Benghazi Culpability: Walls Closing in on Administration
The mainstream media is doing all that it can to avoid reporting on the Obama administration’s cover-up of the Benghazi scandal, where President Obama may have abandoned up to 32 Americans to die.
Fox News is the only mainstream media outlet to undertake a concerted effort into sorting through the spin coming from the White House, and they’ve uncovered some maddening claims — including the latest bombshell, a classified cable from the consulate in August wherein the Regional Security Officer (RSO) warned they were understaffed and under-gunned:
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al-Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
When you begin looking at those who bear responsibility for the dead and wounded in Benghazi (four American dead, roughly a dozen wounded, including Libyan allies helping evacuate the consulate staff), there are three separate points of failure:
- Failing to secure the consulate staff prior to the attack;
- Failing to protect the consulate staff during the initial attack on the consulate;
- Failing to protect the combined group of consulate staff, CIA operators, and Libyan allies at the CIA safe house after the consulate rescue and before the eventual extraction the next morning.
Failure to secure the consulate prior to the attack
There can be no mistake about it: the responsibility to provide security to embassy and consulate sites is the responsibility of the secretary of State. Hillary Clinton should be on the proverbial chopping block if the consulate did not have adequate security staff and and weaponry to defend itself, which appears rather obviously to be the case.
I’d add at least one decision point. When the CIA operators from the safe house got to the scene, there must have been some time while they were conducting multiple attempts to find the ambassador, when they were recovering Sean Smith’s body, and when they were rounding up panic-stricken consulate personnel and getting them into a vehicle. During that time, IIRC, they were in contact with the remaining team at the safe house. During the extraction to the safe house, there was an attempted ambush.
Surely, somewhere in there looked like an opportunity to get some assets mobilized. Depending on the timeline, they may have had an opportunity to provide info and support at the intended ambush, and they certainly could have done something about the attackers regrouping around the safe house.
Anyone who still believes, the Radical/Islamist-in-Chief is not going to be indicted for Bengazigate, is indulging in fantasy land.Cables/emails surfacing are more than enough to land the whole crew in jail!
It is hardly a situation where spin will suffice, though the storm and electoral politics is keeping it at bay.The MSM is in the tank, and they too will be part of the story, when history is written. They are nothing but whores.
Not only that, but his surrogates – Jarrett, Clinton, Huma Abedin, Panetta, Brennan – will get pulled into the charges.
Congress is the only address for national/personal redress, thus pressure must be massively exerted, unlike ever before. There are no excuses for inaction, if one is outraged to the max.
To be sure, the most revolutionary, criminal & lawless regime believes they will get away with their crimes. Hopefully they will be proven wrong. In no small measure this makes Watergate look like nursery school, and not even that. It looks like pre-nursery!
The relatives of the dead must be in the forefront of the effort too. I would give them NO place to hide.
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/31/more-bengazigate-mysteries-meandering-into-shia-iranian-territory-irrespective-of-sunni-brotherhoodalqaeda-involvement-islamists-of-all-stripes-cooperate-when-necessary-commentary-by-adina/
I appreciate your sentiments, Adina, but I will believe an indictment when I see it. Under American law, a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime. He must first be impeached by the House, then convicted in the Senate, and removed from office.
THEN he can be indicted.
Bill Clinton’s long-time associate and hand-picked “prosecutor” Ken Starr did such a good job of confusing the Clinton impeachment that I doubt we will EVER get a President impeached again, no matter how egregious the crimes.
Obama is NOT going to be indicted, nor will any of this
1. The ‘Pubbies don’t want to set a precedent where outgoing Administrations face indictment or other legal actions for their policies, failed, treasonous, or otherwise.
2. The ‘Pubbies simply don’t have the guts to indict a “black” former former President for his crimes. “Racism” would be just the start of the screams and ‘Pubbies don’t really handle media and “civil rights” tantrums very well.
Adina, please remember the old saying, History is written by the victors. If Obama wins on Tuesday this will get buried one way or another. We must get out the vote and get him out of office!
perry, my absentee vote was sent in, as was so many others living in Israel.The push here is tremendous, to get him out!! I do not know of one American-Israeli who voted for The One. Their hatred of him is palpable.
History is NOT necessarily written by the victors. The Bible was written by Jews, who were not victors. The history of the wars between Sparta and Athens was written by an Athenian, Thucydides. (Sparta won.) Histories of many wars have been written by those who have been defeated.
Short term history is written by the short-term survivors. Long-term history is written by long-term survivors. The victors usually start out with a substantial short-term advantage because they usually have the most survivors, usually end up with control over the most resources, and usually have the largest interested audience.
The story from David Ignatius detailing the CIA’s Benghazi timeline has been out now for more than seven hours but I can see no comment on it anywhere here at PJ Media. Am I missing something?
It’s classic misdirection, Anne. A feint. The Administration is hoping to run out the clock. Ignatius is either a dupe, or a pawn. The CIA forces in country may have been working down their own chain of command, but it has little to do with the real story.
We had military forces spinning up and going into action the moment the consulate reported they were under attack. Barack Obama himself PERSONALLY–and no one else–has cross border authority. Barack Obama–and no one else–denied the American military forces rushing to the rescue the authority to continue their rescue mission.
Barack Obama ordered more than two dozen Americans to be abandoned, cancelling a military rescue mission. He then went to bed so he could be fresh for his campaign stops in Las Vegas and Colorado.
He cares about the things are important to him, such as campaigning.
Protecting American lives?
Not so much.
Bob, thank you for your reply. It does, however, fail to address the issue that concerned me. Why is PJM so silent on the Ignatius article? You are NOW calling it “a classic misdirection” but until I drew attention to it, you – and others here – have been writing as if the article didn’t exist. It’s been posted and re-posted in a number of news outlets and PJM acts as if it isn’t there. That is what disappointed me.
There have been lots of questions over Benghazi and that CIA timeline answers some of them. For example, it states that the surveillance drone was unarmed. Sure, it leaves other questions unanswered, but journalistic integrity (to my mind) demands that, where some issues have been resolved, this should be acknowledged. Simply ignoring Ignatius is to commit a like sin to those you are attacking. As Clinton herself pointed out, it’s easy enough to “cherry-pick” data after the fact. Ignatius’ article constitutes data and simply ignoring it … well, it just looks bad.
It actually blitzes most of the basic case against the president – i.e. that he did nothing, that nothing was happening, that he was either in the dark or inactive.
If Ignatius’ claims are true, it shows that “the executive” was in fact responding. He also undermines a lot of specific claims about what happened that night. If the CIA was actually responding, with weapons, then that’s a problem for the “impeach him” crowd.
Basically, if Ignatius is right, PJM’s whole election campaign strategy just went up in smoke. They now need to find another bunch of unknowns and turn THOSE into accusations of treason. And they’ve worked SO hard on this.
Fox is in worse trouble. I’ve been watching the fox web site, and so far the only response I’ve seen is greta van susteren trying to jump on the fact that ignatius acknoledges the al-quada link, and inferring that this somehow means that the WHITEHOUSE KNEW!!!
They’ve got a whole staff that’s been trucked out, day after day, to make accusations and inferences that would now seem to be unraveling. They now have to (1) just go completely quiet about the story, leaving them without their romney election campaign strategy, (2) try to ignore or attack this news until after the election and keep attacking the president (this is the one I’m betting on) or (3) admit they were wrong, and peddling made-up stories. That third one isn’t likely. Not likely at all.
But given that the entire company exists pretty much to campaign for republican power, it does leave them in a spot so close to the polls.
Ooh – I’ve found a reference at foxnews!
It’s buried in a story titled “Sources, emails point to communication breakdown in Obama administration during Libya attack”
Like Greta, they basically focus on the reference to al quaeda (which is silly – those are ignatius’ words, not necessarily the CIA’s) and some of the timing. They’re basically ignoring the contents.
Thanks for finding those references at Fox. The CIA reference to AQ is not necessarily conclusive as this might be what they’re calling it now, after further facts are in. They still might have been confused – at the time – as to the identity of the attackers. I think it’s also interesting that things went quiet for some hours. It sounds like the attack was fierce in shortish though deadly bursts and this would have made it harder to justify mobilising assets from a longer distance, that is, from outside the country.
I still think there are questions to answer on this but it’s interesting that Romney himself has decided to keep a low profile on this. It’s by no means necessary to his case. For me, what’s important is that he win. I’m not much fussed whether the Benghazi thing helps in this.
The biggest appeal that Romney has is that he seems to be a grownup, a serious and forthright man. Some of the coverage of the Benghazi issue has bordered on the hysterical and I don’t think that is Romney’s style, so best he stay quiet on it. I do think that McCain has handled it well, forthrightly but seriously. Maybe this was the deal inside the Rep camp: let McCain follow this through as he’s the fittest person to do it.
I was just disappointed with PJM as I thought they were trying to conduct a serious journalistic following of this issue and I think they’ve fallen into a similar bias to the MSM. Two wrongs don’t make a right and two biases don’t make for unbiased reporting. It just tells me that PJM can’t be a one-stop shop, only the other side of the MSM bias. So now I’m paying more attention to the MSM, to balance the bias.
This is the real problem with a civilization and culture, like ours, that’s on its way down. It’s not enough just to put “the other side” in charge because more and more people on all sides have defective and childish personalities compared to their ancestors — you know, those who built up the civilization in the first place.
The downward slope is most obvious in the growing silliness of the ideas and attitudes driving decisions, followed a century or so later by decay of the infrastructure as obvious improvements and maintenance are neglected (aftermath of Katrina and Sandy, anyone?).
Don’t try to bother these people with facts – can’t you see they’re busy trying to manufacture an impeachment-level criminal conspiracy?
First it was ACORN, then it was Obamacare, then it was Solyndra, then it was Fast & Furious, and now it’s this. To these folks, literally anything and everything is an impeachable offense. It’s gotten to the point that the whole idea of “impeachment” has become a joke, and it’s absolutely because unhinged conservatives have diluted it by treating the process as a first resort when stuff happens that they don’t like. If they had the capacity for self-reflection they might see how ludicrous they appear to the rest of us. But sadly, they’re just a bunch of dogs chasing cars.
Walter, darling, leaving aside your own attempt at misdirection by hauling in several other issues kicking and screaming from left field, exactly which part of Obama’s handling of Benghazi do you find to be stellar and worth your admirable and staunch support? Please do tell me, too, that you promise to leave America and go to Canada or France or Mexico in disgust if Mr. Romney is elected.
“exactly which part of Obama’s handling of Benghazi do you find to be stellar and worth your admirable and staunch support?”
None of it, actually, but I don’t think that impeachment proceedings ought to be thrown around simply because you are disappointed that the President didn’t personally fly Air Force One over Benghazi, drop a rope to the consulate, and fly everyone to safety. By your metric, W. should have been impeached for his own failures during the Iraq war.
Lucky for you, ObamaCare covers Obama Derangement Syndrome.
And,recognizing your own Bush Derangement Syndrome, one has to stifle a giggle at your attempt to “blame it all on Bush”.
Walter – you definitely have the right to have your own opinion, but so do I. My opinion is that people like you with a multi-directional moral compass are exactly the reason we have such a corrupt government. There is obviously not anything you cannot add to your simmering stew of moral relativity. Thank you for being such a spineless citizen and eschewing honesty and honor in our great republic, may God save; We saw your kind at the “peace” protests during Vietnam with your cute little Uncle Ho t-shirts and sandals…we saw your kind after Mogadishu blaming the deaths of 18 brave Army Rangers on American “imperialism”…and now you resurface once again to try and save the closest your ilk will ever get to the great socialist utopia. Well, not this time Walter, because you’re going down along with Dear Leader as not only will he be ostracized and exposed as the corrupt little vile man he truly is, but also his “believers” and Jim Jones-esque followers such as you.
REMEMBER BENGHAZI!!
Well, you are missing the emotional investment on the part of the readership to their made-up story of treason and betrayal. And you are missing the fiscal investment PJM has in continuing to be a central source for that fictional story. Look at the front-page, how many of their stories – to say nothing of their hits – have come from fanciful Benghazi musings over the past couple weeks?
It would be a violation of their fiduciary responsibility to their investors to start reporting the real story at this stage.
I always thought treason and betrayal in the legal sense was a stretch, because in this sort of situation a president can always come up with plausible excuses for his rotten judgement calls. I’ll settle for incompetence and indifference as the basic flaws behind Obama’s handling of the attack.
See above – apply to self.
In the words of the USURPER as used on one of his countless Celebrity TV lowest common denominator appearances, this one on the Today Show. the deaths of those in Benghazi was ‘not OPTIMAL’
Oh how those words must have resonated with and comforted the families of those he ABANDONED to their fates in Benghazi. How they must re-assure American troops serving in harms way all over the world knowing that the USURPER will do NOTHING to save or support them but will consider their deaths to be ‘not OPTIMAL’.
The ‘not optimal’ of course espoused by the USURPER is not optimal for HIM because as a malignant narcissist its all about HIM.
The “official” version of what happened in Benghazi is beginning to show up in the MSM. One of them is here: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/01/intelligence-official-offers-new-timeline-for-benghazi-attack/?hpt=hp_t3
Totally exonerates BHO. Surprise? Ah, yeah, right.
Apparently the abruptly relieved head of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham, is now just as abruptly retiring (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/).
This stinks to high heaven.
Was he relieved of command because he tried to disobey Obama’s order to stand down? Is he now retiring as a silent protest?
Obama also ordered Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette relieved of command for trying to help the consulate under while it was under attack. I wonder if that inconvenient drone came from one of Gaouette’s ships?
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/10/obama-fires-top-admiral-as-coup-plot-fears-grows-2466106.html
“In either event, a flight of fighter jets from Italy could have made it to Benghazi prior to the start of the initial attack if they had been scrambled immediately, and AC-130 or MC-130 gunships could have been on-station within two to three hours. Handled aggressively, there is the slim possibility that a show of force from American airpower could have dissuaded the terrorists from launching their attack. Once the attack had begun, however, these air assets could have broken the attacking force.”
This is what bothers me most about the battle in Benghazi. We could have easily had aircraft over the scene helping, at the very least, the SEAL team members trying to rescue the ambassador. It may have been too late to save the ambassador, but those planes easily could have saved the rest of the CIA operatives and the SEAL members in the hours following the attack on the consulate. The planes could have been flying over Benghazi and, if not used, simply flown back to base. Libya has no air force, so the threat of enemy air attack on American aircraft was non-existant. And an AC-130 represents a whole lot of hurt to whoever is on the receiving end of those guns, as the Taliban knows very well in Afghanistan. At the very least, an AC-130 could have saved the SEALS at the CIA annex in Benghazi.
So why weren’t the planes sent? Somebody had better start answering that question, and fast. We are Americans and we do NOT let Americans twist in the wind when under attack by radical Islamists, or anybody else for that matter. We want answers and we want them soon.
There was no counter attack because Huma Abdeb (sp?), Hillary’s sweetheart and chief of staff whose mother is an official of the Muslim Sisterhood, had the next load of SAMs warehoused at the annex for shipment to Al Quaeda in Syria, and Hussein didn’t want the treason exposed, at least before the elections.
His story will be that arming the “rebels” in Syria was “leading from behind” without putting American boots on the ground while at the same time disarming the destabilizing forces in Lybya.
Truly Byzantine. The American public will never understand it, even in an impeachment trial (viz. Clinton) — never underestimate their stupidity, look at their teachers!
From JCS Pub 3-68:
“The US ambassador, with the approval of the Under Secretary of State for Management, can order the evacuation of USG personnel and dependents other than uniformed personnel of the US Armed Forces and designated emergency-essential DOD civilians who are not under the authority of the US ambassador…When SECSTATE requests military assistance from DOD, approval and the military response is directed by the President or SecDef through CJCS to the appropriate CCDR, who will initiate military operations.”
Note: The “appropriate CCDR (Combatant Commander)” was AFRICOM (General Ham).
The quote above desribes the C2 structure when a US diplomatic post is attacked. The latest line from the administration is that SECSTATE (Clinton) DID NOT request military assistance from DOD. DOS responded to Benghazi with organic in-country assets from Tripoli. SECSTATE and POTUS were both aware of the attack.
So the appropriate question(s) are:
1. Why did SECSTATE (Clinton) not request CCDR (DOD) support?
2. In the absense of a request from SECSTATE, why did’nt POTUS order CCDR support?
Now you know why both Clinton and Obama were pushing the video excuse. They were both derelict in their duty.
This is called cross-border authority. Obama declined to give it.
It all comes down to the quality called “leadership”. If you have ever worked for somebody who has zero leadership skills then you know the default answer is always “No”. “No” is safe, it may be wrong but it can always be justified. Benghazi didn’t fit the template, it wasn’t a case where a bureau-weenie could pull out Form 32-B and get the ball rolling, it required an actual decision. A decision not grounded in talking points, not based on a faculty lounge hypothetical, not some esoteric discussion where the the outcome didn’t matter, but one with real world ramifications. And that decision was need “NOW!”. Sadly, the decision was needed from a collective solidly based in the “somebody needs to do something” mentality with no understanding that they were the ones they were waiting for.
There is no leadership in the White House, there is no leadership in the Democratic Party, and there’s precious little leadership in the Republican Party.
The “default answer” in a Democrat administration is always “No” all the way up to the politically appointed level. Democrats won’t give bureaucrats any authority and ruthlessly persecute any merit system level managers who exercise any independent judgement and discretion. Even in the appointee ranks the default answer is always “No” at least until you can check with your boss or if you’re cabinet level at least taking it to the COS. And with the kinds of entourages high-level feds have, God knows how many people you have to go through to get to a Secretary, the COS, or the President.
It was clear from the testimony in that Congressional hearing that everybody was following SOPs, covering their butt, and nothing more. Remember that one woman’s testimony where she kept repeating that the Consulate had all the security to which it was entitled. It is possible but very, very unlikely that the requests for additional security stopped with some procurement type but bureaucrats of any stature have a highly developed sense of self-preservation and such a request would almost undoubtedly have been “upwardly delegated.”
I still have a hinky feeling about HRC’s role in this. Clearly, the Clintons hate the upstart that the Soros Cabal used to deny them the White House in ’08. Equally clearly, people like Bill and Hill don’t peacefully sheathe their swords and join the opposition unless forced to, so Soros et al. have something really juicy on the Clintons. That’s the kind of thing that makes people lay awake at night looking for a way to get revenge and to free themselves. When I allow myself to commune with my inner bureaucrat, the inner bureaucrat tells me that HRC endorsed those requests for additional security and sent them up the chain to her boss who notiously is unengaged and lazy. We know he doesn’t go to half his briefings, why would one think he actually reads his briefing package either? So, if he’s true to form and doesn’t do anything with HRC’s request and nothing bad happens, HRC just lives to fight another day, but if something bad happens, she has a “Get Out of Jail Free” card and one Helluva hammer to use against Comrade Obama. The Soros Cabal and Comrade Obama have a serious problem: They need somebody to take one for the team and nobody sufficiently high-ranking will do it. HRC is making their misery her mission, Panetta is joined at the hip to the Clintons, and Patraeus is too well known and knows too much. So, now they’ve “capped” an admiral and a general, probably with a threat of court martial. Those two have been around long enough to know that a court martial would just be a kangeroo court composed of officers loyal to the regime so they’re facing at minimum loss of their reputation, rank, and retirement, so they ain’t talking unless Romney wins and offers them some assurances.
The end game if Obama loses is HRC dumps this stuff on him to eliminate both him and the Soros Cabal threat to her; she can turn the clock back to when she was a shoo-in to become President, become the undisputed leader of the Democrats, and position herself for ’16. President Romney will probably offer some sort of pardon to Obama “so the Country can get on with healing.” HRC will be the hero of the affair so nothing happens to her; she can tell some story about how she just couldn’t act until after the election because it would all be so distracting and unfairly predjudice the electorate or some such crap.
The end game if Obama wins is less clear, but it is clear that the Clintons have Comrade Obama on a leash. Maybe Biden steps aside and she’s appointed VP to position her for ’16. It is hard to say what might happen because while much of what Obama does is pretty predictable lefty stuff, he’s a lot like playing chess with a six year old; just what is the appropriate move in response to King’s Rook’s pawn to King’s Rook 3? He’s so inexperienced, arrogant, and flighty that he is sometimes very hard to predict. The one thing that is clear to me is that there won’t be an impeachment; no Republican is ever going to start impeachment proceedings again unless they’ve counted the votes in the Senate and the votes aren’t there. About the most the Republicans in Congress can do is hold some hearings to embarrass the Democrats and maybe if necessary take some steps to protect people in the government and the military from the Administration’s attempts at retribution, but since they’re Republicans, those people are probably on their own.
The problem of Benghazi may be a failure to recognize just who your enemy is. We westerners can’t tell one third world actor from another. Consider: If ambassador Stevens was heading a gun-running operation in the Middle East like Fast and Furious (evidence now points to this) then maybe the Syrian and Iranian governments are behind this attack. After all, these governments have a vested interest in stopping this arming of insurgents within their countries. We used to play this game against the Russians and they against us during the Cold War. Proxy wars have a tendency, like Afghanistan, to eventually turn out badly for the country running the guns.
Nobody lies like a muslim. Obama may or may not be a muslim but he can lie with the best of them, and he is giving them every advantage here in America plus infiltrating them into high levels of his administration. That America has been made a fool in Libya may be just what our Muslim-in-Chief wants. Anything to discredit or weaken America.
There is at least one aspect of this tragedy that is absolutely certain.
If there was a way to spin it to make obama a hero, we would have known about it weeks ago and it would already have been front page news dozen of times.
Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist, Racist. And besides, shut up.
As in “shut up, he explained”.
No, I decline to shut up.
Make me.
RACISM, NO…..TREASON, ITS ALWAYS RACISM NO MATTER WHAT OBAMA DID, NO DO IS PURE TREASON, HILLARY IS GOING TO PAY THE PRICE IS THAT RACISM, NO….THEY BROKE THE LAW..
At a out the same time General Ham stepped down, the admiral commanding the USS John Stennis carrier battle group off of Libya was recalled to Washington for an “investigation of improper conduct” and is being replaced. If this has a Benghazi connection it will eventually come out.
http://www.bremertonpatriot.com/news/177000531.html
Obama is counting on winning the election. If that happens he, his administration support network and an always complicit, loyal media will bury this in a mountain of denials, refusals to produce any incriminating evidence due to “executive privilege” and the dance of evasion we’ve all become familiar with and can seemingly do nothing about.
If he loses, look for the same tactics. His communist, progressive, radical support groups will not let him fall from grace if for no other reason than to save face. They, more than any, know that “The One” is a fraud. They created him. In or out of the pinnacle of power this crowd will remain a force to be reckoned with for some time to come. Hopefully Obama’s presidency ends on the morning of Nov. 7th and that marks the beginning of the end for this reincarnation of the ever persistent “Progressive movement,” a cancer on the Republic however they rebrand themselves.
With all this mounting evidence of treason, I wonder if and when some in the military will risk their retirements and start dealing with enemies within? Or will you continue to just sit there while he picks you off too, one at a time, like the general and admiral? Scared footsoldiers to a fascist.
General Martin “My Favorite Martian” Dempsey is a disgrace and a traitor; he should be court-martialed and SHOT for undermining the soldiers and other Americans in his charge. This is the single most dastardly example of a ‘political’ general selling our people down the river for political favor. Dempsey makes that buffoon Wesley Clark look like George Patton.
Why did the CIA have the laser equipment if they weren’t going to be allowed to use it?? It is intended for air support but air support was withheld?? What were the established rules of engagement? The CIA evidently thought they had someone overhead to cover them in just such an incident but it was withheld. Who changed the rules and why?? Gen Ham, AFRICOM CDR, is not a poitcian. I know him. He’s is a proven warrior. Why wasn’t he allowed to use all of the tools availablle to him??
Someone should fry for this.