Posted on 10/31/2012 10:56:01 AM PDT by PhxRising
The White House on Wednesday shot down rumors that President Obama nixed an operation to rescue U.S. diplomats under attack in Benghazi after former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich made the claim on national television.
“Neither the President nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi during the attack,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Hill via email.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Yes, I think you could be correct. This could all be set up on Panetta to take the fall. There were lots of stories that 0zer0 wouldn’t make the call on taking out 0sama, and Panetta essentially went around 0zer0 to get Seal Team 6 in the air and on the ground, and only then inform 0zer0 it was going down.
If true, it might explain why Panetta felt like he could take command of this situation also. Remember 0zer0 went to bed after the attack, so that shows 0zer0 (and probably Jarrett) thought this was just a protest, and as such 0zer0 voted “Present” when watching the real time video and getting real time intelligence. That would be expected given his narcissism and world view. Since no decision was made, that left Panetta to make the call, and he chose to stand down.
It just shows what a completely evil narcissist 0zer0 is. He let those people die, and then when it started blowing up, the WH went to full cover up and blame mode. That explains 0zer0 contradictions later when he said “When I realized this was an attack, I did 3 things...Gave an order to help protect our personnel, Ordered and investigation, Ordered us to hunt down those responsible...blah, blah, blah.” That only makes sense if he did this several days after the attack, and that would only make sense if 0zer0, during the time of the attack, actually made the decision that this was a protest, and therefore did nothing.
So in his twisted narcissist world, he can now say he didn’t actually deny help to the embassy. That way he does what he does best, look out for himself. He truly is evil.
Thank you for the information on that tool/fool.
This is just nutz. Totally unacceptable.
Who the hell did, then? Hillary? George Bush?
“”Neither the President nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi during the attack,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Hill via email.”
Hmmm, was the denier physically outside the white house?
(Sneaky weaselwords :( )
A National Security Council spokesperson, eh?
No, that will NOT do. On the stand, right hand up, left hand on Bible, as is customary, and being broadcast, live. Nothing less.
NOT good enough, but Newt Gingrich got their attention!
Another Newtron bomb. They took the bait, too. President Thinskin just can’t let any challenge to his royal weeness go...the storm would have kept this out of the public. What an incompetent boob. I’m glad Newt’s against them.
They are playing the “depends on what the meaning or is, is” ploy.
That Bing Dude on Greta said the WhiteyHut had to issue an “Action Order” to initiate, not per se OK or deny request. Very simple, Show the Action Order, will be end of story and Panetta gets the bus underside ride.
Got this e-mail from a friend. Don’t know the source.
What was Obama told about ?9/11 threats??
Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012
On the White House Web site, the president?s calendar for September 10, 2012 ? the day before the Benghazi, Libya, attack ? is blank and and the daily press guidance says ?The President has no public events scheduled.?
But the president did have an important meeting that day. In an e-mail exchange over President Obama?s record of skipping his daily intelligence meetings, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote me the following: I?d also note that this focus on just the PDB and not the countless other NSC meetings the President has each week really misses the point. For example, the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th. Seems like a relevant data point for you[r] piece. [Emphasis added].
The fact that ?the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th? raises a whole host of new questions:
? What was the president told in that briefing about ?9/11 threats and mitigation efforts? in Libya?
? The New York Times reports that ?In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were ?Al Qaeda-leaning.? ? Was the president briefed on those reports at the NSC principals meeting?
? The Times further reports that ?a week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a ?state of maximum alert? in Benghazi.? Was the president told of this assessment by Libyan officials of the state of security in Benghazi at the 9/10 meeting?
? U.S. diplomats in Libya made numerous requests for additional security. The president claims he was not ?personally aware? of those requests.Well, was there any discussion of those requests in the NSC principals committee meeting on September 10th?
If the NSC Principals Committee did not discuss Libya as part of their briefing on ?9/11 threats and mitigation efforts,? then it would seem to be an example of gross negligence. If they did discuss Libya, then Americans deserve to know what they told the president about the security situation in that country one day before our ambassador was killed. And if the president was in fact briefed on the growing al-Qaeda threat in Benghazi a day before the attack, it would further call into question the administration?s efforts to blame the attack on a YouTube video.
The only way to answer these questions is for the administration to release the records relating to the September 10 NSC meeting ? including any briefing slides or papers prepared for the meeting. Those records will tell us a great deal about what the president knew ? and when he knew it.
“Neither the President nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi during the attack,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Hill via email.
Do you notice the missing word? Here is what they want you to infer from the quote:
“Neither the President nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for MILITARY assistance in Benghazi during the attack,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Hill via email.
The fact is that "Security Personnel" were ordered from Tripoli to Benghazi. That's true. But there were no Military personnel sent. That restriction had to the result of the President's direct order. I have yet to hear anyone from the Administration but Leon Panetta talk about MILITARY ASSISTANCE with his lame excuse. Spokesman for the President and the President himself have not, to the best of my knowledge ever mentioned anything but the generic "assistance" which was, in fact, sent.
Just more Word Games from our Transparent President.
“...by email”
How about a press conference where we can see your face when you say it?
Of course he denied it. These cowards are playing their usual word games.
"Calls for help" were received. At that point there were two, and only two, courses of action; provide help, or deny help. TAKING NO ACTION IS A DENIAL.
The Coward-In-Chief took no action and hid under his bed covers. Americans died. And since then his whole thugocracy has been lying and covering up. Not one has resigned, as any man of honor would have done.
Always remember; When Obama called the SEALs for help, bin Laden died. When SEALs called Obama for help, they died.
Obama lied. Americans died!
Well, if they said it, it must be true, right?
In other news, the White House announced another 52,000,000,000 jobs created in the last week.
That interview should be rebroadcast as a campaign ad on radio and TV, with an apology to the father for using it politically, because the sincerity of the father, over the terrible failure of the Administration, comes through very loud and clear. This needs to be done, not to make a political issue over the son's death; but as an insight into the despicable hand of the "Commander In Chief."
William Flax
It's my opinion that Obama’s actual brain, Valerie Jarrett (the Iranian) told puppet Obama to deny assistance and go to bed because he had a hard day of fund raising to do in Las Vegas. Whether Jarrett's was a strictly a political decision or based on her Muslim sympathies, I don't know. One thing certain, Barry is incapable of decisions that are important. He is a puppet and an empty suit.
This is what a retired Lt. Col. said on Rush Limbaugh's show last Friday. The Lt. Col. was highly informed of protocol in this region of the world. Rush asked what the directive is in the event that the POTUS or SecDef cannot be reached. The Lt. Col. said that the standing orders are to protect American lives. Rush then asked the clarifying question: if a rescue mission didn't take place, then someone had to give the order to stand down. The Lt. Col. said "yes" and clarified that that authority rests with the CinC or SecDef.
But you raise a good point. The details of the standing orders were not presented. Crossing into a foreign country would seemingly be above what a regional General is authorized to do; this would also seemingly be above the authority of the SecDef. This would come from the POTUS only, but only with the consulation of the SoS.
Logically, Obama would have to give the authority for a rescue mission. But the authority to stand down and not offer assistance could come from Panetta.
Which is how the statement is parsed. Obama and the White House didn't refuse a request for assistance. Just as the statement says. However, Obama didn't authorize a rescue mission. Which is what is missing from the statement.
Lies, Damn Lies, And anything the Traitors administration says.
Excellent point...! Yes the Tripoli QRF were CONTRACTORS, not active military, so gayMuzzie can avoid lying about having refused MMMMILITARYassistance —civvies see tough guys with guns and they assume “military”. GayMuzzie DID send help technically so his lawyerly conscience is CLEAR.
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.