Let me guess: this one didn’t make to the Post’s print edition just like the David Ignatius piece the other day.
You’ve got some editors over there who are afraid of their own shadow.
AND....
He just so happened to be in a meeting with Leon Pathetta when the attack began.
What a coincidence!
One thing about the Benghazi massacre. It appears that no one, not the on-scene commanders, or theater commanders were authorized to exercise judgement to come to the rescue of Americans under attack. In this case it may have been by design, because Hussein set up Steven for assassination, but apparently this is standard operating procedure - put a foreign muslim, with limited experience in anything, much less war, in charge, and let him run the show from thousands of miles away in the safety and comfort of a “situation room”. When he gets bored and goes off to take a nap, those in danger just have to fend for themselves. After all, they are just “bumps in the road” and if they die it is “not nominal”, but the campaign must go on. Back in the days when we were in wars to win, and we revered American lives, on scene commanders were allowed to make decisions and they were reprimanded for failing to act. No more! Gen Ham can testify to the fact that inaction is the “career safe” strategy now.
We’re playing checkers while the Democrats are playing chess. The facilities in Benghazi were over run. Nobody denies that. That is a fact. It is obvious to even my little dog that there wasn’t enough security at the facilities in Benghazi. They were over run. We can go through all the correspondence and affix responsibility later. What were we doing in Benghazi? What were we doing in Libya? Why has President “Fore!” been messing around in the Middle East? The Democrats have people who are paid to sit around all day and figure out which lies and distractions work best. Then, they throw them out. What are Obama’s motives in all this? Was he ever in the military? Was he ever an American patriot? He’s been a lazy, spotlight-seeking, choom smoking grifter his whole life. Why would he care about Libya and Egypt and Syria? Look at the three part story at illinoispaytoplay.com. He’s doing all this to put some dough in his pockets. This President gig won’t last forever for him no matter what. He’s burning up the Middle East because he’s a greedy little grifter. That’s the secret they are trying to hide.
I say it is fairly obvious that there was malfeasance reaching to the highest levels of our gubermint. The newsies know far more than they are telling, but we are seeing glimpses of the wall crumbling. They know that if this breaks after the election and the wrong guy wins, there will be hell to pay. Watch for the careful calculus of when it is too close to election day for the news to make a difference but long enough before election day that the newsies can claim they properly reported the story. By no means will that give them clean hands, however.
The state run media are being consistent in ignoring this. After all, they completely ignored that August 6, 2001 briefing Bush got about Bin Laden being determined to strike the U.S. Never said a peep about it. Nope, not a single word. And it certainly wasn't the NY Times eleven years later on September 10, 2012 running an editorial about that very same August 6, 2001 briefing. No, not that state run media.
Did you catch the survey done by Fox News?
Only 11% of Democrats believe that Obama misled folks regarding Benghazi.
Misled is actually a kind word, and if the facts present aren’t enough at this point, they never will be. I find this very disturbing and depressing.