Oct 26 2012
What better way to rally the public to an incumbent President, prior to an election, than to raise the specter of a nation under attack?
George W Bush became a rallying point after 9-11 as he threaded a serious and lasting response to one of the worst attacks on this nation in living memory. John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington and others are images of Presidents protecting a beleaguered nation from outside forces of evil. Even a hesitant President Obama (after three calls to stand down) took action against Bin Laden in Pakistan and (behind the cover of an illegal UN edict) Colonel Qadaffi of Libya.
So, if President and you are concerned about reelection, would you ever consider something as “out there” as inviting an attack so you could rally the nation prior to an election?
Seems to horrific to even consider.
But as I noted in a prior post, what bothers me most about the Benghazi incident are the months of warning signs from repeated attacks, repeated reports of al Qaeda in the region and even the British pull out from down the street. This in tandem with not only calls for more security, but the actual removal of security resources leaving an obviously vulnerable target right out there for any dumb terrorist to act upon.
Why did this happen this way? Are we so far from the George W Bush days of erring on the side of caution we don’t even leave existing security resources in place as we head into a pivotal election and another 9-11 anniversary?
Seems far fetched. About as far fetched as letting guns loose on the streets sot they get into the hands of drug lords. Possibly to use the ensuing carnage to push for gun ownership restrictions. That is pretty out there too.
So I keep trying to put this nagging scenario to rest and get away from crazy conspiracy theories. But then I see new like this and I fall back into the opinion something seriously wrong happened in Benghazi:
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”
This is insane. Reinforcements were a mile away? A possible flanking or rear action attack could have thrown the attackers into disarray – and probable retreat. You don’t even have to really engage as much as divert. I see NO reason for not letting these resources at least do recon.
I guess there is the Black Hawk Down angle, where criminal incompetence led to unnecessary death. But there are other worse scenarios. And those still bother me, mainly because they are not too far fetched after all.
Update: With a Recon Marine as a son, the latest news exposing how on-hand support was deliberately stopped from intervening in the Benghazi massacre is more than just a little disturbing:
The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.