The latest revelations about what happened in Libya on September 11 are that the CIA operatives in Benghazi, which included Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who later died in the attack, radioed for help three times, but were turned down:
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
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.”
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre 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.
CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.
We will get to that denial in a moment.
First, however, we should explode the claim that the only help was 1 1/2 hours away, in Italy. Actually, they had help right there on the scene, help that they were denied.
The Spectre gunship that the article talks about was one of two AC-130Us deployed in Libya by the US government. As explained by Bob Owens,
The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of Kunduz.
It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser.
An AC-130U flies in a counter-clockwise “pivot turn” around the target, with the weapons all aimed out the left side of the aircraft.
There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors, and synthetic aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the dark of night, clouds, and smoke.
The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm Gatling gun for area suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can engage hard targets.
A video of an AC-130U in action can be found here. The original article stated that they had a laser on target. This is called “painting the target”. If the target was painted, then it could only mean that an AC-130U was flying overhead in sight of the target at the time. Blackfive explains:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta [sic] says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
So, even if we assume that the original report was erroneous and that a Spectre gunship was not on the scene, some sort of help was there, or they would not have been painting the target. We know that at least one Predator drone was at the scene. What we do not know is if it was armed. The best bet is that the original report is correct, and a Spectre gunship was there. But that is immaterial: If they were painting the target, there were military assets at hand which they desperately needed, assets which were denied to them.
Going back to the CIA denial, today this was clarified by an official statement put out by the CIA, a statement which had to have been approved by CIA Director David Petraeus: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” This statement is a carefully crafted denial, as it essentially confirms earlier stories that the men on the ground were requesting help and that help was readily available, but it places the blame elsewhere for them not receiving that help. As the Weekly Standard points out:
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision.
The President himself, and no one else, had to make the decision to ignore the requests of the men on the ground. The claim being made is that they did not have enough information to send in military aid. However, the men on the ground had asked for help, could direct the actions of the gunship from the ground, and had even painted the target. The idea that Obama did not have enough information to send in military help is ridiculous on the face of it.
The big question is why Obama made this decision, and why he and his administration have continued to lie about what happened since then. The best explanation is staring us right in the face. As Mark Steyn points out, there is an election coming:
“Within minutes of the first bullet being fired, the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’ father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured, and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”
Why would Obama and Biden do such a thing? Because to launch a military operation against an al-Qaida affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11 would have exposed the hollowness of their boast through convention week and the days thereafter – that Osama was dead, and al-Qaida was finished. And so Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens were left to die, and a decision taken to blame an entirely irrelevant video and, as Secretary Clinton threatened, “have that person arrested.” And, in the weeks that followed, the government of the United States lied to its own citizens as thoroughly and energetically as any totalitarian state, complete with the midnight knock-on-the-door from not-so-secret policemen sent to haul the designated fall guy into custody.
This goes far beyond the instinctive secretiveness to which even democratic governments are prone. The Obama administration created a wholly fictional storyline, and devoted its full resources to maintaining it. I understand why Mitt Romney chose not to pursue this line of argument in the final debate. The voters who will determine this election are those who voted for Obama four years ago and this time round either switch to the other fellow or sit on their hands. In electoral terms, it’s probably prudent of Mitt not to rub their faces in their 2008 votes. Nevertheless, when the president and other prominent officials stand by as four Americans die and then abuse their sacrifice as contemptuously as this administration did, decency requires that they be voted out of office as an act of urgent political hygiene.
Indeed. Obama sacrificed four men on the altar of his re-election hopes. He was at the White House where they had e-mails from the men in the field describing in detail what was going on in real-time. The Predator drone was equipped with video and a tape was made. It is quite possible that this was available to the White House in real-time as well. Obama, looking at all the evidence and the cries for help, decided to blame all of it on an obscure anti-Muslim video that almost no one had seen, ordered the men on the spot to stand down and not offer help to his own ambassador, knowing that he could be killed, and then denied readily available help to those who asked for it three times during the course of the firefight.
He killed four men all because he was worried about getting re-elected.
No more despicable act of treachery has ever been committed by a president. This man is a poison which has been injected into the body politic of the US, a poison that must be leached out. Losing a second term is not enough. He deserves to be reviled, disdained, and shunned by the entire country for the rest of his life. Before his life is over, his name needs to become a byword for the combination of self-regard, incompetence, dishonesty, cynicism, and hubris that makes him Obama.