Tyrone Woods and David Petraeus: A tale of two future legacies

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has volunteered to testify to House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed session on Friday, November 16th. The families of four dead Americans still have not been told the full truth about what happened in Benghazi. Now, the scandal-rocked Petraeus, who has had his legacy forever tarnished by an extra-marital affair, has an opportunity to reclaim much of his honor at great personal risk or place it in a circular basin and pull down on the lever.

When it comes to former Navy SEAL, Tyrone Woods, there are two aspects to his super-heroic story. One is that he gave his life to save fellow Americans. The other is that he allegedly disobeyed an immoral order to do it. If the latter is indeed true, it is the least that Petraeus could do to tell that truth to Congress, regardless of who gave it.

Fox News reported that Woods was ordered to "stand down" at least twice before he decided to put his career and his life in danger; he lost both. In that same report by Jennifer Griffin, the CIA chain of command was identified as having denied Woods the military back-up he requested:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

That "CIA chain of command" is something that then CIA Director David Petraeus was ultimately responsible for but on the exact same day that Griffin's report was published, ABC's Jake Tapper tweeted an excerpt from a CIA statement:

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

So, Petraeus essentially put himself on record as saying his agency did not tell Woods to stand down. If that's true, it meant that either someone else did or no one else did. If Woods was told to stand down and that truth is not told, it will be a slap in the face to his honor because it will have meant that he put so much on the line to do what was right, and future generations will never know it.

If the CIA statement is correct, the spotlight logically shifts to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who basically accused anyone who questioned his judgment as being engaged in Monday morning Quarterbacking.

Via CBS DC:

“(The) basic principle is that 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.”

Aside from the fact that Tyrone Woods didn't know what was going on either, except that Americans were in harm's way and needed help. He risked and lost his life doing just that, despite not having all the facts about what was happening. Applying Panetta's standard, the Defense Secretary wasn't even willing to risk his own reputation to protect American lives. That quote from Panetta also comes across as a tacit admission that Woods would not have received back-up if he asked for it, which lends credence to the claims that he disobeyed orders to stand down.

Petraeus can clear that all up if he chooses honor over self-preservation. We all know what Woods chose when faced with the same decision.

In a November 2nd UPI report, the CIA was the entity identified as being responsible for the Benghazi Consulate:

The CIA was the real commanding agency at the attacked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, not the State Department, senior U.S. intelligence officials said.

In addition, two of the four men who died in the Sept. 11 attack -- former Navy SEAL commandos Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- were actually CIA contractors killed defending the mission, not State Department contract security officers, as originally publicly identified, the officials told several news organizations on condition of anonymity.

Of course, this doesn't square with the multiple requests for additional security made to the State Department by Consulate personnel. In an October 31st report from Fox's Catherine Herridge, she revealed that an August 16th cable was sent from Ambassador Christopher Stevens directly to the office of Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, for additional security. That request was very detailed and very specific.

Via Fox News:

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

A little later in the report...

Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.

The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.

Of course, this example is one of many that the Consulate reached out to the State Department - not the CIA - on issues of increased security. In testimony before the House Oversight Committee, State Department officials admitted both to being aware of additional requests for security as well as to watching the attack on the Consulate as it happened, in real time. Yet, the UPI report seems to attempt to absolve the State Department of culpability.

That poses a small problem. Hillary Clinton personally accepted responsibility for the security of her State Department officials, which necessarily includes Stevens.

There are at least four people who know far, far more than what we're being told. They include Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and David Petraeus.

Again, the former CIA Director can clear that all up if he chooses honor over self-preservation. We all know what Woods chose when faced with the same decision.

True leadership means putting your men above yourself. As CIA Director, one of Petraeus' subordinates was Tyrone Woods, who is a national hero the likes of which we rarely see. If Petraeus is capable of putting his men above himself, he will tell the truth on November 16th, no matter what it is.

If he does not, he will only further tarnish his own legacy in the name of self-preservation while doing a gross disservice to a true American hero.

Tyrone Woods took the righteous path that so few ever take

It has been learned that Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods actually disobeyed orders to stand down in Benghazi. At great risk to his personal safety as well as to his career, he went into harm's way to rescue his fellow Americans. In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Tyrone's father Charles talked about his son's decision to ignore an immoral order - if not an illegal one. He then stated that those responsible for not acting are cowards who are guilty of murder.

Via GWP:



At a different point in that interview, Charles Woods said the following:

“I Do Not Appreciate Cowardice, And I Do Not Appreciate Lies.”

It would appear that we have a teachable moment for some of the military's top brass. As the weight of selfless nature with which Tyrone acted really began to take hold, it became blatantly obvious that there are instances - albeit rare - when honor demands not following orders. The Nuremberg trials and the subsequent Nuremberg Defense provide the most extreme and obvious example.

What Tyrone Woods did in Benghazi is unabashedly antithetical to the Nuremberg Defense. Though the order to stand down may not have been illegal, it was at a minimum, quite immoral. Woods understood that and everyone with a sense of right and wrong knows that he exhibited the highest possible level of honor while disobeying an order. He deserves every Military honor that can be bestowed upon him for his bravery. His legacy will endure.

Contrast the actions of Tyrone Woods with those of then Secretary of the Army, General George Casey on November 8, 2009, three days after the Jihad attack on Fort Hood. During an appearance on ABC This Week, Casey said the following about the motivation for the attack:

"I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it's not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse Army; we have a very diverse society and that gives us all strength so again, we need to be very careful with that."

Here is the full interview (relevant portion at the 4:50 mark):



Since then, those words have aged like a very bad wine. They were wrong then and that reality is even more blatantly obvious now. The attack on Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan was an act of jihad and it was an act of war. To this day, the survivors of the attack are under great duress not just because of what they went through but because of what their government refuses to acknowledge. Every soldier killed or wounded that day should be the recipient of a Purple Heart as well as any benefits that come with being killed or wounded in combat. Instead, because Hasan's actions have been identified as 'workplace violence', none are eligible.

With his words on 11/08/09, Gen. Casey helped to contribute to that reality today. Here is a video released earlier this month that features the Fort Hood massacre's survivors:



The question that came to mind as Casey uttered such shameful words was:

Did he believe what he was saying or was he saying what his superior (Barack Obama?) told him to say?

If it was the latter, he was following a directive that ordered him not to be honest with the American people. That is immoral and Casey should have resigned before speaking those words.

One of the questions that needs to be asked about Benghazi is:

Who told U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney to lie to the American people when they pointed to a video as the cause of the attack?

Their doing so would constitute following an order. Following an order to lie is an immoral act. Like Casey, both Rice and Carney should have resigned instead of committing it. Yet, career preservation (or an ideological agenda) was more important.

People like Tyrone Woods don't just subjugate their careers to do what's right; they subjugate their very existence to it. Consequently, their legacies are far more lasting. In this regard, the contrast between him and individuals like Casey, Rice, and Carney could not be more stark.

This video clip illustrates perfectly why so many people don't do the right thing:



Now we're learning that a spokesman for the CIA (David Petraeus) has issued the following statement:

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

One has difficulty believing that this statement is consistent with Obama's wishes, which would mean Petraeus could be ignoring an unlawful / immoral order to either say nothing or accept responsibility for something his agency didn't do so that the president can be protected.

If so, Petraeus is taking the right path.

Time will tell.

Note: If Petraeus has just removed the CIA from the mix of culpability when it comes to orders to stand down, that leaves Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta.

Hillary Clinton, Videos, and Political Prisoners

When the father of Tyrone Woods (Charles Woods) called in to the Lars Larson show on October 23rd, what he told the host indicates that Hillary Clinton is willing to incarcerate people for political reasons. In the case Woods was referring to, he said Hillary pledged to prosecute the man behind the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims. Such a reality would indicate a willingness on the part of the Secretary of State to jail people as political prisoners in America.

This is no small matter... and it's also not unprecedented for Hillary Clinton.

In the year 2000, a Hollywood mogul named Peter Paul put on a star-studded gala for both Bill and Hillary; it consisted of Hollywood's A-list at the time. Whoopi Goldberg, Sugar Ray, Paul Anka, Cher, Toni Braxton, and others took the stage. Nicholas Cage, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, John Travolta, and other celebrities were in attendance; it went off without a hitch in a very short period of time (six weeks) and cost Paul over $1.2 Million. It was meant to be a farewell to Bill and a fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign.

What was Paul expecting in return? Well, in 1998, he formed a company with Stan Lee (of Marvel Comics fame) called Stan Lee Media (SLM), Inc. Paul wanted Bill to work to work for SLM as a rainmaker after leaving office.

Though Paul upheld his end of the deal, the Clintons never did. Shortly after the Gala, Clinton machine apparatchiks went to work. Paul was smeared and his largest investor was wooed away from him by a man named Jim Levin, who had served as an intermediary between the president and Paul in the run-up to the gala. Soon thereafter, SLM went bankrupt and the Clintons could say they didn't renege because there was no longer a Stan Lee Media to work for.

In a last ditch effort to save the company, Paul did manipulate the stock price in hopes of preventing the destruction of his company. It didn't work and he was charged with a Securities and Exchange Commission violation - which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison - and arrested while in Brazil, tending to one of his other companies in 2001.

Before being detained, Paul gave an explosive interview to ABC's Brian Ross that was incredibly damaging to the Clintons, though some of the more explosive claims were edited out at the last minute. He named both Bill and Hillary in a lawsuit and would cause them fits for years. Paul had videos, documents, witnesses, letters from both Bill and Hillary, and a mountain of other evidence that was incredibly damaging to the president and first lady. In fact, David Rosen - Hillary's campaign finance director - was indicted, in large part because of Paul's evidence and subsequent public pressure. Though Rosen was ultimately acquitted, the extent to which powerful people had to go in order to get that acquittal stunk of corruption and cover-up.

Paul was actually jailed for two years in Brazil, spent more time in a Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, and then four years under house arrest. Paul claims that in 2009, he accepted a plea deal that would include those four years counting as time served. When he surrendered in November of 2009, Paul was informed that the deal reached between himself and the U.S. Attorney was essentially withdrawn and his credit for time served under house arrest was not awarded.

This reality falls in the lap of Attorney General Eric Holder.

In essence, Peter Paul has become a political prisoner; the U.S. Government has reneged on a plea deal; and Paul is serving more than the maximum sentence for his crime.

Holder and the Clintons have a long history together as well (think Marc Rich pardon, the release of Weather Underground terrorists Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, and the freeing of FALN terrorists).

There are two separate dynamics when it comes to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (Mark Basseley Yousef), the man behind the anti-Muhammad video. First, by all accounts, he has an extremely checkered history and real questions about his relationship with a man named Eiad Salameh still need to be answered, as do questions about his real motivations behind producing the film. Americans deserve to know the truth about those motivations as well as his associations.

The second dynamic is Hillary's alleged willingness to jail someone for political reasons. If she told Charles Woods what he alleges she told him, it means that she is willing to imprison someone for doing something that is not against the law.

In Unsung Davids, the very first chapter is about Peter Paul's battle with Hillary Clinton. After reading about how much damage he did to the Clintons, to include a documentary that went viral in late 2007 - when Hillary was beginning her long campaign fight with Barack Obama - it should become clear why Paul is a political prisoner in America.

UNSUNG DAVIDS: Ten Men who Battled Goliath without Glory

Here is the video that did legitimate damage to Hillary Clinton in 2007 and likely contributed to Peter Paul becoming a political prisoner. Paul is not scheduled for release until 2014, four years after the maximum sentence for the crime he was charged with.

Tyrone Woods' father: Hillary told me they would 'prosecute' filmmaker

It didn't take long for many in the Muslim world to exploit the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi by doing what the Obama administration did - they pointed to the Innocence of Muslims video. The video was being held up as an example of why it's wrong to criticize anything Islam. We learned that before the attack, forces were already at work, plotting to call on international bodies as well as national governments to make any speech against or criticism of Islam a crime. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi called for restrictions on free speech.

The Obama administration pointed to the video as well. However, as the weeks have passed, a specific motive for doing so has been attributed to the administration. As the thinking goes, Obama and his team were using the video as an excuse so that the lack of security would not be exposed. It makes perfect sense. On October 19th, in a letter to Obama, Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa accused the administration of looking to "normalize" Libya despite an opposite reality on the ground. It's become widely accepted that Obama, Hillary, et. al. wanted to use the video as a distraction and as an excuse.

This would necessarily mean that Islamists and the administration had adopted the same narrative but for different reasons.

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, may have called that entire premise into question when he called in to the Lars Larson show on October 24th. In describing his visit with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the casket of his son and three other Americans arrived in at Andrews Air Force Base three days after their deaths, Tyrone's father dropped a bit of a bombshell.

Take note of what Charles says he was told by Hillary Clinton, beginning at the 6:15 mark.

"We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video."

I'll explain why this is potentially so very important, after the clip.



If Hillary Clinton was willing to "prosecute" the filmmaker, this puts her in direct opposition to the Constitution she swore an oath to uphold. It also potentially calls into question the premise that the video was used solely as an excuse to cover-up the lack of security at Benghazi.

Here is Hillary speaking at Andrews on the day that four caskets containing the bodies of four dead Americans arrived. Beginning at the 6:15 mark, Hillary essentially points to the video and indignantly says the U.S. Government had "nothing to do with (making it)".



This begs a very serious question: If the administration was only using the video as an excuse to prevent the truth about what happened in Benghazi from coming to light, why would Hillary take that a step further and tell the father of Tyrone Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted?

Such a reality doesn't just put the Obama administration on the same page with Islamists when it comes to blaming the video (but for different reasons). It actually suggests that the reasons for pointing to the video were the same.

If Hillary told Charles Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted, it meant that she was interested in criminalizing criticism of Islam as well. That would be a direct attack on the first amendment, which is something even the Obama administration is not yet willing to be seen as doing. Obama himself, in a PSA for Pakistan in which he appeared with Hillary, wouldn't go that far publicly, saying there was "no justification for this senseless violence... none". Again, Hillary accentuated the assertion that the "United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video" (I have always been intrigued by how adamantly she has stated that).



It's important not to forget that Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff and closest advisor - Huma Abedin - has extremely close and irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Abedin's mother Saleha and Mohamed Mursi's wife are two of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood, which makes them close colleagues. Yes, that's the same Mursi who spoke at the CGI several days after the Benghazi attack and said there should be limits to free speech. Isn't it possible that the Abedins share that view? Isn't it also possible for Huma to influence Hillary to adopt it?

Islamists have been pointing to the video in order to target our first amendment rights. Was the Obama administration attempting to do the same thing?

Threatening to prosecute someone for exercising his first amendment rights makes that possibility far more plausible.

This latest development does not mean the filmmaker - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - doesn't warrant further investigation relative to his associations and motives for making the video. Both remain highly suspect and require more sunlight.

h/t Gather