Tripoli Response: DoD had forces available to respond

Contra the [P]resident, the former Secretary of State, and our own progtard trolls, there were forces ready to roll and waiting for clearance to do so.

US Military Was Ready To Respond To Benghazi During The Fighting

Mark Tapscott, The Daily Caller

American military forces were available for a rescue operation not long after the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, came under attack by terrorists Sept. 11, 2012, according to an email to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closest aides.

The Sept. 11, 2012, email was sent at 7:19 p.m. EST by then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash. The text reads:

“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [an apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton]

“After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

“Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].”

Among the recipients of Bash’s email are Jacob Sullivan, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, and Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides.

The first assault on the U.S. facility’s main compound began at approximately 9:40 pm Libya time, which was 3:40 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC.  The second attack on a related CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning or 6 p.m. EST.

Judicial Watch, the non-profit government watchdog, obtained the email from the Department of State after suing the government under the Freedom of Information Act in September 2014.

A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi told The Daily Caller News Foundation that the panel is dealing with an un-redacted version of the Bash email in its upcoming final report.

“The Select Committee has obtained and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in the course of its thorough, fact-centered investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and this information will be detailed in the final report the Committee hopes to release within the next few months,” said Matt Wolking, the panel’s spokesman.

I won’t tolerate employees lying to me.  More of the voting public needs to take the same position.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Michael Mann's Assault on Honest Science
  • LiberalNightmare

    Think how things might have turned out, if Bash had the foresight to make a donation to the Clinton foundation, before he needed Clinton’s permission.

  • …and at this point Hillary wants to know, just what difference does it make…. to her political aspirations….

    • That is the question.

    • Paul Hooson

      That’s an accurate assessment. The public in general only has a murky understanding of the complexity of Mideast politics, but however they view it and Clinton’s role as former Secretary Of State means a great deal to her campaign as this point.

      Today I saw a brand new antiClinton ad on CNN by some PAC that offered a confused understanding and history of Syria. Despite the confused mess of a message in this ad, it is relevant to Clinton only if claims will resonate with the public or not. However, 2008 proved that Clinton is a vulnerable candidate as Obama bested her in the primaries, so she is not made of teflon like Donald Trump where no negative news ever seems to undermine his core of support. Hillary does not appear to have this core, where her base of support is far more fragile.

      • fustian24

        The democrats are desperate for Trump. Besides the chance the GOP will self-destruct trying to block him, he’s going to be a spectacularly vulnerable candidate.

        Trump has been conducting politically connected business on the East Coast for years. He’s built casinos in Jersey. You think you can do that and be clean?

        The man is dirty by his own admission. He’s been buying and selling democrats for gosh sakes. It’s not like they don’t know where the bodies are buried.

        They’re going to destroy him if he makes it to the general election. Remember Ross Perot? He used to be somebody. When they finished with him Perot was a laughing stock, and that’s nothing compared to what they’ll do to Trump.

        He stands to lose a LOT.

  • Hank_M

    “I won’t tolerate employees lying to me.”

    Neither will most right-leaning people – hence the first Bush being bounced after one term.

    Those on the left, however, seem fine with being lied to as evidenced by the re-election of President mom-jeans and the next greatest serial liar of our times, Hillary, being the front runner for the democrat nomination.

    They don’t care about the lying, they don’t even care about people losing their lives.
    These being the same people who went apoplectic when the second Bush fired a few AG’s or uttered the famous 16 words in his SOU address.

  • fustian24

    One thing we still need to know is where this resource was. As much as I detest both Hillary and Obama, it’s at least plausible that a rational person might have decided not to activate a military response that would have taken 6 hours to get there in the belief that the fighting would be over by then.


    I still remember contemporaneous stories that said the two special forces guys killed on the roof exposed themselves to enemy fire to light up the jihadis with laser targeting. They’d have only done that if military aircraft were OVERHEAD.

    If that’s the case, Obama AND Hillary should face the full wrath of the citizenship. Hillary should be forced to withdraw from the Presidential race in disgrace and Obama should be impeached.

    It would certainly explain why nobody has heard a peep from any of the compound staff that survived.

    We also see clearly here the advent of the “stand down” order. In fact, there never was a stand down order. Instead what happened was that Obama went to sleep without authorizing the military to cross into Libya. And Hillary refused to ask permission from the Libyan government, such as it was.

    This, while there was technically no stand-down order, the result was the same.

    And, once again, we were lied to.

  • Paul Hooson

    al Qaeda used the cover of a local uprising to commit this well-planned terrorist attack. The embassy staff had a well planned escape plan that included an escape tunnel, but al Qaeda managed to thwart these security measures. No intelligence is perfect. President Bush’s intelligence sources either believed or wanted to believe that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, but 4493 American deaths later in Iraq, this was proven not to be the case. In addition, al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS threats were outgrowths of the power vacuum created when Iraq was destabilized as a nation when war rather than an orderly transition to power was used to change the Baathist government of the nation. Russia also clearly sees how messy the situation in Syria is even if they eventually support the transition of the Baathist government to some other rule. Mideast politics are very complicated and dangerous where some dictators have actually contained sectarian violence with their rule, although they are far from democratic.

    You cannot go back and redo history, but you can always learn from the mistakes when you plan for future events.

    • LiberalNightmare

      You cant redo history, but you can delete the email trail.

      • Paul Hooson

        Hillary sure made a good attempt at that Email deletion, didn’t she?

        • LiberalNightmare

          Dishonest and technically incompetent is no way to go thru life son.

          • Dishonest and technically incompetent is no way to go thru life woman.


          • Paul Hooson

            “Miscalculation” is what they prefer to call it when they end up with big time egg on their faces.

    • fustian24

      Says who?

      Besides finding militarily hardened and camouflaged pesticide plants ready to manufacture chemical weapons within days, they’ve been finding plenty of chemical rounds for years.

      Just how many do you need?

      • fustian24

        Not to mention that 500 tons of yellowcake they found:

      • Not to mention Hussein’s previous use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and the marsh arabs…

        • Paul Hooson

          Saddam once used mustard gas against the Kurds and against Iran, which is much larger nation. But, you have to remember that the Reagan Administration helped to fund much of this buildup of the Iraqi military to counter the threat of Iran. hundreds of millions of dollars in CCC Disaster funds, meant to be used for floods or earthquakes were deliberately misappropriated to Saddam Hussein by the Reagan Administration with a nod and a wink that they were actually being used to buildup Saddam’s military to counter Iran. However, during the first Bush Administration, Saddam became so bold that he invaded Kuwait because of their oil dispute where Kuwait was using pumps on the border to empty out Iraqi oil reserves and not pay Iraq royalties. This dispute should have been resolved in the world courts and not by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait or war on Iraq. But, the Gulf War did leave Saddam’s military much weaker and no longer a serious regional threat to his neighbors, but also a prime target for Iran to exploit at some point.

          • fustian24

            How many chemical weapons would it take for you to say that Bush had it right?

            One? 20? 100?

            Methinks these goalposts keep moving.

            The fact is they found both actual rounds AND the capability to make more. Saddam was big on dual use technology. That is, he built chemical plants that could be quickly switched to the making of chemical weapons.

            We also found several research facilities that had been completely emptied and recently sterilized. Apparently bio-weapons research doesn’t take up much space.

            Finally, in the buildup to war, we monitored trainloads of unknown materiel going to Syria. Where did Assad get the chemical weapons that convinced Obama to put up his porous red line?

          • Zelsdorf

            The Reagan administration bought Soviet weapons for Iraq? You must be stupid if you believe that Paul. But then. You will notice Iran was armed with F-14s and Iraq with Migs. You have got to ask yourself before you post bull sh*t like you post, remembering Reagan’s feelings about the Soviet Union, why he would purchase Russian small arms, tanks, artillery and air arms? I know you have answers for those questions. I look forward to reading your answers.

      • Paul Hooson

        My best guess is that Saddam Hussein was the master of miscalculation. After his military was severely weakened by both the first Gulf War as well as international sanctions as a final resort to bluff Iran not to threaten his rule or to thwart a possible U.S. invasion he wanted both countries to believe he might possible hidden weapons while at the same time cooperating with UN inspections. To his own reasoning, chemical weapons would be like a poor man’s atomic bomb, or a great deterrence to threats to his rule, but appeared to have the opposite effect.

        Certainly, a few chemical suits and a few other isolated examples existed that the Saddam regime had used once used mustard gas before against the Kurdish pposition. But, I seriously doubt there was ever good intelligence of real serious widespread chemical weapons threat due to UN inspections and other safeguards. Sadly, I think the second war in Iraq became a fishing expedition to look for widespread evidence that just did not exist to a high level. There’s more evidence of trace amounts of water on Mars than there was a widespread chemical weapons threat.

        • Guess less, educate yourself more.

          • Paul Hooson

            No, I’ve read extensively about this. As a Jew, I take great interest in studying any threats to Israel. One former Iraqi Air Force general Georges Said, even claimed that a number of canisters of mustard gas were sold to Syria to the Assad regime. However, further evidence of this has not been available, but we do know the Assad regime has done almost anything to remain in power. Syria’s government is the last of the region’s Baathist governments, with the first to fall, Egypt, and then Saddam’s Iraqi Baathist regime.

            After WWII, Gamel Nasser was the first Arab leader to lead an independence drive against the British, where the Baahist Arab Socialist movement took power in Egypt, Syria and finally Iraq.

          • You hide it well…

          • Paul Hooson

            Fustian did cite part of the small amount of evidence of chemical weapons that once existed in Iraq. But, with all of the UN inspections and punishing sanctions, it was in Iraq’s interest to cooperate as scud missiles and other weapons of mass destruction were destroyed in Iraq. Remember those inspections, Rodney? Scuds and other weapons were destroyed in UN supervised inspections. Here is a photo of the supervised destruction of a number of scuds not fired in the first Gulf War.

          • fustian24

            The problem was he DIDN’T cooperate. What he did was try to make a show of cooperating.

            If he’d actually cooperated, he’d probably be alive still.

        • You hide it well.

      • Not to mention that WMD was only one of more than dozen cassus bellum cited in the AUMF, any ONE of which was ample cause to resume hostilities.

    • Generic Engineer

      I was in the UAE during the second Gulf War doing support functions for the US state department and its amazing self appointed charter to manipulate governments.

      As far as Iraq and Afghanistan goes the American media reports of what was done and what the results were are mostly false, and by mostly I mean diluted to the point even a vegetarian could swallow them.

    • Zelsdorf

      That explains the over 7000 chemical shells they found in Iraq.

  • It would seem that “There was no stand down order” depends entirely on what your meaning of “is” is.

    • Jwb10001

      It’s the typical political word game, if there was never an order to engage is that really much different that giving a stand down order? The only difference I see is that later spineless politicians can say they never gave a stand down order.

  • Zelsdorf

    We need to know who shut down the rescue effort. I think we all know who it was, but you have wonder why.