[TigersEye]

Anyone with an ounce of honor or humanity would have put assets in the air and hoped they got there in time to help. When any lib talks about whether this or that would have helped they are talking purely in hindsight. When the time comes to act you don't get to know whether it will all work out. There are no do-overs when the shooting starts.

[verum ago]

Anyone with an ounce of honor or humanity would have put assets in the air and hoped they got there in time to help.

I think that's part of why this is so unsettling to us– Obama's failure to, or deliberate choice not to, act is something way beyond politics. It is, as you say, a basic act of honor and humanity.

I suspect if you took a random Democrat, made him president, then put him in the situation Obama was in, he would act, even if his action is somewhat tepid or hesitant, he would at least do something. Because failure to act would be wrong on a level that transcends the political notions of right and wrong.

And that's what so disturbing about Obama and Benghazi. The explanations for Obama's behavior are all very unsettling:

1) Obama failed to act
If this is the case, then the Commander in Chief of our armed forces and the 'leader' of this country is so mind-numbingly incompetent that it's, well, mind-numbing.

or

2) Obama chose not to act
If this is the case, then we are slapped with the equally mind-numbing idea that Obama deliberately let Americans die because his sense of right and wrong is f***ing warped that he decided it was 'right' to let them die to advance some cynical purpose which we can only guess at. For now.

Infuriating, isn't it..?

What's even worse, is that for one to accept explanation 1) above, one must also accept that everyone in the administration is so incompetent that no one thought to act and no one knew we could intervene. Frankly, I find that too unlikely to be true. Which means we're left with explanation 2)...

Even more infuriating now, isn't it..?