October 31, 2012

"If someone decided that potential repercussions in the Arab world outweighed the need to do 'whatever we need to do' to 'secure our personnel,' who made that decision?"

"Did the Secretary of Defense countermand the President’s directive? Did the President rescind his own directive? Or — and I hate to ask such a distrustful question regarding the man who is our Commander in Chief — was such a directive ever actually given?"

151 comments:

Saint Croix said...

Is that law professor and former appellate judge Michael McConnell?

tim in vermont said...

Why would somebody who keeps a kill list and acts as judge and jury care about consigning an ambassador to death for being attacked on an inconvenient date.

alan markus said...

I'm going with the "no directive" option until I hear otherwise.

mccullough said...

This is the question. My guess is that Obama sided with Panetta over Petraeus. If the reason was because he was worried about Arab reaction, then he knows a majority of Americans would disagree.

Lem said...

“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.”

That quote needs to be parsed; its an obvious after the fact CYA quote.

Comanche Voter said...

Ah what a tangled web we weave when we first endeavour to deceive.

Well unlike the Lena Dunham ad, this is not the Obama administration's "first time". Maybe the umpty eleven thousandth time.

One observer noted that Bill Clinton lied a lot--but that he was uncommonly good at it.

The Bamster is just common.

Comanche Voter said...

Ah what a tangled web we weave when we first endeavour to deceive.

Well unlike the Lena Dunham ad, this is not the Obama administration's "first time". Maybe the umpty eleven thousandth time.

One observer noted that Bill Clinton lied a lot--but that he was uncommonly good at it.

The Bamster is just common.

EDH said...

"Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to."

You don't suppose our Commander in Chief would parse the words "securing" versus "defending" in a way that connotes "standing down" as opposed to rescuing?

bagoh20 said...

Maybe Panetta is waiting to see how the election goes before he decides to flop on that sword. Probably gets a lot of naked men poking him in the chest in the locker room.

Lem said...

Are "directives" written down, or was this a he said he said?

jrberg3 said...

Damaging to Obama no matter the answer. And with the press now reluctantly looking into this Obama will suffer greatly at the polls. No matter how much he tries to play President with Sandy.

bagoh20 said...

"securing our personnel" could mean get a muzzle on everyone who knows what's happening.

elkh1 said...

Mystery: Where is the buck?

Hillary didn't have it when she threw herself under the Obamabus.

Who will become the next Underbus dweller? Enquiring minds want to know.

Will he/she, like Hillary, let the buck slip from her grasp or will the buck stay hidden until after Nov. 6?

Will Obama's MSM don't ask don't tell eunuchs ever recover their cloak of impartiality?

Stay tune as Obama spins.

Rusty said...

mccullough said...
This is the question. My guess is that Obama sided with Panetta over Petraeus. If the reason was because he was worried about Arab reaction, then he knows a majority of Americans would disagree.

I suspect Vallerie Jarret is in this equation somewhere. My best guess is that she's the one that told the President to go back to sleep.That she'd take care of it.

Matthew Sablan said...

By the way, I would hope this is the sort of order that underlings would demand come in writing.

Lem said...

You don't suppose our Commander in Chief would parse the words "securing" versus "defending" in a way that connotes "standing down" as opposed to rescuing?

You read my mind.

traditionalguy said...

Obama still thinks Muslim. He bows to alah in the person of the Saudi Rulers who maintain Mecca and have spent 40 years using oil profits to fund the Al Qaeda Terrorist arm of World Jihad along with the Wahhabi Mosques Operations Centers all over the world.

There has not been an American Commander in Chief at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave since january 2008. There has been a Muslim worshiping and Jew hating Saudi fifth columnist Commander in Chief there.

Six More Days!

Tim said...

"was such a directive ever actually given?"

No.

Because, had it been given, it would have been followed.

Ralph L said...

the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives
That occurred several days after the attack, right?

SteveR said...

Yeah I'm going with a Valerie Jarrett/David Axelrod explanation which has always been the prime directive for how Obama acts. Get elected and get power. All this crap about caring what people think is way too complicated.

edutcher said...

It would seem everyone is expendable on the altar of Barry's re-election.

My guess is, even if there was a directive, it was ignored in the cause of the "greater good".

But, in the end, responsibility rests with Choom.

Matthew Sablan said...

I don't understand how "save our people" is not a standing, go-to order that people should always follow unless told to do otherwise. The fact we need to go get someone to give the order to save our people is a problem. Why did we even -need- to have that order given?

Matthew Sablan said...

I can understanding issuing a stand down order, in some cases. For example, if the risk really is too high (the area is in a storm that you don't have equipment to make even a risky flight into, the people are infected with some biological agent that would contaminate the rescuers and kill them too, some other extreme case, etc.)

But, I can't understand needing to -check if it is OK to help your own people.-

Patrick said...

was such a directive ever actually given?"

No.

Because, had it been given, it would have been followed.


That's about it. The question is why. The President owes the country, and the families of the deceased an explanation.

Of course, that assumes a decency that the President apparently lacks.

Lem said...

Right now it looks as if Panetta is in the hot seat.

Petraeus quote is quite clear...

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

Where as the Panetta strange quote goes like this...

"... a basic principle here, and 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."

The Panetta quote seems to ignore the presidential directive of "doing whatever we need to"... if the directive was ever given.

Mr Panetta needs to resign.

Cedarford said...

A lot of real bad little things that in isolation don't damn the President, but in toto, don't look good for the Black Messiah, all the President's men (and women), and the liberal and progressive media "stonewall" initially thrown up to try to take this off voter's attention.

Many of the big things are already discussed...but what about???

1. We identified one of the attackers that got real close to a camera...he was a Tunisian jihadi that fled to Turkey. Instead of demanding him for questioning, we let Turkey deport him to Tunisia - where for a month, the Tunisians have refused access to "American heroes of criminal law enforcement".

2. Within a day, the same cameras ID'd the trucks the attackers arrived in as emblazoned with the Ansar al-Sharia logo.

3. No explanation has come about why the US did not press hard for FBI or other investigators to get to Benghazi for 3 weeks...3 weeks that had the reporters, looters, and al Qaeda affiliates free to pick over the "crime scene" that DC based FBI and Justice Dept leadership refused to let the military secure "for fear the crime scene would be contaminated".

4. SOMETHING happened to the Commander Stennis Naval Battle Group and AFRICOM CO , General Carter Ham - in the attack aftermath that suggests disciplinary action or Pentagon displeasure with them.

kcom said...

And from what I've read, a flyby was entirely possible that wouldn't have involved any bombs. But it would have announced our presence and scared off the easily scarable, thus revealing the true nature of the attacking forces. At that point, further options could have been considered.

bagoh20 said...

It hard to imagine that there is any good explanation possible. If there was, the White house would offer it. The fiction writing team has been hard at it, and they can't come up with anything. The only way they can go is to shut up till after the election. That, in my opinion, should disqualify them for your vote.

MadisonMan said...

Look at Obama seeming all Presidential over there dealing with Sandy!!

(As my wife asked today: Why wasn't she called Sandra?)

Michael K said...

The story that I see emerging is related to the "demonstration" lie that was used for several weeks. We did not go to the rescue because it was "only a demonstration." If it was a serious attack that might have been different but it wasn't. It was just a demonstration by outraged Muslims. If it got worse and people died, well that was just bad luck.

I don't think that story will hold but they might think it will work for another week.

The wall is crumbling and some of these senior reporters might be worrying about their access to a Romney administration. Watch Bob Woodward. He has already seen the future.

Methadras said...

It really doesn't matter what the scenarios propose. In the end 1 ambassador and 3 of his attaches died with receiving any help with multiple calls to stand down. Not just on them on the ground, but elsewhere after the calls for help came. That's the reality and in that regard Urkel is ultimately responsible. There are multiple credible reports that stand down orders were given. He can go fuck himself if he's offended by that notion. It's on him.

Lem said...

Why wasn't she called Sandra?

Sandra Fluke... a contraceptive foam.

lol

Michael K said...

". SOMETHING happened to the Commander Stennis Naval Battle Group and AFRICOM CO , General Carter Ham - in the attack aftermath that suggests disciplinary action or Pentagon displeasure with them."

The story I see is that the admiral was going to support Ham's troops with Navy air. I don't know where the battle group was and whether this was a possibility. They may have been too far away and the relief was unrelated.

Larry J said...

When I hear the phrase, "securing our personnel", it brings to mind the old military joke about how the different services understand things.

If you give the command "SECURE THE BUILDING", here is what the different services would do:

The NAVY would turn out the lights and lock the doors.

The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.

The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire.

The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, using overlapping fields of fire from all appropriate points on the perimeter.


So, did he give the directive to an Air Force general or a Navy admiral? He most definitely didn't give it to a Marine.

edutcher said...

Lem said...

Right now it looks as if Panetta is in the hot seat.

Mr Panetta needs to resign


If he goes, he'll have to tell us who really gave the green light to hit bin Laden.

God, I love this.

phx said...

It hard to imagine that there is any good explanation possible. If there was, the White house would offer it.

The Birther Argument redux.

"If you were innocent you would prove it."

Tim said...

"The Panetta quote seems to ignore the presidential directive of "doing whatever we need to"... if the directive was ever given.

Mr Panetta needs to resign


Except Lem, as you note, "if the directive was ever given.

If it had been given, it would have been followed.

Had it been given, it would not have been rescinded, given the urgency of the matter.

Had it been given, the effort would have been made.

Had it been given, we would know, with certainty, that it had been given, because we would also be given an explanation by "president can't wait to throw someone under a bus" as to why it did not work.

Panetta does not need to resign.

This debacle rests with the president, and the president alone.

No one else but the president.

tim in vermont said...

I hate to agree with Lem, just on general principles, but he seems right on this one.

Panetta either made the decision, or gave an answer that looks like he made the decision, which is just as bad.

Cedarford said...

Lem -

The Panetta quote seems to ignore the presidential directive of "doing whatever we need to"... if the directive was ever given.

Mr Panetta needs to resign.


Leon Panetta has had a long and distinguished career.
Yes, if he had gotten that Presidential directive and ignored it, I would expect him to have enough integrity to resign or take blame - probably well before Hillary did.
But he didn't.
Which leads me to question the veracity of that Obama claimed directive.



Lem said...

We need to go back and find out what was Panettas role during the Monica Lewinski scandal.

It may shed some light as to what he might do this time around.

Nonapod said...

In absence of any other explanation, I infer the coldest, most cynical one: That to our president, the lives of an American ambassador and American civilians were insignificant. They were totally expendable.

tim in vermont said...

"If he goes, he'll have to tell us who really gave the green light to hit bin Laden."

BWA HA HA!

It is almost like nobody has any respect for the boss in the WH.

The more we hear about this, the more I think those stories about the bin Laden hit were true.

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...

شات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
جات عراقنا

Tim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim said...

"If you were innocent you would prove it."

No.

You are twisting yourself in an illogical knot.

Either the order was given, or it was not.

If it was given, there is a reason why it was not executed.

Given this president's history of blaming other people, had someone screwed up, failed to follow, or otherwise countermanded his order, Obama would let us know.

It would be the easiest way to excuse himself from direct responsibility for his administration's failure.

The fact he has not done this confirms he is defending someone.

That someone is himself.

He did not issue the order.

He is lying when he says he did.

It is the simplest explanation of all.

And no one in his administration will contradict him on this.

Occam's Razor.

Tim said...

Nonapod said...

"In absence of any other explanation, I infer the coldest, most cynical one: That to our president, the lives of an American ambassador and American civilians were insignificant. They were totally expendable."

Right.

The president never gave the order.

phx said...

Given this president's history of blaming other people, had someone screwed up, failed to follow, or otherwise countermanded his order, Obama would let us know.

It would be the easiest way to excuse himself from direct responsibility for his administration's failure.

The fact he has not done this confirms he is defending someone.


Yes, I'M the illogical one. Except this whole premise is a partisan's fairy tale.

Browndog said...

It's seems many are overlooking one of the most basic Modus operandi in the military...

Standing orders.

The only way the military did not come to the aid of Americans under attack in a foreign embassy is if they were issued a specific directive not to.

Scott M said...

Probably gets a lot of naked men poking him in the chest in the locker room.

Naw, that only happens in Chicago now.

tiger said...

With the various accusations/explanations of what was and wasn't said/done I think it's very important to remember that this was being watched (and recorded) by numerous organizations and people with-in the government and military.

These people know what was/wasn't said/ordered and by whom.

Sooner or later this is going to come out.

Preferably sooner.

Scott M said...

I don't understand how "save our people" is not a standing, go-to order that people should always follow unless told to do otherwise.

Theater ROE can supersede. It sucks, but it's true.

Clyde said...

It looks like Mr. Squiggly has discovered that brevity is the soul of wit.

Patrick said...

Given this president's history of blaming other people, had someone screwed up, failed to follow, or otherwise countermanded his order, Obama would let us know...Yes, I'M the illogical one. Except this whole premise is a partisan's fairy tale

Yeah, he's already acknowledged his sole screw up: failure to make enough speeches! He totally took the hit for that.

Lem said...

Monica was an intern to Panetta's office of chief of Staff.

Panetta testified for hours before a grand jury assisting Starrs investigation at the U.S. Courthouse in Washington. While there he was served with a subpoena by Paula Jones lawyers to testify in the sexual harassment case.

Going by Panetta's experience in these kinds of matters... I say he is the weakest link.

Tim said...

"Yes, I'M the illogical one."

Yes.

chrisnavin.com said...

Frankly, I think this incident is analagous to Obama's domestic policy: Reality's catching up with his actual political beliefs, his policies, his leadership or lack thereof, and the people's he's chosen to be in charge. We're getting a look at some results.

I think he's probably most proud of being the anti-Bush, and Libya being his crowning achievement of the "right kind" of intervention.

Yet, this incident is the choke point on his whole foreign policy platform...and these 4 Americans and the team ready to extract them are in service to the "chess game" he's trying to play,

I've long suspected that on foreign policy, the liberal internationalist doctrine and support from the Samantha Power crowd and Hillary have MODERATED his impulses, and lent him gravitas to handle some of the challenges of the job.

Remember the Cairo speech?

phx said...

Yes.

Well we know that bullshit stands for logic in your book.

Can't argue with that.

Tim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...

Parsing:

Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.

One "secures" a crime scene. One "protects" or "defends" or "rescues" live people. "...whatever we need to..." can mean anything.

Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again.

"Investigate" -- see "crime scene", above.

Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.

See "investigate" and "crime scene", above.

Listen to response to Were they denied requests for help during the attack? at 0:52. Talk aboyt a non-answer to a specific question.

Job well done by the Colorado reporter.

Tim said...

"I say he is the weakest link.'

He may be the weakest link, but he is not the one who decided if there would be a rescue/counter-attack mission.

That decision was above his pay-grade.

Michael K said...

"hx said...

Yes.

Well we know that bullshit stands for logic in your book.

Can't argue with that. "

Shouldn't you be stockpiling crying towels and excuses for next week ?

Browndog said...

Obama will tell the American people when he was informed of the attack, what he saw, what he was told, what he said, and when...

As soon as that information becomes available, and the investigation is complete.

I ate breakfast this morning. I'll let you know what I ate, what time, and if I enjoyed it as soon as that information becomes available, and the investigation is complete.

furious_a said...

...As soon as that information becomes available, and the investigation is complete.


FBI arrives in Benghazi three weeks after the murders -- so that the Administration could fall back on the "ongoing investigation" excuse.

Patrick said...

Hey Tim - Congrats on the Giants victory. Exactly like I called it. Giants in 4.

What? I said 7? Musta been a slip of the keyboard. Hope you enjoyed it.

Tim said...

"Well we know that bullshit stands for logic in your book."

Don't be stupid.

The president is the commander in chief.

He says “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.”

And that did not happen.

It did not happen because either people down the line failed to execute the order, or because he never issued the order.

If it did not happen because people down the line failed to execute the order, one, or many, would be held accountable, publicly.

We would know this.

Obama wasted no time in getting Hillary to take responsibility for failing to secure the consulate.

No such action has happened here.

Or, he never issued the order.

No one will directly contradict this; all anyone can say is "I never got the order."

So, you can manufacture your own misguided logic that someone (maybe private first class in communications?) stopped the commander-in-chief's order to launch a rescue/counter-attack, or the issue was never issued.

Occam's razor.

Make it your friend.

You might see things more clearly.

Otherwise, full disclosure from the Administration would be best, but we all know that's not happening. Maybe there is a innocent explanation for this.

But then, if that's the case, why not provide it?

chrisnavin.com said...

It's also become more apparent that many in the press have left themselves in a position of partiality, and have ceded the necessary independence of mind to properly do their jobs.

Give me the crusty, shoe-leather, semi-paranoid, truth-seeker willing to crawl through low gutters for the big story. I can trust him more than what's going on now.

Same goes for Romney. Presidents are not your friend you lazy bunch of sycophants. In the interests of national security and some of our core freedoms, you're not playing for a "team."

phx said...

Shouldn't you be stockpiling crying towels and excuses for next week ?

It certainly would be more convenient for you and some of your more "rational" conservative friends.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Occam's razor:
They significantly miscalculated, by believing their own story about the demise of al Queda. Thus there was no significant danger to the people in the consulate/annex. Thus the emails/radio calls were just overreactions to a protest.

When the truth became known, they had to coverup it's impact on their miscalculations on the Arab Spring, the demise of al QUeda, and the actual events of that night.

Tim said...

"What? I said 7? Musta been a slip of the keyboard. Hope you enjoyed it."

Ha! You and all the baseball "experts," lol!

I still am enjoying it, although, of course, congratulations are due the team, not the fans, lol!

They deserve every bit of it, too.

Great team effort. I think 22 of the 25 players on roster made a positive contribution to the Series victory over the Tigers (Mota, Sanchez and Huff did not).

As a long-time Giants and NL fan, the win is gratifying for the team, but also for NL-style baseball.

Pitching, defense, timely-hitting, base-running, starting and relief pitcher management - they are the fundamental aspects of the game, and I'm happy to see them win over the AL-style "big thumpers" masking poor defense, poor pitching (not that the Tigers have poor pitching - far from it), poor base running.

It's shaping up as a great sports year for S.F. fans - can't wait for the rest of the NFL season!

Tim said...

"Thus the emails/radio calls were just overreactions to a protest."

Except, we now know they had real time, visual information from the overhead drone that this was an attack.

Nathan Alexander said...

the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives
That occurred several days after the attack, right?

Exactly.

Remember, President Obama was saying we needed an investigation to find out what happened 3 weeks after the event. So if he completed the investigation last week, then gave the order as he stated, well, then he was using the truth in a manner intended to deceive.

It is always easy to parse lies: look for any who, what, where, when, why, or how points that aren't well-defined.

In this case, when exactly is he defining as the moment he found out what was happening? If not in time to send rescue, as the top of the most robust information chain in the history of the world, why not?

Who exactly did he tell?

What action did the receivers of those orders take?
What does "secure" mean in this context?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

furious_a,

One "secures" a crime scene. One "protects" or "defends" or "rescues" live people. "...whatever we need to..." can mean anything.

And you'll notice that nothing was done to "secure" the building even in the crime-scene sense, given that someone from CNN was able to just walk in and find Ambassador Stevens' diary four days afterwards.

Rusty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick said...

It's shaping up as a great sports year for S.F. fans - can't wait for the rest of the NFL season!

I'm hoping for a rematch with the Pack. Maybe the Pack will show up this time.

bagoh20 said...

"The Birther Argument redux.

"If you were innocent you would prove it."'


You embarrass yourself. Which is fitting for an Obama supporter.

The silly deflection aside, the President is not a defendant - he's an employee, and one with people's lives under his responsibility. His employers have a right to know if he's incompetent and untrustworthy. He has no right to take the 5th with us, especially when he's up for review.

You embarrass yourself by admitting you don't want to know the truth, or at least not until after the election. That makes you incompetent as his employer, especially if you rehire him without demanding to know the truth first.

bagoh20 said...

"Shouldn't you be stockpiling crying towels and excuses for next week ?"

I've seen a lot of elections come and go, and I've only seen one side react that way to losing, after first promising to leave the country if they lose. They never leave. They say it was stolen, cry, wail, see their therapists, and then do it all over again the next time - just like perpetual children. Seeing it again is enough alone to vote for Romney.

Tim said...

"I'm hoping for a rematch with the Pack. Maybe the Pack will show up this time."

As I'm hoping for a rematch with the NY Giants, and hoping the Niners can play within themselves, rather than being over-hyped for the game.

Issob Morocco said...

Still I have to ask "why the video?".

There is much more here than just the Arab reaction piece that McConnell discusses. That video was condemned before anyone had seen it or heard about it. It became the initial cover or obfuscation of Benghazi, even though we now know that Obama knew that had nothing to do with it.

I do believe this was a political play to entangle Romney and show him as unable to understand the complex Arab/Muslim world. Romney hit them hard on the condemnation from Cairo and the MSM hit him back harder, claiming he overstepped and showed a remarkable lack of understanding for his comments, if you read the news reports from the 12th thru the 16th. It was not until just after Susan Rice made her "video" tour on the Sunday circuit that folks started to see the discrepancies in stories.

The Libyan protest was actually not a spontaneous protest, but a tactical armed assault on our Consulate. Then we heard about the drones watching in real time. Now we know that someone would not order the use of force to try and save those who died.

Is that because the arrogance of the political team-Jarrett/Axlerod felt they could hold the political story with the MSM lapdogs? It worked for a bit, but because some of the actors in Benghazi did follow the script word has come out that more went on and was known to the highest levels of our government, when it happened.

Go back and read Obama's words post the Benghazi event. Those are lawyerly rendered. Like the Con Man he is, he said something which was nothing but made us think it was something. Only in this case the truth seeped through the MSM wall from some great reporting on the ground in Libya.

This is way bigger than Watergate.

Four dead in Benghazi
Obama is offended he is criticized
Don't know who gave the order to not militarize
Four Dead In Benghazi

Nov. 6th


The Drill SGT said...

Going beyond the POTUS, who I think is a craven idiot:

1. If Panetta did what he says he did, and on his own, in contravention of the President's public statement that he directed support to Benghazi, then Panetta, Ham and Dempsey should be fired today.

2. If the POTUS statement is false, and he denied support, then history will take its course, but in the meantime, 10 or so GO's should retire now, for not resigning on the spot. If they haven't resigned by the time we get a new POTUS (whenever), they should be relieved and retired.

3. If the POTUS refused support, but Tripoli could get in there with a relief of 6-8 men, then a thousand troops know part of the story, and the msg logs can't be hidden. It will impact DoD morale as it festers.

Single handledly, teh Won has hurt DoD morale as much as losing a war. If you are in a fight, who can count on support? Who can count on your Generals to fight for you?

furious_a said...

Benghazi Coverup Much Worse Than "Third-rate Burglary"

The journalists went under the bus because the Foreign Service and career intelligence officers the administration tried to scapegoat refused to go there. They've leaked emails that reveal the White House was informed while it was still going on that the attack was the work of terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida.

[..]

Appeals to their integrity are unlikely to get "mainstream" journalists to do their jobs, since they have so little of it. Self preservation may. The leaked emails expose journalists who touted the administration's story as gullible chumps, corrupt shills, or both.


Or, in the cases of Inga, Garage, ARM and the other bitter-enders, I'd settle for "gullible shills".

The Drill SGT said...



When President Obama called the SEALS, they got OSAMA. When the SEALs called, they got DENIED

Calypso Facto said...

Theater ROE can supersede. It sucks, but it's true.

Especially when it would involve a military strike on a supposed ally's sovereign state.

I don't discount that a decision over and above "standing orders" had to be made. But that THIS decision to ignore the requests for aid and let Americans die was made and then subsequently covered up with lies about a video riot is a travesty.

alan markus said...

I do believe this was a political play to entangle Romney and show him as unable to understand the complex Arab/Muslim world

Here's a blast from the past (9/12):

“Libya Surprise” Could Be Death Knell for Romney Campaign

Eh, the internet is great for finding stuff like that - if I had the time, I betcha I could find another 20-30 links like that.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't think that Obama can effectively throw anyone under the bus as this point. Does anyone here believe that if Presidents GW Bush, GHW Bush, or Reagan had said around 6 p.m. or so on 9/11/11 what Obama claims to have said, that a rescue or the like would have been underway in short order? Not only would it be obvious that they wanted action taken, but most likely would have followed up in short order to make sure it was happening, and happening fast enough and with enough force to be effective.

We are finding out that President Obama spent at least part of the evening in the WH Situation Room, leaving it to take a nap, and then get a good night's sleep for his trip to Las Vegas the next day. Knowing what was going on in real time (which he apparently later lied about knowing), and then saying something vague that could be taken as something between a suggestion and an order, just doesn't cut it, and, esp. when he apparently never followed up to make sure that it was executed. He should have had answers that night why nothing was happening, and why people in his command chain were denying requests for and to provide aid.

And, yet, no heads have rolled. Not six weeks or so later, and not on the evening and night that this all was happening. The President has the power to make something like this happen, but that means holding those below him responsible for what they do or don't do.

So, we come back to the razer thing. Either Obama did or did not give an order to provide sufficient aid to our people in Benghazi, and if he did, then either it wasn't understood as an order, or someone ignored him. In any of these cases, he bears responsibility. If he failed to give the order, or gave the opposite order (unlikely, I think), then he failed to protect this country. If he gave it, and it wasn't carried out, then that shows rank incompetence.

My guess today (it could easily change tomorrow) is that the President issued some sort vague suggestion that aid be given, and then went and took his nap. Lo and behold, nothing happened. It is, of course, a bureaucracy, so that would have been eminently foreseeable. My further guess is that the "order" was crafted in such a way that if things went badly, that he could blame underlings for going too far. More maybe "female speak" of "it would be nice" than "male speak" of "do it". So, enough people in the bureaucracy covered their posteriors, and nothing happened.

Alex said...

Obama lied, Americans died!
Hey Hey Ho Ho Barack Obama has got to go!
1234 Show Obama the Door!

let's come up with more slogons!

phx said...

I've seen a lot of elections come and go, and I've only seen one side react that way to losing, after first promising to leave the country if they lose. They never leave. They say it was stolen, cry, wail, see their therapists, and then do it all over again the next time - just like perpetual children. Seeing it again is enough alone to vote for Romney.

Pshaw. More lack of self-awareness from the usual gang of Althousians. I'm perfectly resigned to a Romney win, but watch this space if Obama should win on Nov. 6. The crying, the gnashing of teeth, the cries for secession...

Yes, lefties got their excuses. The difference between you and I is you can't admit the truth about your own side. You're apparently perfectly content living with your many principled contradictions.

phx said...

I also think it's one thing to live with your contradictions - lamentable though it is. It's another level of unconsciousness or dishonesty to deny they exist.

The Drill SGT said...

and its 1,2,3 what are we dyin for?

don't ask me, yesterday was the easy day,

where the hell is the air support?,

and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates.

Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.

garage mahal said...

Or, in the cases of Inga, Garage, ARM and the other bitter-enders, I'd settle for "gullible shills".

You're asking a lot to trust theories from Instapundit and rumors from Newt Gingrich. Best thing to do is let the slow wheels of justice turn. Plenty of time to assess what happened after the election. Why jump to conclusions?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Does anyone here believe that if Presidents GW Bush, GHW Bush, or Reagan had said around 6 p.m. or so on 9/11/11 what Obama claims to have said, that a rescue or the like would have been underway in short order"

-- Even -Carter- was able to get a rescue operation underway.

Bruce Hayden said...

Theater ROE can supersede. It sucks, but it's true.

Especially when it would involve a military strike on a supposed ally's sovereign state.

I don't discount that a decision over and above "standing orders" had to be made.


Almost all authority and power in this area comes from the President. Those "standing orders"? They derive, at some point, from his authority. This is precisely the place where the President's power is supreme, in relation to the other two branches of government. He is commanding the armed forces, protecting America, and conducting foreign policy, all at the same time. All within his enumerated powers under our Constitution. Not some power that has grown through penumbras and emanations, but power that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have understood him having.

He can't say that someone down the chain of command, Congress, the Supreme Court, Hillary!, etc., prevented him from sending aid. They may not have done so, but that is different. In a situation like this, there is no one in our government who can tell the President "no".

Methadras said...

And here is the plausible dependability in that Panneta is the fall guy because he circumvented the presidents orders or because he never relayed this to the president at all? The problem with this is however, is that the WH, State, DOD, and the Pentagon, all had eyes and ears on the attack as it happened in real time. That's the boat anchor they won't be able to get rid of. You cannot pin this on Panneta because Obama on down saw the whole thing. They all knew as it was happening and yet they did nothing.

Nice try folks, but that theory gets blown away fairly quickly.

phx said...

Why jump to conclusions?

Being deliberative and sober is no virtue here. As always, so long as it's convenient or politically expedient, let's rush to poor judgment.

How many here who claim they have the truth were just bellyaching over Kyle Woods' beatdown?

Methadras said...

phx said...

I've seen a lot of elections come and go, and I've only seen one side react that way to losing, after first promising to leave the country if they lose. They never leave. They say it was stolen, cry, wail, see their therapists, and then do it all over again the next time - just like perpetual children. Seeing it again is enough alone to vote for Romney.

Pshaw. More lack of self-awareness from the usual gang of Althousians. I'm perfectly resigned to a Romney win, but watch this space if Obama should win on Nov. 6. The crying, the gnashing of teeth, the cries for secession...

Yes, lefties got their excuses. The difference between you and I is you can't admit the truth about your own side. You're apparently perfectly content living with your many principled contradictions.


If Obama wins, conservatives will lick their wounds, hunker down like they always do and go on about their lives. Sure, they will lament a little, but unlike leftards, they actually have responsibilities that need to be taken care of. I'm not expecting an Obama win, but I can tell you that in the face of a Romney loss, you will not see OWS style actions like the left has been calling for if Obama loses. This is your side, they are the children.

phx said...

This is your side, they are the children.

Sez the guy who, in the same comment, calls us "leftards."

phx said...

Some of you have been acting out like children for so long you don't know the difference.

Brennan said...

Obama is going to lose. And we just don't have enough information to condemn the President about Benghazi.

It looks pretty awful, but these civilians are going to go back to being civilians in three months.

Methadras said...

phx said...

This is your side, they are the children.

Sez the guy who, in the same comment, calls us "leftards."


And that disclaims what about your illogical, insipid, moronic, retarded ideology. I use leftard as my own inside joke. Most people think I'm saying leftist retard and I am, but not using retard as a description of sub-iq mongoloids of certain mental deficiencies, but in the actual use of the word as a verb in to slow or delay development, progress, ideas, suppression, repression. Leftism is that very thing. An ideology that seek to repress and suppress, to retard development of ideas, to delay or stop progress of a betterment of society through individual and replace it with a collective.

That's what I mean when I use the term leftard. You and your side are just that, leftards. Get it now?

phx said...

Get it now?

Yes. You're among the bottomfeeders here.

Methadras said...

phx said...

Some of you have been acting out like children for so long you don't know the difference.


And you're side to stupid to know what an adult looks and acts like. Carry on, thumb sucker.

SteveR said...

Remember when the big scandal of the Obama Administration was when Michelle's BFF Sorority Rush Chair/WH Social Director let those con artists into a White House event?

Methadras said...

phx said...

Get it now?

Yes. You're among the bottomfeeders here.


Spoken like a real leftard. Thanks for living up to my point.

Cedarford said...

Bruce Hayden, excellent 1:36PM post!

MayBee said...

I think he's talking about in the post-attack hours, not during the attack. The next morning, maybe.

He did move to secure personnel after the fact- he sent more marines to Libya either the next day or the day after that.
That's what he's talking about, I'm certain of it.
The rest of his directives also make more sense if they are given after the attack.

wyo sis said...

The president, He, Obama, who is so arrogant he believes actually encompass the United States like a parasitic entity, (he repeatedly uses personal pronouns when he speaks of the state), is responsible for what happened. He is the person who will bear the burden and who will be held accountable.
It's hard for him, because all he ever wanted is the goodies without the responsibility, but he will be left, in the end, with the responsibility. It's almost as if he were Bush. (gasp)
If he were an actual leader he would state that clearly and call for an investigation.

MayBee said...

Obama's three directives:

Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.

This is a list of things he would have said the next day, not during the attack.
He found out about it after it happened.
He didn't give a directive during the attack to secure the personnel.

MayBee said...

This is what he's talking about when he says he issued a directive to secure personnel:

Benghazi, Libya — The U.S. dispatched an elite group of Marines to Tripoli on Wednesday following a mob attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

EMD said...

How many here who claim they have the truth were just bellyaching over Kyle Woods' beatdown?

A large majority of the commentariat here were very skeptical about the entire Kyle Woods thing in both posts. A few jumped to conclusions but most were on record as believing it to be a hoax.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Bruce Hayden,
" My further guess is that the "order" was crafted in such a way that if things went badly, that he could blame underlings for going too far. More maybe "female speak" of "it would be nice" than "male speak" of "do it". So, enough people in the bureaucracy covered their posteriors, and nothing happened."

Certainly a possibility, but if he did that, I am surprised that Panetta, Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs, etc. did not request clarification. Both from the bureaucratic CYA perspective, as well as from the "we really should be sending help, I can't believe the President doesn't want us to" perspective. (I'm making an assumption that that is how they would have felt.)

furious_a said...

Garage: You're asking a lot to trust theories from Instapundit and rumors from Newt Gingrich.

I'm talking about the talking points that have fallen away one-by-one (Admin knew it was a deliberate assault, using video for cover, etc., no realtime intel, etc.), not Gingrich's rumor-mongering.

furious_a said...

This is what he's talking about when he says he issued a directive to secure personnel...

...said in response to the following question (linked above):

Were they denied requests for help during the attack?

The president ducked a direct yes-or-no question, draw your own conclusions.

Inga said...

What, Meth the "adult" child with the bird on his head, hasn't wished Phx dead and sent to eternal hell yet? He must be off his game today. Get with it Meth! Show your stuff.

X said...

aren't you going to wail about the video Inga?

bagoh20 said...

The most damning piece of evidence is that the President (our President) is allowing all this damaging speculation to run unopposed. He does not wish to even try to dispel it. Unlike phx's silly comparison to Birthers, this is not making his distractors look bad. Its making him look guilty and his supporters look unserious at best. Unlike his stubbornness on the birth certificate, this can not be politically advantageous to him unless the truth is much worse than the average speculation.

He does not want you to know the truth until after you vote. He wants you to do something you will be ashamed of after the election. Just like last time.

Cosmic Conservative said...

The serial and escalating dissembling of Obama and his surrogates is so blatant that the only way the mainstream media can keep this under the radar is simply to ignore it.

Let's just look at the LATEST story from Barack Obama (by my count, story NUMBER FOUR):

"Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to,

Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again.

Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice."

Let's break this down. If he did as he said in #1 then he issued an order to secure the safety of the ambassador and the rest of the consulate and CIA staff. Yet we KNOW from credible witnesses and SWORN CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY that not only was nothing done on Obama's orders, but the CIA people on the ground assert that their requests were ACTIVELY DENIED. So, the question to Barack Obama has to be: "If you gave the order to secure the personnel on the ground, as you stated, WHO ON YOUR TEAM ignored that order, and WHY?"

Let's look at #2. Investigate what happened? They know exactly what happened. Obama's THIRD STORY was him stating that he KNEW on day one that it was a terrorist attack. So what happened? Terrorists planned and executed a bold attack on our embassy. Where's the mystery here? There is no mystery. There is no investigation. This is pure political posturing.

But now let's look at #3. Bring them to justice? Last I checked one of the main ringleaders was still strutting around Benghazi drinking fruit smoothies and laughing it up with local reporters. If this command was given, much like #1 above, WHY ISN'T IT BEING CARRIED OUT?

This whole story is like an onion decomposing from the inside. The more layers you peel off, the more rotten they are getting.

Methadras said...

EMD said...

A large majority of the commentariat here were very skeptical about the entire Kyle Woods thing in both posts. A few jumped to conclusions but most were on record as believing it to be a hoax.


I must have missed it, what is it exactly that Kyle Woods had or had not done that is believed to be a hoax.

yashu said...

You're asking a lot to trust theories from Instapundit and rumors from Newt Gingrich. Best thing to do is let the slow wheels of justice turn. Plenty of time to assess what happened after the election. Why jump to conclusions?

No one is asking anyone to trust theories or rumors.

We're asking you (in general) and journalists (whose job it is) to ask the basic questions. And to maybe show some curiosity at the fact that the White House has yet to provide any basic answers to those basic questions. Only prevarication.

Jump to conclusions? It's 7 weeks after the fact. 7 weeks.

And the American people still haven't gotten a straightforward account-- any account at all, really-- of what happened in the White House that day. Who knew what when, who ordered what when, who did what when. What occurred in the chain of command-- and if/ when/ where that chain broke down.

It is logic: if you take Obama at his word, and you take Panetta at his word, and you take Petraeus at his word, the story doesn't add up: there's a discrepancy somewhere. A discrepancy that needs to be explained.

And of course I'm putting to one side all the other discrepancies and contradictions (e.g. the conflicting narratives "it was a spontaneous protest over a video" vs. it was a planned "act of terror").

Here's what I would say to the Democrats and liberals here: what Obama as a man and POTUS may or may not have done in this case doesn't reflect on you, your politics, or your ideology. It's on Obama. Of course, we all (on all sides) are inclined to defend those we perceive as on "our side." Especially when it comes to the POTUS or leader of a party.

But you don't have to reflexively defend Obama. Especially when we still haven't gotten an account from him to defend! This is utterly unlike truther/ birther/ Kennedy shooting conspiracy/ etc. claims. In those cases, there is an official, as it were 'orthodox' account of the facts. And the conspiracy theorist disbelieves that account.

In this case, we haven't gotten an account! That's the problem. Our questions are unanswered. Those of us upset about Benghazi are not positing oppositional theories to an official account. We are asking basic questions that remain unanswered, and speculating in the absence of an official account.

Asking tough questions of Obama-- and expecting honest straightforward answers-- doesn't make you a bad Democrat or liberal. It makes you an honest one.

Cosmic Conservative said...

For those of you who are claiming that Obama's latest story, about the three orders he gave, are orders he gave the day after the attack, let me quote Barack Obama: "the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives".

THE MINUTE I FOUND OUT.

So, are you suggesting that Obama wasn't even told until the next day? You are suggesting that the Obama was kept in the dark about the attack for several hours as our ambassador was killed, news reports were flying all over the world and frantic emails, secure communications and cell phone calls were being reviewed in the White House Situation room?

Do you even realize that if your excuse were true, that would be even WORSE?

Clearly he was told during the attack. He was in the Situation Room during the attack. He met with critical team members during the attack.

So he knew. If his words are true, then he issued a direct Commander In Chief order that was demonstrably DISOBEYED.

Or... he never issued the order.

Take your pick.

I know damn well which one I believe.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

What, Meth the "adult" child with the bird on his head, hasn't wished Phx dead and sent to eternal hell yet? He must be off his game today. Get with it Meth! Show your stuff.


This is all you have? Really? You enter into this thread for the first time and this is all you have? Please, non-sequitor more. Your patheticness has gone even lower.

For the record, PHX usually carries himself with a modicum of substantive rationality. You on the other hand...

chickelit said...

Drill Sgt wrote: Single handledly, [Obama] has hurt DoD morale as much as losing a war. If you are in a fight, who can count on support? Who can count on your Generals to fight for you?

Absolutely true. That and his ROE's.

SteveR said...

All Newt has done is provide another poke at the people who are either trying to ignore the event entirely or are just kicking the can down the raod to Nov 7, with lame explanations.

Dismissing this as rumormongering (from evil stupid Newt, no less) or Sean Hannity's wet dream is wishful thinking. Perhaps you are ok with turning a blind eye to these events and the clear effort by the administration to hide the truth. I was around here when story after story, commenter after commenter, dreamed of seeing Karl Rove being frogmarched out of the White House for "outing" Valerie Plame.

Cosmic Conservative said...

Any human being who expressed outrage at the Valerie Plame situation who are not far more outraged by the Benghazi situation are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

If you are that level of an ideologue, it is impossible to have a rational conversation.

It's that simple.

Methadras said...

You guys see how leftard apologists work? Do you see the total and utter obfuscation they employ in defense of their godhead and his administration. These denials of facts, of which there are many, is just another in a long line of methods that these subversives employ to muddy the waters on what really happens. You guys keep asking them and asking them and showing them and try to get them to agree with you. And instead all you get is the same treatment that Obama gives the rest of the country. A maze of nothing.

They only require your condemnation for the kind of people they really are, unamerican, unpatriotic scum. The more you engage them, the more you get this irrational nonsense. At what point do you simply ignore them, look past them, and get to the real heart of the issue, in that we have a coward and a traitor as president who let 4 Americans die, while watching it live, as an expedient conclusion to some other mission gone wrong as a means to cover, through plausible deniability that he may have set up a fast and furious operation in the middle east. Even if gun running to Syrian anti-Assad resistance wasn't the reason, the idea that a president would turn his back on those that serve him is an unconscionable dereliction of duty and flies in the face of his oath and duty to protect the constitution and Americans wherever they maybe to the best of his and his administration's ability. He didn't lift a finger in this regard.

Stop trying to gotcha our resident leftards on this blog. It's a fail only because their blind, sycophantic loyalty to this coward and traitor of a president trumps everything else.

Cosmic Conservative said...

One thing I can tell all of you is that when Watergate was exposed, I called for Nixon's resignation or impeachment. When Iran/Contra was revealed, I demanded those culpable to be prosecuted. When Clinton obstructed justice and committed perjury I called for his impeachment. When GW Bush invaded Iraq, I called it an illegal war.

I am, at least, consistent in my response to criminal behavior in the White House. When Republicans do it, I demand it be investigated.

Those of you who attacked Bush over Valerie Plame but who now defend Obama over a far, far more serious issue are simply and utterly pathetic partisan hack jobs.

creeley23 said...

Best thing to do is let the slow wheels of justice turn.

Garage: What wheels of justice?

There are no wheels of justice, as yet. The wheels of justice only start to turn when someone is impeached, arrested, or court-martialed.

We expect President Obama to do his job and live up to his general promise on transparency and his specific promise to get to the bottom of Benghazi. We also expect the so-called watchdog media to do its job and find out what happened.

This is not at all complicated. Obama claims that he ordered the safety our people in Libya secured. Nothing was done and they died.

This is basic chain-of-command stuff. We are not trying to solve the Magic Bullet problem in the JFK assassination.

However, it's been seven weeks and all we've gotten are contradictory stories, delaying tactics, and a media blackout.

It looks like we will have to resort to the wheels of justice. After the election the House should move to impeach Obama immediately.

garage mahal said...

@creeley
We'll just have to wait and see. Right now we don't know anything for certain. These things move incredibly slow. I'm sure all the facts will come out some day.

Hagar said...

his is about war and peace, not about law and order.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

@creeley
We'll just have to wait and see. Right now we don't know anything for certain. These things move incredibly slow. I'm sure all the facts will come out some day.


You see how this works Creely? I can't fault you or anyone else for trying however.

bagoh20 said...

If you want the President to win reelection, and you don't believe he did anything terrible with Benghazi, then why wouldn't you want him to come out and explain it? His silence may well cost him the election, and you know he wants to win, right? It too close to risk it all on anything like this if it's unfounded.

If he gave the order to help them, then someone's head needs to roll. If he didn't know anything, then someone's head needs to roll. These are the only two possibilities that clear him to any degree. The only reasonable thing to do politically and otherwise is to get those heads rolling now.

Why does he not, and why don't some people want him to? Because they all know he can't do it. The President knows, and his supporters suspect it. The truth must be very very bad.

He won't tell us the truth before the election, because he needs you to do something you will be embarrassed about after you vote. He needs you to again believe him to be something he is not, just like four years ago.

Is your vote that cheap, is your character, your nation, your ambassador, your brave patriots left to die? Is all that tossed away for partisanship - for this one man's, one-time second term win? So much spent on so little.

chickelit said...

garage mahal said...
We'll just have to wait and see. Right now we don't know anything for certain.


What happened to the alleged ring leader of the attacks? The guy that the NYT interviewed over coffee at a hotel? I wonder if he's even been questioned yet.

Wheels of Fortune

chickelit said...

garage mahal said...
@creeley
We'll just have to wait and see. Right now we don't know anything for certain. These things move incredibly slow. I'm sure all the facts will come out some day.


Of all the garage maholic things you've said over the years, garage, that takes the cake for cravenness. I just had to cut and pasted it in its entirety.

It's not just the hyprocrisy of your attitude in the face of your rush to judgement on all things Scott Walker--things that had to be solved immediately before the election. No, what bugs me is your callousness towards the men who died. How many died because Scott Walker appeared to do too little, garage?

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

I know this is getting embarrassing for you guys. You know it's wrong. It's not just losing an election now. If you stand on this, you have lost everything.

Just do the right thing and call for answers before the election. It's not too late to stand up for the nonpartisan truth that you deserve from your leaders in a free nation of laws, especially before you vote. This time you are the Nixon defenders during Watergate, only way way worse. Get out of that burning boat. Nobody expects you to go down with it.

donald said...

Bagoh20.

Nope, none of it matters.

Obamuh! Obamuh! Obamuh!

Whitey.

Tim said...

garage mahal said...

"@creeley
We'll just have to wait and see. Right now we don't know anything for certain. These things move incredibly slow. I'm sure all the facts will come out some day."


Wrong again.

The president, if he wanted to, could clear all of this up in the next 30 minutes.

Worse yet, you, and everyone else, knows it.

donald said...

Garage is that pussy that disappeared during the Scott walker recall. That gaping vagina.

Just sayin.

exhelodrvr1 said...

From McCain's speech today:

"I think it's interesting to note that when there was a success, such as when, thank God, we were able to get bin Laden, the administration poured out every single detail, even details that put American lives in danger," McCain said. He later added: "It is my obligation to the men and women who are serving to get the full story out to these four brave Americans have families. They deserve to know why their sons were sacrificed in the needless fashion."

Tim said...

exhelodrvr1 said...

"From McCain's speech today:

"I think it's interesting to note that when there was a success, such as when, thank God, we were able to get bin Laden, the administration poured out every single detail, even details that put American lives in danger," McCain said. He later added: "It is my obligation to the men and women who are serving to get the full story out to these four brave Americans have families. They deserve to know why their sons were sacrificed in the needless fashion."


Exactly right.

The president could clarify all of this within 30 minutes, if he wanted to.

For some reason, he does not want to.

Reasonable men can draw reasonable conclusions.

garage mahal said...

It's not just the hyprocrisy of your attitude in the face of your rush to judgement on all things Scott Walker--things that had to be solved immediately before the election

So conservatives were/are wrong for not demanding answers from Scott Walker, and I was right?

Or I was wrong back then and wrong now? Which is it?

chickelit said...

gragae, I said that part wasn't the part that bothered me & I meant it. Stop obamafuscating.

Compare and contrast the two situations--if you can.

bagoh20 said...

The routers killed somebody?

bagoh20 said...

"So conservatives were/are wrong for not demanding answers from Scott Walker, and I was right?"

Yes. So you are wrong now, and this one is really important.

garage mahal said...

@Chickelit
I guess you'll have to lay out what the rules are for me.

Livermoron said...

Getting so personal, Inga. Just over politics?

Lock up any film-makers lately?
Theo van Gogh got what he deserved too?

Yeah, that's social liberalism. You've got it nailed.

virgil xenophon said...

Can't we all just stop dancing around? Obama is an obvious sociopathic charlatan and psychopathic liar. He can't help himself. Period. Full Stop. Why even bother to debate the obvious? He is fully prepared to brazen his way thru all of this and if you think he will EVER be forthcoming I've got a certain bridge I'd like to talk to you about. The guy has a Lake Superior-sized vessel full of unmitigated gall--all utilized in advancing his cause as a leftist true believer. Dream on, those of you waiting for answeres that will never be forthcoming, because he can't--so he won't. We're ALL on Obama "Waiting for Godot" time..

Tim said...

As seen elsewhere on the internet:

“Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama, THEY GOT DENIED.”

Oh-bah-muh, Oh-bah-muh, Oh-bah-muh, Oh-bah-muh, Oh-bah-muh.

#Fail

Joe said...

I agree with virgil; Obama is a sociopath. The "truth" is whatever he says it is at that moment.

Nathan Alexander said...

If Walker had done anything wrong, garage, yes, it was better to get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible.

But despite an independent investigation (which Obama isn't allowing in his situation, right?), the accusations against Walker never achieved even the lofty heights of credibility as questions about Obama's birth certificate.

Now, there are 3 major scandals that are known.

Not rumors.

Facts.

1) Stevens knew he was on a hit list, and asked for additional security. Others in charge of local security asked for additional measures. Those measures were not only denied, they were told to stop asking. Obama is responsible. Either those denials were done with his knowledge and permission, or not. If not, then why has he not identified and fired those responsible like a leader should?

2) The former SEALs requested support. They were lasing a target for a strike that never came. We had a live video feed and were contact with the US combatants, which is more than enough for Combat Search and Rescue, which could have been there in less than 3 hours, tops. There were other quick reaction forces available as well. But no help came. The CIA has said they didn't tell anyone to stand down, didn't deny assistance.

Again, the only one with the authority to do that is Obama, or someone to whom he deliberately delegated responsibility. There can be no standing orders for this kind of responsibility, it would be his call. Either someone assumed authority they did not have and spoke for Obama, in which case even a mediocre leader would have that person canned and/or punished, or Obama gave the order to deny assistance.

3) We know that the Obama administration knew within hours with 100% certainty that it was a terrorist attack. They had live video, they had phone contact with the US combatants.
But they pushed the line that it was caused by a video for 3 weeks.
Then in the 2nd debate, Obama tried to imply he called it a terrorist attack from the beginning.
Moreover, his only excuse for pushing the video is he didn't want false information to be given before they knew for sure.
In other words, he pushed false information in order to prevent the chance of people believing false information.
That is beyond stupid, or beyond evil. Take your pick.

Heck, lets add on two more scandals with this:
4) It has been nearly 2 months. Has anything been done in retaliation for that attacks? At all?
No.

That is either total incompetence or complete uncaring for the lost.

5) Obama has promised to get to the bottom of this to find out what happened.
But a large portion of what the public (his employers, those he should answer to) wants to know is fully known within his chain of command. The things we want to know aren't classified (because, by law, you cannot classify something just to protect yourself from the consequences of bad decisions, and there are no sources and methods compromised by talking chain of command issues), so why doesn't he tell us what he already knows?
It would be easy to say:
This is what happened, and this is what we still don't know because the investigation is still ongoing.

There is nothing about the chain of command issues that would impede investigation of the terrorists who attacked and killed Stevens and the former SEALs.

So compared to bogus false accusations against Walker, well, I think it is obvious how stark the differences are.

Cosmic Conservative said...

If President Ladyparts wins re-election, this will turn into another Watergate scenario with Congress digging in for the long haul and the press dragging their feet in reporting until they are forced into it.

When the truth starts to trickle out, there will be many, many rats jumping from President Ladyparts ship.

Carnifex said...

Down here at UK we got he worst football coach in the world...bar none. There are Pop Werner guys that can out coach him. And it was known before he was hired that he was terrible as a coach. At least to those with eyes to see.

As an example, you guys know Randall Cobb obviously. When Cobb was a sophmore we were playing Tennessee, a team we hadn't beaten in more than twenty years...20 years! Two decades...So it's late in the fourth quarter less than a minute to play. We had just driven 50-60 yards to set up on the Tennessee 7 yard line. Our OC, who is now our HC, takes Cobb out of the game. and runs our QB on 3 straight plays for no gain. On fourth down he throws the ball out of bounds. This QB was so pathetic he sacked him self constantly. But the best player on both teams that night sat on our bench, because Our OC was/is a retard.

I can relate story after story of how terrible this guy is as a coach. But he still got the HC job because of 2 things. 1) he played at UK, and had been there for 7 years in some capacity, and #2) he was black.

The football realist hooted and hollered that this guy was a loser. But we were shouted down by those who said "Give him a chance. He'll get better. He's one of us"

It's been 3 long years now. Our fan base was totally rent into 2 factions...the LOD(Legion of Doom), and the JSF(Joker Super Friends). This year we are 1 and whatever, and only 1 or 2 of the JSF still exist. Nothing will change their minds. They will come and watch horrible football because that's who they are. No amount of logic, pleading, arguing, will move them. They are the lemmings of the human race. Too stupid to be allowed out on their own.

So it is with Zeros sycophants. If Zero were caught with the proverbial dead girl or live boy in bed they do not care. They don'y not care how much damage Zero does the country. They don't care how many people die. They don't care about anything except being dictated to by their Messiah, Zero.

As such, they are anathema to everything American. They are traitors to the country, and should be stripped of all civil rights that are accorded Americans.

They should be,but they can't, because unlike them, we profess that our rights come from a God they deny exists, and as such, only God, not their Messiah, can take them away.

As for their Messiah, I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire in front of his own kids.

I'm not heartless, I'd make sure they covered their eyes.

MayBee said...

Do you even realize that if your excuse were true, that would be even WORSE?

When I say his three directives were ordered the day after the attacks, please don't see that as me making an excuse for him.

It's horrible. He checked out of an emergency and is trying to pretend his after-the-fact utterances were leadership.