Panetta on Benghazi

“I should have had a V-8!” – What Mr. Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, should have limited is opening remarks to during this mornings Benghazi Hearings.

Listening to Leon Panetta one might think the deployment of Diplomats throughout the world occurred for the very first time under his watch, and none of the dangers associated with such an endeavor had ever been experienced before. In other words, we just could never have foreseen the potential threats to Ambassador Stevens and the Benghazi Embassy staff.

Mr. Panetta has also stated that it cannot be the Department of Defense’s responsibility to defend our Diplomats abroad.
Mr. Panetta has stated that even if it was DoD’s responsibility… “there was no actionable intelligence available” in order for defense forces to come to the aid of our diplomats.  Along with that, he told the hearing committee that there was not the available “armed” aircraft to respond… “it would have taken too long to arm the aircraft needed… and we didn’t have the resources to fuel those craft for the trip”.

Mr. Panetta is asking us to suspend reason and burn our maps, in order for all of this to make sense.

To see reason here requires those who nod approvingly at such a statement to forget that we had a man on the ground actively “lazing” the enemy mortar site sending rounds into the compound in addition to a Drone watching the events transpiring below plus later interviews with those at Aviano Air Base stating that they could have been there had they been called.  Finally it requires one to believe that while we have armed Drones crawling all over the Middle East, with ranges allowing them to travel all over the region, that none were available to be temporarily diverted to the area under attack.  (According to Mr. Panetta, the only Drone available was an unarmed one… which apparently was strangely unable to supply the intelligence needed to discern whether aid for those under attack was needed.  I would offer that if a Drone’s “intelligence” is enough for those driving it to decide whether or not a U.S. Citizen can be executed without due process that the “intelligence” being gleaned from the Benghazi site should have been enough to figure those on the ground  needed help.  And… what kind of surveillance equipment did this drone have?  Camera’s to see the firefight… and the active lazing of targets?  Listening devices to pick up the frantic radio chatter?  Radio equipment capable of communicating this information to those who could make the decisions to send help?  Or was this Drone void of these capabilities?  Yes or No?
Mr. Panetta made the assertion that forces could not be deployed because of other “possible threats” to our other consulates in the region, while mere moments earlier stating that there were no imminent threats to our personnel.  But wait a minute… I thought there were no discernible threats in the region on our Embassies.

My question is; Which is it Mr. Panetta? There seem to be three stories here.

Either there were threats detected on our Embassies “across the region” as you said out loud this morning, or there were not… as you also stated out loud this morning.
Either you did have the ability to send forces to aid those under attack and chose not to, or you did not.
Either it is your responsibility to defend our diplomats, or it is not… (nor ever has it been.)

You said there were… and there were not… in the same opening remarks.

If, Sir, it is not the Dept. of Defense’s responsibility, then whose is it?  State?  CIA? New York’s Finest? Who!

You stated that perimeter security was the responsibility “of the Host country”… so you, and the Department of Defense in Cooperation with the Department of State are incapable of evaluating the ability of the Host country to provide such security?  Seriously?  Do you need to take a minute and read back what just escaped your mouth?  To say such a statement is “unbelievable” is charitable.

Even if none of this was “your problem”, why didn’t you help?  “The U.S. Armed Forces are not a 911 service standing by to come to the rescue of our citizens all over the world.”  Really?  I would think the U.S. citizenry, and many of our soldiers, would be surprised to hear such a statement.  If that is not within their “job description”, then what exactly IS their job description Mr. Secretary?

I am stunned that this country has survived to be 250 years old and rising to the position of world hyper-power while, according to Mr. Panetta, never having learned all of these “unforeseen lessons” this tragedy has suddenly taught us.  May be in another 250 years we’ll get a handle on this whole Diplomacy thing.  This entire Administration acts as if none of this Major League Governing Stuff has ever been done before and we are learning as we go.

Absolutely Amazing.

I’m not sure I have enough liquor to get through this hearing…

Advertisement

“What difference does it make?!”

– Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. 1/23/13

This was the answer provided to Senator Ron Johnson when he asked why the State Department fabricated the reason for the Benghazi attack.

Yes… what difference does it make?

Why is it important to know why your government lied to you? Really… who cares?

Well, Democrat Senator Dick Durban cares. He, in an attempt at moral relativism, brought up WMD’s and our inability to find them. (At least ones that would satisfy Democrats.) So apparently it does matter. Unless it’s Liberals who are doing the fabricating… then we should all just move on.

(And, Mr. Durbin, there is a stark difference between the lack of WMD’s and the Benghazi murders. While no one put eyes on the WMD’s, the State Department watched the assassination of our Diplomat and those surrounding him real-time. They watched.  And furthermore, the actions you find so disturbing in regard to WMD’s are an odd choice to justify the current actions of our State Department. Just because someone you didn’t like, in your opinion, did something wrong does not warrant errant behavior by someone you do like.)

It’s appears to be a room full of children.

I feel deeply sorry for the families of those killed having to watch this.

When in Trouble, Blame Congress.

If you’re a Secretary of State, and you know your answers will not play well… with anyone. You can always blame Congress.
The line from Secretary Clinton is that Congress killed Ambassador Stephens and the men trying to come to his aid by denying “funds” for State Dept. expenditures.

While this is a “too clever by half” approach to handling a Congressional Inquiry… it’s the other missing half that matters.

Did Congress embargo the truth? In other words, was it Congress that was responsible for the State Department making up inane reasons for the “spontaneous attack” that occurred in Benghazi and then feeding it to the American People?

Was it Congress that hung our Ambassador out to be killed? In other words, if the excuse now being offered is that Congress was not giving enough taxpayer dollars to the State Department to defend our Diplomats… then why was the State Department putting them in harm’s way? If the State Department doesn’t have enough money to defend our diplomats why are you sending them there?  Could Ambassador Stephens been loaned your security detail Madame Secretary?  Could we have sent one of the myriad Armed Defense Department Drones actively flying five minutes away to aid in the defense against this ultimately successful 9/11 assassination attempt?  Is it not an indictment of the Secretary of State that she was sending our “best and brightest” into places where she could not guarantee their safety?

“I never saw security requests for Benghazi.” – Secretary Clinton.  Then Congressional funding is not relevant.

So which is it?

The attempt to blame Congress for this is juvenile. Nothing about the Benghazi attack was unprecedented, nor unexpected. The complex had been repeatedly attacked over recent months leading up to the September 11th debacle.

If there is nothing to fear here, and the lack of security was not by design to show how “nice” we are… then release the e-mail exchanges surrounding this matter in their entirety without redaction.

Bad people do bad things. I’m willing to focus my ire upon the Terrorist A-holes that committed the act, but I will not ignore the apparent fact we put people in harm’s way and left them there to die.

We left them there to die.

As I sit here and watch this live, is there really any part of this… any version of events, yours or anyone else’s, that merits laughter?  Even a smirk… the smirk you are currently wearing?  Is there something funny about this that we are missing?

You left them there to die.

Mrs. Clinton?