Benghazi and Hillary

In 1976, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's older brother Jonathan was killed leading the IDF raid to rescue 100 passengers taken hostage by terrorist groups protected by Uganda's Idi Amin.

Because IDF officers physically lead their units into combat (the cry is "Aharai!" – "After me!"), Jonathan Netanyahu was the most exposed Israeli soldier, and he therefore became the only casualty of the Entebbe rescue raid. 

That lightning paratroop raid worked because soldiers and officers understood that they were totally dependent on each other.  Strong mutual trust is the only way special operations can be carried out.  The troops had to trust and obey instantly, and their officers had to be in the lead to show that their troops could trust them.  These are standard rules of combat for assault troops in the IDF, U.S. armed forces, British SAS troops, and similar combat units.

All civilized armies understand the concept

The new 800-page House Benghazi report adds more details, but it fails to address White House, CIA, and State Department failures of command responsibility – not just on Sept 11, 2012, but months prior to the attack, when Ambassador Stevens and his protective detail were left exposed to jihadist attack, in spite of repeated requests for adequate protection.

The House report lacks credibility on a number of points.  USA Today reports that two House members published a dissent, "alleging the U.S. government bureaucracy took steps to protect Obama and Clinton's foreign policy legacy instead of focusing on a rescue. [Rep.] Pompeo said Clinton's leadership throughout the ordeal was 'morally reprehensible.'"

"We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm's way. That did not happen in Benghazi[.] ... Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try."

Because of Christopher Stevens's flag rank as ambassador, communications about the attack had the highest priority.  Hillary as SecState was in the chain of command for State Department employees like Ambassador Stevens.  U.S. teams were standing by to rush in, rescue Stevens and other threatened personnel, and repel the jihadist attackers with helicopters and Spectre gunships. 

Ambassador Stevens called for help, but help never came. 

It has been clear since 2012 that that failure of command responsibility had to come from the top, from both Obama and Hillary. 

The House report on Benghazi does not explain why carefully prepared rescue procedures were blocked at the crucial moment.

Officers who fail to defend their units are normally relieved of command.  But this was not a local command failure.  The stand-down order involved Hillary and CIA director Brennan and therefore had to come from the top. 

This raises the possibility of not just command failure, which could be due to many things, but also deliberate command betrayal.  Even with an 800-page House report, we still do not know why the stand-down order came from the White House, the CIA, and the State Department. 

Since Hillary is running for president at this very moment, there is no more serious question in U.S. politics than her fitness to serve.  Benghazi shows that she is morally unfit, and her subsequent health problems indicate that she may be mentally unfit.  She cannot be trusted. 

Because the lethal dangers to U.S. personnel in Libya were well known to the State Department, the CIA, and the White House, the question has to be asked about deliberate, not accidental, failure of command responsibility.  There is only one place where CIA and State Department can be ordered to block standard protection policies for high-level personnel.  That place is the White House.  

The House committee has confirmed the basic facts, but the obvious questions of command failure and possible betrayal are not being asked.  The media are acting as if the report has now settled those crucial questions. 

It has not. 

The months of prior warnings, of high-level refusals of requests for better security, all suggest premeditation.  This was not a spontaneous mistake.  White House and State refusals to protect Ambassador Stevens happened over and over again. 

Now the question is no longer what happened, but why

These are serious questions, bearing directly on the president's and SecState's fitness to serve.  They have not – repeat: not – been answered. 

House Benghazi Committee chair Trey Gowdy implies that the committee knows the answer but has refused it in public. 

Hillary is now running for president, and nobody has told us why Christopher Stevens and his team were left unprotected for months. 

In the British Parliament, ministers who are potentially guilty of command failure will resign or be fired.  Hillary's famous answer to the fiasco at Benghazi was "What difference at this point does it make?"  Benghazi was swept under the rug, past history, no longer relevant. 

Now she is running for president of the United States, and nothing is more relevant.  Based on past behavior, she cannot be trusted to act properly if she is elected. 

In 1976, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's older brother Jonathan was killed leading the IDF raid to rescue 100 passengers taken hostage by terrorist groups protected by Uganda's Idi Amin.

Because IDF officers physically lead their units into combat (the cry is "Aharai!" – "After me!"), Jonathan Netanyahu was the most exposed Israeli soldier, and he therefore became the only casualty of the Entebbe rescue raid. 

That lightning paratroop raid worked because soldiers and officers understood that they were totally dependent on each other.  Strong mutual trust is the only way special operations can be carried out.  The troops had to trust and obey instantly, and their officers had to be in the lead to show that their troops could trust them.  These are standard rules of combat for assault troops in the IDF, U.S. armed forces, British SAS troops, and similar combat units.

All civilized armies understand the concept

The new 800-page House Benghazi report adds more details, but it fails to address White House, CIA, and State Department failures of command responsibility – not just on Sept 11, 2012, but months prior to the attack, when Ambassador Stevens and his protective detail were left exposed to jihadist attack, in spite of repeated requests for adequate protection.

The House report lacks credibility on a number of points.  USA Today reports that two House members published a dissent, "alleging the U.S. government bureaucracy took steps to protect Obama and Clinton's foreign policy legacy instead of focusing on a rescue. [Rep.] Pompeo said Clinton's leadership throughout the ordeal was 'morally reprehensible.'"

"We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm's way. That did not happen in Benghazi[.] ... Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try."

Because of Christopher Stevens's flag rank as ambassador, communications about the attack had the highest priority.  Hillary as SecState was in the chain of command for State Department employees like Ambassador Stevens.  U.S. teams were standing by to rush in, rescue Stevens and other threatened personnel, and repel the jihadist attackers with helicopters and Spectre gunships. 

Ambassador Stevens called for help, but help never came. 

It has been clear since 2012 that that failure of command responsibility had to come from the top, from both Obama and Hillary. 

The House report on Benghazi does not explain why carefully prepared rescue procedures were blocked at the crucial moment.

Officers who fail to defend their units are normally relieved of command.  But this was not a local command failure.  The stand-down order involved Hillary and CIA director Brennan and therefore had to come from the top. 

This raises the possibility of not just command failure, which could be due to many things, but also deliberate command betrayal.  Even with an 800-page House report, we still do not know why the stand-down order came from the White House, the CIA, and the State Department. 

Since Hillary is running for president at this very moment, there is no more serious question in U.S. politics than her fitness to serve.  Benghazi shows that she is morally unfit, and her subsequent health problems indicate that she may be mentally unfit.  She cannot be trusted. 

Because the lethal dangers to U.S. personnel in Libya were well known to the State Department, the CIA, and the White House, the question has to be asked about deliberate, not accidental, failure of command responsibility.  There is only one place where CIA and State Department can be ordered to block standard protection policies for high-level personnel.  That place is the White House.  

The House committee has confirmed the basic facts, but the obvious questions of command failure and possible betrayal are not being asked.  The media are acting as if the report has now settled those crucial questions. 

It has not. 

The months of prior warnings, of high-level refusals of requests for better security, all suggest premeditation.  This was not a spontaneous mistake.  White House and State refusals to protect Ambassador Stevens happened over and over again. 

Now the question is no longer what happened, but why

These are serious questions, bearing directly on the president's and SecState's fitness to serve.  They have not – repeat: not – been answered. 

House Benghazi Committee chair Trey Gowdy implies that the committee knows the answer but has refused it in public. 

Hillary is now running for president, and nobody has told us why Christopher Stevens and his team were left unprotected for months. 

In the British Parliament, ministers who are potentially guilty of command failure will resign or be fired.  Hillary's famous answer to the fiasco at Benghazi was "What difference at this point does it make?"  Benghazi was swept under the rug, past history, no longer relevant. 

Now she is running for president of the United States, and nothing is more relevant.  Based on past behavior, she cannot be trusted to act properly if she is elected.