Admiral James Lyons – We Need Full Disclosure On Benghazi NOW

Former commander of the Pacific Fleet Admiral James Lyons was among the most highly regarded and influential members of the American military in a generation.  He is now using that reputation to now aggressively push for open and honest disclosure from the Obama White House regarding the Benghazi Massacre scandal.

(Admiral James Lyons is demanding answers from the Obama administration over the Benghazi Massacre and cover up)

____________________

EXCERPT:  (via Washington Times)

LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi

The American people deserve to know the truth

There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.

…Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli.  It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.

…we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned.

I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.

Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.   FULL STORY HERE

537 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

29 Comments to Admiral James Lyons – We Need Full Disclosure On Benghazi NOW
      • Ghostmaker
      • “I don’t know much about weapons but it’s coming out right now that they actually had laser focused on the mortars that were being sent to kill my son. And they refused to pull the trigger. They refused to send in those AC-130s. To me, I’m an attorney, this may not be the legal test of murder. But to me that is not only cowardice, but those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it, are murderers of my son.“

        http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/father-of-slain-benghazi-seal-they-murdered-my-son-video/

        I spent 10 years in the military. I can tell you one thing everyone is missing and it is obvious.

        If you read the first statement the seals had a mortar site laser targeted.
        You never laser target unless assets are in the area to take the target out.
        The act of targeting can compromise your own position.

        This suggest to me that assets of some sort was overhead. The seals were under the assumption that the asset was going to engage the target. Only the president can stop that asset from being used.

        Please look at the obvious…

        • Publius
        • I believe question was asked of several senators by Chris Wallace on his Sunday show: Since we know there was a drone overhead providing video of attack in Benghazi, was that drone armed?

          Senators seemed to be dissolving on screen as they fumfered and stammered and bleated about how such things are classified and they could not even discuss whether drones were in the area. When Wallace stated that drone story came from Administration sources, including in open testimony before Congress, senators looked like they were evaporating before our eyes.

          Point is – why would veteran SEAL paint targets with laser unless he expected armed drone, which he knew to be overhead, to fire at them? As I heard Wallace ask several times whether drone was armed, I started to wonder if someone in the know had told him to raise that issue – kind of like the phrase “Social Darwinism” of a few months back. Remember?

    • silverdust
    • “Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable.”

      My money’s on ValJar or another member of the Mo Bro Hood with a top position in the DoD.

    • Jules
    • A Congressional committee such as the one masterfully handling the Fast & Furious investigation?

      As MI said in ‘…Do the Math…,’ “WH coordination with State, others to TS classify EVERYTHING. Shutting it all down.”

    • truthandjustice
    • Did Saul Alinsky’s Rule #8 fail Barack and Hillary?

      One of the ideological mentors to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was Saul Alinsky, the modern day founder of Community Organizing who dedicated his most known work – Rules for Radicals – to Lucifer. Though Obama never met Alinsky, he was an enthusiastic acolyte. Hillary not only met uncle Saul but she did her senior thesis on him at Wellesley. The current Secretary of State so impressed Alinsky that he offered her a job, though she turned it down to pursue other goals.

      When it comes to the decision to point to the anti-Muhammad video as the cause for violence in Benghazi, Alinsky’s Rule #8 is interesting indeed:

      Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

      Consider that sometime after the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi and the early morning hours of 9/13/12, a decision appears to have been made to blame the anti-Muhammad video for the attack. ..Also on the 12th, in the Rose Garden, the narrative that the video was responsible hadn’t fully developed yet. Though Obama made comments about not denigrating other religions, the video’s exploitation relative to the attack in Benghazi specifically doesn’t seem to have been complete by then (though it had been pointed to as the cause for storming the U.S. embassy in Cairo).

      At some point thereafter, a decision appears to have been made by someone in the Obama administration to stretch the Muslim world’s identification of the video as the cause for the Cairo attacks to what happened in Benghazi.

      On September 13th, Hillary pointed directly at the video. On September 14th, at Andrews Air Force Base, the attempt to connect the video to the Benghazi attack was visibly more pronounced as Clinton pointed to the video while the caskets of four Americans were on display. We later learned that she told Charles Woods, the father of the fallen Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, that the filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.

      As Hillary was pointing to the video while speaking at Andrews Air Force Base on the 14th, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was making a forceful proclamation in front of the White House Press Corps. – on that same day – that the video was responsible. Notice the leap, here. Up until this point, the only attack that was being blamed on the video was the one in Cairo. When Carney makes blames the Benghazi attack on the video, ABC’s Jake Tapper calls him on it, largely because it was such a significant leap at the time.

      Keep in mind that as Carney was walking out on this limb, Hillary was at Andrews doing the same thing… in front of four caskets.

      On page 24 of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote:

      “The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work…. The real arena is corrupt and bloody.”

      If Obama and Hillary decided to go to the Alinsky well by pointing to a video as the cause for the Benghazi attack, thinking that they could use “all events of the period” for their purpose, their mentor appears to have let them down.

      I’m not sure what they expected.

      After all, their handbook was dedicated to the prince of darkness.

      http://www.shoebat.com/2012/10/29/did-saul-alinskys-rule-8-fail-barack-and-hillary/

      • SallyAl
      • Don’t forget though that the Embassy in Tripoli(?) had issued a statement PRIOR to the “consulate” attack blaming the video for the attack in Tripoli or Cairo or where ever (I am so confused!). We need to find out who issued that statement in the first place.

    • VTX
    • I’ll repeat – not paste – some of a previous thread.

      Here goes:
      - General Ham didn’t directly receive orders to assist in Benghazi – countering Obama’s claim that orders were sent. If orders were sent at all, wouldn’t they have been delivered to General Ham? Yet he said he didn’t get any such orders.

      - Unless…General Ham’s subordinates received both requests from Benghzi and refusals from the administration to send a rapid ready team.

      - And then…General Ham was going to send a team anyway, but was relieved of command – (temporarily, anyway.)

      It goes only two ways as far as the President’s claim that he immediately sent help: General Ham was either directly told, or he wasn’t, and the President is either lying or someone countermanded his order.

      That’s where we get to the Bat Faced One, who was overruled by Panetta vis-a-vis UBL. She was going to make damn sure she wasn’t going to be run over this time.

    • MainStreet
    • With the “Justice” department under Holder and the Senate under Reid, a Congressional investigation is a waste of time as proven by Issa’s Fast and Furious debacle. The only hope we have is to elect Romney and gain control of the Senate, and then clean house. Unfortunately it is as hard to get rid of government workers as it is to fire pedophiles that belong to the teachers union. It will take years to get rid of those who have infiltrated for nefarious purposes and, if the Republicans do what is necessary to right our economy, they will most likely be voted out in the next election. The electorate is so fickle but it is worth a try.

    • West1890
    • Ann Barnhardt references what appears to be the key to this:

      Matt Bracken via Western Rifle Shooters

      http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/bracken-did-obama-withhold-cross-border-authority/

      Did Obama Withhold Cross-Border Authority?

      Please help me.

      I am trying as hard as I can to get out the word about cross-border authority (CBA).

      I just can’t believe reporters don’t know enough to ask the right questions! It’s infuriating.

      Libya, as far as standing down the rescue, is 100% Obama’s show, and nobody else’s. Only he can grant CBA, not Biden, not Panetta, not Dempsey, not Hillary, and certainly not Ham in Germany.

      The entire episode is explained perfectly inside the context of not granting CBA. The CIA QRF in Tripoli? No problem, send them on the local Tripoli station chief’s say-so. He merely informs up COC that he has done so. CCs them so to speak. “This is what I am doing.” Ditto if Predators were in country, no problem using them.

      But the big rescue air armada streaming toward Libya right away after the alarm got to Stuttgart and Africom? That has to stop. I believe at the 5pm meeting with Panetta and Biden in the Oval Office, he said, “No outside military intervention,” on the basis that the last report was the “lull” from the consulate, at about 1030 p.m. In Benghazi, when the attack appeared to be over and the situation stabilizing.

      (As a soft exception, Obama may have authorized sending an unarmed Predator from outside of Libya, but I am thinking the two Predators were already in-country, and hence available to use within “no CBA granted” rules.)

      “No outside military intervention” equals “no cross-border authority” and that constitutes “standing orders” until POTUS changes them. Nobody else can “un-decide” the POTUS decree. The rescue air-armada of C-17s, C-130s and SOF helos like MH-47 Chinooks and Pavehawks cannot proceed directly to Libya without CBA being granted, so instead they are all staged at Sigonella, Sicily.

      USN ships are in position to “lilypad” helos for long over-water flights. Airborne tankers are coming into position. SOF forces in Sigonella are going over their gear for different contingencies. Fuming all night as officers keep checking in with operational commanders. “Hold in place, no rescue yet. We can’t find the President, it sounds like,” say the colonels to the majors and captains. 100s of military must know about this. I keep waiting for the conclusive whistle-blowers to come forward BEFORE the election. After won’t matter, it will be for the historians.

      Panetta is falling on his sword for Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, “The military doesn’t do risky things” defense of no rescue. Panetta is destroying his future reputation entirely, to save Obama. The question is why? Loyalty?

      Petreaus was probably “used” in some way early, about the supposed CIA Intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his PAO, “The stand-down order did not come from CIA.”

      Well, what is higher than CIA? Only White House. Obama, nobody else. Petreaus is naming Obama without naming him.

      Now, as far as Obama / Huma Abedin / Valerie Jarrett etc actually wanting Ambassador Stevens dead, to terminate the end of the very dirty Libyan arms to Syrian AQ programs, I can’t speculate. Obama is not competent enough, I’m thinking.

      But for sure, the ambassador going to unsecure Benghazi on 9-11 of all days stinks to me of a setup. You can bet Stevens would have told the Turks, “No, 9-11 is not a good day for us,” and stayed in Tripoli behind many high and thick walls. For him to go to dangerous Benghazi on 9-11 means the Turks totally insisted, but why would they care about the meeting date, unless they were in on a “hit” as the Judas goat?

      Alternatively, ordering Stevens to meet the Turks in Benghazi on 9-11 may have come from down OUR chain of command. Stevens seems to have been wearing two hats as ambassador and CIA arms shipper. Moving between more-secure Tripoli, the Benghazi “consulate,” and the CIA “annex.” So orders to him might come down the State or the CIA commo channels, or both. I am unclear on his job title and true position, but either the CIA or State sends him final instructions. How this works with “dual-hatted” ambassadors, I haven’t a clue.

      But Stevens meeting the Turks at the unsecure Benghazi “consulate” on 9-11 stinks to me of a deliberate setup. The Turks left the meeting and probably flashed their headlights to the attack team commanders lurking in shadows. A coded text, a word on a phone, meaning, “The ambassador is there, with minimal security: proceed with the attack plan.”

      That is all pure speculation. What I know FOR SURE is that the big “stand down order” issue revolves around granting or withholding cross-border authority.

      Every SOF officer and ops officer all the way up has this drummed into his head. We can make Obama respond to this question, even if reporters must shout it at him while he’s doing storm cleanup photo ops. If the reporters KNOW enough to ask the quesion.

      That’s why I am shouting all over the internet about CBA.

      I can’t believe cross-border authority permission is not one of the top discussion points about Benghazi.

      That, and who “set him up” by sending him to Beghazi to meet the Turks on 9-11, with them leaving after dark.

      And of course, down the road, was the military rescue-in-progress turned back because Obama actually wanted to make sure the consulate was wiped out? Is that why the spooks at the annex were refused permission to travel the under one mile to intervene? That would connect it all together, but for now, the best focus is on Obama either granting or withholding cross-border authority for the rescue.

      Feel free to repost these musings of a long-ago SOF officer anywhere you please.

      • daybreak
      • That last meeting with The Turk just before the attack began has had very, very light play so far and few seem to be asking too many questions about it. Something seems very rotten about that, IMHO. Who was it and what did their meeting consist of and were they in on it? Nobody’s looking too hard at Turkey, it seems to me.

    • ShainS
    • We’ll never know the whole truth because those involved have learned — thanks to a fifth-column media, B.J. Clinton, and a spineless Republican leadership (and those who continue to reelect them) — that there is no disincentive to lying or perjury (especially for those on the Left) …

    • AmericaTheBeautiful
    • CBA is simply the IslamoCommunist’s excuse…his Plausable deniability…that the USA must stand down without permission to cross borders…regardless of our people being slaughtered. His twisted logic believes that amounts to an excuse…but CBA brings this directly back and only to Obama. Further, he suffered no such indecision when, if he claims, he sent our Seals into Pockeestan…
      Barnhart is great…and one of the few who has properly unraveled the financial debacle that gave birth to Obama

      .Admiral Lyons, thank you. The adults have fully entered the room, legally. Our retired Millitary is speaking out….Imagine the disregard they hold for the Wesley Clarks, the Colin Powells, …..the traitors.

      FTA : Re Admiral Lyon’s interesting comments …leading an unresponsive press to the very real consideration our president is a traitor in collusion with the enemy…Treason.

      “We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and otheral Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

      In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.”

      http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/29/dempsey-hits-rumors-about-africom-chiefs-departure/

      The walls close in on Martin Dempsey…Pencil pusher? Liar..Traitor?

      T and J thanks for the Alinsky reference. people understand the Progressives if they understand Alinsky ,…the Communist Alinsky..the deciple of Lucifer…the mentor to Hillary…
      Hillary must be disposed of in this chapter. Those who investigated and impeached Bill came away with one overwhelming, overarching, singularly shared opinion…”Hillary was true evil.” Agree…we need an excorcism in this country.

      • VTX
      • Fact is, there were plenty of people willing to ignore CBA, even if it is a crock of shiite. And even if CBA is the excuse, there is no excuse for the President to refuse the rescue mission. It all comes back to him.

        Panetta ignored it with the UBL mission, right? That was a SOP mission, not just CIA. The President didn’t sign off on it – it was an end-run.

        This is why I believe Obama and Jarrett refused to sign off on this rescue mission: payback for going over their heads. They figured they could make our guys sit and have to watch as our own men were murdered – everyone from Panetta on down. He already paid back SEAL Team 6 – killing a significant number of them with insane ROEs with Assghanistan. That was a setup from the get-go.

        How many others in the service will have to pay the ultimate penalty for serving under an administration so callous, so treacherous, so treasonous as to resemble foreign occupiers on our own soil?

        So I don’t agree that CBS is irrelevant: it is highly relevant. It is the reason – probably – that General Ham was able to be sequestered until the men in Benghazi were dead. The person who replaced him on the spot…well, let’s say that career advancement is a priority, and he wasn’t going to take a fall for guys who he figured were already dead.

    • Francesca
    • So, if the networks do have such emails, how can we force them to release them? Look how long the LA Times have held on to that tape of Obama apparantly praising the Palestinian (?) wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Fours years and counting.

Leave A Response

* Required

-->