The CIA is denying. The Pentagon is denying. And now the White House is denying that anyone refused to send help to our embattled CIA and State Department personnel engaged in a seven hour running firefight with more than 150 jihadists.
It just doesn’t get any lamer than this:
The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.
“Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email.
Why was this so hard for President Obama to say on Friday when asked a direct question about assistance to Americans under fire?
President Barack Obama said repeatedly Friday that his administration would “find out what happened” and punish those responsible, but he twice ducked questions about whether U.S. officials denied requests for help.
As Bill Kristol points out, Obama doesn’t have to “find out what happened” in the White House — he was there and presumably was kept informed.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD understands that it will take some time to “gather all the facts” about what happened on the ground in Benghazi. But presumably the White House already has all the facts about what happened that afternoon and evening in Washington—or, at least, in the White House. The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections.
1.) To whom did the president give the first of his “three very clear directives”—that is, “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?”
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.
Those are good questions, but why bother? The narrative is in place. The media is cooperating by mostly squelching the story. The cover-up, as John Hinderaker writes, is continuing:
The administration knew that four Americans had been killed in a successful terrorist attack by an al Qaeda affiliate, but lied about the event for weeks in hopes of minimizing political fallout. Extraordinarily courageous Americans fought a seven-hour gun battle against well-armed and well-organized terrorists who vastly outnumbered them before finally succumbing, during which time the Obama administration did nothing. And when the bodies of the dead Americans were returned to the United States, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton misappropriated the occasion to deliver politically-motivated lies, both to the victims’ survivors and to the American people. All of that we now know for sure. If, in addition, there is credible evidence that American soldiers, fighting desperately for their lives against our country’s most bitter enemies, called for help but were cynically left to perish in order to protect Barack Obama’s petty re-election campaign, Obama will not only lose the election but will be turned out of office in disgust by a clear majority of voters. Reporters and editors know this. It will be interesting to see how they respond during the coming days: will they do their jobs, or will they assist their candidate with his cover-up?
How do we know that the White House is lying about denying requests for military assistance from our beleaguered diplomats? Consider: If a news story is published basically accusing the President of the United States of standing by while Americans were killed, shouldn’t the reaction from the White House be a little more indignant? A little more agitated? Perhaps a lot angrier?
All of these denials point to one of two conclusions; either Fox News is making stuff up, or the administration is lying through its teeth. There is no other possible explanation.
And I would note the extraordinary detail in the Fox article, including specific communications between the various locations in Libya and national security people in Washington. If Fox is making stuff up, someone has a pretty vivid imagination.
Hayward wonders if the cover-up will last through the election. He also says this: “So how will the media formerly known as mainstream, which have done their best to try to drag Obama’s sorry campaign across the finish line, deal with the Benghazi story?”
Answer: They will continue to drag the Obama campaign across the finish line — just as these Italian Olympic officials dragged their 1908 marathon runner Dorando Pietr across the line to an apparent victory:
Note: Pietr was eventually disqualified.
All those years of denying the professionalism of FOX are coming to a head. The public MUST understand that FOX is not to be trusted. They MUST understand that FOX is to be treated with disdain and that only non-FOX news may be accepted as accurate.
If we can confine the damage to FOX (The Weekly Standard does not exist for virtually everybody not already a right-wing fanatic) then we can let this ride until after the election.
Please…Stop watching FOX news.
You are kidding…aren’t you?
“There’s an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan. What matters, is that I am the responsible officer of the government.”
-President John F. Kennedy in his first press conference after the Bay of Pigs debacle
The president was in the White House from the time the attack began at around 2:40 pm ET
Well, that’s OK then. The President was prepared for a 3 AM call so we can’t realistically expect him to answer one at 3 PM. He was fully prepared for “the call in the middle of the night”, nobody ever told him that stuff happens during the day. It’s not his fault, the Republicans are just trying to hold him to the impossible “Bush Standard”.
The gut feeling I have is that the folks voting against Obama who are independently minded but not “undecided ill-informed wishy washy” are absolutely of no mood to put up with Democratic spin anymore, and that they are going to become quite willing to start getting blunt about it.
The Democrats and MSM are throwing away the immense (and undeserved) ability they had to morally intimidate, because they use it too often and it vecomes obvious. People voting for Romney who are not really Republicans will probably never go back to the Democratic Party of today if the right option is presented to them. Which means even if Obama wins, he has a problem come January. People are not going to feel they just have to go along with his next proposal, and there will not be much cost in standing against him. He may say he will have a mandate, and others may say it, but the truth will be that politically, all he would have done was hold on to the job. I don’t see him being able to do anything with it, and the 2014 elections might make 2010 look tame.
For the next few years, the undecided or unaffiliated middle is shrinking, and not in a way favorable to Democrats. The only way to change that dynamic is for Dems to lose power and wait for the GOP overreach. And therein lies the opportunity.
Don’t overreach.
This does not men give up on Tea Party stuff. Oh no. It does not mean compromise. By no means.
It means saying “we simply don’t believe X will work, we think you are living in fantasy land, and you can’t make us vote for it. We refer this to the people once again.”
And then you just keep doing it–make the people take ownership of their Republic. Don’t do it *for* them when they aren’t paying attention–make them take ownership. They’ll make the right choice.
As an additional comment, Democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee. Say Obama wins. Do they *really* think that the people are going to elect a Democrat in 2016 after another four years of Obama? Do they *really* think that with Obama in power that the House is going to go back to them? Do they *really* think that in the next six years the Senate will be anything for them but a near-50 tie?
Barack Obama is an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party. I tell you–there is not going to be any magic collapse in the GOP strength ala 2006 if he is in office. No chance at all. Democrats are not going to be handed total control by the people if he is in office. All he will be able to do is issue unilateral executive branch decrees, and I’ll be honest–that will sink the Democratic Party for good with the middle class eventually.
Dems are fools to want Barack Obama back in the White House. But then, they are fools anyway.
It’s been nearly 4 years that Obama has been president, shouldn’t someone explain the concept of Commander in Chief to him. Apparently, he and his administration believe that the President’s role is to advise and consent. Or maybe vote “present”.
Sorry, Mr. Obama, the President’s job is to make decisions. Not denying help isn’t enough. As Commander in Chief, you are required to order help or make the conscious decision not to help. Not making a decision is always the worst decision but does not relieve you of the accountability. You have lost the moral authority to command. We have to let you go.
I know it’s off topic, BUT…
The photo is from the 1908 London Olympic. The gentleman standing on the right side of the tape is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle of Sherlock Holmes fame.
IIRC, he was a field judge for the Marathon: the first held at the now standard distance. The course started at Windsor Castle, BTW, but i may be wrong,,,
so, it will probably take some time to gather all the facts about this unfortunate episode?
translation: get those emails rounded up, strip those computer memories, transfer all those involved to the artic circle, where they were already scheduled to go, promote those who keep their mouths shut, shred all documents related to same, and have the media jump hard on the hurricane sandy story until after the election.
see, we learned a lot from fast & furious.
oh yeah, and get el presidente a uniform with lot o medals. he’s got to remember he’s c.i.c., even when he’s intercepting. its probably easier to do in a super fancy uniform. get one he can wear like p.j.’s too, just in case he gets a 3 am call.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/28/the-white-houses-lame-denial-of-benghazi-cover-up/
includes a comment by me:
daveinga: A “super fancy uniform” would be EXACTLY the right thing for an egotist who went so far as to invent an Office of the President Elect sign for himself. Why hasn’t he thought of designing a military uniform for himself? Think how much more splendid he would look alongside his Greek columns.
Here are some photos of a WWII leader who was noted for his exquisite taste in uniforms:
http://tinyurl.com/9zbl5wd
http://tinyurl.com/9yd5mrw
http://tinyurl.com/9zvcm98
http://tinyurl.com/8vw527o
http://tinyurl.com/9fpag2w
Wikipedia tells us: “Göring was known for his extravagant tastes and garish clothing. He had various special uniforms made for the many posts he held; his Reichsmarschall uniform included a jewel-encrusted baton. Hans-Ulrich Rudel, the top Stuka pilot of the war, recalled twice meeting Göring dressed in outlandish costumes: first, a medieval hunting costume, practicing archery with his doctor; and second, dressed in a red toga fastened with a golden clasp, smoking an unusually large pipe. Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano once noted Göring wearing a fur coat that looked like what “a high grade prostitute wears to the opera.”
What a grand example for Dear Leader. Appoint a Uniform Czar posthaste, and warm up the sewing machines!
[Yes, two of the links are for dolls, or "action figures" if you prefer. I think that's appropriate, don't you?]
PS: I hope this doesn’t double post. I hit Submit once already but then realized I had not filled in my name or e-mail address.
If ol’ Barry is really interested in “punish[ing] those responsible” maybe he should ask his buddies at the New York Times. Didn’t they interview one of the organizers of the attack at a cafe while he sipped a mango smoothie? If a newspaper can find a terrorist in a matter of hours, shouldn’t the Obama administration be able to as well?
The attack on the US Consulate in Libya activated DoD Noncombatant Evacuation Operation (NEO) contingency plans.
See JP-3-68 (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3-68.pdf) for NEO doctrine.
Take a look at JP-3-68 to see who was supposed to do what during the Libya fiasco. It’s eye opening.
Dude that’s 169 pages, what does it say we don’t already know?
Read the Executive Summary….
Every time the question is put to either Dear Leader, Panetta, Clinton or CIA about who made the call to leave those poor Americans hanging out to dry, the response is something to the effect of “we’re looking into it” or Obama finds that “offensive” or some other load of bovine scatology. The question in itself is an indictment that must be answered: THEY WERE FRIGGIN THERE, IN THE SITUATION ROOM, TOGETHER. THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND WHO MADE THE CALL…BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL THERE, TOGETHER WHEN IT HAPPENED. That salient point needs to be included in every discussion of this matter. That is the sticking point that cannot be refuted, denied or danced around – THEY WERE ALL THERE TOGETHER; THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND DO NOT NEED TO INVESTIGATE ANYTHING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. Their continuing obfuscation and stonewalling is only an admission of guilt.
In my opinion, it is Panetta that needs to come clean if he wants any particle of his reputation left intact when this hits the fan. As SecDef he can only be overruled by POTUS or “Cue Balls” Biden in matters of national defense.
Assuming that Panetta wanted to do the right thing but was overruled by POTUS for whatever reason(s). If that is the case, he had better man up and say so, or he will go down with the other rats.
You talk as if the victims under attack had President Obama on speed dial and they called him right away and the pres and his cabinet sat around in the room together deciding not to help while the victims were pleading on the line. Get a clue! The attack was was over so quickly the victims were dead before the president was even notified of what was happening.
I don:t care where he was I am sad that so many peoplr
are forgetting his family ask .talk about this until they learn everything. yet not on romneny Obama but the rest of the free world can’t even give them that just like
fast and fouruio oh that right he did have any thing to do with it yet have anyone said I/m sorry no everyone one have a right yo believe what they want to about people but a lease let the fact come out first I came spoke because when Katrina hit I lost 15 member of my
family and today I still don/t blame anyone I think as president they all do the best can
All these accusations are really grasping at straws.
Among the few undisputed facts that are well known is that:
1) there is a small CIA compound that was about a mile away. When they heard there was an attack they immediately responded. They did not need permission from the president because that was what they were already there to do. Regardless, their efforts to help were too late and too uninformed to save the 4 victims.
2) The attack was over and done within a few hours. Whether you believe the white house responded to send help or not, by the time they knew what was going on, the victims were already dead.
That’s just what happens with terrorist attacks. They don’t plan to stick around long enough for rescue missions.
3) Any extra help outside the forces in the city would take hours to arrive. By the time they would have gotten there, the victims would already be dead.
4) An air strike would be out of the question, since anyone trying to help would now know the exact location of good vs bad guys (both of whom would probably die if a missile landed anyway).
According to legimate news sources, the white house did actually respond by sending people to get info and help if possible, but the attack was already over by then. That’s not anyone’s fault. Terrorist attacks happen and we can’t be ready everywhere all the time, especially in the middle east.
In summary, if you have some kind of fantasy that if you were the president and you would have personally flew in with a team of seals within 5 minutes and rescued them yourself, you are just a delusional moron.