…there were two drones in the air recording the attack on the ground. And now we know the CIA team at the annex was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. The White House was able to watch the attack live back in Washington DC…
…security officers on the ground in Benghazi had a laser planted on a target that was firing on the annex…
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
22 Comments!
Sorry, but I expect Miss Perry to be an air-head. So sue me.
There is no reason to paint (illuminate) a target with a laser designator if there’s no platform available to shoot at it. None.
Therefore, logic dictates that there was an armed UAV overhead, and that weapons release was denied.
I’ll be remembering that.
But Woods is dead. How do we know that he was painting a target?
And even if he was, how do we know it wasn’t based on just a hope that there was a weapon there to fire?
Seems like a big assumption.
Fred 2: Actually it gets worse than that.
It’s my understanding that the laser designator is pretty easily detected (and traced) by low tech means, such as low-light imaging on cell phones (which all these islamic assholes seem to have), so it’s not just that there’s no reason to paint without a weapons platform present — it is actually as dangerous as it is pointless to do so. He was ex-SEAL and he knew that.
There was something present, which could easily have taken out the mortar crew immediately.
It could have been at least one of the drones we know were present. It could have been a gunship. Perhaps something else.
Imagine how that crew feels, and how hard the administration is working to keep them under wraps…..
(and imagine the rage of everyone who knows this)
staghound 3: multiple sources, so far uncontested. There were other US fighters present.
I’d have to dig around to find sourcing, but it’s pretty sure to be there, though the administration appears to be working desperately hard to suppress everything they can about all this.
Side note: am I correct that at least two US commanders are at least temporarily relieved and out of the theater?
Staghound: My understanding is that it was reported by witnesses at the scene, who were part of the “proceedings,” in interviews with and messages to Jennifer Griffin of Fox.
But it’s hard to keep track of details in the Shit Hurricane that is the Obama Administration.
The pic:
Her plastic dress wasn’t long enough to cover Paul Ryan too? …
Or is he written on her ass? …
Just wondering….
Still makes me wonder, “Why did Obama want them dead??”
^IinD (5) Adm Gaouette was relieved about 28 Oct, but I checked, and his Stennis group was near Malaysia 11 Sep and didn’t arrive on ME station for Afghanistan ops until well into Oct.
OTOH, it appears, according to blogs (Blackfive) that Gen. David Rodriguez relieved Gen. Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, when he (Rodriguez) saw that Ham was about to disobey orders to stand down and launch a rescue effort.
Poor katy.
As presiding judge, I have to categorize her as a
soiledspoiled ballot and give the voter a fresh one to mark.Dick 9: Ham — yeah.
I was wondering if perhaps he actually had put things in motion before being relieved. (Hence the presence of the alleged gunship?) Oh course, that actually is speculation.
I don’t know how the military works. Wouldn’t Rodriguez have had to have authority from above to relieve Ham?
(Of course if any of that actually happened, Ham would technically be in really serious trouble….)
How can people be so fucking stupid?
Full disclosure: My cousin’s son sang in the youth choir with Katy Perry at that event.
Just to balance things out, here’s a nice graphic I saw over at powerline. You can also find it at instapundit.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/10/coward-obama-e1351444512643.jpg
Maybe that sweet little choir ought to sing about that.
Dick 9 follow on:
So, here’s a link I just found that’s along the lines I was thinking:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/
Of course this is all just informed speculation. One of the problems with an obvious and clumsy coverup is that speculation runs rampant, and coincidental events appear to have greater significance than they do. So who knows?
At this point, the only thing I’m reasonably certain about is that the amateurs in the White House aren’t going to be able to keep the truth suppressed forever. There are far too many people who know too much and who have a variety of reasons to make what they know public.
Just as one example, there’s this:
“You don’t mess with the CIA.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/curl-dont-mess-cia/
Unfortunately, the White House may be able to keep quite a bit of it away from the public’s attention until after the election. I’d like to hope that the new administration would appoint a special prosecutor to look into all this, but I’m afraid that’s unrealistic.
Personally, I think the final order for military support was Obama’s, but he was too busy, procrastinating or completely unaware of the importance of his decision. To add insult to injury, his military is full of political appointments and “yes men”.
When it came down to what was necessary, the entire military machine failed, which indicates our military leaders are as corrupt and politically motivated as those in the Obama administration. There’s no other explanation and the damage to the morale of our troops must be huge.
The bastards watched them die to cover their asses for gun running to the Jihadists. That’s the claim of more than one ex CIA operative.
Even if they weren’t covering for treason, the act of doing nothing while Americans died is beyond anything I’ve seen the worst of our Presidents and their regimes do.
I have never despised a President more.
Still looking for that source that Woods was using a designator.
This sort of foulup has become routine where our services have incomprehensible missions that are micromanaged five levels away from the action.
Usually only the wrong brown people or unimportant GIs die, so no one notices.
See Ramirez:
http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-103012-standdown-IBD.jpg.cms
Bing search for “Woods laser benghazi” yields 66,100 results. Here’s the first, not listing the other 66,099.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
From Fred’s linked story:
The laser designator information (and much else) is coming from surviving assets that we had in the combat zone.
I think staghounds is asking for names, but at present I suspect these individuals are not eager to be named — particularly with the record the Obama administration has racked up prosecuting and persecuting whistleblowers.
Here’s hoping that there’s lots more hearings, an independent prosecutor, and lots of names of all kinds of people in the outrage get named. (Question: if someone in the administration were proved to have withheld the release of rescue assets, would that even make it to the back page of the New York Times? What if they were indicted? How about then?)
Aside: it’s out of my area of expertise, perhaps someone who has some would care to comment. They were surely painting that mortar team for whatever was on station to take it out. It occurs to me that while the the armed drone and/or gunship theories may be the most likely, it could also have been fast mover(s) out in the Mediterranean with heavy ordinance, that might have been able to do the job without even entering Libyan airspace (can a half-assed non-government actually have “air space” — never mind), or at least without making landfall. This isn’t important to the principle of things, just interested knowing in the facts.
Airspace is irrelevant. Obama already established that when he argued that aerial bombardment did not consitute combat when he violated the War Powers Act….in Libya.
Obama lied; people died.