Presidential Treason on The Potomac Oral Deckard 10-30-12
In all the discussions over the betrayal of the four Americans in Benghazi on 911, I haven't heard anyone mention the importance of a Congressional Medal of Honor for the two former Navy Seals who heard the gunfire only a mile away and chose to disobey the illegal order to “stand down” and allow it, and personally went over there to do what they could anyway. They succeeded in getting several people to safety, but stayed with the target of the attack, setting the kind of example we now take for granted from such men.
Due to the nature of what ambassadors are, one, or a few staff and security, surrounded by those who may wish them dead, expected to stand up for us, and stand their ground, without the need to snivel, curtsey or get Stockholm Syndrome, they have a right to expect that we will stand behind them, that they are not on their own, and that they will be defended, that an attack on them would be such a monumental mistake that no one would dare consider it. Those men obviously understood this, and carried out their real duty, regardless of the risk.
In the face of the obviously growing danger, refusing to increase security was bad enough. But instead sending most of what they had home, ignoring repeated requests for replacements, and hiring unarmed guards from among those flying the black flag of Al-Qaeda to defend them was criminal. Then, watching the attack on TV for 7 hours as it went down, and ordering those in some position to help to stand down, provided the enemy with the essential aid necessary for the attack to succeed, went beyond mere criminal.
The criminal nature of that order, requiring those in a position to render necessary assistance to instead allow it, makes it an illegal order, something every soldier is sworn to disobey.
We hear almost exclusively the name of the betrayed ambassador. But the former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, who knew they were cashing in at least their careers, if not their lives, to do their real duty, go almost unnamed and essentially forgotten. This isn't right. Surely there is at least one Congressman with enough backbone to do what's right by them and introduce the bill.
Holding out through a 7 hour attack, pleading for help that they couldn't believe was never coming, these brave soldiers willingly laid down their lives to defend Ambassador Stevens and our national interest.
Do we even appreciate it?
From an ROA SmartBrief we learn that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tells us "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Not only is that very untrue, but he DID know what was going on in real time, because, though they restrained the cavalry, they did send in a camera equipped drone, and watched the attack go down on live TV. We now know they used those 7 hours to email each other about it and plan out their cover story.
With an aircraft carrier only an hour away, are we to understand that we are to act so timidly that we can't risk going to the rescue of an Ambassador under attack until we have stood around with our collective thumb up our backside for at least 7 hours, until he, and those with him, are captured, tortured, sodomized, drug through the streets and murdered? When did we start operating by these kind of rules? When we wanted to win brownie points with Muslim Terrorists?
What this really is is not simply incompetence, or negligence, or even plain old stupidity. The order to stand down was the key assistance the enemy needed to succeed. It was plain old giving aiding to the enemy. It was a participation in the attack.
What this is is treason. The continuing “insider attacks” our soldiers face really aren't limited to Afghanistan.
If we really don't have what it takes to recognize this and do the right thing, then we surely deserve the natural course of things to follow. Now our ambassadors know they stand alone. Our enemies around the world know it too. Will we correct it, or just shuffle on down the slope?
Sincerely,
Oral Deckard
Due to the nature of what ambassadors are, one, or a few staff and security, surrounded by those who may wish them dead, expected to stand up for us, and stand their ground, without the need to snivel, curtsey or get Stockholm Syndrome, they have a right to expect that we will stand behind them, that they are not on their own, and that they will be defended, that an attack on them would be such a monumental mistake that no one would dare consider it. Those men obviously understood this, and carried out their real duty, regardless of the risk.
In the face of the obviously growing danger, refusing to increase security was bad enough. But instead sending most of what they had home, ignoring repeated requests for replacements, and hiring unarmed guards from among those flying the black flag of Al-Qaeda to defend them was criminal. Then, watching the attack on TV for 7 hours as it went down, and ordering those in some position to help to stand down, provided the enemy with the essential aid necessary for the attack to succeed, went beyond mere criminal.
The criminal nature of that order, requiring those in a position to render necessary assistance to instead allow it, makes it an illegal order, something every soldier is sworn to disobey.
We hear almost exclusively the name of the betrayed ambassador. But the former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, who knew they were cashing in at least their careers, if not their lives, to do their real duty, go almost unnamed and essentially forgotten. This isn't right. Surely there is at least one Congressman with enough backbone to do what's right by them and introduce the bill.
Holding out through a 7 hour attack, pleading for help that they couldn't believe was never coming, these brave soldiers willingly laid down their lives to defend Ambassador Stevens and our national interest.
Do we even appreciate it?
From an ROA SmartBrief we learn that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tells us "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Not only is that very untrue, but he DID know what was going on in real time, because, though they restrained the cavalry, they did send in a camera equipped drone, and watched the attack go down on live TV. We now know they used those 7 hours to email each other about it and plan out their cover story.
With an aircraft carrier only an hour away, are we to understand that we are to act so timidly that we can't risk going to the rescue of an Ambassador under attack until we have stood around with our collective thumb up our backside for at least 7 hours, until he, and those with him, are captured, tortured, sodomized, drug through the streets and murdered? When did we start operating by these kind of rules? When we wanted to win brownie points with Muslim Terrorists?
What this really is is not simply incompetence, or negligence, or even plain old stupidity. The order to stand down was the key assistance the enemy needed to succeed. It was plain old giving aiding to the enemy. It was a participation in the attack.
What this is is treason. The continuing “insider attacks” our soldiers face really aren't limited to Afghanistan.
If we really don't have what it takes to recognize this and do the right thing, then we surely deserve the natural course of things to follow. Now our ambassadors know they stand alone. Our enemies around the world know it too. Will we correct it, or just shuffle on down the slope?
Sincerely,
Oral Deckard