This column just may anger the good folks who are not fans of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I always feel being fair and honest is better than being politically correct.
The general agreement among those of us on the right is that the current administration did nothing to help the besieged Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Mrs. Clinton, the Secretary of state at the time, turned a deaf ear to their call for help.
The argument that the embassy in Benghazi was not properly staffed with security forces in hindsight is correct. The blame is properly placed on Mrs. Clinton for an inadequate force structure on the ground; however the lack of timely military response is unfairly blamed on her.
A military operation on the scale and in the time frame that existed and with the distances involved could not and more properly should not have been deployed. Had a reaction force been sitting on C-141 transports in Italy (our closest forces) cocked and locked and ready to parachute into battle, they did not have a Drop Zone (DZ) close enough to the fight to have been in time to save the four gallant Americans who died. Parachuting at night into a city, any city, is asking for far more causalities from the jump than the four we lost in the battle. A drop zone needs to be fairly large and as free of obstacles as possible.
Attempting to land a large military transport aircraft at the airport near Benghazi without total control of the airport could very easily have been a major disaster.
If we dropped a force of highly trained paratroopers into Libya, they could move to contact at the speed of three miles per hour. That much speed is dependent on encountering no resistance from the Islamic fundamentalists on the ground. Our forces would have been engaged with an enemy with transportation and a logistical support system. The enemy that could have evacuated their wounded, reinforced and resupplied with all classes of supply at will.
The Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton can be blamed for a lack of HUMINT (Human Intelligence) on the ground; the American left objects to working with criminals, thieves and villains, thus degrading HUMINT assets. If we need intelligence on Islamic Terrorists, we will not find it talking with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The Liberal party line is that we don’t need to work with unscrupulous folks — we can gather all the data we need from electronic and satellite intelligence. Nice in theory, horrible in practice.
The problem for Mrs. Clinton is in the coverup. The entire Obama Administration refused to completely blame the terrorists and their lack of preparedness, and jumped to blame an internet video. I viewed that video; it was very poorly done and of no merit on its own. It said horrible things about Islam and Mohamed, but none worse than some American late-night comedians. The party line at the time of Benghazi was that Osama bin Laden was dead and terrorism was on the run. An inconvenient truth was that the administration’s Libyan policy was a tragic mistake and amateurishly done.
So what is the take away from the Benghazi congressional investigation? As stated before, it is the coverup, not the alleged crime. Mrs. Clinton has committed a number of felonies in her attempt to hide her e-mails. Mrs. Clinton openly but unknowingly confessed, under oath, to having classified documents on her unclassified private email server. She testified to having her classified itinerary on her server. Mrs. Clinton then destroyed them unlawfully. For some reason I will never understand, she is getting a pass on committing violations of the United States Code and State Department regulations. Mrs. Clinton even violated an order from President Obama not to use her private server.
Folks do not have to look very hard to find a good bit to dislike about Mrs. Clinton. That said, the lack of a military response in time to save the lives of four brave Americans should not be laid at her feet. As much as it pains me to say it, she chose the proper course of action in postponing an attack until intelligence and a proper operations order and order of battle could be developed.
Operation Eagle Claw and the Mayaguez operation are a testimony to poorly planned operations with inadequate intelligence. Successful military operations are a child of meticulous planning and coordination; rushing into a battle blind and dumb does more harm than good.
I’m certainly not an expert, and I valued your opinion, but I would like to know, and I don’t believe it was ever asked in the hearing last week – who issued the “stand down” order? The CIA annex, I’m sure, was occupied by former service members (I believe a few of which tried to save the Ambassador and Embassy occupants). They were told to “stand down” and a few of them did what had to be done to try and save Am. Stevens and others. I’m sure there were weapons of some number and maybe even explosives such as grenades and other devices available at the CIA Annex. Why weren’t those employed in the battle attempt to repel the obvious ISIL/ISIS raid?
And most telling of all, when Mrs. Clinton told her daughter and Egyptian and Saudi ambassadors it was a ISIL/ISIS type raid right after the incident and then told the American people a planned Obama/Clinton fairy tale about a video stirring up the violence – where is the media on that HUGE story? I hear crickets again! You must remember the time-frame, just before the Presidential election, and a raid by ISIL/ISIS on the compound under Obama’s watch would not be good headlines – so they concocted this fairy tale and the media never questioned it once, not once.
So much for the media not being LIBERAL. Every damn one of them – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and even FOX got suckered into the liberal mess. The problem with people in Washington D.C. is that they never are in the real world – in other states and cities. Once they get there, their whole worldview is from D.C. looking out, never looking in. Washington D.C. is the problem – for both Democrats and Republicans.
For Immediate Release Contact: Susan.Phalen@mail.house.gov
November 22, 2014
Statement by Chairman Rogers on House Intelligence Committee’s Final Benghazi Report
HPSCI Report Examined Intelligence Aspects of Benghazi Attacks
As the Committee’s bipartisan report makes clear, the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the Benghazi attacks focused on the Intelligence Community’s activities before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11-12, 2012. The bipartisan panel concluded that there was no stand down order issued by or to intelligence community personnel, and there was no denial of air support to intelligence community officers on the ground. The officers present testified to that effect. The Committee did receive evidence about the activities of the Defense Department, State Department, and White House personnel, which are explained in both the report and the additional views. But the Committee does not make final conclusions about other agencies to the extent they were not the focus of the Committee’s investigation.
All members of the Committee were given an opportunity to provide written comments on the Committee’s work and the report. All of the additional views that were submitted are attached to the report. Several Republican members of the Committee, including Chairman Rogers, wrote additional views to provide further comments on the motivations and actions of some senior officials. Similarly, the Minority Members provided additional comments. The Committee urges those commenting on the report to read both the report and the additional views.
-30-
https://intelligence.house.gov/press-release/statement-chairman-rogers-house-intelligence-committees-final-benghazi-report
Understand your leanings and your trying to prop up Secretary Clinton, but the people who were actually there, not just officers, but the “little people” – warriors that actually were geared up with weapons at the ready to come to the aid of the American Embassy were told to “stand down” more than once. But since they were CIA, I’m sure they don’t count in the Obama administration or Mrs. Clinton’s wheelhouse. Maybe if Huma Abadin was present in the Embassy, the aid would have come? Over 600 requests for improved security at the compound
were denied (by whom? – nobody seems to know) and Mrs. Clinton never saw one of the requests? I’m sure she is the “leader” we want in the White House – the most unaccomplished Senator and Secretary of State ever to hold the positions.
I am hardly propping up Mrs. Clinton.
You have a beef with the conclusions of the Intelligence Committee, then take it up with Mike Rogers. He’s a Michigander. Easy to reach.
As for John Tiegen’s contention that one of his fellow CIA contractors and/or the CIA base chief at the annex in the so-called safe house reportedly told him to stand-down, well David Petraeus should know and apparently he’s not talking. Or at least he didn’t or wouldn’t confirm such a contention to the committee. And you could read the report too – here – http://intelligence.house.gov/investigative-report-terrorist-attacks-us-facilities-benghazi-libya-september-11-12-2012
Oh, and as for my “leanings”… I didn’t vote for Mr. Obama in 2012 and should Mrs. Clinton come out of the DNC convention next summer, I won’t vote for her either. So, there you go.
Maybe pigs flying isn’t so untrue.