Benghazi Related Email: “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” (7;19 PM ET)

Posted by Tina

An email released to Judicial Watch from an FOI request indicates that the Department of Defense offered help for Benghazi at 7:19 PM Eastern time.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

THERE WAS SOMETHING THEY COULD DO…THEY JUST WOULDN’T DO IT

Those who think the Benghazi scandal won’t track Hillary as she tries to run for president are daffy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Benghazi Related Email: “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” (7;19 PM ET)

  1. J. Soden says:

    Hello, State?? State??
    Hello, Panetta?? Mr. Panetta
    Hello, Obumble?? Mr Prez?? Mr. Prez??

    Nobody answered the (3 am) phone calls . . . .

  2. Pete says:

    What was that “something” they could do?

  3. Tina says:

    That something is spelled out in the email, Pete. There were troops that were ready to roll…the administration could have acted to authorize them to go to Benghazi. They would have arrived after the initial attack but prior to the second attack. The email was sent at 7:19 p.m. ET during the early stages of the eight-hour siege. It came after the first attack at the consulate but before a mortar strike five hours later on the CIA annex. They probably wouldn’t have been able to save Chris Stevens but they might have done more for the others including Woods and Doherty, who were killed.

    I don’t know what motivated Hillary or Obama but I do know the evidence points to error and cover up. You of course are free to think otherwise. I do have to wonder what’s wrong with your sniffer, however, if you aren’t at least just a little curious.

  4. Dewey says:

    So many dead in America from mass shootings by US citizens.

    yet all that matters is to keep doing the same trip down the rabbit hole.

    Richard Deer was in court today. Ya see him? A devout Christian crazed from the propaganda. We have serious problems in how the RW propaganda affects people. US Citizens dying on this soil. 355 mass shootings to date and only 1 was jihad killing.

    What are we going to do to stop this tirade of untrue propaganda and killing of people here in The USA?

    If there is ever anything in the emails of significance they will act. I actually put flowers on Ambassador stevens grave have you? Do you know where he is?

    Does not matter how many millions are wasted, nor how many reports are filed there is only one purpose and that is to have constant witch hunts to try and win an election for a power grab.

    When do we get back to the birther subject and candidate Rafael Cruz?

  5. Pete says:

    Nothing is spelled out in the email. It doesn’t mention who would deploy or how long it would it would take them to get there. Also, the email mentions getting prior approval from the host nation. That would take at least an hour. Let’s say that we could have had a response team there by 8:00. (Realistically probably 9:30 or 10:00) Hell, arriving at 8:00 puts them there just in time to help the Libyan troops mop up. That email says nothing.

  6. Chris says:

    Pete is right, and you are too easily fooled. Once again Judicial Watch makes claims that are completely unsupported by their evidence, and you buy it because you want to.

    There is no new information in these e-mails. We know help was deployed. We also know it didn’t get there in time. Here is what Panetta told the armed services committee in 2013:

    “The bottom line is this: that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. Very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region, time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.

    Despite the uncertainty at the time, the Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives.”

    These e-mails don’t contradict his testimony at all. It’s another bit of old news that conservatives are trying to spin as another “smoking gun,” because you all apparently have the collective memory of a goldfish.

  7. Christ says:

    Townhall’s Katie Pavlich initially went with Judicial Watch’s interpretation of events, but later updated the story to issue what amounted to a full retraction of its claims:

    “UPDATE II: Looking back at the timeline and considering the statement below released by the Select Committee, this information isn’t new. In fact, there were multiple military positions that readied to respond, but the specific email in question shows assets being mobilized in Germany. Assets were also mobilized in Tripoli. A response from Tripoli was sent and therefore the point about a stand down order is not valid. “

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/12/08/breaking-new-email-shows-military-forces-were-ready-to-move-night-of-benghazi-n2091105

    Will this blog demonstrate the same integrity and issue a correction to this article?

    • Chris says:

      Oh good lord. I have no idea how I misspelled my own name above. You won’t believe this, but I promise my ego isn’t THAT big .

    • Tina says:

      I respect Katie so I will consider it but I will not have time to look into it further until later tomorrow.

      An appropriate “seasonal” slip up. 😉

      Did you see the atheist billboard with a big old Santa on it inviting people to “skip church” and “Be good for goodness sake” with a “Happy Holidays” greeting?

      • Chris says:

        A billboard telling people not to go to church should be seen as no different from a billboard telling people to go church. It’s an opinion. I don’t see it as insulting to religion, anymore than billboards telling me to accept Jesus are insulting to Jews or anyone else.

  8. Tina says:

    Chris I merely asked if you had seen it. I said nothing about it’s being insulting.

  9. Tina says:

    The ad was visually pleasing.

    I liked the fact that, for me at least, the secular holiday was recognized.

    People of many faiths, or none, celebrate Christmas because they enjoy the trappings that make Christmas joyful and pleasing to the senses; the ad includes them with a positive message. In this case the sentiment encouraged goodness, and that is never a bad thing.

  10. Tina says:

    Chris I have reviewed my posting of the email and my comments about it and find nothing to retract. The email exists. The email indicates there were forces at the ready that could be deployed. The State Department could have chosen to give the go-ahead and for whatever reason chose not to. It might have made a difference to those in the CIA annex had we acted and acted swiftly. I did not say this was new information; I just said the email was evidence that help was offered by DOD. I said nothing about a stand down order; I did say they could have done something and “chose not to do it.”

    I’ve seen an ex Navy Seal on TV who said that it was definitely possible to get help within that five hour window…he didn;t even specify from where. I’d take his word over Pete’s on that score.

    Another question emerges…where the heck were Hillary and Obama during all of these crucial hours? I expect my leaders to take more interest when American lives are at stake. They should be in the command room ready to authorize anything that could possibly save lives. My sense is that they both were not much engaged at all. Until I hear otherwise, and whether we ever find out the full details, this continues to be a big black mark in my estimation.

    • Chris says:

      We know exactly where Obama was the night of Benghazi. Here is the photo that right wing blogs keep asking for:

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/8341829398/in/photostream

      And as I understand it the recently released Clinton emails show that she was being kept up to date as well.

      “The email indicates there were forces at the ready that could be deployed”

      They WERE deployed. Again, this is what Panett said two years ago:

      ““The bottom line is this: that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. Very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region, time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.

      It’s been explained again and again that the forces we sent to help did not get there in time. The reasons for that have also been explained again and again.

  11. Chris says:

    This is what you said in the article:

    “THERE WAS SOMETHING THEY COULD DO…THEY JUST WOULDN’T DO IT”

    This is not supported by the email in question nor by any other piece of evidence. You should correct the article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.