The Flames Of Benghazi Will Burn Through The Horse Hair

But the Dear Leader loving U.S. Media is furiously working to beat back the fire…

undefined

Dionysius (II) was a fourth century B.C. tyrant of Syracuse, a city in Magna Graecia, the Greek area of southern Italy.

To all appearances Dionysius was very rich and comfortable, with all the luxuries money could buy, tasteful clothing and jewelry, and delectable food.

He even had court flatterers (adsentatores) to inflate his ego.

One of these ingratiators was the court sycophant, Damocles. Damocles used to make comments to the king about his wealth and luxurious life.

One day when Damocles complimented the tyrant on his abundance and power, Dionysius turned to Damocles and said, “If you think I’m so lucky, how would you like to try out my life?”

Damocles readily agreed, and so Dionysius ordered everything to be prepared for Damocles to experience what life as Dionysius was like. Damocles was enjoying himself immensely…

…. until he noticed a sharp sword hovering over his head, that was suspended from the ceiling by a horse hair. This, the tyrant explained to Damocles, was what life as ruler was really like.

Damocles, alarmed, quickly revised his idea of what made up a good life, and asked to be excused.   He then eagerly returned to his poorer, but safer life.

As the truth is leaking out, the flames of Benghazi are licking toward the horse hair holding up the blood stained swords over the head of President Obama.

Those of you who are following this story intently know now why the obfuscation and distraction was needed.   It was President Obama who maintained operational control during the attack at the Benghazi Embassy Consulate and CIA Annex.

When House Intelligence Committee member Jason Chaffetz went to Libya he was accompanied by Africom Commander General Carter Ham.   Four Star General Ham is the commander of the entire African Theater.   Anything involving the U.S. military, or U.S. military operations in Libya falls under his command.   The only person higher than him for incidences within that field of operations is the Commander In Chief – President Obama.

When Jason Chaffetz specifically asked General Ham if he had a ready force who could have responded to the event General Ham replied:

“Yes, however, we were not asked to”…

(Interview video 10/27/12 @16:25 min mark)

Again yesterday, 10/29, Jason Chaffetz relayed the same outline:

Understand the significance of this statement.   If Africom commander General Ham was “not asked to”, it can only mean one thing.   There is only one person higher than him in the “African Continent Theater” operational chain of command.

That person is President Obama.

This response by General Ham means the White House was in control of the command response.   If the White House WERE NOT, or COULD NOT, take the command response control authority, for whatever reason, then General Ham would be the one in charge.   He wasn’t.

All decisions not to send help to both the Consulate and the Annex compound were directly from the White House, and more specifically the Commander In Chief,  President Obama.

That is why they said it was a mob action because of a protest.   That is why they blamed the movie.   It was not just the activity within the CIA compound that held the risk of sunlight to the administration – it was the specific and intentional decision by the White House NOT TO HELP the people under attack.

Why?   Because they erroneously attached the Terrorist Attack action in Benghazi to the Cairo Egypt protest.   The Cairo, Egypt Embassy assault was an al-Qaeda hijacked protest with emotion flamed by salafists using the Al Faroq TV station message about a Muhammed movie two days earlier on 9/9/12.

The people within the situation room assessing the Libyan Consulate attack, and the attack on the CIA Annex made the flawed connection between the two events.   Then, when confronted “in real-time” with the action on the ground – and calls for help, including cries to engage air support, President Obama said no.

He was wrong.

Full research link, including citations:   Available HERE 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Benghazi-Gate, Clinton(s), Egypt & Libya Part 2, Election 2012, Islam, media bias, Obama re-election, Romney Campaign, Sept 11, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to The Flames Of Benghazi Will Burn Through The Horse Hair

  1. boricuafudd says:

    SD, I’m not exactly disagreeing, since their is no difference as far as I concerned, but the Sec. Def in my opinion, made the decision. He is the policy advisor to Obama and his orders are followed as if Obama made them. I see no precedent, from O’s history to actually say he would make this difficult choice. IMO he will pass it off to Panetta, and let him make the call.

    I just don’t see Obama doing that, he would ask, do what you think is necessary, and pass the ball, it is what he has done throughout his career, vote present. I could be wrong, again this is an opinion, but based on everything I have researched, I could see him arriving at the wrong conclusion, but as things heated imo he would leave it to the professionals.

    • Are you talking about the decision as to impetus of attack? Or are you talking about decision not to assist, and stand down?

      COJC and SOD can screw up decisionmaking on why, But ONLY potus can say “no” to calls of assistance.

      Chain of Command for Libya Crisis (military) is POTUS ==> Africom Commander ==> Chair of Joint Chiefs. (all military) Sec of Defense is “civillian” advisory only.

      • boricuafudd says:

        I do realize that, what I mean is that whether he shook his head, said to Ham who was obviously in contact with Panetta, whatever you think is best, or something, he managed to not make the decision. Like I said, it really does not make a difference to me, he is the POTUS, and if he left to Ham or Panetta, it might as well be him.

        • POTUS had to give one of two options:

          Either A) Take immediate action to secure our assets (including people) that activates Gen Ham.

          Or B) Take No action to advance further activity/engagement = current response static.

          There really are no other options.

          He did not engage in option “A” because that would have automatically engaged General Ham – Ham would become the actionable and tactical operational commander. Gen Ham would take complete control from WH and coordinate using HIS judgement. In addition option “A” would have facilitated an “order” (verbal orders are transmitted into a tracable trail).

          Option “B” – The do nothing option – Keeps Gen Ham sitting tight (awaiting further instructions, or none at all) and only permits currently engaged assets (Tripoli Rapid Response team) to continue their authorized mission objectives (deal with what faces you – which eventually became retreat and evac the area to the airport).

          There was no “order” to protect assets toward further involvement. Potus went to bed (midnight DC – 6am Benghazi) while they evac’d to the airport. Of course by then four people were dead. No further POTUS or COC engagement would have been requested from the moment of “option B choice” because the on the ground team(s) were just coordinating dealing with it on their own — as would be expected.

          • boricuafudd says:

            I understand what actually happened, what I am saying is that the President can say to the SecDef to deal with the situation and it becomes his decision. Ultimately, it is the SCOTUS decision, he just delegated to the SecDef to carry it out.

            • boutis says:

              If you look at the lengths to which Panetta (then at CIA), Clinton at State, and the Pentagon had to go through to get the raid to get Bin Laden going, it is obvious that the WH (led by Jarrett) did not want any action taken. It took months for the bin Laden raid to be approved, others to take full responsibility if it went wrong, and a cacophony of lies following it. This mess has the same imprint but there was not time for a work around nor anyone willing to take responsibility in a matter of hours. Everything this White House does has a political calculation and almost all decisions are fouled by procrastination, ignorance, and cowardice. Add a pro-Islamist world view and people who think they know everything and will not listen and you have a complete set up for disaster.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              boricuafudd, do you understand the difference between “operational chain of command” and “administrative chain of command”? If you are/were in the military like me, you would understand what this means.

              • boricuafudd says:

                I am aware, please read ctdar answer below. The SecDef does have administrative and operational command based on the directives of the POTUS. Africom talks to the SecDef who reports to POTUS, the orders come from POTUS through the SecDef. I do not see the disagreement, I was voicing an opinion that as the POTUS advisor the SecDef with the advice of the Joints Chiefs made the call for the POTUS, following his directives.

      • boricuafudd says:

        The SecDef is on the chain of command, just below the President and above the Joint Chiefs, he can authorize if the order is given by the President to carry out a strike or not.

        • He holds the clipboard – not the pen.

          • boricuafudd says:

            Agreed, but he can make decisions to carry the orders signed by the pen.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              It looks like you don’t understand what “operational chain-of-command” and “administrative chain-of-command” means. The SecDef is part of the administrative chain of command, the theater commander of Africom is part of the operational chain of command. Directly above them in these two separate chains of command is the POTUS, Obama. The Secdef does not make operational decisions.

              • ctdar says:

                “National Command Authority (NCA) is a term used by the Department of Defense of the United States of America to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the Secretary of Defense (as the deputy to the commander-in-chief) jointly, or their duly deputized successors, i.e. the Vice President and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

                The NCA consists only of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized alternates or successors. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) and through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commanders of the Unified and Specified Commands. The channel of communication for execution of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) and other time-sensitive operations shall be from the NCA through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the executing commanders.
                —Section 3.1, Department of Defense Directive Number 5100.30 December 2, 1971[1]
                After the 1986 reorganization of the military undertaken by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have operational command of U.S. military forces. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely.”

                http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

        • Smaj says:

          The Joint Chiefs are not in the chain of command. Orders flow from POTUS, through SECDEF to the Combatant Commanders (Ham in this case). Dempsey is merely an advisor (and a very poor one) to Panetta/Obama.

      • myopiafree says:

        Hi Sundance – Look like POTUS threw the Navy Seals ‘Under the Bus”. Why he did it – I have no idea. Normally, the military officers have the power to take “wise action” based on immediate need – the Emails. Only the POTUS could STOP them from doing their duty, and the obvious responding for “cries for help. This is axiomatic with military life.

    • ctdar says:

      From what Col Hunt said last night on JJeanine, Sec of Def/Panetta would have given the order “to respond” to Obama who made the decision(a direct order) to deny which caused the CIA & others to have been given the orders to stand down.The SOD order must hsve a rapid response, If Obama was not available the order would have been given to VP, SS, etc down chain of command. All he would have had to say is go do what you have to do by any means to save the ambassador & those men.
      Obama chose the side of the Muslims & did nothing but watch the massacre on film

  2. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    I talked to a long since retired Navy SEAL at my church. (yes, I am a Christian, just not a good one). The Navy SEALs who died didn’t just act on their own I itiative. They disobeyed orders by intervening in the attack. As a result of the SEALs intervention, some forty personel were evacuated from the Consulate to another location before the CIA annex (massive weapons warehouse for Al Quidai) was overran. These dozens of evacuees were in danger when Obama refused to send aid to the SEALs. It wasn’t just a few soldiers who Obama was willing to allow to die. Those SEALs didn’t die in a futile last stand to defend themselves. They died to provide cover for the successful evacuation of consulate personel.

    BTW, the fact that we know any of this is proof that the US military and intelligence community is in open revolt against Obama. The Obama/Clinton support for the Arab Spring has provoked a profound WTF reaction from the troops who can’t understand why POTUS is aiding the same Al Quidai and the Muslim Brotherhood that they have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to overthrow secular, relatively moderate (yes, Daffy Gadaffy was a secular moderate) in the Muslim world.

    • I totally agree. Their positioning on the high ground (roof of annex buildings) was evidence of their objective “hold and provide cover”. As soon as they went on those roofs, they were essentially putting their lives in front of all others so that those behind them could assess, organize and retreat with cover.

      Their decision to be the cover saved the lives of all within that compound under assault. They deserve FULL accompanying honors and recognitions for their ultimate sacrifice.

      One can VERY easily imagine had they not taken those defensive positions, they would have been easily overrun. Those guys are the finest heros in our military.

      • boricuafudd says:

        One other thing when Woods was painting the enemy, it meant a) he was not shooting the attackers and b) he was making himself a target. It is inconceivable what they did to them, they were taking chances to save lives, and they were let down in their need of assistance. I can only imagine what was going through his mind, at that time, finally the enemy is going to get theirs, instead he was betrayed and died.

      • cajunkelly says:

        SD,

        Weren’t these guys “former” Navy Seals, working under private contract? I mentioned to DH last night, that the retired (IIRC) Colonel who called Rush stated that had they survived they would have faced court martial for disobeying orders. He brought up (which I had forgotten) the fact that they weren’t actually *active* military.

        Am I correct, and if so, how does this affect the chain of command in regards to orders to stand down?

        • czarowniczy says:

          Back to my point of a few weeks back. It is not unusual for US SOCOM personnel to be ‘sheep dipped’ (removed from active military duty and placed into a created civilian status) to prevent an international incident in the event they are discovered/captured. Most notorious incident that comes to unclassified mind were the Lima sites during the Vietnam War. If the ‘former’ SEALs were in a created status then they answered to whoever hired them (possibly a Company dummy business), they would be legally removed from any military chain until they were reinstated (if they wished to be) on active duty at some future time. Whoever they reported to would have ordered them to stand down, though the possibility of that’s unlikely. Even then it appears that they entered the fray after any ‘stand down’ order would have been moot. I’d like to see the State cables that flashed as the attack was going on to see where State was on all of this – as much as Obama’s taking the heat State has as big a part in what happened and has been actively trying to deflect its role. You’d think Hillary would have been pounding on the POtuS’s desk to get a Marine QRF into the compound.

    • myopiafree says:

      These people should receive the “Medal of Honor” for sacrificing their lives – to say 400 people. But it must be their superior officers who write up that recommendation.

  3. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    I thought I would post a link to the Muslim Brotherhood’s statement about the “Innocence of Muslims” film.

    http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30286

    This is so shockingly congruent with the statements spewing from Obama, Clinton and Rice immediately after the assault on our Consulate and murder of our Ambassador that it simply isn’t possible that there wasn’t some type of prearranged understanding that such an assault would advance the MB agenda.

    This was TREASON!

  4. sunnydaze77 says:

    This is so very emotional for me. Coming from and being in a military family I am outraged…it could have been my husband, my son, my brother…it could have been any of us and our family members left there to die. That pos potus(<yes i will never cap that while he is in office,,, ever) didnt want to stir up any drama among his "brothers" so he was willing to sacrifice Americans. Ask your self who the potus was protecting on 9/11/12, it wasnt Woods, Doherty, Smith or Stevens.

  5. hooson1st says:

    sundancecracker:

    “Understand the significance of this statement. If Africom commander General Ham was “not asked to”, it can only mean one thing. There is only one person higher than him in the “African
    Continent Theater” operational chain of command.”

    The military chain of command is outside my area of knowledge. After admitting that, I have to say that it doesn’t make sense to me that the next person up on the chain of command from the Africom commander would be POTUS. It seems more logical that the chain of command goes up through the secretary of defense before it gets to the POTUS.

    Is there a DOD outline sheet that covers this? thanks.

    • ctdar says:

      The Department of Defense (also known as the Defense Department, USDOD, DOD, DoD or the Pentagon[4]) is the Executive Department of the Government of the United States of America charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government concerned directly with national security and the United States armed forces.The Department – headed by the Secretary of Defense(Panetta) – has three subordinate military departments: the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force.

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense#section_1

  6. cajunkelly says:

    I cannot remember the source, but I heard a report last week that Bill is *hammering* Hillary to release proof that she supposedly has, that the buck doesn’t stop with her over this thing.

    Reportedly she’s refusing, saying she doesn’t want to go down in history as having caused the first black president his re-election and that she’ll come out wtih it after the election.

    WTH? She’s willing to risk the future of her country? Stupid wench.

  7. The fourth doorman of the apocalypse says:

    This looks to be like a power struggle between State and the Administration. Ie, between the Clintons and Obama. Those poor dead guys are simply collateral damage.

  8. Burnt Toast says:

    Closely related to this post I dropped this elsewhere -

    Obama: “Ultimately as commander-in-chief I am responsible and I don’t shy away from that responsibility”

    Wormtongue – it is not “ultimately” your responsibility!

    As POTUS it is DIRECTLY your “personal responsibility” to authorize initiation of military force in foreign countries.

    One does not issue orders to NOT invade, That is the status quo.

    So, when Wormtongue states that he didn’t issue orders to NOT help, it is true, it is also meaningless.

    Something tom keep in mind when reading the days latest smokescreen.

    OK, I’ll read the rest of the comments now.

  9. yankeeintx says:

    IMO I doubt the story that they laser painted the target. They would have only done that if they had confirmation of incoming from eyes in the sky. If they had indeed put a laser on the target, that would mean they were told that help was on the way, at that point their communications would have been patched through to the aircraft.

    Here is some footage from an AC-130 engaging (from 6 miles out).

    • Prior to them painting anything they would have needed to “sync” the GLD with the responding asset. You would not visibly activate the Ground Laser Designator unless it was synced.

      • yankeeintx says:

        I also doubt our guys had IR Strobes which would tag themselves as friendlies. I was told that laser targeting is “so 1990′s”.

        We know there were weapons left behind (in our custody) by the British, but we don’t know what else was on site from the buy back program. I have a sick feeling that this was an attempt to go after the weapons, and our guys were told to stand down so that the weapons could be stolen. Then when they show up in Syria, someone has the excuse “yeah, they are American weapons, but remember the raid in Libya, they were stolen, not given”. The CIA loves the term Plausible Deniability. Throw in the possible kidnapping of our Ambassador and it is a win/win for our enemies. What they forgot to figure in was two ex-Seals were true Patriots and refused to become collateral damage.

      • Neil says:

        Just a comment re POTUS innaction -

        Need to keep an eye on the theme. Just because we are just catching on re SAMs, Libya, and Afghanistan – does not mean he is. If we have stopped close air support in Afghanistan – then there are many meetings previous.

        So – Obambi – has been getting yacked at – over and over – about SAMs. THAT is why you don’t send support – he was chicken that it would be hit, and he would be starring in Blackhawk Down – part II. If it were hit – he would need to admit the SAMs.

        You have to analyze Obama – as the stinking weasel that he is. Avoiding blame, and avoiding responsibility, and lieing – over and over. As a narcisist – he doesn’t give two cents for any American life. He only cares about “How does this make B Obama look?”

    • ctdar says:

      Remember Ham was relieved of duty by the 2nd in command after he said he was going in

  10. ED357 says:

    Chris Wallace……FOX NEWS SUNDAY…….ignores Benghazi for the second (2) time to focus on abortion.

  11. ED357 says:

    Now Libya…….

  12. apachetears says:

    This happens, sometimes our people are left behind or go unsupported. A Rescue mission can easily turn into a rerun of Custer’s last stand.
    EXAMPLE: Koh Tang Island Cambodia, Mayaguez incident.
    15 killed
    41 wounded
    3 missing (later killed)
    Three CH-53 helicopters destroyed and Three United States Marines were left on the beach at Koh Tang to be captured, tortured and killed.
    POTUS was then Gerald Ford (r) who ordered a strike to rescue the crew of the merchant ship.
    Up to 1,000 or more POW’s were left behind at the same time in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

    I’d say this was seen as a coordinated attack and no doubt the arena was protected by SAM/MAN-PADS/AAA perhaps even artillery with the chance of losing not only the ambassador and three other men but perhaps half the rescue force and killing a score of civilians.
    Obama/Hillary/Panetti walked into a well planned sucker punch ambush fat, dumb and happy for what ever reason then chose to abandon the men on the ground for fear of a wider incident with more casualties and losses both military and political.
    Obama was wrong to not prepare the potential battle field properly for any events with a real back up plan to extract the men on the ground. Obama just did not see the Muslim’s as people who would make him lose an election. Obama trusted his Islamic buddies and they screwed him in the ass. Obama screwed the ambassador and the SEALS in the ass and now Obama is trying to screw the rest of us in the ass.
    The Man who makes the final decision to Go or abort a rescue or strike to support or extract American’s under attack is the POTUS who must say, GO or NO GO, That person cannot just turn to an aide and say, Do what you think is best or what ever you have to do if that aide understands he will go under the bus or to jail if he screws up.
    The 3 am phone call came and Obama walked away and went to bed.
    Four White American’s died while everyone in the chain of command watched Obama go to bed to prepare for some social/political function with some clown named Pimp with a Limp.

  13. ED357 says:

    Fox breaks in to show 0bama taking control of FEMA to respond to Hurricane Sandy……….

    Any bets on what 0bama would have said/done if the OBL raid had gone wrong?

    Would the aftermath of a failed OBL Raid look like the failed Benghazi Affair?

    Plausible deniability.

  14. apachetears says:

    Obama in control of FEMA in an emergency……………what could possibly go wrong?
    Headlines, NYC sinks under waves, thousands die, millions homeless, jobs lost, environment contaminated, Bloomberg weeping, Obama blames Bush and Romney then goes to bed.

    • ctdar says:

      Romneys already started relief with bus full of disaster supplies, doesn’t have to ask “mother may I”

    • yankeeintx says:

      And the media will report that it would have been worse if Obama wasn’t in charge, and that due to all the deaths unemployment is the lowest it has been in 6 weeks!

  15. liloldlady says:

    Thank you for the intensive coverage of this subject. It is the most comprehensive one stop info that I’ve found on the net.

  16. Pingback: Listen Oh Ye Gentle Lambs – Your Time Has Come | Grumpy Opinions

  17. John Paul Jones says:

    one option left: 10th crusade

  18. Pingback: Listen Oh Ye Little Lambs – Your Time Has Come | LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar – OH!

  19. Mikado Cat says:

    The enemy of democracy is a false press.

    Reading and thinking tonight, settled on that, everything else is a skirmish. Until honesty returns to journalism its all trees falling silently in the woods.

  20. Pingback: Barack Hussein Obama and his advisers are traitors! — 1389 Blog - Counterjihad!

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