#Benghazi Consulate Massacre: was there an AC-130 over the battle? UPDATE: Yes

Posted by: Phineas on October 26, 2012 at 3:02 pm

**Posted by Phineas

If so, this makes an awful situation even worse. Bob Owens at PJMedia writes:

There were two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector.

The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of Kunduz

It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser.

…and…

What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists and saving American lives.

I’m not as sure as Bob that a gunship was circling Benghazi during the fight, though it would explain why the American on the roof was painting the mortar crew with a laser (and, God, what he must have been thinking!), though the fact remains we had forces within a couple of hours’ travel that could have done something. Yet Obama did nothing.

Except go to bed. And then Las Vegas.

I honestly hope there wasn’t an AC-130 overhead — can you imagine what they must’ve felt when told to hold fire?

UPDATE: via Blackfive, a retired Delta Force soldier says it was either an AC-130, or an armed Predator:

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

This is awful…

(via Fausta)

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

24 Responses to “#Benghazi Consulate Massacre: was there an AC-130 over the battle? UPDATE: Yes”

Comments

  1. Drew the Infidel says:

    Irrespective of whether there was an AC-130, that consulate should never have been left unprotected in the first place in view of numerous attacks in the area dating back to April, two of which directly targeted that particular compound. The story is only going to putrefy from here on. Obhammud’s fatal fantasy of the world joining him in one big Kumbaya moment has cost four innocent lives. It is one thing to make sacrifices to accomplish a mission; it is quite another to be murdered in the process.

  2. Sarah says:

    If the CIA operators on the roof of the annex were painting a target, there was a gunship or armed drone on station above Benghazi. Period.

  3. in_awe says:

    Listening to Fox today as it revealed these denials of pleas for help, then hearing Ty Woods’ father describe how his son bravely disobeyed orders in order to do the right thing – rush to the aid of fellow Americans in danger – made me sad and angry at the same time.

    Obama is a coward who cynically chose to abandon the Americans in Benghazi to fend for themselves rather than risk his re-election if rescuers or Libyan civilians were killed in a rescue attempt. What a soulless creature our “Commander-in-Chief” is. He is beneath contempt.

  4. Zachriel says:

    Using a gunship in a populated area would be very unwise. You could kill far more innocent people than you save.

  5. The Quadfather says:

    Note to Zacriel:
    That battle waged on for at least seven hours. Any innocent local people would have gotten the hell out of there within minutes. Remember, they were not the target of the attack. The military should have used the gun ship. It is unfortunate that this sad affair occured, but this may have saved the nation from Obama’s treason. It’s up to the American people now.

  6. Obama 2012 says:

    As terrible as it is, sometimes the government can do nothing in situations like this. If there was a drone or gunship, a tactical strike for either of these would have caused massive collateral damage. These things are accurate, but not surgical as we wound be made to believe. And that type of collateral damage could certainly have caused more problems than it would have fixed. I dont think Obama made an order to stand down. This type of thing was likely first directed to an operator who would be in charge of that theater. It’s sad that these people died, but you can’t hold the president responsible for the acts of terrorists.

  7. Zachriel says:

    The Quadfather: That battle waged on for at least seven hours. Any innocent local people would have gotten the hell out of there within minutes.

    The battle ebbed and flowed, so people couldn’t be sure when it was safe. In fact, it was Libyan civilians that pulled the U.S. ambassador to safety. He was still alive, though died shortly thereafter.

    Allahu Akbar
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/africa/libya-benghazi-video/

    Obama 2012: It’s sad that these people died, but you can’t hold the president responsible for the acts of terrorists.

    Granted, but something certainly did go wrong. An investigation is warranted. Jumping to conclusions based on conspiracy theories is not.

  8. Carlos says:

    Assuming the worst in the face of an obvious and bald-faced coverup is human nature, Zachriel.

    When the government promotes what is an inexcusable lie, what are we, the people, to think? Remember, we don’t have the facts as the government does, and, since they have been so blithely lying all the way through this, why should we believe ANYTHING the government tells us?

    (BTW, this goes not only for the administration in this particular case, but for the government in general, including those paragons of maturity and honesty, the Republican “leadership,” too.)

  9. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: Assuming the worst in the face of an obvious and bald-faced coverup is human nature

    There’s no evidence of a coverup, though certainly an investigation should be undertaken.

    Carlos: Remember, we don’t have the facts as the government does, and, since they have been so blithely lying all the way through this, why should we believe ANYTHING the government tells us?

    Being skeptical is reasonable, even cynicism. However, just making up stuff isn’t rational.

  10. flyerz73 says:

    Anyone who won’t allow a Hellfire beam-rider targeted at a MORTER POSITION when friendly assets are in grave danger is an incompetent coward. If I was the Commander-in-Chief and I found out that someone below me made that decision I would have been throwing lamps against the walls, and half a dozen people would have been fired within hours. Unfortunately, I believe that POTUS himself was responsible for the decision.

  11. Carlos says:

    @Zachriel: Have you been living under a rock the last 47 days, sir? Only the most blind of partisans would defend the lies and distortions of this administration in the attempt to deflect any responsibility for the deaths of an ambassador and three other Americans in a thoroughly preventable and/or defensible situation.

    Heck, in my mind even Milquetoast Nixon would have done everything in his power to protect those lives, and he was the most scurrilous president ever, at least until the present WH occupant got there.

  12. Jim J says:

    Zachriel:

    There’s no evidence of a coverup

    Falsely blaming a video is not evidence of a coverup?

    Like most liberals, you are really, really, really dumb.

  13. Zachriel says:

    Jim J: Falsely blaming a video is not evidence of a coverup?

    Being wrong is not “evidence of a coverup”. More important, many countries in the Middle East experienced violent protests over the video, and witnesses say the militants claimed they were seeking revenge for the video.

  14. Jim J says:

    Zachriel: Being wrong is not “evidence of a coverup”.

    Of course it is. In legal terms it’s known as prima facie evidence, and it is required to build a case for the prosecution. For example, a dead body does not prove that John Doe committed murder, but the dead body is prima facie evidence of murder and would be presented as such at legal proceedings.

    Blaming a video for weeks when the evidence shows that it was a known terror attack is prima facie evidence of a coverup. Claiming that there was a mob protest when it was known that there was no protest is prima facie evidence of a coverup.

    I’m not sure if you are just an apologist for Obama or simply lacking in intelligence. Either way it would be wise for you to remain silent rather than make foolish, ignorant statements.

  15. Zachriel says:

    Jim J: Of course it is. In legal terms it’s known as prima facie evidence, and it is required to build a case for the prosecution.

    Being wrong or confused is not prima facie evidence of lying.

    Jim J: For example, a dead body does not prove that John Doe committed murder, but the dead body is prima facie evidence of murder and would be presented as such at legal proceedings.

    A dead body is not prima facie evidence of murder (though a body with a knife in its back might be).

    Jim J: Blaming a video for weeks when the evidence shows that it was a known terror attack is prima facie evidence of a coverup.

    The video as the spark of a terror attack is not contradictory, so is not prima facie evidence of a coverup. Indeed, witnesses say that militants were seeking revenge for the perceived insult to Islam.

  16. Jim J says:

    Being wrong or confused is not prima facie evidence of lying.

    Actually it is, and would be admissible in court as such.

    A dead body is not prima facie evidence of murder (though a body with a knife in its back might be).

    Actually, it’s difficult to get a murder conviction without the prima facie evidence of a dead body – regardless of whether the murder weapon is found. Think Scott Peterson.

    The video as the spark of a terror attack is not contradictory, so is not prima facie evidence of a coverup.

    Wrong again. The scenario you mention is contradictory to the statements made by the administration that there was some angry mob protest that turned bad. It would be submitted as prima facie evidence in any court or legal proceeding.

    Indeed, witnesses say that militants were seeking revenge for the perceived insult to Islam.

    And if this contradicts what the militants themselves have said say, on Facebook, then we have prima facie evidence to the contrary. Jeesh, are you this dense?

    You don’t seem to have a clue about what evidence is or how it is used so I would refrain from commenting if I were you. You just seem very ignorant and it appears that your motivations are political.

    Even a good defense attorney will very rarely argue that “there is no evidence” because it’s absurd to think that a prosecutor has not been able to uncover even a single piece of evidence. What they will argue instead is that the evidence is not conclusive, or flawed in some way. For you to argue that evidence simply does not exist reveals you as an ignorant huckster rationalizing on behalf of his political hero.

  17. Zachriel says:

    Jim J: Actually, it’s difficult to get a murder conviction without the prima facie evidence of a dead body – regardless of whether the murder weapon is found. Think Scott Peterson.

    Prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.” While a dead body certainly proves someone died, it is not prima facie evidence of murder, which is what you claimed.

    Jim J: The scenario you mention is contradictory to the statements made by the administration that there was some angry mob protest that turned bad.

    Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, did not say the attack was made by protesters, but by extremists who coopted a protest. She also indicated that this was tentative information, and that an investigation was being conducted. According to witnesses interviewed later, there was no protest.

    Zachriel: Indeed, witnesses say that militants were seeking revenge for the perceived insult to Islam.

    Jim J: And if this contradicts what the militants themselves have said say, on Facebook, then we have prima facie evidence to the contrary.

    Oh? Did the militants contradict the witnesses?

    Ansar al-Sharia disclaimed the attack the next day, so there really is a fog surrounding the events. You’re just jumping to conclusions based on your prejudices.

  18. Jim J says:

    While a dead body certainly proves someone died, it is not prima facie evidence of murder, which is what you claimed.

    It absolutely is. Sorry, you are wrong. And ignorant.

    Look, I can copy quotes from Wikipedia too!

    “Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable”

    Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, did not say the attack was made by protesters, but by extremists who coopted a protest.

    And since there was never a protest that would be prima facie evidence of a coverup. How dumb are you?

    Oh? Did the militants contradict the witnesses?

    Why yes, they did.

    Ansar al-Sharia disclaimed the attack the next day, so there really is a fog surrounding the events. You’re just jumping to conclusions based on your prejudices.

    My conclusion is that evidence of a coverup exists. It is prima facie evidence. It is not conclusive. It is not irrefutable. Yet it is evidence that any legal proceeding would recognize.

    You, on the other hand, are insisting that there is NO evidence. Nothing. Not a single shred. Not one iota of evidence that is consistent with a coverup. Nada. Zero.

    I think we both know who is succumbing to their own prejudices here.

  19. Zachriel says:

    Jim J: And since there was never a protest that would be prima facie evidence of a coverup.

    It’s prima facie evidence she may have been wrong, not that there was a coverup. Even then, she carefully couched her comments, saying the information was tentative.

    Jim J: Why yes, they did.

    In what way did the militants statement on the web contradict the “militants were seeking revenge for the perceived insult to Islam”. Please be specific.

    Jim J: You, on the other hand, are insisting that there is NO evidence.

    There is certainly no prima facie evidence of a coverup. However, it is certainly possible a coverup has occurred, though the available evidence mitigates against it. There was definitely a screwup, though, that led to the deaths of four Americans. An investigation is certainly warranted.

  20. Jim J says:

    It’s prima facie evidence she may have been wrong…

    Or that she lied. Or that she was covering up. Remember? Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable? It’s evidence at “first glance”.

    Let’s say I want to charge someone with battery. I present prima facie evidence that the defendant’s DNA was found on the plaintiff. While not conclusive or irrefutable it is absolutely prima facie evidence of battery. Any competent attorney will confirm this.

    Sorry, but there’s little point in continuing this if you are so unable to grasp the simplest of concepts.

    Have a nice day.

  21. Tango says:

    Here we are, about a week shy of two months since the Benghazi killings. And the Obama minions are still in full dance mode, desperately trying to find a lie that will work. They bring shame upon us all.

    Instead of “duty, honor, and country,” they bring us “deny, obfuscate, and lie.”