Deploy. Stand Down. Or Lie.

[Flanders]

Leon Panetta and the order to deploy fails the smell test:

The much anticipated Benghazi Select Committee report released early Tuesday morning reveals former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta order military assets to be deployed to Benghazi, but they never arrived. Two unarmed drones, showing a live feed of the attack, did.​

Committee Report: Secretary of Defense Panetta Ordered Military Assets For Benghazi, They Never Moved
Katie Pavlich
|Posted: Jun 28, 2016 10:50 AM

Secretary of Defense Panetta Ordered Military Assets For Benghazi, They Never Moved​

So why would Panetta give the order to DEPLOY when he knew the president’s policy?

However, the Obama Administration’s “no boots on the ground” policy directly precluded such protection, which would have required Stevens to stay overnight with the military at sea and take a boat to land when he was required to be on the ground in the chaotic country of Libya.​

XXXXX​

This unusual method was not how Stevens intended to arrive in Benghazi. The report relates the Obama administration’s “no boots on the ground” decision prevented Stevens from being backed up by the military during his initial stay.​

XXXXX​

After weeks of planning, the military assistance was nixed because of the administration’s decision against putting “boots on the ground,” the correspondence cited in the Benghazi report divulges:

After weeks of planning, the Administration’s no boots on the ground policy kept military assistance from accompanying Stevens to Benghazi.

On March 30, 2011, Kennedy informed other senior State Department leaders: “After over a week of joint planning … [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael] Mullen has decided that the ‘no boots on the ground in Libya’ policy precludes DOD assisting us in getting Stevens into Libya.”

Specifically, Admiral Mullen deemed the use of military assets—even in civilian dress—to be in violation of the President’s directive, and therefore forbade their use to get Stevens into Benghazi and assist in his protection there. With no military assets to assist, Stevens “found a way to get himself there on a Greek cargo ship, just like a 19th-century American envoy.”​

XXXXX​

The report makes clear the “no boots on the ground” policy prevented adequate security throughout the existence of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was attacked on September 11, 2012.​

XXXXX​

From the beginning, senior Obama Administration officials were divided about what degree of commitment to make in Libya. A principal objective was to limit military engagement: the administration’s “no boots on the ground” policy prevailed throughout the Benghazi Mission’s existence in Libya.​

Revealed: The Obama Policy That Left Ambassador Chris Stevens Defenseless In Benghazi
by Aaron Klein
4 Jul 2016

Revealed: The Obama Policy That Left Chris Stevens Defenseless​

Bottom line:

1. Panetta lied about deploying.

In response, Eggleston detailed Obama's actions the night of the attack in a May 11 letter. He said Obama was briefed by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta at 5 p.m. and “immediately ordered the military to deploy all available assets.”​

XXXXX​

“Any claim that the president was not fully engaged and informed the night of the attacks and any doubt about his direction that any and all action be taken to assist our people under attack are unfounded and belied by the facts,” the May letter read.​

The lie is exposed by one question: Who disobeyed the commander in chief’s order?

Separating Horse Manure​

2. No one ever said that the “No boots on the ground.” policy was revoked while the attacks on 9-11-2012 were underway,

3. Somebody did issue an order to stand down that clearly abandoned Americans under attack when they could have been saved.

I am willing to examine every other alternative explanation.

 

[Flanders]

Panetta keynoted pro-Soviet group's conference
Nominee for DoD chief gave address during height of Cold War
Published: 6/18/2011 at 12:40 AM
By Aaron Klein

Panetta keynoted pro-Soviet group’s conference​

The old Commie sympathizer has more balls than a bowling alley. Note that Panetta begins his convention speech by praising those Americans who risk their lives defending this country —— the very men he betrayed in Benghazi.

​

Also note that the transcripts of every other Democrat who spoke at the convention is available, but I could not find more than a few excerpts from Panetta’s speech:

Former Defense Secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta slammed Donald Trump in a speech at the 2016 Democratic convention.

XXXXX​

"Today, Donald Trump once again took Russia's side," Panetta said. "He asked the Russians to interfere in American politics. Think about that for a moment. Donald Trump, who wants to be president of the United States is asking one of our adversaries to engage in hacking or intelligence efforts against the United States to affect our election."

He continued: "As someone who was responsible for protecting our nation from cyberattacks, it's inconceivable to me that any presidential candidate would be this irresponsible. Donald Trump cannot become our commander-in-chief."​

Leon Panetta: Today "Donald Trump Took Russia's Side"
Posted By Tim Hains
On Date July 27, 2016

Leon Panetta: Today "Donald Trump Took Russia's Side"​

Somebody should have reminded the old Commie about the now-deceased Lion of the Senate:

The Democrats are desperately diverting attention away from their rigging the nomination fight by charging that Russia is interfering in our election. But there was a time when going to Moscow to help defeat the other party didn’t seem to disturb Democrats. In fact, with the help of friendly media, the entire incident has been sent to the memory hole. Once upon a time it was revealed, but nobody outside of the conservative ghetto remembers.

But Betsy Newmark of Betsy’s Page remembers: (hat tip: Instapundit):​

As the Democrats struggle to turn the story of the DNC hacks into an attack on Trump by arguing that the Russians are behind the hack and that Putin is trying to help Trump get elected, let's remember when a prominent Democrat actually went to the Soviets for help in defeating Reagan. In 1984 Ted Kennedy approached the Soviets who were then led by the former KGB head, Yuri Andropov, and tried to negotiate help in opposing Reagan. We found out about Kennedy's efforts when Yeltsin opened up the Soviet archives in 1991. Sean Davis links to the story as reported in Forbes.

XXXXX​

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.​

In light of old Commies involvement in the Benghazi betrayal, he, more than any other Democrat, must always be above suspicion lest he be charged with treason.

This is open, self-initiated collaboration with a rival power, and there’s a name for that sort of thing, “treason.” But that word is not associated with any Kennedy (at least not since Joe was Ambassador to the UK) because of the studious ignoring of the story coming from the Soviet archives.​

Rather than keeping his mouth shout he had to jump in:

The amount of attention paid to the non-evidence of Trump versus the studied avoidance of the conclusive evidence of Ted Kennedy soliciting enemy collaboration against a domestic political rival is the epitome of our propaganda media.​

July 27, 2016
Remember when Ted Kennedy asked the Soviets for help defeating Reagan?
By Thomas Lifson

Blog: Remember when Ted Kennedy asked the Soviets for help defeating Reagan?​

Here is the link to the 2009 Forbes article:

Peter Robinson
8/28/2009 @ 12:01AM
Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes​

 

[Flanders]

3. Somebody did issue an order to stand down that clearly abandoned Americans under attack when they could have been saved.

Alas, who issued the order to stand down disappeared down the rat hole like so many things media/government scum do not want Americans to learn about. Nevertheless, for those of us who still follow the coverup details new aspects of Benghazi are worth learning:

http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-08/196973_5_.png

In short, Timmerman provides readers with numerous indicators that the Obama administration helped the video go viral while creating the impression that they had “absolutely nothing to do with it.” The immediate goal of this deception was to deflect responsibility from the administration for the disaster in Benghazi, but another benefit was to create public pressure for what became (via Nakoula’s dubious imprisonment) backdoor enforcement of blasphemy laws in the U.S. After all, Secretary Clinton not only promised grieving relatives that the maker of the video would be punished, she also “embraced news laws banning blasphemy as Secretary of State and instructed the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to vote in favor of them, reversing years of U.S. opposition.” UN Resolution 16/18, which includes serious restrictions on free speech, was apparently being utilized by DOJ official, Tom Perez, when, instead of assuring Congressman Trent Franks that the Department of Justice would “never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against a religion” instead responded by criticizing “hate speech” and “racist speech” -- a detour consistent with Perez’s past support for the idea that criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.​

August 20, 2016
That Videotape and Benghazi: a Review of Kenneth Timmerman's Deception
By Richard Kirk

Articles: That Videotape and Benghazi: a Review of Kenneth Timmerman's Deception​

Benghazi is one more stain on the State Department. The tragedy is that Benghazi will be forgotten faster than Hillary Clinton.

In light of the State Department’s history of betrayals one would think these losers would have the good sense not to pose for a class photo:

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/colinpowellhillary-e1471619793812.jpg

Question: Do you trust any one in the photo to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic? (I can name at least three who will not for certain, and three probables, who would betray this country to global government in a heartbeat.)

 

[whitehall]

Panetta is a political hack just like Sandy Berger was. Berger became a thief for Bill Clinton and Panetta lied for Barry Hussein. It opens up a question about how the CIA has evolved to the point where an intelligence agency is authorized to deploy Military Troops. The concept of plausible deniability and political cowardice comes to mind but that's an argument for another time.