Obama's Benghazi Defense - Silence

Controversy continues to boil about President Obama and the September 11 attack and destruction of the American consular compound at Benghazi that resulted in the assassination of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other diplomats. State Department officials have acknowledged turning down requests for more security in Libya in the months prior to the attack, although when asked whether he knew Americans in Libya had asked for more security, Obama replied shortly after the attack, "I was not personally aware of any request. Obviously we have an infrastructure that's set up to manage requests like that," referring to the State Department. Republicans question the President's truthfulness, after the administration spent days, they say, blaming the assault on reaction to an Internet film that ridicules Islam, and then changing their account of the attack time after time. So, dear readers, let's analyze the continuing battle between Republicans and the White House to make public all the information about what the President knew, when he knew it, and what he did with what he knew. Let's construct a theory of the President's position based what is now available publicly. The FIRST real chink in the fuzzy wall of multiple Obama administration accounts - the Defense Department doesn't agree with the CIA that doesn't agree with the State Department that doesn't agree with anyone but the President - the first breakthrough came when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Forces Committee. Here is the relevant part of their confrontation : SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon? SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets. SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call? SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then. SEC. PANETTA: As a former chief of staff to the president of the United States, the purpose of staff is to be able to get that kind of information, and those staff were working with us. those staff were working with us. SEN. GRAHAM: So you think it’s a typical response of the president. Finally, Panetta admitted that he had no idea why the President was absent during the Benghazi atrack. The SECOND breakthrough came when, as reported by Fox News, Senator Graham was told by James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, that the President was informed of attacks in April and June. The June attack blew a hole in the perimeter wall of the Benghazi compound, and the two strikes were reportedly part of dozens of incidents in the region considered to be warning signs of the deadly September attack. According to Graham, President Obama was aware of two IED attacks on the Benghazi consulate in Libya in the months leading up to the September 11 attack. Graham criticized Obama for a White House statement saying the President did not talk to Libya's leader until the evening of September 12, a day after the embassy was attacked. “(He talked) after everybody was dead,” said Graham, suggesting Obama could have made a difference if he'd been involved earlier, but “you got a commander in chief who is absolutely disengaged. You got the Secretary of State never talking to the Secretary of Defense." Graham's disclosure came after congressional hearings in which top administration officials, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, claimed they were not aware of the security problems at the Libyan compound. Clinton said she never saw an August 16 State Department cable warning that the consulate could not sustain a coordinated attack, but outgoing Defense Secretary Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey said they knew about the warning. A DNI spokesman said the Obama administration has been cooperative with Congress over the Libya questions. However, White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, during his confirmation hearings for CIA director, said much of the information about what Obama knew falls under the category of “executive privilege,” a status often used to avoid disclosing information.“ Armed with the increasingly negative picture of Obama and his senior Secretaries, last Thursday Republicans united to stall Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to succeed Panetta, citing outstanding questions on the Benghazi attack. Then came the THIRD breakthrough - Responding to a letter from Republican senators who asked whether President Obama spoke with Libyan officials on the night of the Benghazi attack, White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler confirmed in a letter Thursday that Obama called Libyan President Magariaf on the following day. "As to the specific question in your February 12 letter, Secretary Clinton called Libyan President Magariaf on behalf of the President on the evening of September 11, 2012, to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya and access to Libyan territory. At that time, President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government's full cooperation. The President spoke to President Magariaf on the evening of September 12." ~~~~~ So, what do we know and what can we reasonably assume? First, that President Obama had confirmed information as early as April 2012 from his director of National Intelligence that the Benghazi consular compound was being attacked and that it was not sufficiently secured. Second, we know that the President did nothing to secure the Benghazi compound because it was still vulnerable when attacked on September 11. We also know that the President knew as early as 5-5:30pm on September 11 that Benghazi was under attack...and vulnerable. Panetta sent word to the White House later in the evening that Ambassador Stevens was dead. And we know that the President made no public statement, and did not call Panetta or the Stevens' family. Finally, we know that the President did not try to secure access to the Benghazi compound to aid Americans under attack. Hillary Clinton made the call. Did she speak with the President before calling? We don't know. Did Obama call her? Probably not or she would have spoken up in his defense. We all have the same question -- where was the President and why would he hide and/or be so coldly indifferent to these almost unprecedented events. Does his inaction rise to derelection of duty? Does it rise to the level of an impeachable act? And why would he prefer to be silent instead of facing his accusers? I can only think that he knows there are other hidden facts that would condemn him even more fundamentally. So he believes his silence is his best defense. President Nixon tried that...and we know the end. I hope President Obama comes to his senses and saves himself and his presidency while he can.