The President Should be Impeached for Benghazi Deception

 by Jack Lee

“The President of the United States of America”.   Wow, it makes a tug on my heart just to say those powerful words.

He (or some day she) is supposed to be the best among us. The most honest, the most sage,courageous and the most worldly.   He is supposed to be a person of thoughtful and deliberate action.  A charismatic leader and the model of decorum that commands respect by his mere presence. He is the most powerful man in the world and his decsions, even small ones can alter lives in profound ways.

In theory we have many hurdles that are supposed to filter out those who fall short of ideal.   Our presidential candidates are vetted in the court of public opinion, something we rely heavily on every four years. But, that part can only come from knowing them as elected officials and measuring their work against their words.

So, what happened with Barack Hussein Obama?  He had no track record to speak of!   We barely knew him as a Senator before he was off and running for high office.    By the time he was nominated as the democrat’s number one candidate for president there was far more unknown than known about the man.   None of the usual digging into his past by a relentless media had occurred…they failed their duty.    Whatever leaked out about Obama only came from fringe news sources by way of the internet or from an isolated report and so that stuff never gain much traction.

For the most part, the mainstream media was riding on the Obama train.  And anyone who wasn’t was dismissed as being from the opposition’s camp or a biggot.   It was easy to crush the opposition by calling critics mere partisan hacks or racists.   It was almost too easy to minimize the critics and so we never really got to know Barack Obama before he became our president.

It was foolish and reckless to elect such an uknown as our president and why it happened is a book unto itself.

So much has happened since those early days, and for many of us, our worst fears have come fruition.  

Barrack Hussein Obama, tThe President of the United States of America, has abused his authority and violated the trust of the America people.  The extravagant spending during our worst recession on personal vacations for himself and his wife is without comparison in world history.   The use of “Executive Orders” to circumvent the normal checks and balances  is also unprecedented.   But, the worst offense since Watergate has to be the [Benghazi] Incident.

In Watergate, Pres. Nixon sent a team of burglars into the democrat’s headquarters to seek evidence of illegal campaign contributions, allegedly coming from communist China.    It was done more in the name of national security than it was an act for partisan advantage, although that was most certainly a factor too.   But, the Benghazi deception had no redeeming side, it was pure politics done for personal gain.   Unlike Watergate - lives were lost in Benghazi and the American people were deliberately deceived in order for Obama to win his re-election. 

Thanks to the release of top secret documents, we know the White House had clear knowledge of a preplanned terrorist attack taking place within 17 minutes of the attack starting.  And the attack lasted for many hours.  Eventually 150 or more gunmen overwhelmed the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and another diplomat.   Several hours later in the early morning of the next day, a second assault targeted a nearby annex in a different compound about one mile away two embassy security personnel were killed. Ten others were injured in the attacks death.

President Obama and his staff concocted a lie and tried to sell it to the American people so this attack on anniversary of 9/11 would make his administration look innocent of incompetence. It was a bold lie carried out by his underlings, but it came into question the moment they announced it. The American people could not accept that on the anniversary of 9/11, that a random mob, angry over a 4th rate movie video about Mohammed, could coordinate two attacks, using sophisticated heavy weapons and engage in a prolonged battle with security forces. It simply didn’t make any sense and people wanted answers.

Now we know the truth – the question is what do we do about it? 

This bold deception is akin to treason in my thinking, not only because they failed to protect our national sovereignty (US Embassy), but because American’s died needlessly and their deaths were then minimized by an administration seeking to escape accountability.   In the words of the Secretary of State, “What difference – at this point – what difference does it make it?’  

Well, this may come as a shock to Hillary and the Obama’s, but the truth always matters to Americans and the disclosure of the Obama Administration’s treachery and deceit in the Benghazi Incident should result have serious consquences. I think it would be justice if Obama was impeached. It would bring closure to a national scandal and perhaps some small consolation to families of those who died, for they would know that we shared their outrage over this deception by a man we mistakenly placed so much trust in.

 

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The President Should be Impeached for Benghazi Deception

  1. Libby says:

    But he won’t be … as there was no “Benghazi Deception.” You’re just blowing smoke, and we all know it … we are quite gleeful about it, in fact.

    Such a feeble effort … and it will not detract from the Christie implosion. Sorry.

    But take heart! Given the pitifully short attention span of the American electorate, and the man’s undeniably bluff and blustering charisma, Christie may yet pull himself out of the mire.

    Still and all, it is generally advisable to wait until you’ve made it ACTUALLY INTO the Oval Office before you set your henchwomen to that sort of political persecution. The Nixonian parallels have been particularly entertaining.

  2. Peggy says:

    Yes, Jack he should be, but will he? When the governor of a state gets more news coverage than the president of the whole country I don’t see how.

    The news just covered Christie’s address to his state. I’ll bet it will be on every newscast tonight. Why, do they care what a governor did? Oh yeah, he’s a potential republican candidate in 2016. Target #1 taken out…next one setting up for.

    If Obama is impeached that brings Biden and Pelosi up. Just what we don’t need. I’d rather keep the House and take control of the Senate in 2014. At least we could get rid of Reid and get some things done in Congress without him.

  3. Tina says:

    Peter Wehner, writing in Commentary, called the President “contemptible” for this COVER UP BEFORE THE ELECTION in an article in which he quotes excerpts from a book by former Secretary of defense Robert Gates which he had read in an article by Bob Woodward! Watergate Bob Woodward:

    “As I sat there,” Gates writes, “I thought: the president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

    Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.

    Neither of these individuals should serve as the Commander-in-Chief. Both are completely void of honor and deeply flawed in terms of the oaths they took to defend our country. It’s too late in one case but not in the other.

    People on the left are always running around crowing about how much they care about people…what hogwash! If this presidency has proved nothing else it has proved that phony self-serving leftist Democrats are trash and unfit to serve in any capacity, much less as president of the United States of America!

    It is a tragedy that the first black president has turned out to be such an utter disappointment and failure. There are other men and women who would have been better candidates.

  4. Tina says:

    Libby your “glee” disgusts me…but you knew it would.

  5. Libby says:

    Ah, but you need to read the whole book. Fred Kaplan of Slate.com has (and I may; it looks like a lively read).

    “Sitting at one contentious White House meeting, Gates suddenly has this revelation: “The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his.”

    “The odd thing is that, throughout the book, Gates agrees with all these points—or at least concedes that Obama and his staff had good reason to be suspicious of the generals. He says it right on Page 476: “We at Defense certainly at times contributed to White House suspicions.” The generals were trying to box Obama into higher force levels in Afghanistan than he wanted. Gates writes that, even after Obama agreed on a troop hike very close to the generals’ proposal, it was a “big job” for him—the wartime secretary of defense—to clamp down on their natural urge for more and thus “avoid having the president wake up one morning and discover there were 130,000 troops in Afghanistan rather than the 100,000 he had approved.”

    “As for Karzai, Gates couldn’t stand him either. And as for the war strategy, Gates notes that Obama’s doubts were affirmed by the two top U.S. intelligence officials at the time, Leon Panetta and James Clapper, for whom Gates otherwise has only good words. “To my chagrin,” he writes, “both … said that another year or two of effort would not lead to a satisfactory outcome.”

    “Gates never considers the possibility that he might have simply been wrong. At the meeting where Panetta and Clapper expressed pessimism, Gates recalls saying that “the critics were too focused on Karzai and the central government.” But in fact, counterinsurgency—the strategy that Petraeus had laid down and Gates, despite early doubts, embraced—depends crucially on a central government that the local people consider legitimate. The top-to-bottom corruption of Karzai’s regime torpedoed that possibility and thus all but doomed the strategy’s prospects. Gates ridicules Vice President Joe Biden and some of the young NSC staffers for challenging the wisdom of the generals on this point. But in retrospect it looks like Biden and the boys were right.”

    I do recommend the whole piece.

  6. Harold says:

    The Nixonian parallels have been particularly entertaining.

    what would be “particularly entertaining” is if the same results take place with Obama as did with Nixon.

    Then the word “glee” could be used without further wasting the lives and efforts of Americans abroad and left unprotected by a care-less Administration

  7. Libby says:

    Harold, why would you think that? We’s all forted up now!

    Like I said … bubbled … encapsulated in a moment that has passed. Why do you need to live like this?

  8. Harold says:

    Libby, I’ll give you “FOUR” reasons

  9. Peggy says:

    Rep. James Lankford’s speech this morning on Benghazi where he ask questions that need to be answered.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V8JxBwaCSQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUGoONKppCBdPUt8_yF15Waw

  10. Tina says:

    Libby whatever went on with the generals the WH and Gates it will not erase the utter disgrace of this president’s war record and the history books will show it no matter how hard you “lot” try to paste over his record with explanations and excuses.

    You are such a phony on this issue. Refugees abound, innocent people killed in drone attacks, American soldiers and ambassador left to die…all the stuff you ragged on when Bush was in office and you just don’t mind a bit.

    But there’s more…surrounding nations in chaos, Afghanistan and Iraq being reclaimed by Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda spreading across the globe, Iran about to become a nuclear power and laughing at the administrations naivete (stupidity), allies wondering what the he77 ever happened to America.

    And you and your lot think Iran with a nuclear weapon is the same as Israel with a nuclear weapon.

    Whether by willful ignorance or just plain simple mindedness you are a dangerous lot…sharp objects should be removed from your presence…padded cells might be a good idea.

    • Post Scripts says:

      “You are such a phony on this issue. Refugees abound, innocent people killed in drone attacks, American soldiers and ambassador left to die…all the stuff you ragged on when Bush was in office and you just don’t mind a bit.”

      At least Bush didn’t get any ambassadors killed. Gitmo, drones, assassinations, pointless war, meddling in African countries, getting us involved in Lybia and Syria…these are all things the left would have had a tizzy fit over…and you hardly hear a peep.

      Libby, are you glad that Kerry seems to be placing more value on promoting gay marriage in Africa than removing nuclear weapons from Iran? Just curious?

  11. Libby says:

    ” … and you hardly hear a peep.”

    Actually, you do. You wouldn’t hear them, of course, for reasons I won’t go into again. (Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble … and I do believe I misquote.)

    Us progressives are very disappointed, but it was the craven Congress that held up the closing of Gitmo. Y’all was just peeing yerselves over the idea of terrorist trials on American soil. Like what was gonna happen?

    I know, all those Black Muslims were gonna sieze the inspiration to rise up … and take yer stuff.

    Honestly.

    Everybody (with brains that work) knows that the drones and assassinations are just going to had years and years to the conflict, but try and tell this to the powers, the white boys … they just won’t hear it … besides, this whole business is making them money.

    And I used to be more bummed about it all than I am now. The O-Man wants to live to see his grand-children, and I’m not holding that against him.

    If he REALLY attempted to interfere with the money-making of the Cheneyites … they’d have him killed … no question in my mind about it.

  12. Peggy says:

    I want to see the Benghazi attack videos to see if it shows the Gitmo released detainee. Could this be why Obama won’t release them? Youbetcha!!

    ANOTHER, Liar…liar…pants on fire.

    State Department

    Former Guantanamo detainee was on ground in Benghazi during terror attack, source says:

    “A former Guantanamo Bay detainee with Al Qaeda ties was in Benghazi the night of the Sept. 11 attack, according to a source on the ground in Libya.

    The source told Fox News that ex-detainee Sufian bin Qumu, who is suspected of running camps in eastern Libya where some of the assailants trained, is also a “respected member” of Ansar al-Sharia — one of the Islamist groups identified in State Department email traffic two hours after the attack.

    Two sources familiar with the investigation, when asked about bin Qumu’s whereabouts the night of the attack, did not dispute the claim he was in Benghazi.”

    Continued.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/former-guantanamo-detainee-was-on-ground-in-benghazi-night-11-attack/

  13. Chris says:

    Tina: “American soldiers and ambassador left to die…”

    They were not “left to die!”

    Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

    “The Committee explored claims that there was a “stand down” order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party. The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC (Intelligence Community) or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.

    The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.

    There was no singular “tactical warning” in the intelligence reporting leading up to the events on September 11, 2012, predicting an attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on the 9/11 anniversary, although State and the CIA both sent general warning notices to facilities worldwide noting the potential security concerns associated with the anniversary. Such a specific warning should not have been expected, however, given the limited intelligence collection of the Benghazi area at the time.

    To date, the Committee has not identified any intelligence or other information received prior to September 11, 2012, by the IC or State Department indicating specific terrorist planning to attack the U.S. facilities in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

    Although it did not reach the U.S. Intelligence Community until after the attacks, it is important to note that a former Transitional National Council (TNC) security official in Benghazi, had received information of a possible imminent attack against the Mission facility in advance. The official said that approximately four hours prior to the attack, he attempted to notify the Libyan Intelligence Service (LIS) that an attack was expected, but he was unable to reach two contacts he had in the LIS as they were out of the country.”

    http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

  14. Chris says:

    More from the Senate report:

    “Although there was no formal written agreement about how security should be handled between the two facilities in Benghazi, there was a common understanding that each group would come to the other’s aid if attacked, which is what happened the night of September 11, 2012.102 IC personnel immediately came to the aid of their colleagues at the Temporary Mission Facility, and fought bravely to secure TMF [The Mission Facility] personnel and their own Annex facility. The Committee interviewed U.S. personnel in Benghazi that night, and they credited their lives being saved to the personnel who responded to the attacks.

    The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to “cover-up” facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, “They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking points-go through.” In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination. Furthermore, such coordination processes were also standardized, often at the urging of Congress, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the explicit goal of reducing information “stovepipes” between and among agencies…

    …According to Major General Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Staff: There were no ships available to provide any support that were anywhere close to the facility at Benghazi. The assets that we had available were Strike Eagles loaded with live weapons that could have responded, but they were located in Djibouti, which is the equivalent of the distance between here [Washington D.C.] and Los Angeles. The other fighters that might have been available were located in Aviano, Italy. They were not loaded with weapons. They were not on an alert status. We would’ve had to build weapons, load weapons, get tankers to support it, and get it there. There was no way that we were going to be able to do that. Unfortunately, there was not a carrier in the Mediterranean that could have been able to support; the assets that we mobilized immediately were the only assets we had available to try to support.

    […]

    There have been congressional and public questions about why military assets were not used from the U.S. military base in Souda Bay, Crete. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 7, 2013, that (1) the military asset in Souda Bay, Crete, “wasn’t the right tool for the particular threat we faced;” (2) ” … the aircraft were not among the forces that we had at heightened alert;” and (3) the “boots-on-the ground capabilities” that DoD deployed would have arrived too late, so they did not deploy to Benghazi.”

    As for the video:

    “It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.”

    It is a documented fact that journalists were told by angry participants in the mob that they were motivated by the video. There was plenty of reason to believe that it was a factor in the attack.

    There’s also the fact that this was not an embassy, but a CIA station–if there was ever any “cover-up,” wouldn’t it make more sense to think it had more to do with the CIA’s doings there than for Obama’s political purposes? Especially when those alleged political purposes *don’t even make any sense?*

  15. Chris says:

    Jack: “At least Bush didn’t get any ambassadors killed.”

    Oh, for God’s sake. There were 13 embassy attacks under President Bush:

    http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

    No one–not Republicans, and not Democrats–ever blamed Bush for these attacks, even though a couple of these embassies were attacked more than once within the course of several months, so you could levy the same exact charges against Bush as far as military readiness and proper security in these areas. Republicans keep using the four Americans who died in Benghazi as props in this little political game, pretending that this kind of bloodshed is totally unprecedented, ignoring the fact that far more people died at embassies under Bush than Obama.

    And that’s not even getting into the possibility that there was more prior warning over the attack on 9/11/01 than there was over the attack on 9/11/12.

    Republicans have leaped on a simple, procedural mixture of information and used it to cry “scandal.” You’ve been looking for “Obama’s Watergate” since before he was even inaugurated, and you thought this might be it, even though every independent investigation has discredited the idea that anything untoward was done on the part of the administration. (The CIA connection, however, remains oddly unexplored.) The Watergate comparisons are laughable.

    “Gitmo, drones, assassinations, pointless war, meddling in African countries, getting us involved in Lybia and Syria…these are all things the left would have had a tizzy fit over…and you hardly hear a peep.”

    Speak for yourself. Just because *you* hardly hear a peep does not mean that *I* hardly hear a peep. Most of the things you just listed are things liberals still complain about. If you read Huffington Post, Salon, Daily Kos, The Atlantic, and other liberal blogs regularly–or Hell, if you just watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report–you will see plenty of criticism over Obama for his Bush-like national security policies. Who has been leading the charge to have Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning to be exonerated? Not conservatives, that’s for damn sure.

  16. Tina says:

    Chris: “They were not “left to die!”

    That’s a matter of perspective.

    The Commander-in-Chief has an obligation to the men under him to review conditions, anticipate and plan for various possibilities. He may not always decide right but at least he is fully engaged and responsibly doing his duty.

    The Secretary of State is likewise made aware of hot spots of trouble where those under her charge might be in harms way. She is responsible for the safety of the people who serve under her. If she cares she is fully engaged and makes certain that those under her have the best possible defense if in harms way…or she has them evacuate, which is what the British did after attacks in the area and the Al Qaeda blag flag flying signaled it was too dangerous.

    From my perspective both people in this administration were not fully engaged and frankly showed the American people that they did not care. They sit in their seats of power as figureheads taking all the credit and glory and leaving the work to others…but they do not lead. The information about Benghazi was available and clear and both had plenty of reasons to take steps to prevent this incident that occurred on the anniversary of 911.

    The Washington Post, no friend to Republicans, reported on the Senate Committee report (emphasis mine):

    A long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday faulted both the State Department and the intelligence community for not preventing attacks on two outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in 2012.

    The bipartisan report laid out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the city. It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military.

    “The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission,” the panel said in a statement.

    The report also noted, chillingly, that the FBI’s investigation of the attacks has been hampered in Libya and that 15 people “supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States” have since been killed in Benghazi. The report said it was unclear whether those killings were related to the inquiry.

    “In spite of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and ample strategic warnings, the United States government simply did not do enough to prevent these attacks and ensure the safety of those serving in Benghazi,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the panel.

    The report said that on Sept. 18, 2012, the “FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.”

    The report said it was problematic that the CIA and State Department were not working out of the same facility in the dangerous environment. That meant the CIA and its well-trained contractors, who had served in elite U.S. forces, were not at the compound in the event of a crisis.

    Six armed CIA employees and a linguist responded to the attack on the compound late on Sept. 11, the report says. About 30 minutes passed before the CIA team arrived and “exchanged fire with the attackers.” They neither asked permission to aid those inside nor were told to stand down.

    Detailed accounts provided to the committee describe a harrowing assault and U.S. personnel scrambling to survive it.

    The committee found that the military response to the attacks was slow and hindered, but not purposely so.

    In the weeks leading up to the attacks, the CIA knew that conditions on the ground were worsening. In August, the agency alerted the intelligence community to Islamist training camps and militias in Benghazi. The agency said it was concerned about local militias providing security at U.S. facilities and about the outpost’s lack of defense.

    That same month, 20 security incidents occurred in Benghazi.

    The report said that the Libyan militia charged with protecting the diplomatic compound didn’t defend it during the attack.

    All of this…all of it…shows total lack of leadership from the President. When the guy at the top is not fully engaged the entire military, intelligence communities, and State Department are flying by the seat of their pants.

    The President, if you recall, was in the middle of his campaign and flying all over America to make appearances. In fact he flew out of DC on the morning following this spectacular national event that should have had him riveted.

    PJ Media has more disturbing information:

    On Sept. 10, 2012 — the day before Al Qaeda-linked terrorists carried out the bloody assault on the U.S. consulate and a related annex in Benghazi — the White House Press Office issued a press release entitled “Readout of the President’s Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th.”

    A set of “Top Secret” documents obtained by Fox News reveals that the nation’s highest-ranking uniformed military officer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress in executive session last year that the Sept. 10 meeting “was actually a conference call.” Moreover, Dempsey testified, Libya was never even discussed during the call, despite a persistent and increasingly worrisome stream of threat reporting from that country, and from Benghazi in particular.

    The Sept. 10 press release stated that the session had covered the “specific measures we are taking” and “steps taken” to protect Americans and U.S. facilities abroad. It also related an order from President Obama for all agencies to “do everything possible to protect the American people, both at home and abroad.”

    Yet the declassified documents show that Dempsey testified to the Congress last year that not a single directive had been issued by him or Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to adjust American military force posture anywhere in the world as the 9/11 anniversary loomed just hours away.

    The black flag of Islam was already flying over government buildings in Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Libya, was gaining power. Terrorists had already attacked the Red Cross and the British embassy in Benghazi, forcing both to abandon the city. The last remaining target of three that al Qaeda had stated its intent to attack was the US facility. But Clinton’s State Department consistently denied requests to beef up security, and Obama couldn’t be bothered to give a damn about anything but winning re-election.

    The attack happens. It’s clear from the beginning that it was an attack, the military briefed administration officials that it was an attack, but the State Department had been denying field requests from Benghazi to beef up security, and there’s a paper trail of those denials. Obama hasn’t been attending to his daily intel briefings. Obama, derelict in his duty every bit as much as Clinton, has been campaigning on the theme that “al Qaeda is defeated and on the run.”

    I’m sorry Chris but I’m a parent and from my perspective those people were left to die weeks before the attack ever happened. I can only imagine how the parents feel, especially since they were lied to face to face.

    It sickens me to think about how many other incidents over the past five years might have had a different outcome had this President and Secretary given a damn.

    And what is going on today? The left media can’t get enough airtime to try to crucify Chris Christie who was at least man enough to admit what happened was his responsibility. The media has given more time to the Christie story than they gave over months to the IRS targeting scandal.

    Is it any wonder the American people don’t have clear understanding of anything going on in DC?

  17. Peggy says:

    Also heard tonight there was ZERO coverage about Benghazi on the liberal medial stations.

    It’s no wonder Chris and Libby think it’s all a big to do about nothing.

    Like I said before, Christie gets national coverage 24/7 and an ordered investigation which will result in everyone knowing in a month more about what happened then we’ll ever know after a year and a half since Benghazi.

    Belonging to the right or should I say left party makes all the difference when it comes to finding out the truth.

  18. Libby says:

    Chris: “They were not “left to die!”

    Tina: That’s a matter of perspective.

    That’s the truth. If you are prejudiced and paranoid (these are perspectives), then the ambassador was “left to die”.

    If you are nearly psychotic (another perspective}, then Obama, personally, had a hand in the ambassador’s demise.

    But the really hilarious thing is how all this passion has been revived by poor Mr. Christie and his difficulties. Hilarious.

  19. Tina says:

    Libby: “That’s the truth. If you are prejudiced and paranoid (these are perspectives), then the ambassador was “left to die”.”

    Or from the President and Hillary’s perspective two election cycles loom on the near and far horizons…campaigning, or planning for a future campaign is more important than performing duties in defense of the nation and the men and women who serve in that capacity…ooops….damage control takes required, hence the phony video story.

    Another perspective:

    If you are part of an unprincipled activist media outlet (rather than a citizen/journalist with integrity) and you decide a certain centrist politician poses a threat to Hillary Clinton’s future aspirations and that you become aware of a possible scandal in that persons administration, then your partisan perspective offers a unique opportunity to use the power of the press to hammer the story and destroy the guy whether he is complicit or not.

    If you are the extremely partisan and biased activist Attorney General your opportunistic perspective affords you the call for two investigations within 24 hours for the same purpose.

    Libby but your perspective is not only partisan and irresponsible it is dishonorable. The guy at the top takes responsibility. Christie has done that. Bush did that. Obama and Hillary are fabricators and liars and no, they have not done that. Your dishonorable perspective only mirrors the people you defend and champion.

  20. Chris says:

    Tina: “I’m sorry Chris but I’m a parent and from my perspective those people were left to die weeks before the attack ever happened.”

    Then by your own logic, the nine Americans killed in the attack on a U.S. compound in Saudi Arabia in 2003 were “left to die” by Bush:

    “The State Department had warned of a potential strike against the Saudi days before gunmen infiltrated the Al Hamra Oasis Village and two others killing 36 people and wounding 160. This was the most devastating attack on a State Department employees to occur under Bush. The Saudi government cracked down on terrorists group but that did not prevent another attack to occur a year later in Jeddah.”

    He also, by your own logic, left U.S. diplomat David Foy to die in Karachi when it was attacked for the third time in three years:

    “U.S. Diplomat David Foy was specifically targeted in the third attack in as many years on the Karachi consulate compound. He was one of four people killed. The bomb occurred two days before President Bush was to visit Pakistan and also targeted the Marriot hotel in an upscale neighborhood of Karachi.

    This was a planned and coordinated attack that nobody covered as more than a news item.”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing

    Also by your own logic, Reagan left Marines to die in Beirut in 1983:

    “Those Marines had been ordered into Lebanon by President Ronald Reagan as a part of an international peacekeeping force following the June 1982 Israeli invasion of that country and the Palestine Liberation Organization’s withdrawal.

    Making an already-dangerous situation even more hazardous, the Marines were under strict presidential orders not to load their weapons — this, so that they would appear as peacekeepers and not as armed belligerents in the conflict and despite the fact that they were moving into a war zone.

    Realistically, they had become “sitting ducks” from the moment they entered Beirut. And as a result of their absurd orders, when the explosives-laden truck sped toward their doomed barracks, the two unarmed guards had no way of stopping it.

    According to Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the Marines in Beirut: “It didn’t take a military expert to realize that our troops had been placed in an indefensible situation. Anyone following the situation in Lebanon in ordinary news reports could realize a tragedy was in the making.”

    The Reagan administration immediately attempted to deflect blame for the attack with a deluge of false statements and misrepresentations. In a televised speech four days after the bombing, the president insisted the attack was unstoppable, erroneously declaring that the truck crashed through a series of barriers, including a chain-link fence and barbed-wire entanglements, and argued that the U.S. mission was succeeding.

    Despite the fact that Reagan had dispatched the Marines into an impossible situation and then had issued orders that led to their inability to defend themselves, he suffered relatively little criticism from the press or partisan opponents, and after months of vigorous campaigning was overwhelmingly re-elected the following year.”

    http://www.phillyburbs.com/entertainment/in-debacle-reagan-escaped-the-blame-game/article_0174fce9-b60c-5b6b-8934-915bd3c2bcf7.html

    If security failures such as what happened in Benghazi, Saudi Arabia, Karachi and Beirut were impeachable offenses, Bush and Reagan wouldn’t have made it through their first terms. Spreading false information about the nature of an attack, whether out of ignorance or out of dishonesty, also seems to have historically been accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike. Deliberately misleading the public over issues of national security and war are basically par for the course at this stage.

    What happened in Benghazi is not unprecedented. The blatant, politicized attempt to make such a routine failure of security/bureaucratic cluster-whoops of contradicting information into The Scandal to End All Scandals, however, is.

    Four Americans lost their lives. That is a tragedy. It could have been prevented. The administration should have sent more security months before the attack. Why they didn’t do that is unclear; it could have had something to do with the CIA’s activities, for all we know. The original false attribution of motive to the attackers seems due to a genuine misunderstanding and mishmash of bad and good information.

    “phony video story.”

    You have got to stop saying this! I’ve shown you the news reports from on the ground where reporters were told by people involved in the attack that they were motivated by the video. I’ve shown you the many more news reports showing violent protests in other Muslim cities that same day. I’ve shown you that every single department which edited the talking points thought it appropriate to mention the video in connection with the attack.

    There is simply no evidence that Obama chose to “blame the video” as part of a political calculation. That claim doesn’t even stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

    Obama called the assault on Benghazi an “act of terror” THE DAY AFTER THE ATTACK. The theory conservatives have embraced says that Obama blamed the video because a terrorist attack would make him look bad right before the election. So why, if that was his strategy, would he admit that the attack was an act of terror the day after? It doesn’t make any sense.

    Furthermore, Obama did not “blame the video.” He made it very clear within the week and a half after the attack that the video was being used as an “excuse” by “extremists:”

    “In his September 18 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, President Obama said that “extremists and terrorists used (the anti-Muslim YouTube video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies.”[133] In his Univision Town Hall appearance on September 20, President Obama said that the “natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”[134] A later report from an independent review board concluded “there was no protest prior to the attacks.””

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Assault_on_the_CIA_annex

    It seems very clear from those comments that the president was acknowledging a larger threat, and was not saying that the video was the sole motivation for the attack.

    There was also a lot of confusion over who exactly was responsible at the beginning. From the same Wikipedia page:

    “David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[125]). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[60][61] It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of who’s members had joined Ansar al-Sharia.[126]

    The Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, a pro-al-Qaeda militia calling for the release of The Blind Sheik, was implicated in the attack by Noman Benotman of the Quilliam Foundation.[1][127][128] CNN,[1] the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,[129] Commentary Magazine[128] and The Daily Telegraph[127] have listed this group as a chief suspect. USA Today reported that protests in Cairo which preceded the attack on Benghazi were intended to protest the imprisonment of Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and announced as early as August 30.[130][131] Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi had called for release of the Blind Sheikh in his inaugural address.[131]”

    Again: the claim that the administration “blamed the video” in order to boost Obama’s campaign does not meet any basic standards of logic. Every department thought it appropriate to mention the video in connection with the attacks. Numerous witnesses and attackers said they were motivated by the video, which had inspired anti-American protests by extremists all over the Muslim world. Obama called the attack an “act of terror” one day after the attack, and said on two separate occasions within the next week and a half that the video was being used as an “excuse” by “extremists” who already had a grudge against America.

    The conspiracy theory doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In this instance, the simplest explanation is that this was a security and informational failure, akin to many throughout history with both Republican and Democratic presidents. The attempt to make this into Obama’s Watergate is cynical, but not surprising; Republicans have been looking for Obama’s Watergate since his inauguration.

  21. Tina says:

    Chris now post the stories that tell us Bush and Reagan heard the news of an ongoing attack and promptly left for dinner referring to the people in the room as, “You guys” and telling them to “do whatever you need to do,” never to be heard from again…all night…and then the next morning leaving for a campaign speech as if nothing of significance had happened.

    Tell me the stories of the men that were involved in the attacks who had informed the Secretary of Defense that they needed more security, that the black flags of Al Qaeda had been hoisted over local government buildings, that the Red Cross had been attacked and the British had pulled out because the danger was so great.

    Tell me how the Secretary of State ignored and denied reports of increased danger and entreaties for more security.

    Show me stories of how the Defense Department was aware of a specific anniversary date and a pattern of anniversary attacks since 911 and had no plans to come to the defense of the compound or to get our people out in an emergency situation.

    Response to the attack in Beirut in 1983 was swift. Wikipedia:

    Organized rescue efforts began immediately—within three minutes of the bombing—and continued for days.[50] Unit maintenance personnel were not billeted in the BLT building, and they rounded up pry bars, torches, jacks and other equipment from unit vehicles and maintenance shops and began rescue operations.[51] Meanwhile, combat engineers and truck drivers began using their organic assets, i.e., trucks and engineering equipment, to help with the rescue operations.[52] 24th MAU medical personnel, Navy dentists LT Gil Bigelow and LT Jim Ware, established two aid stations to triage and treat casualties.[53][54][55] Medevac helicopters, CH-46s from Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (HMM) 126, were airborne by 6:45 AM.[56] U.S. Navy medical personnel from nearby vessels of the U.S. Sixth Fleet went ashore to assist with treatment and medical evacuation of the injured,[57][58] as did sailors and shipboard Marines who volunteered to assist with the rescue effort.[59] Lebanese, Italian, British, and even French troops, who had suffered their own loss, provided assistance.[60][61] (See photo – 2 days after the explosion VP Bush was onsite on the ground to inspect and speak with authorities in the area)

    Reagan spoke personally and directly to the American people in the evening following the bombing:

    Let me begin with a brief statement. As you know, our Embassy in Beirut was the target this morning of a vicious, terrorist bombing. This cowardly act has claimed a number of killed and wounded. It appears that there are some American casualties, but we don’t know yet the exact number or the extent of injury.

    In cooperation with the Lebanese authorities, we’re still verifying the details and identifying the casualties. I commend Ambassador Robert Dillon and his dedicated staff who are carrying on under these traumatic circumstances in the finest tradition of our military and foreign services.

    Just a few minutes ago, President Gemayel called me to convey on behalf of the Lebanese people his profound regret and sorrow with regard to this incident and asked me to relay the condolences on behalf of the people of Lebanon to the families of those victims. He also expressed his firm determination that we persevere in the search for peace in that region. And I told President Gemayel that I joined him in those sentiments. This criminal attack on a diplomatic establishment will not deter us from our goals of peace in the region. We will do what we know to be right.

    Ambassadors Habib and Draper, who are presently in Beirut, will continue to press in negotiations for the earliest possible, total withdrawal of all external forces.

    We also remain committed to the recovery by the Lebanese Government of full sovereignty throughout all of its territory. The people of Lebanon must be given the chance to resume their efforts to lead a normal life, free from violence, without the presence of unauthorized foreign forces on their soil. And to this noble end, I rededicate the efforts of the United States.

    We are talking about leadership. Both of these men were engaged with our own defense and security people and with the leaders of the nations in question.

    Show me the record of either Bush or Reagan that demonstrates a lack of personal engagement or evidence of our military being unprepared, uncoordinated, and unable to respond.

    What you have managed to do is show that terror attacks have gone on for decades. BFD

    What you cannot do is make an equal comparison of Obama to these men regarding leadership capability or even human concern.

    The Washington Post reported on the Senate Intelligence report that there was no protest…no spontaneous protest no video incitement…duh!

    I wish you would quit preaching to me and pretending the fabricated excuse story they had Susan Rice deliver on the Sunday talk shows hasn’t been revealed to be a phony…because it HAS!

    The report said that on Sept. 18, 2012, the “FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.

    But it took six more days for intelligence officials to revise their chronology of events and say that “there were no demonstrations or protests” at the diplomatic compound “prior to the attacks.”

    The report also found that the attacks and deaths were preventable:

    “The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission,” the panel said in a statement.

    That panel by the way is led by Diane Feinstein.

    But you keep gathering those progressive talking points, Chris. I know it makes you feel better.

  22. Dewey says:

    CIA and arming the Rebels .. Benghazzi!

    And why did it take so long to bury the ambassador secretly in Grass Valley?

    Time for new story

    How about the Koch Brother’s Chris Christie and his scandals? Arrest him

    http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=8722

    http://www.gregpalast.com/

  23. Chris says:

    Tina: “The Washington Post reported on the Senate Intelligence report that there was no protest…no spontaneous protest no video incitement…duh!

    I wish you would quit preaching to me and pretending the fabricated excuse story they had Susan Rice deliver on the Sunday talk shows hasn’t been revealed to be a phony…because it HAS!”

    Tina, I’m an English teacher; I know when someone hasn’t read something they’re citing, and I know you haven’t read the Senate Intelligence Report.

    If you had, you’d know that while the report did conclude there was no protest before the attack, it also clearly shows that the intelligence community initially believed that there WAS a protest, and that there was a ton of conflicting reports at the time. The report found no evidence of a cover-up, and said that while the administration should have been clearer in explaining the complexity of conflicting information they had received, the talking points went through the normal administrative process.

    The report shows the unclassified first draft of the CIA talking points, which says:

    1) Fri., Sept. 14th 2012,_11:15 a.m.-· ·written by Director, CIA Office of Terrorism Analysis~
    • We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.”

    You can find this on page 45 of the report.

    Following the first draft you can see the many edits that the CIA talking points went through. There was less and less confidence about the existence of protests in Benghazi as more information came to light.

    The report goes on to conclude:

    “We now know that the CIA’s September 15, 2012, talking points were
    inaccurate in that they wrongly attributed the genesis of the Benghazi attacks to
    protests that became violent. However, as stated in the report, this characterization reflected the assessment by the IC of the information available at that time, which lacked sufficient intelligence and eyewitness statements to conclude that there were no protests. Further, it is important to remember that this early assessment was made in the context of approximately 40 protests around the globe against U.S. embassies and consulates in response to an inflammatory film. There were also other violent attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other cities around the world on or after September 11. According to CIA emails dated September 16, 2012, the then-Deputy Director of the CIA requested further information from CIA staff at Embassy Tripoli about whether there was countervailing evidence of protests that occurred prior to the attacks in Benghazi. It was not until September 24, 20 12-eight days later-that the IC revised its assessment that there were no protests leading up to the attacks (see discussion in the main report under Finding #9 for bipartisan Committee views on the development of the intelligence picture after the attacks).

    5. The Talking Points Went Through the_Normal Interagency Coordination
    Process
    The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the
    talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to
    “cover-up” facts or make alterations for political purposes.
    Indeed, former CIA
    Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, “They
    went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking
    points-go through.”146 In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council
    (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government,
    especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being
    analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the
    talking points coordination.

    …The Majority agrees that the process to create the talking points was not
    without problems, so we join our Republican colleagues in recommending-as we
    do in the report-that in responding to future requests for unclassified talking
    points from Congress, the IC should simply tell Congress which facts are
    unclassified and let Members of Congress provide additional context for the
    public. However, we sincerely hope that the public release of the emails on May
    15, 2013, that describe the creation of the talking points, and the evidence
    ·presented in this report, will end the misinformed and unhelpful talking points
    controversy once and for all.”

    Tina, you can’t just use the parts of the report you like to make your case when the rest of that report completely destroys your narrative. Again: the video story was not “phony.” It was not a “fabricated excuse.” It was–as you’ve been repeatedly told over the past year–based on the information the administration had at the time. The report does not add any fuel to the Benghazi conspiracy theorists on the right, it confirms that you’ve been in the wrong this entire time.

    There is zero evidence that Obama used this story for political purposes. That conspiracy theory doesn’t make any sense given the available facts, which are clearly outlined in the report that conservatives keep selectively quoting in order to pretend that BenghaziGate still has a leg to stand on. It’s also not clear that the outcome of the election would have been any different had the administration immediately said that there were no protests. It simply would not have made any differences to the election.

    I guess it might be comforting for Republicans to tell themselves that “Romney would have won, if it hadn’t been for that meddling video cover story!” But it’s just not true. People were voting on who they thought would serve their economic interests, not on Benghazi. There’s simply no compelling motive for Obama to have done what you claim he did. And the facts show that his administration was accurately reporting the conclusions of the CIA. You cannot dispute that fact.

    “Chris now post the stories that tell us Bush and Reagan heard the news of an ongoing attack and promptly left for dinner referring to the people in the room as, “You guys” and telling them to “do whatever you need to do,” never to be heard from again…all night…”

    Why would I need to do this? Have similar stories about Obama on the night of Benghazi been confirmed? Or is this something a right-wing blog told you?

    “and then the next morning leaving for a campaign speech as if nothing of significance had happened.”

    Sure:

    “OK, a little perspective: On September 20, 1984, there was a truck-bomb explosion at the U.S. embassy annex in Aukar, Lebanon, just outside Beirut. Twenty-four people were killed. It was third terrorist bombing aimed at U.S. interests in Lebanon in a year and a half.

    What did Ronald Reagan do on September 21, 1984? He made three campaign appearances in Iowa — at an airport rally, a farm, and a church picnic — despite the fact that a Des Moines Register poll showed him leading Walter Mondale in the state by 23 points. He then returned to Washington and made a well-publicized visit to the home of seven-year-old Rudolph Lee-Hines, who lived in the predominantly black Congress Heights section of Washington. Reagan had dinner at the home of Lee-Hines, who was described in news reports as Reagan’s “pen pal”; they’d exchanged several letters after a Reagan visit to the boy’s school the previous March.”

    http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2012/10/dear-newt-shut-hell-up-newsbusters.html

    Thanks for giving me the opportunity to show, once again, that you pillory Obama for doing the same things Reagan did without any criticism.

    “Tell me the stories of the men that were involved in the attacks who had informed the Secretary of Defense that they needed more security,”

    Again, gladly:

    A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen.

    “I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission,” Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials.

    But he said one of his greatest regrets was in failing to overcome the arguments that “‘Marines don’t cut and run,’ and ‘We can’t leave because we’re there”‘ before the devastating suicide attack on the lightly armed force.

    “They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull’s-eye,” Weinberger said. “I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position.””

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/01/30/aide-reagan-left-marines-vulnerable-in-beirut/

    Obama is not the first president to campaign the day after a tragedy and he is not the first to make a tactical mistake after being warned by his advisors. Nor is Reagan the first. These things happen, and while it’s certainly fair to critique any president for these actions, it is not fair to treat it as an impeachable scandal, especially when you said nothing when your guy did the same things in office.

    “Show me stories of how the Defense Department was aware of a specific anniversary date and a pattern of anniversary attacks since 911 and had no plans to come to the defense of the compound or to get our people out in an emergency situation.”

    From p. 22 of the Senate Report:

    “FINDING #3: There was no singular “tactical warning” in the intelligence
    reporting leading up to the events on September 11, 2012, predicting an attack
    on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on the 9/11 anniversary, although State and the CIA both sent general warning notices to facilities worldwide noting the
    potential security concerns associated with the anniversary. Such a specific
    warning should not have been expected, however, given the limited
    intelligence collection of the Benghazi area at the time.”

    “Reagan spoke personally and directly to the American people in the evening following the bombing:”

    That speech is nearly identical to the speech Obama gave the day after the Benghazi attack.

    Better luck finding Obama’s Watergate next time!

Comments are closed.