Grassroots Commentary

Benghazi & Afghanistan -- Obama's Treason

By Ronald R. Cherry · Nov. 5, 2012

Obama has given aid and comfort to our enemies, and is adhering to our enemies. Here are some excerpts from articles which you should read in full:

“CBS reported late last week that the Benghazi debacle was being surveyed by a Spectre gunship that could have turned the tide. Fox News is now reporting that, in fact, an AC 130 Spectre was overhead, and the motor team who eventually killed our SEALs was painted with a laser for pinpoint counter-battery fire…and yet nothing was done… How exactly does one exactly define treason and cowardice? I think this comes pretty close.” –American Thinker 

“Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to ‘stand down,’ according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to ‘stand down.’… The denial of aid is criminal. Whoever gave those multiple stand-down orders may be an accomplice to manslaughter, at least.” –PJ Media

“Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi. Our Constitution defines it this way: ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.’… When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your ‘enemy,’ then who) – and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to ‘stand down’? … How much more treasonous can you get? … Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly.” –PJ Media

“Incompetence. Abandonment. Treason. It has been a sickening few days for those of us who have closely followed the revelations coming out about the Benghazi terror attack that killed not only Ambassador Chris Stevens and diplomat Sean Smith, but also CIA operators (and former SEALs) Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who died undertaking a rescue mission – unauthorized – to save the rest of the consulate staff. We’ve learned about the incredible heroism of a CIA force that repeatedly called for help for as it was being attacked. Disturbingly, we learned that this force had been told to "stand down” twice by their chain of command, and that they violated direct orders to conduct this rescue mission. Our consulate staff was left to die… Our CIA assets, which seem to have been composed of former SEALs and other special operations personnel, conducted an unsupported rescue mission under fire. They saved the lives of the remaining consulate staff and recovered the body of Sean Smith, whom they then escorted back to their safehouse a mile away. Once there, they came under fire again – including fire from a terrorist team armed with mortars. Then something truly extraordinary and troubling took place: At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according to those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing, and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. special operations forces to provide support to special operation teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. Either the Obama administration refused to launch close-air support aircraft from nearby bases that could have eliminated enemy forces attacking Americans trapped on the ground, or we had close air support aircraft overhead that could have taken out the terrorists that had Americans under fire with precision weapons – and the administration refused to let them fire.“ –PJ Media

"The Obama White House, the Clinton State Department, and Panetta’s Department of Defense have guiding principles in Afghanistan that, if applied to Benghazi, explain the administration’s decision to deny air support to the Americans fighting for their lives on 9/11/12. The denial of air support to our troops in battle is normal operating procedure for this commander in chief. He doesn’t have to give special orders to do it. It is the Obama Doctrine on the War on Terror: do not kill Muslim civilians. Let American soldiers die instead. That is how Obama thinks he will win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. In Afghanistan, the military is required to deny air support, even in the midst of battle, if it could possibly result in civilian casualties. Under Obama, it is required that the military sacrifice the lives of our soldiers when jihadis are firing from population areas. The Benghazi safe house where Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and the others were defending themselves against al-Qaeda was in a neighborhood. Therefore, if the Afghanistan rules of engagement were applied, no air support and no reinforcements would be sent… President Obama tells us he did not deny requests for help… It was a seven-hour battle, with 150 men with mortars attacking our consulate and CIA safe house. There were repeated requests for help. Help was denied. How to understand our commander-in-chief’s decision not to defend our ambassador and the thirty other Americans under jihadi attack?… Obama lied to the American public: it was never ‘number one priority making sure that [our] people were safe.’ It is not his priority in Afghanistan, and it was not his priority in Libya. Obama’s priority in the war on terror is to pretend there is no war and there is no jihadi threat, and even that there is no terror (remember the ‘workplace violence’ in Ft. Hood?). His priority is the opportunity for rapprochement through greater cultural sensitivity and respect for Islam. Hence, the one decisive action his administration took after Benghazi was to arrest the man in L.A. who posted the offensive video on YouTube… The priority is to show all Muslims, even radical jihadis, understanding and to never do anything to alienate or offend them. We are trying to make peace with our enemies because we do not believe they are enemies… Obama does not place a priority on American lives above the lives of Muslim citizens in battle zones. That is why he didn’t lift a finger to save the thirty Americans fighting for their lives in Benghazi on 9/11/12.” –American Thinker

“On August 6, 2011, while on their way to assist an ongoing mission in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, the CH-47D Chinook helicopter that they were riding in was shot down by an RPG fired by a Taliban fire team approaching their landing zone in Tangi Valley. All 38 American and Afghan service members who were aboard perished, including 17 Navy SEALS, 5 Navy Special Operations support personnel, 3 Air Force Special Tactics Airmen and the five-man Chinook crew, marking the largest loss of life in America’s 11 years of military operations in Afghanistan… ‘How the Obama administration has decided to conduct this war is nothing short of criminal. When the administration leaked the identity of the SEALs after the bin Laden raid, a target was put on their back. By increasing the reliance on special operators in prosecuting the war, but not giving them the top line equipment and personnel to support them, this administration bears responsibility for the events of that fateful night.. And the rules of engagement that let my son’s killers walk away unscratched is a betrayal of our commitment to our warriors in the field.’… When the families from the crash were meeting with the Army’s Investigation Team and Naval Officers, a father asked why they didn’t use a drone strike to take out the Taliban. A 3-star Admiral responded, ‘We are trying to win their hearts and minds.’ But what that Admiral didn’t realize is that the rules that restrain our troops and endanger their lives are making the task that we are asking them to accomplish virtually impossible, the Vaughns contend. The Admirals say they want to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans, but by creating impossible conditions for our troops to fight they are losing the hearts and minds of the American people.” –Breitbart.com