"Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Saturday promised that “explosive” congressional hearings over the Benghazi, Libya attacks are on the way.
“There are more Benghazi hearings coming, I think they’re going to be explosive,” Gowdy said on Fox News.
Gowdy, a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the hearings are going to be “coming quickly” and seemed to hint that the public might for the first time hear from witnesses to the September assault that left four Americans dead.
“I am bound by certain measures of confidentiality, but I would tell you that you are getting very warm,” Gowdy said when asked by a Fox News anchor whether witnesses could be coming forward. “[The hearings] are coming sooner rather than later.”
Gowdy followed that up by saying that in a trial, “direct evidence, direct testimony by eyewitnesses is always the most compelling.” He said that if there is anyone who wants to come forward, the House committee will make legal counsel available to them........"
I still have a lot of doubt that we will get the truth in what happened before and during the attack on The US consulate in Benghazi. We have a media which functions as not only a cheering section but as an effective screening force for the current administration in the White House. By their purposeful avoidance of any honest journalistic work, Obama, Hillary, and the rest have been largely free of any real criticism. Only with a media like that of our nation could Hillary dare take control of the hearing in which she was testifying; feigning indignation and changing the story to make it look like it was she and not those on the panel who understood that it was a problem that Americans were murdered during the attack. With any other administration, the media would be chasing after her like hornets rushing out of a broken nest.
If anything does come of these new hearings, I expect that we will hear more about the failures to address pre-attack requests for greater security personnel and equipment by the staff, we will also here of the strenuous efforts of the administration to make us think that the uploading onto YouTube of a movie about Mohammed incited the attack.
What we will most likely never get from the hearings is an explanation for the order requiring the command staff of AFRICOM to "stand down" and refrain from sending any supporting elements to relieve the besieged personnel in the consulate.
This has all the marks of a criminal cover-up of epic proportions. Since General Carter Ham was relieved of duty following the attack, we have heard almost nothing at all about how it came that a respected leader was sacked.
What we did get back then, although it was shrouded in an (Probably enforced) haze and cannot in any way be confirmed , was this:
The General, doing his duty, took steps to bring elements within striking and support distance to the highest Readiness Condition. Orders came down from the top to "stand down". Noting that an illegal order, be it an act or requiring an omission, is not to be followed, he instead went forward with the giving of the order for units to move. It was at this point that his second-in-command placed the General under arrest and assumed command of AFRICOM, thus leaving the victims to their fate.
The silence on this event has been deafening. I have come to believe that our Generals and Admirals have come to be so concerned with their careers and post-service jobs that they will not only shirk their duties while hiding behind the orders that have been given to them, but also may be perfectly fine with the manner in which the military has been handled by this administration.
One response to this is the most obvious; since a commander does not know everything that is going on, he may be required to refrain from taking action. In this particular case, though, this answer does not hold water. The victims were under close-in assault. There consequently would be no order to send, for example a missile, bomb, or rocket as doing so would be just as dangerous to the besieged as for the attackers; the military term is "Danger Close".
Even if it turns out that a weapon of incredible precision could have been deployed, one that could kill and drive off the attackers with little or or no danger to the victims, then the question remains - "OK, I was relieved for my failure to obey orders, but how come you let the people be murdered instead of deploying the M-such-and-such system?"
That is the question that needs to be asked but I fear it will be left to rot.
This thing has a lid on it that would survive a 1980's nuclear Armageddon scenario.
Yes, we rightly have civilian control of our military. Washington headed off our first possible coup when he nipped the Newburgh Conspiracy in the bud, thus saving us from a possible precedent that has wrecked other nations. But with civilian control or not, wrongful orders that are going to result in losses when action could have been taken are illegal by their very nature and should not be followed. We must note, though, that any military leader has roughly four options upon receiving an order
1) For the normal order - Simple, follow the order
2) For an order that is not terrible but gives one concern- I don't like this order, but I will keep my concerns to myself or maybe confide with my staff, but we will follow the order.
3) For an order that has all the marks of a foolish and/or dangerous move - This order is a mess, but we have to do it. I will be honest with my troops as they are not idiots and tell them that I need them to do their job despite the garbage sandwich that we have been dealt.
4) For an order, be it to take or desist from action when all the evidence points to the contrary - OK, we're not doing that.
Commanders must realize that in the course of their careers, they may be chosen by Fate or History to take action that may make life a little harder for them, possibly even denying them the benefit of a comfortable retirement. It's a hazard that comes with the perks of command.
That's a risk one takes upon becoming an officer, but even a troop in the ranks may have to do the same thing at his level..
I hope that I am wrong and that this thing gets blown wide open when new witnesses step forward.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/sacking_general_carter_ham.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/panetta-military-lacked-enough-information-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/20529-jennifer-griffin-cia-requests-for-help-in-benghazi-attack-denied/2/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
0 comments:
Post a Comment