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?
Mr. woods is not suicidal either and he doesn’t have a heart condition and he just got a total maintenance done on his car.
that school opening story sounds like a cover story. No way do I buy it. amb Stevens for months was begging for more security in Benghazi. It doesn’t make sense.
Ok Mr Obama. When are you going to turn yourself in?
Having his a$$ on trial might serve to keep him occupied and unable to wreak too much mischief.....kind of like putting a “twitch” on a horse so he’ll hold still for medical procedures, etc.
He's acting as commander-in-chief. Bill Clinton claimed he deserved active duty military benefits for that. If he's ineligible for treason than he's guilty of being an illegal combatant. Trade the treason trial in on a cigarette and a bullet.
He's acting as commander-in-chief. Bill Clinton claimed he deserved active duty military benefits for that. If he's ineligible for treason than he's guilty of being an illegal combatant. Trade the treason trial in on a cigarette and a bullet.
Why didn't our military come to their aid, Mr. President? Who gives that order to go help? Investigation over in 30 seconds.
OBAMA can’t order a strike against these FOLKS. One of them might be his DAD!
I agree...keep Mr Woods in our prayers. His courage is right up there with his son’s. Brave man to speak out wanting answers from this vile administration.
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!
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.