Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi

AmericanThinker.com ^ | 11/2/2012 | Karin McQuillan

[RoosterRedux]

President Obama says, "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to." It is clear that he did not issue such a directive, or else the CIA and the military defied him.

Why would our president not come to the defense of our consulate under attack? This is an attack on American soil. This was a 9/11 attack by an al-Qaeda branch in Libya. Therein lies the answer.

Obama does not believe in using the military to defend our national security, which he sees as aggressive, Republican, and cowboy. This was Obama's 9/11, not Bush's. He did not see the attack on our embassy as a jihadi attack on American soil. He saw a group of aggrieved Muslim citizens, with good reason to be angry -- the spontaneous mob enraged by an offensive video. He would follow a Democrat policy of promoting peace, not war, in which avoiding civilian casualties is the paramount goal.

The other answer is directly political. It would be damaging for Obama's already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring. Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama's foreign policy all too evident. An American military response would have undercut one of Obama's main campaign slogans: "GM is alive and Osama is dead."

[Shery]

Obama wanted the narrative to be that the video brought out a mob to riot, covering for what the ambassador was doing there anyway. He knew he could count on the MSM to give him cover. He thought that the rest of us were not smart enough to figure out what Stevens was actually doing there, and he didn’t think it would come out about Steven covert activity.
Obama is stalling, not answering questions. Someone just might ask about the allegations regarding Stevens activity and why he was meeting so often with the Turkish guy. He felt that if less was said no one could connect the dots.

Well, Mr. President, in spite of the current lousy state of our country’s education, some of us got a good education before the Marxists took over. We know when all is not as it is being narrated. Good try, though!

I think it is time to demand answers from this president. What is there to investigate? It is simple. To whom, and what time, did you give the order to send in military assets to secure the consulate? That’s easy enough. It’s that simple. We don’t need to investigate anything. If you gave the order and it was disobeyed, where did that order stop and by whom was it stopped? See, it’s really not all that difficult. Even you, with your 7th grade education could probably answer something as simple as that.

[Morpheus2009]

All I have to say is this. Obama’s ego is too big to accept that terrorism wasn’t beaten, when a great amount of detail points to the idea that bin Laden wasn’t valued anymore by Taliban or Al Qaeda for some time. Obama is like Harvey Dent/Two-Face from Batman: He’s too easy to manipulate due to his ego, and frankly, bases his success on things otherwise so irrelevant as a coin toss.

[The Sons of Liberty]

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”, said Pres Obama in his U.N. speech. He will let American’s die.

That reminds me: MY dog left a big steaming pile of '0bama' on the lawn I need to clean up and remove. The Country needs to do the same on Tuesday!

[oldbrowser]

President Obama says, "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to."

IIRC, this statement was issued in the context that as a result of having the Benghazi location attacked, orders were sent out to examine our security at all locations worldwide and do whatever is necessary to secure our personnel.

It was not a specific directive to initiate rescue operations in Benghazi.

[Carlucci]

“It was not a specific directive to initiate rescue operations in Benghazi.”

That’s what Obama wants you to believe, but his own words have now trapped him, in nearly the exact way Nathan Jessup was trapped in movie “A Few Good Men”. Let me explain:

1. Obama did say, “I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” But you left out another critical point. The preface to this sentence was: “The minute I found out what was happening...”

2. “The minute” he found out what was happening was around 17:00 ET, only 55 minutes after the first email about the attack was sent at 16:05. At 17:00, we know that Obama met with Panetta and Biden.

3. By most accounts, the battle raged on for another 6-7 hours, plenty enough time for the resources of our military, under direct orders from the POTUS, to swoop in on a rescue mission. But clearly, they did not.

So, the logical conclusion, if you believe the POTUS, is that he: a) IMMEDIATELY gave the order directing our military to start “securing our personal and do whatever we need to do” AND b) the military IGNORED that order.

So, either Obama is LYING about having given that order (much like Jessup lied about ordering hands-off private Santiago), OR, he is an ineffective, irrelevant CinC of the most powerful nation on the Earth.

So, which is it, Obama?

[oldbrowser]

You are referring to the statements several weeks later.

I am referring to the statements on 9/11 or 9/12. I don't recall if it was POTUS or SOS, but I recall them saying that orders had been issued to shore up security at all locations worldwide.

I don't know what orders Obama issued, but I do recall what was said publicly.

[MagnoliaB]

That's what I think too. Isn't it treason when you supply weapons to the enemy? With the election not looking good for him and a new POTUS coming in he is probably frantically trying to cover his tracks. Stevens on the witness stand when BO is on trial for being a traitor would probably put him in GITMO with the other terrorists for a long time. I'm surprised they didn't find Stevens with some concrete boots on.

[driftless2]

I’ll bet millions of loyal Dems are reading the stories about Benghazi and shaking their heads wondering: why didn’t Obama do something about the situation? Many of the loyal Ds can’t bring themselves to read much about the fiasco because it would point to an inescapable conclusion: Obama is an incompetent amateur who has no business being president. The facts are simply too overwhelming to ignore: the embassy asked for military help where military help could and should have been provided, but NO HELP CAME!!! Except for the courageous actions of a few heroes who lost their lives to Islamist fanatics who could have been massacred by a decent show of American force.

[depressed in 06]

DumBO’s Captain America uniform had not come back from the cleaners after taking out bin Laden.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“The other answer is directly political. It would be damaging for Obama’s already weak record to admit that there was a 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda in one of the supposed successes of the Arab Spring. Responding militarily would have made the weaknesses of Obama’s foreign policy all too evident. An American military response would have undercut one of Obama’s main campaign slogans: “GM is alive and Osama is dead.”

I agree with you on this. Obama didn’t want egg on his face, and this would doubtless have cost him votes. That “video” excuse has to go down in history as the absolute DUMBEST excuse I ever read though. Horrible coverup tactic.

[hummingbird]

"He saw a group of aggrieved Muslim citizens, with good reason to be angry -- the spontaneous mob enraged by an offensive video. He would follow a Democrat policy of promoting peace, not war, in which avoiding civilian casualties is the paramount goal."

Now, that we know it wasn't the Muhammad video, how did he have "good reason to be angry -- the spontaneous mob enraged by the offensive video?"

Did all he think he would do was wake up and go into diplomacy mode. Did all he and Hillary think they would have to do is condemn the video and play diplomat for awhile before the election?

Did they think they could play the mob like he plays Americans? Did they consider the possibility of casualties with the mob; with the Americans in harm's way? Did they factor that in?

[neverdem]

Denver TV's Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"

Bravo and in a battleground state to boot!

[PieterCasparzen]

Comment: The weapons transfers were reported in the news (well not mainstream U.S. news); that was an "open secret" that the weaponry was being packed up and sent to the "next" revolution in Syria. Everyone in Libya knows ALL about Americans and their massive efforts at nation-building, and that the jihadis wind up coming into play when a violent phase of a revolution is reached. There are thousands of happy participants in hundreds of U.S. nation-building programs - the "leadership" of the new Libya is being trained by U.S. and private partner companies, for example, Creative Associates International, whose founder, M. Charito Kruvant, is on the elite Economic Club of Washington, DC. You can click on the links below for a starting point in exploring the thousands of Americans and partner organizations and all the efforts going on to "democratize" Libya and the rest of the developing world. These efforts are closely tied with various leaders inside these nations, and they are the ones that the State Department plans on dealing with in the long term. Of course, Jihadis are useful in participating in revolutions, but the long term goal is to moderate the country in general, I can only presume with the expectation that it may take decades.

Given the situation, it would seem to indicate that Obama and his top advisors were just unsure of whether this was one of the planned "demonstrations" that the U.S. and it's non-governmental partners have fomented or a rogue element of jihadis. They certainly would not want to shoot up Benghazi if they knew they had good friends in that area (you would have to see the MEPI site below to understand all the friends that are there). The only part of this that does not fit (which only one or two Presidential advisors may know) is that in such a situation Obama would still want to use the military, like he did with Bin Laden, to get his own Ambassador home safe and sound. Given the intensity of the attack, it would have been obvious that this was a rogue jihadi element and not a simple "planned demonstration" of the "movement" they have created. Those that MEPI has reached out to and worked with in Libya would not mind the Ambassador being rescued from the rogue element. IMHO.

U.S. Department of State, Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) Ping List



Phase II, the Middle East: From Here to Eternal Tyranny

Brought to you by:



Producer: State Department, MEPI
Director: The New Left
Accounts Payable: USAID
Diabolical Planning: Open Society Foundations
Tactical Organization: Empty-headed Activist Pawns
Disposable Vassals: Power Hungry Sheiks and Mullahs
Dirty Work: Jihadi Pawns
Odd Jobs, Cleanup: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
Cast of Characters: The Obama Administration
Innocent Victims: Themselves
Public Relations: Legacy News Media
Funding provided by: Your local U.S. Citizen

FReepmail me if you want to be on or off the State Department MEPI ping list.

Notice: A lot of humans were harmed so far in the making of this production, but relatively not that many considering that it's just getting started.

[VideoDoctor]

Your post #6 is probably very close to the TRUTH of the kind of thinking that led to the circumstances that prevailed.

Will ANYONE ever STEP UP and wield the "TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD" of justice???

I'm still waiting.

[garjog]

"In a nutshell"

Well said! We know that he was lying. He was covering up. Funny how he seems to be getting away with it. No one if pressing him.

Here is more of Obama in a Nutshell.