Straight up, easy to answer questions are being asked. Obama should be able to have these questions answered within minutes. What's the hold up? The campaign? Fairly legit, if these questions weren't so easy to answer, but they are so easy to answer. I can't imagine that taking a few minutes to give the answers would have much of an impact on their campaign schedule, UNLESS. Unless those answers don't add up to the story we've been told so far. Then I can understand the motivation behind the complete lack of cooperation and stonewalling by the Obama administration. Of course, Team Obama wouldn't play politics with something like this, would they? 1.) To whom did the president give the first of his âthree very clear directivesââthat is, âmake sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?â 2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies? 3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room? 4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly? 5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack? 6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus? 7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom? 8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests? 9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers? 10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a AC-130 or MC-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack? THE WEEKLY STANDARD has asked the White House these questions, and awaits a response.
Benghazi is not on the home page of any of the news sites I visited this morning except for Fox, and even then it's below Sandy stories. The election is Tuesday, it's fairly safe to say that Benghazi is a non-scandal for Obama.
Obama in his own words: On Friday, President Obama was asked directly by Denver's KUSA-TV's Kyle Clarke whether our forces were denied backup during the attack. The president dodged the first question. Clark followed up, "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?" "Well, we are finding out exactly what happened," the president responded. "I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to." OK, then who was it that didn't do "whatever we need to do"? That seems like a pretty clear order to me. More from the article: We now know that President Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. ET on the night of the attack. We also know that the first e-mail announcing the attack came in at 4:05 pm ET, about a half hour after the attack started, and that there was a drone overhead monitoring the attack and diplomatic security official Charlene Lamb was monitoring the audio feed of the attack in real time in Washington. That night, the Commander's In-extremis Force, a special rescue team of commandos, was moved from Europe to Sigonella, Italy, about a two-hour flight from Benghazi. Also that evening, a "FAST team" (Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team) of Marines in Rota, Spain, was deployed to protect the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. The Pentagon was aware of the attack and put forces into motion. All information seems to indicate President Obama or the highest-ranking officials in the White House and Pentagon knew of the attack the same evening it occurred. Which begs the all-important question: Why was no additional military aid sent to secure our personnel, like the president claimed he directed? YES, why was no additional military aid sent like Obama "CLAIMED" he directed? More: Asked to explain the inaction on the part of the Pentagon, Panetta said, "The basic principle is 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." Contrary to Panetta's claim, we know with certainty that there was real-time information coming into Washington and the Pentagon during the attack. We are therefore left with two conflicting explanation's for the administration's inaction -- either the president's directive to secure our personnel wasn't heeded, or he didn't exactly give such a directive. Who was it that DISOBEYED the direct order from Obama, if in fact he gave such a order? The full article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/01/opinion/bennett-benghazi-obama/index.html
That CNN article only has 499 Facebooks on it. For some reason, and I really don't understand why, this issue in not gaining any traction. It's as if nobody really cares about it.
In case you thought there was a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of the Benghazi disaster, think again. It seems the key player in the episode â President Obama â is taking no part in the investigation. Jay Carney in todayâs White House press gaggle told reporters: âThese investigations are being conducted by both the FBI and the Accountability Review Board, and he is not participating in the investigation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9a978d2-244c-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html
+100 They're awesome and remind me of Gordon and Shughart. http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/somalia.html
In their honor some of us will not let this story just fade away. They fought to their last breath, against all odds, because it was the right thing to do. All I/we have to do is stay on the story. A small thing by comparison, and like them, we have a duty to do what's right.
That CNN article only had 499 Facebook reccomends when I first saw it posted here, it's now up to 993. Better, but it's still not viral.
For anyone who has been in DC long, they might as well have a billboard in front of the White House saying" Massive Coverup In Progress." I mean, it's that obvious. The administration has lied and intentionally misled people from the getgo. The president's much-discusssed Rose Garden statement was clearly drafted to leave the impression that at worst, some thugs took advantage of a demonstration. They sent Amb. Rice on the Sunday morning shows to lie through her teeth, or perhaps repeat what she had been instructed to say, and blame the attack on the notorious video. When challenged on her claims, she fell back on the time-honored "faulty intell" defense. Then it came out, embarrassingly, that at least one and maybe more Predator drones were overhead and transmitting real time video of the attack. Next it comes out that ex-Seals there as security were on the sat phone pleading for backup as they faced a 7 hour attack, one which finally killed them. Leon Panetta brushes it off as "monday morning quarterbacking." Obama claims he gave orders to do everything possible. So which is it? They have repeatedly thrown the CIA under the bus here. Clearly, this was a CIA station, not a diplomatic post as they have claimed. They have never explained what the Ambassador was doing there in the first place. The administration has claimed at various times the CIA had faulty intell or no intell or it was blurred by the "fog of war". What if the people at CIA HQ in Langley are burned up by all this? What if they resent being cast as fools when they knew exactly what was happening. What if they resent their people beign abandoned by Obama. How do you think that sits with DCI David Patreus, a retired Army general with a sofar spotless rep and big ambitions?l
This has the potential to sink Obama. Romney's campaign operatives should be working furiously to get the documents needed and release them to the public. They are running out of time. It needs to come out by tommorrow at the latest to have any effect.