World news
Benghazi attack: 10,000 missing missiles
Yesterday’s Congressional hearing into the Benghazi attack made big news as the cover up, lies and deception of the Obama Administration unraveled before our eyes.
Many other outlets will report on the combination of outrageous incompetence and unmitigated arrogance of the so-called “Career State Department Officials” that led to the loss of four lives in the Benghazi attack
That aspect of this despicable episode of foreign policy blundering will not go away. But something more seems to have been lost here.
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland), a staunch and consistent opponent of American intervention in the Middle East, reminded everyone that:
- Our bombing and destruction of Libya was not authorized.
- Obama never received approval from Congress for any of the actions America took in that war.
So what then was the big story that seems to have been brushed aside?
Fast and Furious On Steroids.
There is a potential for massive loss of life and disruption of commercial airline traffic, everywhere in the world, far beyond the Benghazi attack.
Once again, the Obama administration put deadly weapons in the hands of terrorists and Al Qaeda. And they did it without a clue or a care as to who they were or the future consequences of those actions.
The State Department’s former regional security officer, Eric Nordstrom, was pressured by the committee to approximate how many shoulder fired missiles, capable of taking down passenger jets, are in the hands of terrorists.
Hold on to your seats. His answer? Over 10,000! [Editor’s note: that word also came from NATO, one week before the hearing.]
Benghazi attack a bigger disaster than first imagined
It may take some time for the committee to sort out just whom it was that made the final decisions, over and over again, not to give Nordstrom the security personnel and weapons he requested. It may take even longer to dig out from under the rocks the scoundrel who ordered the State Department and other officials to lie to the American people.
[ezadsense midpost]
TPATH has a good idea because as we have been told over the years, the “fish rots from the head”. And by the way, that fish head? It was stinking up the UN, inciting hatred to the world, long after even the White House gardener knew that a buffoonish video was not the cause of the Benghazi attack.
So,despite the gravity of the cover up and lies, isn’t the real story a question on who authorized massive amounts of weapons to be handed over to terrorists? Should we not be troubled about where these missiles are and where they will end up? Such as outside airports in America and Europe?
Houston, we’ve had a problem.
Astronaut Jim Lovell
Reprinted from Tea Party Advocate Tracking Hub.
[ezadsense leadout]
-
Civilization4 days agoChina, Iran, and Russia – a hard look
-
Civilization3 days agoDrill, Baby, Drill: A Pragmatic Approach to Energy Independence
-
Civilization4 days agoAbortion is not a winning stance
-
Civilization1 day agoThe Trump Effect
-
Civilization3 days agoHere’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right
-
Executive2 days agoFood Lobbyists Plot to Have It Their Way With RFK Jr.
-
Civilization4 days agoLet Me Count the Ways
-
Civilization3 days agoWho Can Save the Marine Corps?
“So,despite the gravity of the cover up and lies, isn’t the real story a question on who authorized massive amounts of weapons to be handed over to terrorists?”
Oh, get a grip. The missing MANPADS came from Libyan stocks. I’m not aware of NATO supplying the rebels with MANPADS; why bother, when we had aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone? The NATO statement which you linked to said, quite explicitly, that the missing weapons are ones that Gadaffi bought from the USSR. Your link to The Hill also stated, straight out, that the weapons are missing from Libyan arsenals. To accuse the US government of “authorising massive amounts of weapons to be handed over to terrorists” is, at best, a careless error. At worst it’s a flat-out lie.
In any case the SA-7 is rubbish. Assuming that the thermal batteries are still working – up to 50% of them probably won’t be – it’s a crude missile with a primitive guidance system. It’s easily decoyed and doesn’t work if the target is within 45° of the Sun. You’d do better to worry about the Stingers supplied to the Afghan Mujahiddeen in the 1980s; they’re a far bigger threat, and a lot of them are still out there.
None of which answers the question that Mr. Kehoe raised. Which is: who made the decision not even to try to secure that arsenal? And to say that “they’re not such formidable weapons as that” rather misses the point. Any weapon is better than none.
“Which is: who made the decision not even to try to secure that arsenal?”
That would be “those arsenals,” in fact. There wasn’t a big shed somewhere with a sign out front that said “Missile Store” that could have been easily secured. The Libyan army was based on the Soviet model, and in that model MANPADS are issued to every platoon. To secure them you’d need to take over every battalion-level barracks in the country, because the armouries in those barracks were where the MANPADS were stored. Securing all those barracks, in turn, would mean troops on the ground. A LOT of troops on the ground. Remember how well that worked out in Iraq? In any case – as happened in Iraq – most of the unit armouries would have been looted before NATO troops could get there.
Securing the Libyan MANPAD inventory was never even remotely achievable. The only question raised here is why Mr Kehoe chooses to comment on military matters he knows absolutely nothing about.
“Any weapon is better than none.”
However in the case of the SA-7 Strela-2, not much better than nothing. As I already said, you’d be better off worrying about the Stingers that Reagan and Mrs Thatcher, in one of their rare screwups, decided to give to islamic fundamentalists so they could fight a civilised European country.
Once again: the discussion isn’t about which weapon of that sort would you choose. It’s about what terrorists can now do with the weapons they might well have acquired.
And I put it to you that the only airline that can call itself safe, after that oversight, is El Al. Why? Because each one of their planes has a flak-and-flare system on board.
“Once again: the discussion isn’t about which weapon of that sort would you choose. It’s about what terrorists can now do with the weapons they might well have acquired.”
No, Terry; it’s about a lame attempt to blame this on the US government. These missiles were not supplied by Obama; they were already in Libya and there was no way to keep them out of rebel hands without a troop deployment that a) the USA wasn’t ready to make and b) your wing of the Republican Party would have objected to anyway.
“And I put it to you that the only airline that can call itself safe, after that oversight, is El Al. Why? Because each one of their planes has a flak-and-flare system on board.”
Firstly there was no oversight. Secondly While the SA-7 does pose a risk to passenger aircraft it doesn’t pose much of one. Why aren’t you worried about the Stingers? They’re at least marginally capable of defeating El Al’s defence packages.
I didn’t say the Stingers didn’t worry me. But the Stingers in Afghanistan are not at issue in this article. The SA-7 Strelas in Libya are.
“I didn’t say the Stingers didn’t worry me.”
Well, they don’t worry ME, and I’ve flown in and out of Kabul often enough. The fact is that getting in your car and driving every day is far more likely to kill you than a stolen MANPADS is.
“But the Stingers in Afghanistan are not at issue in this article. The SA-7 Strelas in Libya are.”
There is no issue,Terry. A few thousand obsolete Russian MANPADS are missing. Wow. Add them to the hundreds of thousands already in circulation and this story is a big yawn. It’s not Obama’s fault, nothing could have been done about it and who cares anyway? The world is awash in weapons. There is a military small arm out there for every ten men, women and children. Some dodgy Russian missiles that might, optimistically, score one hit in every ten launches mean nothing in the big scheme of things. In any case since MANPADS were designed they have downed less passenger aircraft than pigeons have.
DWIGHT KEHOE –
You are spot on. It almost seems as if the Obama regime desired the leave Americans defenseless to encourage the Benghazi terrorism; – thus, the perfect smoke screen for all these missing weapons.
But, be that as it may, I believe that enough American voters have experienced their fill of this present reckless and irresponsible Obama. Here, are some of my further thoughts in my most recent moralmatters.org blog:
Benghazi terrorist attack highlights a scandal-ridden Obama presidency
link to moralmatters.org
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel
http://www.thechristianmessage.org
[…] BENGHAZI ATTACK: 10,000 MISSING MISSILES – cnav.news/2012/10/11/ […]
[…] CBS reporter slams administration for ‘major lie’ over weakened Taliban – foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/ […]
[…] CBS reporter slams administration for ‘major lie’ over weakened Taliban – foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/ […]
[…] […]
[…] what happened to ten thousand missiles that went […]