had some very bad Presidents in our nation’s history. Barack Obama may go down in history as the worst.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

14 Comments

  1. YellowFever says:

    *MAY* go down in history as the worst?

    Understatement of the century.

  2. thesouthwasrght says:

    Benghazi is far more than an attack that derailed a campaign slogan. W/ the way obama owns the media was the squeeze of possibly getting 30 Americans killed worth the juice of continuing a narrative the media would willingly help him w/ regardless of anything? Nope.

    IMO Amb Stevens was a loose end that needed tying up, the rest were a result of the time tested law: if it can go wrong it will. Lamb Stevens knew we were shipping missiles and possibly chemical weapons to al-qeada and it got him offed.

  3. thesouthwasrght says:

    I hate posting off a phone….”lamb” should be “Amb”.

    • Yuri says:

      No, I think you had it right. A lamb is what gets sacrificed.

      I share your opinion.

      Stevens was abandoned; but there’s a difference between abandoning someone who got themselves into a certain situation and abandoning someone that the “abandoner” PUT into a deadly situation on purpose. It’s the difference between not jumping into a frozen river to save a stray dog that broke through the ice, and throwing your own dog into that frozen river, legs tied, and walking away.

  4. Richard says:

    Agreed with YellowFever, “may” is a huge understatement.

    The thing that always gets me is that few people are asking the question of “why” were assets not deployed. They why of the situation is the real story that none of the media seems to want to tackle.

    I don’t think continuing the political narrative is a good enough why. Obama rescues people, can say whatever he wants about the event, and it is no longer news in 48 hours. With dead bodies, however, questions will be asked. So why were those men left to die? What was going on such that their deaths were preferable to their rescue?

    Until Congress and the American people start asking these questions in earnest, the real story won’t be told.

  5. Richard says:

    Agreed with YellowFever, “may” is a huge understatement.

    The thing that always gets me is that few people are asking the question of “why” were assets not deployed. They why of the situation is the real story that none of the media seems to want to tackle.

    I don’t think continuing the political narrative is a good enough why. Obama rescues people, can say whatever he wants about the event, and it is no longer news in 48 hours. With dead bodies, however, questions will be asked. So why were those men left to die? What was going on such that their deaths were preferable to their rescue?

    Until Congress and the American people start asking these questions in earnest, the real story won’t be told.

  6. Jim says:

    To keep this simple for the low information voters, Republicans should relate how this is like so many CIA type movies (Bourne Identity, Shooter) where field assets are sacrificed when the operation goes bad.

    There’s another issue in that we were purchasing weapons from Libyan rebels and then transporting them to Syrian rebels. I personally think this is wrong as we should be staying out of other peoples wars. Furthermore, Dems are usually the ones screaming over this type of thing if Congressional approval hasn’t been gotten beforehand.

  7. Greg B says:

    Bryan Suits on “The Dark Secret Place”, a weekly radio show in Los Angles was talking about the CIF right after the attack in Bengazi. He even had a former CIF guy on his show.
    We absolutely could have gotten assets in play and probably saved at least the two men on the roof.
    Every single one of these bastards in DC needs to burn.

  8. louielouie says:

    repeating myself.
    hussein could walk into a deecee convenience store, take a service weapon from an SS agent, shoot and kill a clerk, return the weapon to the agent, all in full view of witnesses, and no one, no one, no one would do a damn thing about it.

    • Joel C says:

      Except prosecute the (fall guy) agent. Or maybe some guy sitting in an office that wasn’t anywhere near the place.

  9. david7134 says:

    You are falling into their argument. One of the worst things to do is to get in a discussion and use the opponents talking points and try to argue against them. In this situation, the communist are saying that no one could have been in place in time to save the ambassador. The answer to this is “who gives a crap?”. The ambassador was only one man, he may have died early in the encounter, but there were other, just as important people in the area that were alive, wounded and in need of protection. There should have been a military presence immediately in the area whether it took two hours or 12. The fact is that there was no reaction. That is bad. The question you want to ask about the ambassador is why he did not have adequate protection from day one. I have been in that area (Egypt, before it came apart) and can assure you that you do not go anywhere, even as a private civilian without guns and someone to protect you. Then the really big question is what was the ambassador’s mission? It seems that he was trying to cover Hillary’s fubar on giving missiles to the bad guys. This whole thing has more stink than a skunk.

  10. John Cunningham says:

    David7134 made a good point–Panetta was idiotic to say that there was no time to get troops there once the battle started. HOW LONG WAS THE BATTLE GOING TO LAST, NUMBNUTS?? Doherty and Woods were still fighting after 7 hrs, they were only killed about hour 8 or 9, and there were still 30 guys in the CIA building. they were lucky in one sense, in that the 100+ AQ guys did not press an allout assault. the delay in DC could have led to all 30 of the guys dying…

  11. DAL357 says:

    In the end, I can’t see anything happening to BHO; the guy seems to be coated with teflon, as is his underling Holder. Sure, Republicans will make a big show of it, but they’re ultimately nothing more than gutless wonders who won’t push this as hard as it deserves/needs to be pushed.

    And this is the same bunch that wants to disarm me and depend on them for protection? The absurdity of it all!