Skip to comments.Obama: My "Biggest Priority" is Bringing the Benghazi "Folks" to Justice
Posted on 10/26/2012 6:58:04 PM PDT by Kaslin
The president appeared on Michael Smerconish's radio program earlier today and addressed the Benghazi attack:
Obama Says His "Biggest Priority" Is Bringing Benghazi Attackers To Justice
What happened in Benghazi is a tragedy. We’re investigating exactly what happened. I take full responsibility for that fact. I send these folks in harm’s way, I want to make sure they’re always safe and when that doesn't happen, that we figure out what happened and make sure that doesn't happen again. But my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice and I think the American people have seen that’s a commitment I'll always keep.”
"We're investigating." Seven weeks later. There certainly is quite a lot of material to pore over, but it seems as though every step of this so-called investigation (remember, the FBI couldn't gain access to the unsecured compound for weeks) has been seized upon to conjure up new cover stories. The president says he takes "full responsibility," but what does that mean, exactly? His administration denied requests for beefed up security in Benghazi on several occasions, opting instead to pare down our defenses there. His administration looked and listened live as the seven-hour battle raged, and refused to send reinforcements that could have made a difference. And his administration has spun an evolving and befuddling tale to the American public about how and why this all happened. It's obvious that this president has a powerful political interest in continuing the obfuscation racket for roughly 11 more days, give or take. In the meantime, he's talkin' tough about bringing these "folks" to justice. Am I the only one who's a bit uncomfortable with the Commander-in-Chief referring to a band of hardened, murderous jihadists as if they're a genial elderly couple at a local diner? Beyond the semantics, though, there's this detail from Jennifer Griffin's report:
According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.
I overlooked this item earlier. If Griffin's sources are correct, US personnel on the group actual had three of the terrorists in custody, but were required to "hand them over to the Libyans." Why, and by whom? Who were these terrorists, and where are they now? The US government seems to have no idea. Yet another mystery to "investigate" -- right, Mr. President? I'll leave you with a second viewing of Charlie Woods, father of one of the murdered Americans:
Father Of Navy SEAL Killed In Benghazi Says Obama Admin Pushing A "Pack Of Lies"
UPDATE - Gen. Petraeus, now the CIA chief, says the "stand down" denial of reinforcements order did not come from his shop:
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No. It would have been a presidential decision.
That last bit was speculation from Bill Kristol. Anyone have a better explanation?
I know I’m going tom sound like a dingbat but please refresh my memory: Did Obama say something to effect that “it’s not optional to lose 4 lives?” I know he said something about the four people who were killed and that his statement was disgusting but I can’t remember his exact words.
He said the deaths of 4 Americans was “not optimal.”
That’s all, folks!
You made me search for the quote. It seems that I would have to agree that the “not optimum” quote WAS taken out of context. However, it is obvious that the more detailed quote is STILL a lie. Obama obviously does not care about the security of the U.S. or its citizens. Or even its ambassadors.
From the interwebs:
Their comments appear to be based on the first White House pool report on the Daily Show interview, which said:
On Benghazi, Potus said: “Every piece of information that we get, as we got it we laid it out to the American people. The picture eventually gets fully filled in.” Potus also said: “Here’s what I’ll say. When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it.”
That report was sent at 4:35 PM. A subsequent update, with full context of the exchange between Obama and Stewart, was sent at 5:11 PM.
Obama’s response to Stewart, in fuller context, makes it obvious that he was discussing the inadequacy of early communications between different arms of the government - not the deaths of personnel. From the 5:11 PM pool report:
Jon Stewart: “Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within. Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.”
POTUS: “Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what’s broken and you fix it.
Whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes, and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans. And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency.”
Thank you. I was close,LOL.
What a cretin.
Sorry about that. You didn’t need to do through all that trouble.
Sorry about that. You didn’t need to do through all that trouble.
Everyone is “folks” to Obama whether good, bad or indifferent...a reflexive elitist holds everyone in contempt.
I sure hope someone’s/some people are watching him! Because he’s getting away with an awful lot that I never, ever dreamed he’d be allowed to do! I think it must have started with Bill Clinton. He got away with a lot of things that never should have been allowed. Now Barack Obama thinks he can do things not allowed and get away with it! Scary!
The FBI couldn’t get into the compound because all the weapons had to taken out and shipped to Syria. There is a reason for all the lies to cover up more than simple stupid decisions. I think there is so much more to this than blaming a video.
Those people were sacrificed. obama and his ilk did not want Stephens to survive and that’s why they told men willing to come to their said to “stand down”...THREE TIMES! I think Stephans knew their little gun running operation of providing arms to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria had been compromised by the Russians and Shephans realized he was probably going to be the patsy. He was going to resign and spill the beans so obama couldn’t allow him to live.
I agree with this too, but could u explain what u believe Russia’s role in this is?
The Russians have announced that they have found American made Stinger misiles. And they’re pissed about it. Russia is on Ahsad’s side. We’re helping the “warriers” that are actgually muslim brotherhood extremists who want Sahria law. Turkey wants them to have the weapons because Assad is dropping bombs on Turkey. So Turkey wants the rebels to be armed to fight Assad. And this all serves our purpose of setting up the Musslim Brotherhood in the middle east. Stephens knew it was about to hit the fan, And it did hit. Now their problem was making it appear what it was not. Thus, the little old idiot with the video. Otherwise they get caught gun running. That can’t have than.
Always follow the money. That will lead to the actors. Then you can find out why the actors were doing their deeds. And remember, obama will stand with the muslims. He’ll also help them as much as he can.
Your tax dollars are being used by obama to fulfill his father’s dreams of bringing down us colonialists. And he figures the fasstest way is to get the brotherhood in charge and let them do their duties and the deal is done.
You seem to have this figured out, at least partly. Now you say follow the money and of course, but the only benefit I see in arming the Muslim brotherhood is that wars can be very profitable. Is there some other objective other than that? IOW one that has a real meaning, religious or anything other than money. I.e. do the people involved here give a damn that people will be subjected to Sharia law at all?
I’m just not getting why arming terrorists is a good idea unless yu are making money off the weapons and or rebuilding after war.
What has the White House cutting cookies right now is that American voters are being driven at precisely this moment to the conclusion that Obama seeks the welfare of "fuzzies", jihadis, shahidis, and Moslems in general in preference to that of the loyal people serving the United States under his command.
You can also say follow the “lack” of money. It bleeds the U.S. dry and we die. And that’s obama’s number one goal.
Then why hasn’t Nobama turned himself in?
Wasn’t that the guy who breathlessly hurried to call Norman Schwarzkopf about a cease fire- just in time to prevent the complete destruction of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard [the same guard that Saddam Hussein then used immediately after the cease fire to put down an insurrection?] All Norman needed was a little more time.
A lot of speculation there stated as fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.