Hat tip Frontpage Magazine and National Review Online
There are a lot of theories floating around the Internet as to why we didn't send in our planes to attack the attackers who were storming our consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi last month. One theory, based on an anonymous source, suggests that the administration was trying to cover up some funneling of weapons to the Syrian opposition that the Russians had gotten wind of. I'll need more documentation and named sources before I go with that one.
Daniel Greenfield, however, writing in Front Page Magazine, has a very plausible explanation. The last thing the administration wanted was our military flying into Libya and strafing Libyans from the air.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/why-our-forces-were-told-to-stand-down-in-benghazi/
We already know that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was in the White House with the President within an hour of the start of the attack. Panetta subsequently has taken the position that it wasn't wise to send American troops into harm's way without knowing what the situation was. Yet, on October 26, the President told a Denver interviewer..........(Hat tip National Review Online)
“The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”
Where is that order, and if it was made, why was it not obeyed?
Does it stretch the imagination to suspect that Panetta was given his instructions on what not to do from the President? The theory may be wrong, but Panetta can be asked the question by Congress. Is there a reporter out there who will dare to ask the same question of the President?
Certainly not Brian Williams. He had his chance and he blew it-purposely in my view.
Update: Daily Caller has this Fox interview of Charles Woods by Gerald Rivera.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, it certainly doesn't stretch YOUR imagination, which is quite vivid, but if two Navy Seals are somewhere in a chaotic mob scene (even well armed militia resemble a mob from the air), do you think it wise to strafe the situation?
Think what Gary Fouse would say if "friendly fire" took out 2-4 Americans? Someone would ask whether the administration set up the whole scenario to deliberately kill inconvenient Americans...
Siarlys,
The Seals were pointing lasers at the attackers mortar site in the belief that somebody up there was going to take them out.
Yes, and that was the right thing for the Seals to do, so that IF someone was prepared to strafe, they wouldn't have to wait for orders to be relayed. But that laser pointing may not have been visible on the "real time" aerial surveillance available.
You are demonstrating over and over that your primary issue is counting brownie points, not soberly assessing what, if anything, could be done better in the future.
Post a Comment