In spite of all the reasons I have to not like this President, Barack Obama, it is with a heavy heart that I approach the question in today’s title. I have had strong differences with most of the presidents in my life time, however, I have never questioned a president’s loyalty to country or to the men and women who serve our country. Yet the bizarre handling by this president and his surrogates of the attacks on our diplomatic mission in Libya and the events leading up to the attacks, compels me to ask if Barack Obama and his senior advisor committed treason against the men in Benghazi. The President and his administration have been less than forthcoming about what happened in Benghazi, Libya. What we do know is only due to information leaking out and made public by Fox News. No other media outlet is covering this story.
Let’s start with a definition of treason and then see if the story that is unfolding fits.
[tree-zuhn] Show IPA
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or toharm or kill its sovereign.
2.a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3.the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith;treachery.
Prior to the 9/11/12 Attack
We know that since the fall of Gaddafi that Libya was a very unstable place with many jihadists militia groups roaming the country. We know that there had been many violent demonstrations in the months prior to the attacks including attacks on British diplomats and a bomb thrown against the wall of our Benghazi consulate. We know that Ambassador Stevens asked several times for additional security and those requests were denied. We know that there was a sixteen man security force there under the command of Lt. Col. Andy Woods and, against his recommendation , he and his men were ordered out of Libya weeks before the attack.
So, we have a diplomatic mission in one of the most dangerous places in the world and not only does this administration deny requests for increased security, it removes what security was there. How does one explain that? How does one rationalize that? It’s as if this administration was setting the stage for a crisis situation to occur. But, where is the logic in that? Stella Paul, writing forAmerican Thinker has a theory. She asks her readers to think about what this administration did in the Fast and Furious fiasco. They intentional walked guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels to prove the 90% lie that most of the guns used in the border violence were coming from American gun dealers. They planned to use that lie to attack our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Ms. paul suggest that maybe the Benghazi fiasco was designed to attack our First Amendment right of free speech. When we consider how quickly and how well organized this administration’s response to the Benghazi attack was to sell the idea that this attack was due to someone abusing their right to free speech, it begins to give Ms. Paul’s theory some credence. Think about it. Obama, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton all out putting the blame for the attack on some YouTube video that insulted the Muslim religion. And, even after the truth began leaking out, this president kept up the story of the video for weeks.
This Administration’s Response to the Attacks
Thanks to Fox News we know that the annex (safe house) one mile from the counsulate in Benghazi was in fact a CIA outpost. We know there were several people in that annex at the time the attack began on the consulate. We know that two of the people at the annex were ex-navy Seals, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. We know that Woods could hear the shots coming from the consulate and that he called his commander and reported that the consulate was under attack and tha he and Doherty were going to take some men and go help Ambassador Stevens and the others. We know that Woods was ordered to stand down. We know that Woods called his commander again an hour later because the attack on the consulate continued and he could hear explosions and he again asked permission to give aid to the people under attack. We know that Woods was ordered to stand down a second time. We know that Woods and Doherty disobeyed that order and fought their way into the consulate and got several people out but could not find the Ambassador. We know that Woods and te others fought their way back to the annex which was then under attack, also. We know that they got a man in position on the roof of the annex and painted with a laser the motor the attackers were setting up and asked for an air strike and reinforcements. We know that no aide was given. We know those brave men fought for four or five more hours and were finally killed by a mortar round.
Who Gave the Order to Stand Down? Why was No Aide Given?
Nearly seven weeks later we still have no answers from this administration. What about the Panetta Doctrine?
…I think bigger, problem with the Panetta doctrine. If the circumstances in Libya didn’t meet the “enough information” threshold for a rescue attempt or some other form of intervention, then what does? …
The Panetta doctrine is asinine! Several retired Generals have said as much. And, what do we hear from president Obama about who gave the order to stand down? He has diligently avoided answering that question. But, he did tell ABC News this the other day:
President Obama said that “if we find out that there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job” regarding the attack on the U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, “then they’ll be held responsible.”
Really, Mr. President? I thought you said at the last debate that the buck stops with you. And, thanks again to Fox news, we know that you were in the WH Situation Room watching the attack in real-time. You, Mr. President, have to know who gave the order to stand down and if you didn’t over-ride that order, it is as if the order came from you.
It Gets Worse
The latest information leaking out is the worst of all, if true. We are now hearing that Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette and General Carter F. Ham, the Combatant Commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM) were both ready to send assistance to Benghazi and both were ordered to stand down. The story continues that when both men refused to stand down, they were relieved of their duty. You can read about it here, here, here, here, and here. We don’t know if this story will be proven to be true. If it is proven to be true, then the order to stand down was not an error of judgement by a field commander. It was a deliberate betrayal of our Libyan diplomatic mission that cost the lives of four brave Americans.
Dear friends, if the story about Admiral Gaouette and General Ham turns out to be true, we can not let this story die with these elections. America must learn who gave the order to stand down. That person and everyone above him in the chain of command, up to and including the Commander-in-Chief, are guilty of treason, of betrayal. We owe it to the men who died in Benghazi to identify those who betrayed them and to hold them accountable. WE OWE THEM!
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?