Friday, February 8, 2013
Obama...AWOL from America in Benghazi
Various media outlets, including The Weekly Standard and Newsmax, reported last night that when retiring Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was interviewed by US Senators at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, he told them that that President Barack Obama was absent the night US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya, last September 11. It was questions from Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire that led Panetta to explain the following time line : (1) Panetta met with Obama at a pre-scheduled 30-minute meeting at 5 pm. He and Obama spent about 20 minutes discussing the American Embassy that was surrounded in Cairo, Egypt, as well as discussing the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi. (2) President Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under attack in Benghazi, “up to us” - meaning Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (3) President Obama did not call Panetta or Dempsey after the 5 pm meeting to check on the status of events in Benghazi. And Panetta said, “no, but we got information that the ambassador, his life had been lost, it went to the White House.” (4) The Defense Secretary said that he did not communicate with anyone at the White House on the night of September 11. When an incredulous Senator Ayotte asked, “There was no follow-up from the White House?” Panetta answered, “No.” Obama had never called to check in, Panetta testified. When Ayotte asked whether the President had checked on what resources were available and how fast they could have been sent to the consulate, Panetta said, “The biggest problem that night was that nobody knew what was going on there.” Last September, after the assassination of Ambassador Stevens, Governor Romney commented that it seemed the administration was soft on the attackers. President Obama, while in Richmond, Virginia, harshly criticized Romney for his response to the crisis. "He [Romney] certainly understood that...if you aspire to be commander in chief you don't release a political press release.," Obama said. Obama should have criticized himself -- for being "Absent Without Leave" during the distruction of a US diplomatic compound and the assassination of the US Ambassador and three other diplomats in a mob-attack situation on the anniversary of 9/11. I cannot remember when I have been so shaken by a Washington revelation. Indeed, I thought myself long since immune from anything that might come out of Washington. But, Obama's indifference to his own diplomats in harm's way, his nonchalance in turning his duties over to others, however competent, his lack of interest or even curiosity to know what was happening or what his subordinates were doing or planning to save the situation and the Americans caught up in it, his lack of acknowledgement that his Anbassador had been killed -- has made me realize just how weak and venal a president America has in Barak Obama. He should, instead of touting his commander-in-chief successes, ask for forgiveness -- from the US diplomatic corps, from the families of those slain, and from the American people whom he so badly serves and so often treats with utter contempt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
He won't because he's too occupied looking into the mirror and saying, "I'm President of the United States of America. Ain't that something." What a narcissist he is.
ReplyDeleteI have been devouring this since last night. I have NO specific idea what to make of it. It is sincerely the most disturbing news that i have ever heard come out of a interrogating appearance by an administration spokesman.
ReplyDeleteDose this not titter on the edge of "malfeasance of office" or avoidance of his sworn duty to up hold the office of the presidency and the Constitution?
There is one very ugly possibility in your article that is not mentioned ...KNOWLEDGE.
"My great concern is not whether you have failed, but whether you are content with your failure".
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln
Anonymous has a point ... was there (if I read him right) prior or spontaneous knowledge of what was occurring and it was all too much for him to digest and compute. Too much to handle and wrap his hands around. So he walked away hoping his appointees could/would handle the problem and he could ride back in on his white horse... the triumph leader.
But the worst of worst happened ... and the rest is history. If any of this is factual or plausible then it may well have been to great of a let down, a discouragement for Main Street citizen to grasp and he was re-elected.
So was Panetta's acknowledgement a slip of the tongue or a Freudian slip. Or did Senator Ayotte give the Secretary No other possible recourse except the blatant truth as an answer.
How's the saying goes ..."Oh what webs we weave when we first deceive"