Truth About Benghazi....?

I got this in an e-mail the other day and while I can’t verify its author, what the article says makes sense.

This is a rare window looking into behind the scenes about Benghazi.  Sooner or later the whole truth about that tragedy will come out.

The text was supposedly written by a retired Navy Captain who lives in Hawaii.  The author's explanation and analysis of the Benghazi events seem plausible to me.  I can’t verify or deny whether or not it’s true but I believe others will find this of interest.

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor - the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority." This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent - in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi - dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Stuttgart, Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States "(POTUS)" has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force, Predator drones and the Navy SEAL members already in Benghazi. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed.

Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them, but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham at 7th Army Headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.

Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the 'Situation Room'  watching the Predator videos in live time 

for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.

But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.

The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.

When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.

Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the ohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said, via his public affairs officer, that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella and the same at probably three other bases in southern Europe.  Sigonelal was just two hours away for the launch order that never came.  But why no CBA order never came when over 45 American lives were at stake in Benghazi at the time!

Was it because the attack of the Libyan consulate was tied neither to a video or terrorism, but a botched kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens.  That Barack Obama had arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap the Ambassador, and through Obama's supposed affinity with the Muslim world, Obama would save the day and get the ambassador released prior to the November presidential election.

But the Muslim Brotherhood wanted something in return; their beloved Blind Sheik who was in prison for the first bombing of the World Trade Centers in New York.

The truth will be known!

Due to the attack on Benghazi, General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa command in Stuttgart, Germany and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, commander of the aircraft carrier strike group USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) were both relieved of their commands for defying orders to stand down, and attempting to send US forces to the assistance of Ambassador Stevens, two former Navy SEALS and approximately 35 CIA personnel.  Both Commanders took early retirement from their branch of service.

Even RINOs Can Get It Right Once In A While....

Any of you who have read my rantings over the last 30 months or so have figured out by now that I’m not a big fan of Lindsay Graham, “Republican” Senator from South Carolina and seemingly new BFF of John McCain.  I think they’re both mostly RINOs, “Republicans In Name Only”, because of some of their views.  But last week, on Greta Van Susteren’s show, Graham said something about Benghazi that hit home and about which I agree with him.

Senator Graham made the following statement:  “If Benghazi had been a good news story (for Obama) you'd have seen the survivors by now.  The fact that we haven’t seen them says a lot about this story.”

I have said from the beginning that the survivors of the Benghazi attack should be testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Congress.  They are the ones who know what really happened, first hand.  Yet it seems they have been barred from talking about it.  Some are in hospitals under assumed names.  The others are being hidden and when Senators and Congressmen ask for their names and locations so they, the politicians, can talk to them, they are denied.  Why would that happen unless there is something to hide?

The entire Benghazi incident has been a fiasco for the Obama administration since day one.  They paraded Susan Rice on the weekend talk shows to give false information to the American people.  She ultimately lost her chance of becoming Secretary of State because she was set up to take the fall.  I truly hope she got something worthwhile out of it.  (In the Clinton administration she’d have probably been dead by now.  Just sayin’….)

The Obama administration has yet to answer questions about Benghazi.  Investigations have shown that the entire incident was not only handled badly by the administration but it could also include weapons being supplied to rebel forces by the United States.  And gee…  that would be a good reason for a cover-up, would it not?

Has the President ever acknowledged publicly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack?  He blamed the video for so long – even after the rest of the world (including his own administration) knew the truth and talked openly about it.  I’m not sure I ever heard Obama “Of course it was a terrorist attack.”  It could be that I simply missed it but I don’t think I’ve heard him say it out loud.

One thing I will give Lindsay Graham credit for is for his doggedness on the Benghazi issue.  He hasn’t given up trying to get answers from the administration.  Even after Hillary Clinton, testifying as the Secretary of State, said “What difference does it make at this point?”  I hope people remember that question when she starts her campaign in 2015.  But she’s Hillary Clinton.  She’ll probably get a pass.

Stepping On Jesus...

A junior at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida, says he was unfairly suspended from an Intercultural Communications class for refusing to participate in a class exercise in which the professor told each student to write “Jesus” on a piece of paper, put it on the floor and step on it.

The student, a deeply religious Mormon, said he was insulted by the assignment and picked the paper up and placed it on the table.  “Anytime you step on something it shows that you believe that something has no value.  So if you were to step on the word Jesus, it says that the word has no value,” the student told CBS News.  His religious beliefs would not allow him to participate in the exercise.  He also said he was not disrespectful to the professor in any way but told her he was offended by the exercise and refused to participate.

The student said he voiced his concerns to the professor’s supervisor and later learned he had been suspended from the class.  Sounds to me like that may not be a bad thing.

FAU said that the professor “was conducting a classroom exercise from a textbook entitled “Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition” and released this statement to CBS:  ”Faculty and students at academic institutions pursue knowledge and engage in open discourse.  While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate.”

While that statement is true, isn’t the student’s refusal not to step on Jesus a part of that open discourse and debate?  It seems to me the professor should have used his refusal to participate to begin the dialogue rather than suspend him from the class.

The school has not said whether or not the professor will face any disciplinary action but I don’t think there should be.  Her idea for a class exercise is her own, whether or not other people agree with her.  (I can’t imagine the textbook spells out that specific exercise.  I guess I could be wrong.)  But with a controversial topic such as this she should absolutely allow those who disagree to not only decline participation but to voice their opposition freely.  Isn’t that what discussion is all about?  If not then it’s not discussion – it’s dictating.

What needs to happen now is the student should be readmitted to the class (if he wants to be), and the professor needs to apologize to him.  If she’s truly trying to open dialogue she needs to allow disagreement and even dissent.  If she doesn’t she’s not following a teaching curriculum – she’s following her own agenda.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/21/fau-student-claims-he-was-suspended-for-refusing-to-step-on-jesus/

Raising A Generation Of Pansies

No, I'm not talking about flowers.  I wish I was.

On the radio yesterday I heard a story about a middle school in Ipswich, Massachusetts that is cancelling a traditional evening event where students are honored for exceptional performance during the school year.  The reason given, according to the radio story, was that the special event is only for honor students and their families and that the rest of the student body is not invited.  The principal says that the majority of students who are not invited can feel badly about themselves because they aren’t getting an award.

Parents of the honor students are upset and disappointed because their children worked hard for the honors and won’t have a special event for it.  As I listened to the story I was inclined to agree.  As I read an article about it this morning I began changing my mind.

"The honors night, which can be a great sense of pride for the recipients' families, can also be devastating to a child who has worked extremely hard in a difficult class but who, despite growth, has not been able to maintain a high grade point average," Principal David Fabrizio wrote in a letter to the parents.

I completely disagree with this way of thinking.  Children need to learn how to deal with disappointment and the fact that they may or may not live up to the same level of achievement as someone else.  Many children’s sports programs are going to the “no winner, no loser” concept to “protect children’s self-esteem.”  They don’t want the team that loses to feel that loss (and learn to deal with disappointment) so they don’t keep score and make them all winners no matter how badly some play.  Then they give the same award/trophy to all the kids and don’t make any effort to reward the more accomplished ones.  It’s ridiculous.  How does a kid ever learn to deal with losing and move on if he’s not allowed to lose?  It’s a ball game, for God’s sake.

What they left out of the radio story that was included in the printed article was this:  "We took it from an exclusive nighttime ceremony where only honors students were invited and rolled it into our end-of-the-year assembly," Fabrizio said. "That way, everybody can celebrate their and their peers' achievements.

"Now see – this I can agree with, although I don’t understand how he thinks giving honors to students in their own private celebration will somehow be more devastating to that child (who worked hard but didn’t quite get there) than it will be when that same child actually watches others get the awards and he/she doesn’t get one.  I believe that's how it should be - honor the outstanding achievers in front of their peers, not to make their peers feel badly but to inspire their peers to try harder so next time they get the award.  And yes, there will always be some who can't do it.  But regardless of what some people want you to believe, life has never been and will never be fair.  Maybe the Principal is simply going to give honors to all of the kids to protect their fragile self-esteems and make them all feel better about themselves.

When did children’s egos get so fragile that they can’t be allowed to lose a baseball game?  Children are the most resilient of all humans.  We are raising a generation of pansies who will never make it in the real world because they won’t learn at an early age how to deal with frustration and failure.  Then, when they fail at something as adults, they’ll be devastated.  I guess anyone interested in Psychology has a great future in this country.  Of course, professional sports teams will be losing big money because without competition in their younger years there will be less kids interested in playing sports as adults.  That, in and of itself, may not be a bad thing.  But that's a topic for another day....

Federal Employees Owe Over $1 Billion In Back Taxes....??

Being a retired federal employee, who was told from Day 1 of employment that if I failed to pay my just debts (including my taxes) I risked losing my job, it really irritates me to know how many current federal employees aren’t paying their taxes.  According to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, there are over 100,000 federal employees who owe over $1 billion in taxes for 2012.  In addition, employees of the House and Senate currently owe over $10 million.  And while records of our elected officials’ (and appointed officials’) back taxes aren’t easy to find, they are out there.  Charlie Rangel had tax problems a couple of years ago.  As did Tom Daschle and our former Treasury Secretary, Tim “Turbo Tax” Geithner.  The only one it really hurt was Daschle.

As I said – I was told from Day 1 that if I didn’t pay my debts, including my taxes, I could lose my job.  Of course, working in a prison, a debt could easily be a liability that could lead to being compromised.  But it was more than that.  It was about integrity.  And it should be that way for all federal employees who are working for the people and being paid by the people.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R), Utah, has introduced the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act, which basically says if you’re a federal employee and don’t pay your taxes you can be fired.  (According to what I’ve read, the only federal agency who has that specific rule at the present time is the IRS.  In law enforcement it falls under “just debts” and doesn’t specifically say “taxes”.)  In a TV interview last night Congressman Chaffetz said “If someone is actively working to pay their back taxes this won’t affect them.  But if they’re not they will be fired.” 

And rightly so, in my humble opinion.

Chaffetz went on.  "The very least an individual on the federal payroll can do is pay their taxes," he said in a news release. "If you are thumbing your nose up at the American taxpayer by not paying your taxes, you should be fired or not awarded a federal contract."

The bill would require individuals applying for federal employment to "submit certification that such person does not have any seriously delinquent tax debt."

I say it’s about time.  Anyone who is being paid by the American people (about half of us, at least) should be required to maintain their tax status current or risk losing their position of public trust.  Sure, anyone can get behind due to a little mismanagement and/or not having the correct withholding amount on your W-4.  But if you have the government take the right amount from the beginning you never have to worry about it.  So I really don’t understand how there could be so many people owing so much money.  How does that happen?

Maybe I sound cold hearted about this, wanting federal employees to lose their jobs.  But I expect all federal employees to live up to the same standards that were required of me, particularly if I pay their salaries.  If I no longer paid taxes maybe I wouldn’t worry about it.  No, that’s not true.  We’re talking $1 billion in funds which could easily pay the bill for starting the White House tours up again, or keep a multitude of federal employees from being furloughed.  And they’ll probably save over $1 million more if they fire the 100,000 who aren’t paying those taxes.  Then they can go after them anyway.

Bottom line – if you’re going to accept a position of trust with the government then you have a responsibility to follow the laws of the land.  You have that same responsibility regardless of where you work but federal employees are supposed to be honest and have integrity.  It’s part of every federal position.  Is it too much to ask that it be enforced for all? 

ICE Director Hammered in Congress While Harry Reid Says Something Stupid... Again

In the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, Congressman Trey Gowdy, (R), South Carolina, grilled ICE Director John Morton and some other DHS officials about the release of about 2600 illegal aliens from detention including several Level 1 offenders, who are classified as aggravated felons.  Gowdy, a former prosecutor, pointed out how inexpensive the actual detention costs were, at about $600 a day for all of those released.  He demanded to know why ICE didn’t try to save money elsewhere to avoid putting the general public at risk. 

Director Morton took offense to one of Gowdy’s statements and tried to correct it (to his own way of thinking) to which Gowdy responded “You can use your own time to talk about that but not mine.  Answer my question.”  Clearly Congressman Gowdy was upset at the actions of ICE, which ICE blames on sequestration cuts, even though most of those releases happened before the sequestration took effect.

In a news report last evening Congressman Gowdy stated that ICE received more funding from Congress in their 2013 budget than they had requested to run the agency for the year.  Then, when the sequestration cut 2.4% from that already oversized budget, they released 2600 detainees blaming the sequestration cuts.

The actions of ICE in this matter are merely more evidence that the Obama administration is trying to make the impact of the sequestration as painful and draw as much adverse attention as possible.  There is e-mail evidence that this is the intention.  Unfortunately for the President – the American public is not blaming solely Republicans for the problems.  They’re blaming Congress in general.  Unfortunately for the American people – they’re not blaming the President, who is as much at fault as anyone.

In other news, Harry Reid made a speech yesterday that insinuated the deaths of 8 Marines in Northern Nevada Monday night by a prematurely exploding mortar round was because of cuts in training due to the sequestration.  He didn’t come right out and say it.  Instead he indicated that this type of thing could become more frequent due to the sequestration cuts.  The last major statement Harry Reid made was that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes in over 10 years – which was also nonsense. 

Several times a year Harry Reid has to say something really stupid for reasons known only to him.  Sadly, the people of Nevada continue to re-elect him.  Maybe it’s something in the water.  Reid is an idiot, straight up.  I will never understand how he became a Senator in the first place, let alone gets re-elected.  But people in California keep re-electing Nancy Pelosi too.  So there you go.

I’m truly glad I’m not a liberal or a Democrat voter because I would be very embarrassed by the people in office today.  Certainly there are Republicans who embarrass me…  (Lindsay Graham comes to mind), and I criticize them as well.  But give me a good conservative anytime.  At least most of them still exhibit some common sense.

When Doom And Gloom Doesn't Work - Make Jokes

“If you have chairs, please…. sit down. I’m sorry.  I thought maybe it was the result of the sequestration - you didn’t have chairs.”

Those words were the President’s the other day in Argonne, Illinois as he delivered a speech on clean energy (one of his dramatically failed policies.)  The President was making jokes about the sequester.

Just a week and a half ago he was telling all of us that the sequester was nearly the end of the world.  He spent days telling us that firefighters, police and even teachers would be laid off.  He said the borders would be less safe because agents would have their hours cut.  And he said that U.S. Attorneys would have to dismiss cases and release criminals.  What he didn’t say (but what actually happened) was that ICE released several thousand illegal Democrat…  I mean aliens, citing sequester cuts – before the sequester even happened!

Then, when the sequester did happen and the world as we know it didn’t come to an end, he said “We can work through it.”  Interesting, huh?  Now, when the President didn’t get his new tax increases and the Republicans didn’t cave in to him, we can work through it.

And now his exaggeration of the impact has become apparent and there is evidence to show he and his cabinet are working to make it as painful as possible for the average American to turn the people against the Republicans, he’s making jokes about it to try to steer public opinion away from his failures.  And sadly, for most liberals, it’s working.

In keeping with his liberal beliefs, the President does not believe in fiscal conservatism or spending cuts.  His actions and statements indicate he truly does not care about the national debt or deficit which, if unchecked, will bankrupt the USA in a few years.  His debt right now is projected by the CBO to be over $20 trillion by 2016.  Can we afford four more years?

President Obama has stated more than once in the last few weeks that we “do not have a spending problem.”  He’s correct.  We don’t have a spending problem.  Our government is really good at spending and borrowing and spending more.  So it’s not a problem.  Except for our children and grandchildren who will have to either pay back the debt or see their nation fall into poverty and failure.  But Obama won’t be President by then… unless he decides to declare martial law and take over the country, as has been hinted.  Of course, liberals said that about George W. Bush too.  And that didn’t happen.  In fact, Bush has been far more gracious and respectful of Obama than Obama has been to him.  I guess that shows you the difference in class and character between the two.

Jay Carney was recently asked by one brave reporter in the White House Press Corps (he’s probably gone by now) if Obama was going to cut back on tax-payer funded vacations since the American people have seen their household income drop and have had to cut back on vacations, food, luxury items, etc.  Carney’s response was “The President has made jobs and the economy his number one priority.”  He talked for about two minutes and didn’t say anything more than that.  And he never did answer the question.  Apparently the President does enjoy the “It’s good to be the king” philosophy.  Golf lessons with Tiger Woods while his family goes to Aspen certainly indicates that sentiment.

Now, I know some of you will say “The President deserves his vacations.  He works hard under a lot of stress.”  And you know what?  I’d agree with you.  I too believe he deserves vacations.  But his last vacation involved him going to Florida to play golf with Tiger Woods and his family going to Aspen to ski – both of which cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.  He has invited several celebrities (including Beyonce) to the White House for Michelle’s birthday celebration.  Again – I have no problem with that – as long as I’m not paying for it.  If he’s spending taxpayer money for it then I object.  But if the White House can’t afford to pay a few tour guides how can they afford to pay for the extra security for Michelle’s big bash?

Not that my objection would make a difference.  The President does what he wants.  George W. Bush took vacations.  He went to his ranch in Texas.  The cost was less than half what the Obama’s pay for their vacations to Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard, etc.  Bush even quit playing golf because he felt it wasn’t right for him to be on the golf course while our soldiers were dying on the battlefield.  And even after the sequester, President Obama not only keeps playing golf and taking those expensive vacations.  I guess it’s true… it’s good to be the king.