BENGHAZI - WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S AIM?
by Andy Weddington
Saturday, 06 September 2014
"That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want." Barack Obama
Last night Fox News Channel aired '13 Hours in Benghazi' - three American men: Kris 'Tanto' Paronto; Mark 'Oz' Geist; John 'Tig' Tiegen (the latter two once active duty Marines) of the CIA's security detail who recounted their nightlong fierce firefight to protect life and property. Special Report anchor Bret Baier, who has doggedly pursued the truth about Benghazi, facilitated the riveting hour.
Remember, their mates - Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (once active duty Navy SEALs) - were killed by mortars during a coordinated attack by Islamic terrorists. As were American Ambassador Chris Stevens and his communications specialist Sean Smith murdered.
Tough moments during the sometimes humorous (at least to military folk) though mostly chilling, sobering interview - especially when detailing the deaths, the gunfire injuries they incurred, and the aftermath heartache of tending to their dead.
In short, their story confirmed what has trickled out during the past two years - and trickled out because of the Obama administration's deliberate game-playing strategy and tactics of deceit and obstruction.
But theirs a troubling story to hear.
As the attack started at the diplomatic compound those under fire, by superior numbers, called for their assistance (standing by at the CIA Annex not even a mile away). Geared up, armed, and ready to go, to their dismay they were ordered, by their on-ground supervisor, multiple times to "stand down."
Finally, after nearly a 30 minute delay and whilst the attack intensified and so did pleas for help, the three ignored orders and joined the fight.
And let's not forget "stand down" was ordered to top-level commanders not on site (considerable distances away) but who had equipment and personnel assets at the ready to aid brothers under fire.
Why, when (supposedly) no one knew how long the assault, "stand down"?
For the rest of the evening and while drifting off to sleep the nonsensical American non-response - the unprecedented act of abandoning combatants under fire - nagged (as it has for two years).
At 0130 (not a numerologist nor believer in coincidence) my eyes popped open.
And that "what if?" was unsettling, scary. But a competent investigator, analyst, or problem-solver of any sort entertains all possibilities.
It's a question I've not heard asked nor offered as a conclusion, not once, during the past two years; not even from duty experts under the guise of rigorous intellectual speculation.
But it cannot be scoffed at and offhandedly dismissed as an impossibility. For all variables - people (even the president, contrary to his opening opinion); things; events - must withstand exacting scrutiny. That is the way of due process and justice in America.
So, though it's impossible to know what was going through President Obama's mind, what if that something was the unthinkable, the unconscionable. What if he did nothing, ordered no assistance, and retired for the evening knowing, believing, or hoping the outcome to be worse? That is, the diplomatic compound and CIA Annex to be overrun and all hands killed?
In the absence of our forces scurrying to the rescue, no matter how far away, the question must be asked.
Motive? Who knows? For some political reasons? Personal reasons? Or no reason at all?
But by no action by American forces - on station or not, complete slaughter was indeed possible. Frankly, it was probable - if not for the courageous security detail standing their ground and with lethal aim killing and running off terrorists (Note: The three agreed that had they not been delayed responding - Stevens, Smith, Doherty, and Woods would likely have survived.)
Now factor in the president; Secretary of State Clinton; Susan Rice; et al., vigorously promoting and sticking to the pathetic concocted lie of a rogue video (which the three interviewed by Mr. Baier had not heard about until transported to Germany after the attack) as cause for spontaneous riot.
Insanity, you say?
Nonsense. What about this president and his administration has been sane?
Country first! And Constitution. And principle. And patriotism. Duty.
Therefore, someone - ignoring politics; personal beliefs; acquaintanceships; friendships; respect for authority; etc., - in search of absolute truth has to muster the moral courage to voice the gut-wrenching distasteful: What was the president's aim?
Where's the proof?
What is proof? Evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact (Merriam-Webster).
Sometimes evidence is circumstantial and only logical conclusion stands as proof; however frightening.
And as not only the problem proper must be dissected in total but akin variables merit consideration, too. For example, does President Obama's cold, detached demeanor and bizarre behavior following the recent grisly beheading of two Americans by ISIS barbarians (Islamic terrorists) contribute yet more calculus to the Benghazi poser?
Also, does the president's silence (not accounting for whereabouts and orders given on that horrible September 2012 evening), though so legally entitled, work against him in the performance of sworn duties?
If this hypothesis is true or even highly probable must America endure two plus more years of this president and administration?
Finally, a few other questions.
As surely our intelligence agencies knew (if not, they're incompetent) there was likelihood of some sort of attack on the anniversary of 9/1l...
1. Who ordered Ambassador Stevens to be in Benghazi?
2. Who ordered there not be increased on-ground security for the ambassador, the diplomatic compound, and CIA Annex?
3. Who ordered there not be prepositioned on-station (nearby on the ground and aloft) assets to protect American personnel and property?
And so the questions go.
In closing, Representative Trey Gowdy, what say you?
Stay on it, Mr. Baier.
'13 Hours' airs again today at 1700 and 2100 ET and tomorrow at 2000 and 2300 ET - on Fox News Channel.