Althouse: Petraeus: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

October 26, 2012

Petraeus: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

William Kristol: "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. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?"

Draw the necessary inferences. This is important.

299 comments:

1 – 200 of 299 Newer› Newest»

kentuckyliz said...: October....Surprise!; 10/26/12, 7:00 PM
dbp said...: It may not be a matter of telling someone not to help. I don't think a commander in Sicily would send out a gunship on his own. It was a matter of nobody making "a gutsy call". Nobody begins right at the top.; 10/26/12, 7:03 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Isn't it the case that Obama would have to have had decided that no help would be sent?

Also: Why was Wood told to stand down?; 10/26/12, 7:05 PM
cubanbob said...: That son-of-a-bitch is lucky he is going to lose. He is saving himself from an impeachment and removal and if he were reelected not only would he get kicked out but so would that worthless POS of a buffoon Biden.; 10/26/12, 7:06 PM
Baron Zemo said...: "A fish rots from the head."

An old Democratic saying.; 10/26/12, 7:07 PM
Mogget said...: I think that even if Obama were to win the election, this would still end his effectiveness as president. With Petraeus' comment, there is not much leeway left to drag the matter out, though.; 10/26/12, 7:08 PM
Sam L. said...: The obvious question, other than the one posed above, is this: Has Althous At Last Decided To Vote For Romney, or Against Obama?; 10/26/12, 7:08 PM
DavidM said...: It is beginning to look like Obama failed to make the gutsy call.; 10/26/12, 7:09 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Glenn has said for a long time that a Carter repeat is a best case scenario.

Obama feared a botched rescue, so best to let a few die, and hope the media helps with the cover up.

So now we can say definitively that at least a few brave Americans would be alive today if so many had noted voted with their lardy parts in 2008.; 10/26/12, 7:09 PM
traditionalguy said...: The encirclement of Israel by jihadist states of Egypt and Libya on the west and Syria and Iran on the east is Obama's realpolitik.

To that end he aided in eliminating Mubarak who was a defender of the Christian Coptics and a supresser of Muslim Brotherhood jihadists in Egypt.

He is doing nothing to stop the continued state of the Alawite Syrian dictator or the Iranian shiite Mullahs on the east.

Also to that end he aided in removal of the Libyan ruler who had joined the NATO allies in suppressing Jihadists.

That omlette takes the breaking of many eggs. So Obama said do nothing and deny all knowledge as the Americans were left to a sacrificial death.

When Romney learns the truth, that will be test of Romney. Does he reveal it or assist in the usual DC shuffle covering up everything.; 10/26/12, 7:10 PM
Nonapod said...: Someone made the call to not render aid, and there's only one obvious person.

It's pretty amazing that this isn't the headline story of the day everywhere. Instead the big lead story appears to be the handwringing over a hurricane.; 10/26/12, 7:10 PM
Greybeard said...: "No one at any level of the CIA..."
Do we need Clinton to come in and decipher this language?; 10/26/12, 7:11 PM
madAsHell said...: ...and this is after Hillary tried to put this thing to bed by accepting responsibility. I can't believe she hasn't resigned in protest, or been fired.

The same goes for Petreaus. Of course, he might have all the cards, and leak them as he sees fit.; 10/26/12, 7:12 PM
garage mahal said...: Saint Petraeus is lying?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO; 10/26/12, 7:13 PM
Tim said...: Yes, it is important.

It is also, not surprising, the result of electing a man who was, on no level, equipped to be president of the US.

Obama and his sycophants, including those in the media, will stall, obfuscate,distort, deny and lie for at least 12 more days.

He, and they, are tactically right to do so, of course.

His core voters are too dumb and too loyal to him - not loyal to the nation - to do anything but pull the lever for him once again.

Some swing/independent voters will do the same.

So it rests with smarter voters.

If they choose smartly, we might have a chance for accountability.

If Obama is reelected, he will get away with it.

And they'll still blame that stupid video for the entire thing.

As if Obama was the victim.; 10/26/12, 7:14 PM
Mike said...: You're building a narrative here that hinges on anonymous sources being accurate that the CIA was told to stand down. If that report is inaccurate -- as many reports have been; remember when Stevens was supposedly raped and dragged through the streets? -- this isn't a very interesting report. Several weeks ago Bloomberg reported that some assets were moved that night from Tripoli and were there by the time the annex was attacked. We also know that Libyan security forces sealed the area so that our people could be evacuated.

Maybe there's something here, but it seems like people are too eager to build an "obama is evil" narrative rather than wait for facts to come out. And then criticize him.; 10/26/12, 7:15 PM
Rob said...: Are we to believe that somebody other than Obama told them not to conduct a rescue and Obama just sat in the situation wondering aloud "Why aren't they being rescued yet?"

Obviously what happened is what Obama wanted. Whether he "made the call" or not does not matter.; 10/26/12, 7:16 PM
Michael K said...: It is beginning to look like Obama failed to make the gutsy call.

10/26/12 7:09 PM
Blogger SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Glenn has said for a long time that a Carter repeat is a best case scenario.

Obama feared a botched rescue, so best to let a few die, and hope the media helps with the cover up.

So now we can say definitively that at least a few brave Americans would be alive today if so many had noted voted with their lardy parts in 2008.

This is Obama's version of shooting the wounded so they won't suffer.

This is beneath contempt. Some general need to resign. They won't of course.

Maybe someone should ask Colonel McMaster.; 10/26/12, 7:16 PM
Anonymous said...: "... based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?"

You need to ask? I bet it's the same person who told him not to kill Osama until Oct 2011, then told him to leak intelligence and claim all the credits while sending a brave Pakistani doctor to jail for his troubles. Still don't know? It's a she. Her name is Valarie Jarrett who is assigned six body guards 24/7 while the ambassador's plea for increased security was denied. Can't really blame her for all those body guards though, considering Chicago is worse than some war zones. I digressed. I bet she didn't want him to appear war mongering.

But I'm 100% sure it's not the No-fault President's fault.; 10/26/12, 7:16 PM
Baron Zemo said...: He is not lying Garage.

He has not yet decided to resign and tell the truth. I hope he does. He should. He can get pretty dirty from this unless he stands tall for the American people.

Maybe he doesn't want to do it until we see what the Jug Eared Jesus comes up with in his big super secret meeting they had to spin today.

Let's wait and see.; 10/26/12, 7:17 PM
DADvocate said...: Sounds like Patraeus is kicking the blame upstairs.; 10/26/12, 7:18 PM
Rabel said...: The CIA statement may be in response to the Fox report regarding "stand down" orders to the small quick response team at the Benghazi safe house. Fox attributed those orders to the CIA.

The larger response team from Tripoli which came in later was probably State department security.

After that first small response team had evacuated the consulate men to their safe house, the request for military support would have gone through Panetta.

A tick-tock of the incident, more detailed than the brief one provided by State, is long overdue. The press should be ashamed. Disgraceful.

One other point, everyone on site would have had a cell phone. There could have been no shortage of information about the situation.; 10/26/12, 7:19 PM
Tim said...: From the linked article:

"t would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?"

Isn't it immediately obvious that this attack, and any executive response to it, conflicted with the president's long-scheduled fundraiser in Las Vegas?

Given the choice between the fundraiser, or witnessing/micro-managing the prospective rescue/counter-attack effort (since he couldn't, wouldn't simply delegate the matter to the military), he chose the fundraiser.

Occams Razor.

It's the simplest explanation as to why this went down the way it did.; 10/26/12, 7:20 PM
garage mahal said...: He is not lying Garage.

Tell me what the possible motivation for any of them to lie in the first place is? There were many attacks on embassies during the past administration. It barely made the news.; 10/26/12, 7:21 PM
Synova said...: All "no one at the CIA" means is that it wasn't someone at the CIA.

Dur.; 10/26/12, 7:21 PM
Methadras said...: If I draw an inference, then it looks like a giant circle starting and ending with Urkel. 3.1415972 is a bitch.; 10/26/12, 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Precisely Mike, who is saying they were told to stand down, by ANYBODY at all? Who are these sources Fox is basing this on?

Make inferences that Obama told them to stand down based on a Fox "report" that they WERE told to stand down?; 10/26/12, 7:23 PM
Tim said...: DADvocate said...

"Sounds like Patraeus is kicking the blame upstairs."

Patraeus is no idiot.

He knows the character of the people he works for.

He through the president under the bus before the president could throw him under the bus.

Uniformed General Officers generally covet their reputations, especially for honor.

No honor in falling on the sword for a weak man with weak character to cover up a lie.; 10/26/12, 7:23 PM
MnMark said...: Could someone explain why it would be a "gutsy call" (rather than just common sense and loyalty) to send help when Americans in the diplomatic service are being attacked at their installation?

Libya isn't even a coherent country, like Iran. Sending the military into Iran to help American diplomats would be a gutsy call. But sending them into Libya, which is basically a collection of assorted militias and rabbles, seems like a no-brainer. Of course you send help - it wouldn't even take much of a military force to secure the area and get our people out.

So in what sense would it have been a "gutsy call"? Or is this another example of lowered standards for the black president? When he does something that would be a no-brainer for a white president (order Bin Laden killed, for example), it suddenly becomes a "gutsy call" for the black president?; 10/26/12, 7:24 PM
Methadras said...: garage mahal said...

Saint Petraeus is lying?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You know at this point I pitied you because you clearly sold your soul for ideology. What a shitty ROI you've gotten. Now I simply wish you would drop dead to simply stop the misery. You are pathetic in ways that even the condemned would recoil at. You are Schmegel to the ring of Urkel, your precious. Watching you skulk all the way to Mt. Doom.; 10/26/12, 7:24 PM
garage mahal said...: Housekeeping matters: I've been told to die twice today on this blog.; 10/26/12, 7:25 PM
MSG said...: Why is it assumed that anybody of any importance ever even proposed any intervention? I have the impression that the Administration consists of "sensible" people inclined to dismiss the idea of such an immediate intervention as foolhardy, nutso almost. If the thought ever rose in their minds, they kept it to themselves for fear of their colleagues' ridicule or worse. The suggestion that something might be done in present time might never have reached the president. And if the thought emerged spontaneously in the president's mind, he too might have kept his mouth shut, for fear of revealing his unsophistication on military matters.; 10/26/12, 7:26 PM
DADvocate said...: It's clear and simple. Obama and his administration blew this from before it happened. Common sense says to have greatly enhanced security in a country like Libya that just had a revolution, has a weak central government and harbors hoards of murderous, organized thugs that hate America.

Common sense says to have a plan of what to do if the embassy/consulate is attacked.

Common decency says to aid in every way possible innocent diplomats and U.S. citizens when under attack, especially in a country like Libya. The Libyan government would have been no ore likely to post any stronger objection than Pakistan does regarding drones.

Obama failed at every step, except, at Tim notes, the step on the plane to go to the fundraiser in Vegas.; 10/26/12, 7:27 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

Precisely Mike, who is saying they were told to stand down, by ANYBODY at all? Who are these sources Fox is basing this on?

Make inferences that Obama told them to stand down based on a Fox "report" that they WERE told to stand down?

Bitterly clinging to any out that you can find for your lord and savior is no way to go through life. Oh wait, you've already sold your soul as well to open your orifice so you can suckle at his pronouncements. You should be blessed in that regard since he clearly didn't give any pronouncements for the guys in Benghazi to help defend the consulate and the people inside it. For you to even defend this in any inscrutable way is an offense to reason, you pathetic whore.; 10/26/12, 7:27 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Intact and garage mahal, you need a weatherman.; 10/26/12, 7:28 PM
Methadras said...: garage mahal said...

Housekeeping matters: I've been told to die twice today on this blog.

Run in front of a moving bus. I don't care. Whatever it takes to get the job done. You probably won't be able to even do that right.; 10/26/12, 7:28 PM
Tim said...: "Make inferences that Obama told them to stand down based on a Fox "report" that they WERE told to stand down?"

This inference is, at the moment, a secondary question.

The primary problem is that the commander-in-chief, when told, didn't tell them to go rescue the Americans under attack, despite the now known fact we had military assets ready to go, in real time, to save these lives.; 10/26/12, 7:29 PM
Rabel said...: Mike said:

"Maybe there's something here, but it seems like people are too eager to build an "obama is evil" narrative rather than wait for facts to come out."

Everyone in Benghazi was debriefed the day after the attack. An ambassador was murdered. Why are we still waiting other than political considerations by Obama?; 10/26/12, 7:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Meth perhaps an increased dose of your psychotropics are in order.; 10/26/12, 7:30 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Garage,
Are you claiming that they did not ask for help?
Or are you saying that it was Petraeus who decided not to send assistance?; 10/26/12, 7:30 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Uh, Inga . Damnable spellcheck!; 10/26/12, 7:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage, don't feel bad yesterday Meth brain told me to die also.; 10/26/12, 7:33 PM
test said...: garage mahal said...
Housekeeping matters: I've been told to die twice today on this blog.

Congratulations, it's the most important you have ever been or ever will be.; 10/26/12, 7:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Haha, Bob, I haven't been intact for many many years. Need some comic relief here.; 10/26/12, 7:35 PM
FleetUSA said...: Might have the fingerprints of VJarrett and Axelrod; 10/26/12, 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: This is why he kept Biden on as VP. Is anyone going to impeach Obama knowing who will be the president?; 10/26/12, 7:36 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Inga, right you are, and I'm not intact myself. There's comic relief out there.; 10/26/12, 7:39 PM
Steve Austin said...: Very good interchange on the O'Reilly Factor tonight ten minutes in between Bill and Geraldo. (watch the replay if you can)

Bill asks Geraldo why Obama won't come out and hold a press conference and tell the American people the timeline of events and what happened. Geraldo says Obama can't do that since he's only ten days away from the election.

Bill presses him further and basically Geraldo refuses to answer the question. Like Obama did tonight.

Our President likely knew that night what was going down, had to deny assistance (which would have been an acceptable decision if the risks were too high) but then decides to COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED by blaming the YouTube video.; 10/26/12, 7:42 PM
Gahrie said...: Maybe there's something here, but it seems like people are too eager to build an "obama is evil" narrative rather than wait for facts to come out. And then criticize him.

That's because we are trying to figure out why he and his administration have been lying to us.; 10/26/12, 7:42 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

Meth perhaps an increased dose of your psychotropics are in order.

How could you look yourself in the mirror knowing that your child is in military service and that she serves a 5th columnist traitor of a POUTS that if under certain circumstances would leave her to her own devices to defend herself for nearly 8 hours with multiple calls for help only to not realize that she is being watched in near real time as her superiors simply watch as she is murdered?

And you defend this guy for some unfathomable reason. You parroted the blame on a video, which was a lie, then you threw the 1st amendment under the bus for your political correctness in defending murderous muslims rights to not being offended and condemning a fiction. And now you are here looking for an out to defend Urkel with? Is there some level of mental instability that leads you to believe lies to secure the narrative that your ideology must be defended at all costs even against your principals? Or did you have any to begin with? You've already sacrificed your soul, you integrity, and your credibility on this blog and I suspect elsewhere to defend the POTUS. And for what? This is the kind of CiC you want running the country?

I don't think there are words now to describe what an utterly loathsome and repulsive evil creature you are. irredeemable.; 10/26/12, 7:43 PM
gypsy rose said...: Tell me what the possible motivation for any of them to lie in the first place is? There were many attacks on embassies during the past administration. It barely made the news.

@Garage: Seriously? Ambassador Stevens is the first ambassador to be murdered since the Iranian takeover of our embassy in 1979. Under Pres. Carter. Yes this is big news. Horrible, tragic, terrible and now we know preventable news. But you wonder why the lies? Simple: a terrorist attack flies in the face of Obama's boasting point of whupping terrorism and Al Qaeda. So it looks like he made the call to let them die. Remember he tried to brush the whole thing off as a "bump in the road," no doubt expecting a pliant media to give the whole mess a quick and dirty burial. Despicable. And very typical of a malignant narcissist. But go ahead and keep feeding that monster, Garage. I pity you.; 10/26/12, 7:45 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Tell me what the possible motivation for any of them to lie in the first place is?

He wants to win re-election. He thinks admitting al-Queda is still powerful hurts his chances. He lies habitually.; 10/26/12, 7:48 PM
Kansas City said...: It is great that Ann is focusing on this important issue.

Watch the linked interview below and you may join me in being infuriated. The local reporter specifically asked "were they denied requests for help during the attack?" Obama lied his way through talking points as follows:

“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

Unfortunately, the reporter gave up. He should have said, "So, Mr. President, you are telling the American people 6 weeks after the attack that you do not yet know whether there was any request for help that were denied?"

http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/obama-lies-his-way-through-questions-on-benghazi/

He is trying to get votes in Colorado with this interview. Any objective person who knows about Benghazi will vote against him after watching this interview.

The reporter also ask him about the bs'er question. Lame answer. But again, the reporter failed to follow up on lame talking points. Here, it should be "do you apologize for calling Governor Romney a bs'er?"; 10/26/12, 7:48 PM
Baron Zemo said...: They have to lie and refuse to answer because the truth will lose them the election for sure.

Obama will try to stonewall all the way to the election.

But it might not work this time.

The wolves are out and they smell blood. The mainstream media have to look to their own reputations. They have been uneasy for a while now. The cracks in the facade are too many for them to ignore.

Those Greek columns?; 10/26/12, 7:48 PM
Anonymous said...: "I don't think a commander in Sicily would send out a gunship on his own."

Oh HELL yes they would. Leave US troops hanging out to die while under terrorist attack?

The only way they don't go is if they're TOLD not to go.

As others have pointed out, the only reason there would be somebody on the roof painting the terrorist mortals w/ a laser is because there was something up there that COULD have taken the mortars out.

Someone had to order that the armed drone / gunship NOT fire. If it wasn't anyone in the CIA, it was either Panetta, or the President.; 10/26/12, 7:48 PM
MadisonMan said...: So now we can say definitively that at least a few brave Americans would be alive today if so many had noted voted with their lardy parts in 2008.

We can say that definitively only if time moves in a straight arrow. It doesn't.

No one telling people not to help is not the negative of someone telling them to help. Which apparently didn't happen either.; 10/26/12, 7:49 PM
Methadras said...: Rabel said...

Mike said:

"Maybe there's something here, but it seems like people are too eager to build an "obama is evil" narrative rather than wait for facts to come out."

Everyone in Benghazi was debriefed the day after the attack. An ambassador was murdered. Why are we still waiting other than political considerations by Obama?

It's all spin and damage control, but you can't control the truth when it's this reprehensible. The facts are presenting themselves and I don't know why fox for some reason is claiming exclusivity. Maybe those leaking these allegations to them can't trust ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Daily Kos, Huffington, et al.

For the record, I knew both Tyron and Glen. We met through mutual friends. They were simply just outstanding human beings. Nothing short of the epitome of what it means to be an american. The mere thought that they sacrificed themselves while their superiors all the way to POTUS let them hang like this is enraging. The people who defend Urkel even more so.

What in God's name could possible stop Urkel from simply issuing the order to get assets to the location. Even if he was to late, at least he could have said he tried, but he didn't even do that. It's totally mystifying.; 10/26/12, 7:50 PM
kentuckyliz said...: I want to see pix of Obama from the Vegas fundraiser.

How big and bright was his smile?

How well-rested did he look?

He went to bed 90 minutes in. The 3 a.m. call rang to voicemail.; 10/26/12, 7:51 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Please address the questions of the father of one of the Navy Seals who rushed to try to save the lives of Americans in peril:

Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”

Doesn't he deserve an answer? Now?; 10/26/12, 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Meth, you lunatic, my daughter is voting for Obama, as are many of her fellow troops. Now I expect the outrage and denial, nooooo , no service member votes Democratic !!!!; 10/26/12, 7:51 PM
David said...: Ann Althouse said...
Isn't it the case that Obama would have to have had decided that no help would be sent?

No, of course not. It's Valerie Jarrett's call.; 10/26/12, 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: "Mubarak who was a ... supresser of Muslim Brotherhood jihadists in Egypt."

No he wasn't. He suppressed everyone BUT the MB. He kept the MB out of power, but he left them around as the only group who could take power if he got ousted.

He did this to keep the US from pressuring him to stop being so repressive. Screw him, and screw everyone who worked with Mubarak.; 10/26/12, 7:52 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Those two heroes who acted against orders are true, brave, heroes.

And I wonder: if they died while disobeying orders, do their survivors get denied the life insurance proceeds and other benefits?

I'm thinking that might be the case. Which would be an incredible injustice. They were smarter, braver, and more heroic than their CiC.; 10/26/12, 7:53 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger garage mahal said...

He is not lying Garage.

Tell me what the possible motivation for any of them to lie in the first place is? There were many attacks on embassies during the past administration. It barely made the news.

The president was not Obama. They are lying about everything else. Why not this ?

Did you forget the years long uproar at Bush because of 9/11 ?

The last ambassador to be killed was in Afghanistan in 1979. The Soviets may have staged the killing as it was followed by the Soviet invasion. We did not have the ability to communicate or to arrange a rescue mission then.

We do now. All that is missing is the will.

The coverup is another matter. Of course, to you and Obama, it is "a bump in the road."; 10/26/12, 7:54 PM
Bob Ellison said...: gregq said "The only way they don't go is if they're TOLD not to go."

This is true, and important. What does it take to keep an American military member from going into battle? A soldier, a Marine, a sailor? What does it take?

It takes an order.; 10/26/12, 7:54 PM
Brad said...: The first line of defense of the zealot is denial - - - because information which contradicts "the faith" can't be true, it simply isn't.

The Administration's fixation on the video "suggests" this crew knew it screwed this up from the start.

We've all -- OK, some of us - - have read the stories about Valerie Jarrett talking Obama out of taking Bin Laden out more than once before the trigger was finally pulled. Bill Clinton's pathetic little homily to Obama - "do you know how bad this would've been for Obama if the attack hadn't gone well?" - is a window into how this crew thinks about these things.

Woods & the others at the CIA compound did what warriors do - knowing our people were in trouble, they ran to the sound of the gunfire.

It's a shame their commander in chief didn't have their back.; 10/26/12, 7:54 PM
Tristram said...: On the first day of his presidency, Romney should issue pardons to Pres Obama, Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton for any crimes they may have committed in the cover-up. That'd nip any moron republicans urge to pursue this.; 10/26/12, 7:54 PM
MB said...: What little I know of the military, I know it is always better to ask for forgiveness than permission. So, there is a trend to be pro-active.

In the OR, the surgeon is the captain of the ship. He is responsible. In the Navy, the captain of the ships and boat(submarines), if there is any fuck-up the skipper gets canned.

Some one gave the order not to engage because the default was otherwise.; 10/26/12, 7:55 PM
John said...: Stevens was running guns thru Libya to Turkey and then to Syria. This was a dangerous game as Russia is Syria's ally.

Obama is covering his tracks. Some have theorized that Stevens was a pawn to be used as cover for Obama to release terrorists. Once things fell apart there was damage control to do. Stevens was always expendable. The media could be counted on to buy the story about the video - keeping all the details on the down low until after the election. Not counted on was Clinton jumping ship. Clinton ordered additional security for Libya weeks earlier Obama blocked that - why? Because it wasn't part of his plan. Career CIA and State employees will eventually spill all the beans. And Obama, Biden, and Sec of Defense will be left without chairs to sit on. Clinton will come out without a scratch and begin building organization for a 2016 run.

And for those wondering, yes, there was a moon landing, Oswald acted alone, and Obama is not a natural born US citizen.; 10/26/12, 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Inga: Just in case you didn't notice my comment from an earlier thread. Please note that I'm not wishing death upon any liberals.

Inga is in a difficult spot. After going on and on about the supreme importance of protecting American lives overseas, she now has to deal with the fact that President and his administration knew Americans were under attack, didn't send them aid, and in fact told troops to stand down rather than give aid, and then told misleading stories about it for weeks on end and still have not come clean.

I guess she can keep blaming the filmmaker, but that can't possibly excuse the Commander-in-Chief who is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad.

I'll be curious to see how she handles this conflict, assuming she does.; 10/26/12, 7:56 PM
jr565 said...: This is the true scandal, not whether Obama said terorrism or acts of terror or the time it took to differentiate the act as being pre planned versus the idea that it was an outbreak from a riot that started over a video.
There is compelling evidence that, based on protocol, Obama and his inner circle HAD to know about this immediately and had to be the ones to not give the go order to special forces who would be ready to attempt a rescue. They HAD to have known. And did not give the go order.

This interview with Rush (listen libs, just becuase it's Rush don't discount it. The person talking to Rush sounds like he knows EXACTLY what must have happened and the protocols that were in place at the time. Ignoring this simply because he called into the Rush Limbaugh show and you don't like Rush Limbaugh would be a horrible mistake on your parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljKmmZyCiw&feature=player_embedded

Perhaps they were risk averse because of what happened under Carter and onwards, but it really seems like they made the calculation to let the embassy fall rather than give the order to send in a rescue force. Perhaps for political considerations, perhaps they figured it was a lost cause. But they should at least be forced to acknowledge what those considerations were .; 10/26/12, 7:56 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

Garage, don't feel bad yesterday Meth brain told me to die also.

I wish you would. You would be doing this universe a cosmic favor. Most likely when you do die and I hope horribly, you will get to the pearly gates and when the good lord meets you there and he says, "Welcome to Heaven Inga!!!" and you look back at him with a worried look on your face and you say, "But Jesus, I thought you were in the White House." that's when the trap door will open up underneath you and send you to that special place reserved for people like you called The 9th Circle Spa and Sauna.; 10/26/12, 7:56 PM
rhhardin said...: It's how they do things in Chicago.; 10/26/12, 7:58 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger kentuckyliz said...

Those two heroes who acted against orders are true, brave, heroes.

And I wonder: if they died while disobeying orders, do their survivors get denied the life insurance proceeds and other benefits?

Dakota Meyer disobeyed orders and went into the fight. He got the Medal of Honor. I doubt anyone would object to riding to the sound of guns, except perhaps the Obama people.; 10/26/12, 7:59 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 7:59 PM
Mark said...: It's kind of sad watching Garage and Inga have to back down again and again as the lies crumble around Obama's feet. First it was no one in the administration knew anything until after everything had happened. Then it was a spontaneous mob action due to an obscure YouTube video. Then it was "to the best of our knowledge" there was no terrorist intent. Now that it's clear that men on the ground were in contact with Washington, the Administration is doing what?

I expect Petraeus to resign within the next four days. I can understand and respect his since of duty, but at this point he's got to feel like a man swimming in a vat of eels.; 10/26/12, 8:00 PM
Kansas City said...: The CIA "denial" is ambiguous. It does not address the issue of whether anyone outside the CIA told anyone not to help. They could be setting up the defense that it was not a case of anyone being told not to help. It was a case of determining the best help available was to fly the 16 guys in from Tripoli. The explanation would be the call for help came in and was honored with the guys from Tripoli. That was determined to be the best approach. No one told any one else not to help.

I would be very skeptical about such an explanation. But the criticism thus far is premised upon the Fox reporter reporting that there were calls for help from the military that were denied. I realize the CIA is not denying there were calls for help. But it leave open the possibility that a later claim will be to dispute there were ever any requests to the military for help.

At this point, I still trust Patreus, even to the extent that I would expect him to resign if the CIA messed up.

The issue now is whether the MSM will let Obama run out the clock with his talking points. I think there is too much tim, so the answer is no. Of course, Romney could force answers, but he may be too cautious to do it. He could say, "I'm not accusing the administraton of doing anything wrong. I am saying the American people are entitled to the truth regarding 3 basic issues: (1) the lack of sufficient security at the time of the attack; (2) the failure to provide military rescue during the six hours prior to two Americans getting killed; and (3) who told the president's press secretary and UN ambassdor to tell the American people that the attack arose out of a spontaneous demonstration against a video and what was that based on?; 10/26/12, 8:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Creely as I said, WERE they told to stand down at all and by WHOM? Who is the source for this claim?; 10/26/12, 8:00 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Inga, use your imagination.; 10/26/12, 8:01 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

Meth, you lunatic, my daughter is voting for Obama, as are many of her fellow troops. Now I expect the outrage and denial, nooooo , no service member votes Democratic !!!!

Oh, I know she is you treacherous whore. You've said as much. I know many other service members that are going to vote for Obama too and do you know why? Because they have this innate ability to look the other way and thank their stars it isn't them that was in Benghazi. That has nothing with being a soldier, but rather with simply being human. Unfortunately they've drank the kool-aid too just like your progeny. They don't feel they are getting shit on.; 10/26/12, 8:02 PM
Greybeard said...: "Now I simply wish you would drop dead to simply stop the misery."

I agree.
And this is why so many of us think we'll be at war with our (sometimes local) neighbors soon.
Be prepared.
Or be a victim.; 10/26/12, 8:02 PM
Michael K said...: "Most likely when you do die and I hope horribly, you will get to the pearly gates and when the good lord meets you there and he says, "Welcome to Heaven Inga!!!" "

This is a bit much. The tone is starting to get nasty and that is unnecessary. In know internet civility is an oxymoron but try a bit more.; 10/26/12, 8:02 PM
Mark said...: jr, it looks like "blame the video" was the fallback position if things got hot in the jihadosphere (which would undermine the narrative that Obama had ended the terrorist threat). They were so quick to trot it out, and it might have worked if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!; 10/26/12, 8:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob Ellison, the PROBLEM is far too many people are using their imagination as opposed to REAL information from known sources.; 10/26/12, 8:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "Could someone explain why it would be a "gutsy call" (rather than just common sense and loyalty) to send help when Americans in the diplomatic service are being attacked at their installation?"

Because Obama had been running around claiming that "al Qaeda's on the run." If al Qaeda then turned around and launched a major attack against the US, in Libya, on Sept 11, that makes Obama look bad.

1: It's happening in a country where the only reason it COULD happen is because Obama launched an illegal war there.

2: If they can launch a major attack, they're not "on the run."

Sending fighters, gunships, and troops from Italy into Libya would have been taken as a major US military action (few people are going to realize it's a 400 mile trip. They're just going to think "wow, we had to sent troops from Europe into Africa!"). This would have politically embarrassed Obama.

The Las Vegas fundraiser didn't help. If he sent in the troops, then he's either damned for sending in the troops, then hopping off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser, or else, he cancels the fundraiser, loses the money, AND makes the intervention look even bigger.

So President Barack Obama had to chose between advancing his campaign for re-election, or fighting a major terrorist attack on a US embassy. He decided his campaign was more important, and hoped it would all blow over. Instead four Americans, including a US Ambassador, died. At least two of them died because President Obama denied them the support they needed.

It makes me sick.; 10/26/12, 8:07 PM
edutcher said...: Thank you, General.

I've said you were this generation's George Marshall and it's gratifying to be proven right again.

Mark Steyn has a damning explanation of Zero's motives.

madAsHell said...

...and this is after Hillary tried to put this thing to bed by accepting responsibility. I can't believe she hasn't resigned in protest, or been fired.

When her "husband" lied to his Cabinet about his fling with Monica, how many resigned?; 10/26/12, 8:07 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Inga, the problem is that far too many people are so politically biased that they refuse to admit the truth.; 10/26/12, 8:08 PM
Mark said...: Inga, known, acknowledged fact: a drone was in the air observing the situation within two hours of the beginning of hostilities.

This contradicts White House and State Department talking points that were trotted out for weeks.

And yet, you continue to give the White House and the State Department your trust?

Tool.; 10/26/12, 8:09 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Meth, you lunatic, my daughter is voting for Obama, as are many of her fellow troops."

It's only "many" if you define "many" as 26%.

66% of those military personnel polled will be voting for Romney.

I wonder what the breakdown is between those with ladyparts and those with parts less lady-ish?; 10/26/12, 8:09 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: terrorist mortals w/ a laser

I rather like that.; 10/26/12, 8:11 PM
Browndog said...: OpenID gregq said...

"Mubarak who was a ... supresser of Muslim Brotherhood jihadists in Egypt."

No he wasn't. He suppressed everyone BUT the MB. He kept the MB out of power, but he left them around as the only group who could take power if he got ousted.

I can sorta tolerate Garage and Inga's vile need to defend the deaths of innocent humans to advance an ideology--it's been going on for 100 years, I get it.

What I can't tolerate is utterly stupid fucking statements like the one you just made, and are allowed to sit there like their not utterly fucking stupid statements.; 10/26/12, 8:12 PM
Drago said...: Mark: "Inga, known, acknowledged fact: a drone was in the air observing the situation within two hours of the beginning of hostilities."

Worse than that.

We had a Specter gunship airborne and a target (islamist attackers) was being "lazed" (illuminated with a laser) for targeting purposes.

Which means we had the ability to launch a pinpoint attack at (some of?) the attackers with great precision.

Yet it was not allowed.

Why?

And who gave the order?; 10/26/12, 8:12 PM
aanjheni said...: To those who don't believe there was a stand down order - there HAS to have been. Why? Because there is a law on the books (since after 79 and Iran Hostage crisis) that says the default is to RESCUE THE AMERICANS. If no rescue attempt was made, it is because SOMEONE told them not to. The Navy Seals defied orders to try and rescue Amb Stevens. Is not that also proof that there was a stand down order?

My gosh, some of you 'smart people' who comment on Ann's blog make me sick.; 10/26/12, 8:13 PM
Methadras said...: Michael K said...

"Most likely when you do die and I hope horribly, you will get to the pearly gates and when the good lord meets you there and he says, "Welcome to Heaven Inga!!!" "

This is a bit much. The tone is starting to get nasty and that is unnecessary. In know internet civility is an oxymoron but try a bit more.

You let me decide when it's necessary or unnecessary to engage in a discussion with 5th columnist collaborating traitors like Inga and Garage. I've been calling them out for the unamerican scum they are. They want to shuck and jive for this president, then let them hang with him too. If you can't take it, then stand aside.; 10/26/12, 8:14 PM
Drago said...: Of course, it's possible the Predator was missile equipped (vs the Specter).

Either way, we had the targeting and weapons in place to respond to this attack.

And. We (someone: either AFRICOM or the WH). Decided. Not. To.

Why?; 10/26/12, 8:15 PM
JAL said...: You are damn right this is important.

We have a lying POTUS who refused to send help to rescue a US Ambassador and the other people who were under attack, resulting in the death of the ambassador and three other Americans.

This person must not re-elected.

He should be impeached. Though voting him out is quicker.

And the others?

Fire Every. Single. One.; 10/26/12, 8:15 PM
Anonymous said...: "Creely as I said, WERE they told to stand down at all and by WHOM? Who is the source for this claim?"

The source is Fox News. The confirmation is that Obama isn't coming out and saying "that's just not true".

Petraeus is saying "no one at the CIA ordered them to 'stand down.'" He did NOT say "they weren't ordered to 'stand down.'" If they weren't so ordered, he could have said that. He didn't.

So either Petraeus is playing word games to screw over the President, or they were ordered to 'stand down', just not by anyone at the CIA. Which do YOU think it is?; 10/26/12, 8:16 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 8:16 PM
Drago said...: aanjheni: "If no rescue attempt was made, it is because SOMEONE told them not to."

Precisely.

Transparent.

Yet Brian Williams couldn't be bothered with such "messy" and "inconvenient" details.; 10/26/12, 8:16 PM
Conserve Liberty said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 8:16 PM
James said...: You're building a narrative here that hinges on anonymous sources being accurate that the CIA was told to stand down. If that report is inaccurate -- as many reports have been; remember when Stevens was supposedly raped and dragged through the streets? -- this isn't a very interesting report. Several weeks ago Bloomberg reported that some assets were moved that night from Tripoli and were there by the time the annex was attacked. We also know that Libyan security forces sealed the area so that our people could be evacuated.

Maybe there's something here, but it seems like people are too eager to build an "obama is evil" narrative rather than wait for facts to come out. And then criticize him.

Who are these "Libyan security forces" you speak of? Libya is a failed state with a barely functioning central government that has no influence outside of Tripoli.; 10/26/12, 8:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Drago, also ask how many service members of Latino or African American ethnicity are voting for Romney? What is the breakdown of minorities and women to white males serving? That might give an accurate picture.

I'm not saying the combo is greater in numbers than white males, but I know there are many minorities in the enlisted ranks.; 10/26/12, 8:18 PM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
saying they were told to stand down, by ANYBODY at all? Who are these sources Fox is basing this on?

Make inferences that Obama told them to stand down based on a Fox "report" that they WERE told to stand down?

As described in the interview with Rush, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for those in the know to not have heard about the assault on the embassy IMMEDIATElY (unless the attack were so efficient that it destroyed the embassy before it coudl provide any communication whatsoever. Which didn't happen. This was an attack that went on for several hours.
An ambassador being attacked or missing is not some low priority incident. And details of said information would not go out in a non secure email. It would go out in real time digitally to those at various stations who would immediately notify their higher ups that the embassy was being assaulted. ANd at any rate, we know that there was a drone recording this IN REAL TIME. As such communication would get to those in the know not hours later but within minutes. Somebody therefore had to decide not to proceed. That would be the president, VP, sec of defence or the State Dept. IT's inconceivable though that the president or at least someone who could place the order to proceed or stand down wasn't on hand to make the call.
Or is it the assertion that when the 3:00AM call comes into the white house noone of import even knows about hte call for several hours. Even a low level Help Desk of any generic company wouldn't let such a ridiculuous excuse stand.; 10/26/12, 8:18 PM
JAL said...: @ Garage: David Petraeus has more integity in one hang nail than Barack Obama. PEriod.

I have a family member (officer) who flew Petraeus in Iraq numerous times. They would follow that man into the inferno.

You are an asshole Garage.; 10/26/12, 8:18 PM
Kansas City said...: Again, the ambiguity and limited nature of the CIA statement bothers me. It may just be a reaction to the report today that CIA people in Benghazi were told not to help people at the embassy and nothing more. There is not yet proof that anyone told anyone else not to help.

The "explanation" perhaps will be that no one (inside or outside the CIA) told anyone not to help. The people involved simply made a decision on what they thought wodl be the best people to help.

But I do agree that the CIA denial likely will increase the pressure on the rest of the administration to address the issue. If someone is guilty of a big mistake, and it is not the CIA, Petreus will protect himself and the agency, so the cryptic statement still might be an important first step.; 10/26/12, 8:18 PM
Sheridan said...: It was 39 years ago this month that the infamous "Saturday night massacre" occured. I remember those days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

I understand that the Benghazi event is quite different from Watergate. But the thing I remember most was the complete loss of Nixon's moral authority to act as both President and CinC. His actions in 1973 ultimately led to his resignation.

Obama has also abrogated his moral authority, if these recent allegations prove out. Should that be the case, he too must resign or else face the wrath of the American people, all of us, Democrats, Republicans, Independents - everyone who still has a moral compass.; 10/26/12, 8:20 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Drago, also ask how many service members of Larino or African American ethnicity are voting for Romney?"

LOL

The poll was of all active duty members with a representative sample.

LOL

Keep spinning.

66% of all voting service members voting republican is right in line with how service members have voted for the last 35 years.

Rough rule of thumb is 2/3rds for the republican.

If you don't like that reality, why don't you get more non-white males to sign up and serve?

Of course, this obvious and well established voting pattern is the very reason Gore tried to get as many military ballots as possible (even from those overseas) invalidated.; 10/26/12, 8:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Gregg, the source is Fox news, is that supposed lend it credence?; 10/26/12, 8:20 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Patreus Betrayus.; 10/26/12, 8:22 PM
Kansas City said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Browdog:

If the Muslim Brotherhood had been suppressed by Mubarak, then they would not have been in a position to take over the moment Mubarak was gone.

Mubarak most certainly suppressed non-Islamist political activity. That's why there were no such groups around able to compete with the MB in the elections. Mubarak played the old dictator game: "support me, because if you don't what comes next will be worse", and he deliberately made sure that would be the case.

He's now gone, worse is here. Fine. That's better than rewarding him for his behavior.

Do we need to deal with "worse"? (I.E., do we need to put a gun to teh Egyptian government's head, and say "you will behave, or else"?) Yes. But Mubarak set things up so that as soon as he went, things would get worse. Given that he wasn't immortal, I see no reason why we shouldn't help get rid of him ASAP.

Never reward terrorists or hostage takers.; 10/26/12, 8:23 PM
Drago said...: kansas city: "The "explanation" perhaps will be that no one (inside or outside the CIA) told anyone not to help. The people involved simply made a decision on what they thought wodl be the best people to help."

LOL

ACE captures it the best:

http://ace.mu.nu/

"David Petraeus: No One In the CIA Ordered Operatives To Stand Down

—Ace

No one... in the CIA.

Hmm. Who would be in a position to order the stand-down, who's not in the CIA?

Hmmmm...

It would have to be someone very high ranking in the chain of command, obviously.

Not military -- I don't think the military can order the CIA.

So, someone high ranking who is not military and also not in the CIA, but who gives orders to the CIA.

I give up. I can't solve this mystery.

Can you?"

Hmmm, and who exactly would be the relevant "people involved" who w; 10/26/12, 8:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Jr.,
Rush Limbaugh? Lord.; 10/26/12, 8:24 PM
Phil 314 said...: Meth,
This has made you (temporarily I hope) a POS.

Get a grip.; 10/26/12, 8:24 PM
Kansas City said...: Conserve Liberty's point that Tapper at ABC might be chasing a career story is intriquing. I've always thought the quest for media fame would motivate people in the MSM to overcome their bias, but it very seldom happens. Tappers seems among the best. Maybe he will find something and step up (altough I assume he needs approval from upper level folks at ABC).; 10/26/12, 8:24 PM
edutcher said...: Inga said...

Drago, also ask how many service members of Latino or African American ethnicity are voting for Romney? What is the breakdown of minorities and women to white males serving? That might give an accurate picture.

Could be they're also voting for the Romster.

Problem is, Oop's friends in the Democrat Party are moving heaven and earth to make sure those votes are never counted.; 10/26/12, 8:24 PM
Baron Zemo said...: You don't have to worry about the source if it upsets you.

Just use logic.

Our guys had a laser lit target and were in position to do something to save those guys. They didn't. Why? Did they make that call? Or was something else invovled? Something political? If it was just the call of some two bit general he would have already been under the bus?

Use some logic.

A fish rots from it's head.; 10/26/12, 8:27 PM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
Bob Ellison, the PROBLEM is far too many people are using their imagination as opposed to REAL information from known sources.

The problem is you're NOT using your imagination because you're so intent on defending the Obama administration.
The fact as to who didn't make the call will come out eventually. But what you need to realize though is that it is inconceivable that there weren't people on hand to make that call. You mean to tell me an embassy is being attacked, the ambassador presumed missing or dead, and for seven hours while this is known no one from SEC Def to the President is even aware of the situation? Despite protocols in place that would notify people IMMEDIATELY?
So was it the president who personally didn't make the call or one of his underlings? Who cares? Its Obama's administration. Someone had to have been there to make or not make the call as soon as they were notified of what was happening and they would have been told about it immediately.
So, why don't you get over your blind loyalty and recognize that fact.
Now, none of us are in the meetings. There may have been a valid reason why the President or someone in the chain said not to go. Perhaps it would take too long for the rescue team to get there. Perhaps it would be logistically impossible to rescue those 4 without endangering many more. perhaps someoen with intelligence was telling them it wouldn't work.
But that's not the administrations story. IF the president wasn't told immediately that the embasssy was under attack and his ambassador was presumed missing then how far out of the loop is Obama? And how bad is the administrations decision making process? That would suggest that everyone should be FIRED from the sec def all the way up to the VP for not relaying critical info to allow the president to make or not make the call to protect his embassy.; 10/26/12, 8:28 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Isn't it the case that Obama would have to have had decided that no help would be sent?

My understanding is that only the president has the controlling legal authority to authorise fundraisers.

Psyched.; 10/26/12, 8:29 PM
garage mahal said...: If our embassies are indeed that unprotected and vulnerable to more attacks, why in the fuck are Republicans announcing to the world that we're vulnerable and unprotected for more attacks!?

Dear Terrorists,

Our President is a complete ROOKIE. NOW is your time. He don't know shit! He won't even put up a fight! Here is what we're going to do for you.

We're going to hold some hearings that reveal everything from how the first attacks were successful, the floor plans of our embassies, how we guard them, and how you can avoid defenses. You name it. Also, we'll produce some satellite imagery of our CIA facilities in your area if need be, and reveal all the spies that are working for the American government.

There is only so much we can do for your causes, however.

The rest is up to you!
.
Signed,
Republicans; 10/26/12, 8:31 PM
Conserve Liberty said...: This isn't just FOX.

Reposted EDIT from Deleted entry:

Jake Tapper (ABC - Political Punch) has been sniffing around this for days. [EDIT:] (I believe) he senses a 'career story," and that he's being held in check (you DO NOT contradict The One at ABC News).

I believe there are people at work here who will release what needs to be released (and no more) to prevent re-election.

Next 48 hours or so - by Sunday night.; 10/26/12, 8:31 PM
Baron Zemo said...: It is the dog that didn't bark.

If it wasn't Obama then the person who told them to stand down would already be under the bus. And they were told to stand down. That much is clear. As it was explained by people in the know....standing orders are to go and save American lives.

Someone told them to "respect" the soveignty of Libya.

Who does that sound like?

Rush Limbaugh? Jake Tapper? Elmo? Big Bird?; 10/26/12, 8:31 PM
Kansas City said...: Drago,

You are assuming that someone told people not to help. The CIA statement does not address that issue. I would be highly skeptical, but Obama may try to get away with a story that everyone exercised their best judgment about the best way to support the people and decided on sending the force from Tripoli. Thus, the stand down order to Benghazi never happened and no one at any point told anyone not to help.; 10/26/12, 8:32 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Inga,
It has been 6 weeks now. Clearly they are deliberately delaying releasing the details until the election, if possible. Is that OK with you?; 10/26/12, 8:33 PM
jr565 said...: inga wrote:
Jr.,
Rush Limbaugh? Lord.

That's so typical of you. You are wearing blinders. Don't listen to Rush, listen to the guy talking to Rush. He lays out the procedures and who is involved up the chain and how communication is relayed to show that there is no possible way that the President wouldn't have known about this in minutes. and that within 5 minutes of receiving notification about the embassy being attacked Special Forces would be on standy by ready to go. And the only reason they wouldn't have gone would be if someone higher up the chain told them no go.
That is the simply reality.
You may not like Rush, but unless you argue that the guy talking to Rush is talking out of his ass, then your guy Obama has a HUGE problem.
If you want to argue that they didn't make the call to stand down, then what your'e describing must be one of the biggest instances of incompetence in the history of incompetent actions. And you're plannng on voting for the guy?
Those are the only two options by the way. Incompetence, or deciding to let the embassy fall.; 10/26/12, 8:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama was asked directly if they were denied requests for help. He dodged both times.; 10/26/12, 8:33 PM
Anonymous said...: nga said...

"Gregg, the source is Fox news, is that supposed lend it credence?"

With you? No. That's why I pointed out the confirmation from Obama and Petraeus.

So, again I ask you: do you think that Petraeus was screwing over the President by playing word games with the announcement he sent out today?

If not, they were told to stand down.

If so:
1: Why is he doing that?
2: Why didn't help arrive from Italy during the SEVEN HOURS of fighting?; 10/26/12, 8:36 PM
garage mahal said...: Jake Tapper (ABC - Political Punch) has been sniffing around this for days. [EDIT:] (I believe) he senses a 'career story," and that he's being held in check (you DO NOT contradict The One at ABC News).

Was this posted somewhere other than you here just now? Google doesn't show anything.; 10/26/12, 8:39 PM
test said...: Inga said...
Christopher in MA, you ask liberals here a question and on a different thread wish them dead, a horrible death? Why the hell should any liberal waste their time answering you? A few of you conservative commenters here have gone over the edge, with your death wishes to liberal commenters here. Weird and disgusting.

Let's recap our sacred lefty commenters' priorities:

Expressions of outrage over actual deaths: zero.

Expressions of outrage over internet death threats: I counted five.

I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I don't want to Cook.; 10/26/12, 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...: garage mahal said...

"If our embassies are indeed that unprotected and vulnerable to more attacks, why in the fuck are Republicans announcing to the world that we're vulnerable and unprotected for more attacks!?"

Because, you worthless pile of shit, the only way we can ever again get our embassies safe is to get the asshole you're supporting out of the White House. And we can't tell the American People about what he's done, without also telling the terrorists.; 10/26/12, 8:41 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: If and when credible information is released and it implicates this administration in some negligence or other wrongdoing, I will lay blame there. For now all I'm hearing are almost hysterical conservatives wishing for an October surprise.; 10/26/12, 8:45 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”

Answer the question Mr. President.; 10/26/12, 8:45 PM
Matt Sablan said...: ... No words.; 10/26/12, 8:45 PM
Real American said...: there is a rationale for the decision: cowardice.; 10/26/12, 8:46 PM
DADvocate said...: "If our embassies are indeed that unprotected and vulnerable to more attacks, why in the fuck are Republicans announcing to the world that we're vulnerable and unprotected for more attacks!?"

We're supposed to sit by silently while our ambassadors and diplomatic staff are murdered. Say nothing.; 10/26/12, 8:46 PM
test said...: Inga said...
If and when credible information is released and it implicates this administration in some negligence or other wrongdoing, I will lay blame there. For now all I'm hearing are almost hysterical conservatives wishing for an October surprise.

I agree that's the best reponse the DNC could come up with. Embarassing isn't it?; 10/26/12, 8:46 PM
Baron Zemo said...: This is not an "October" surprise.

Those of us that are not blind always knew what this President was all about.

It is no surprise.; 10/26/12, 8:47 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Inga,
Please answer the question. Is it OK with you that they are delaying the release of this information until after the election?; 10/26/12, 8:49 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "If our embassies are indeed that unprotected and vulnerable to more attacks, why in the fuck are Republicans announcing to the world that we're vulnerable and unprotected for more attacks!?"

-- I'm pretty sure they already figured it out once. It doesn't take a genius to see it.; 10/26/12, 8:49 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "If and when credible information is released and it implicates this administration in some negligence or other wrongdoing, I will lay blame there."

-- It's there if you pay attention.; 10/26/12, 8:49 PM
Methadras said...: Phil 3:14 said...

Meth,
This has made you (temporarily I hope) a POS.

Get a grip.

Hate to disappoint you Phil, but calling me a POS is meaningless. You want civility against the little traitors that roam the halls of these threads, then you engage them the way you see fit. I'll deal with it myself. Even as a POS I realize that in the grand scheme of things, people like inga, garage, et al. are destined for a much darker place for the things they say and do. I can sleep like a baby knowing that today and every day, I'm doing my little part to unveil them for the scum they are.

Maybe getting your hands dirty hurts your little sensitivities. I get it, it's not for everyone, but like I told Michael above, if you can't deal with it, then look away and stand aside. No one else will call out these little vermin for what they are while they just tralala all over the place unchallenged.; 10/26/12, 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 8:51 PM
Hagar said...: I think something else has been and is going on with this administration and Libya. The incident in Benghazi is just a boil that burst and got noticed, but the infection goes much deeper.; 10/26/12, 8:51 PM
Mark said...: Inga, I'd actually like for you to answer my question. Why do you trust the Obama Administration, considering how many documented lies they've promulgated on Benghazi?; 10/26/12, 8:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Exhelodrvr, who says they will not release information until AFTER the election, please cite credible source.; 10/26/12, 8:52 PM
Baron Zemo said...: How about the Presidents mouth?

You know when he refused to answer the questions.; 10/26/12, 8:53 PM
James said...: Another odd detail in this entire scandal is that Obama and Clinton immediately called for an FBI investigation. They repeated the mistake Bill Clinton made with the first WTC bombing...treating this event as a law enforcement problem rather than a terrorist attack.

Yet it took the FBI investigators more than 14 days to get to Benghazi. By that time anyone could have picked through the "scene"....CNN had a reporter there within days who retrieved the Ambassador's journals but the FBI cooled their heels in Tripoli or where ever for two weeks because Benghazi was too dangerous.

Its obvious that this is an attempt to stonewall and not a credible attempt at an investigation.; 10/26/12, 8:53 PM
test said...: Methadras said...
I'm doing my little part to unveil them for the scum they are.

No, you're engaging in the kind of unhinged nastiness that turns even people who mostly agree with your policy preferences against you. It's your choice, but don't kid yourself you're helping.; 10/26/12, 8:53 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Inga,
It's pretty obvious that they are delaying as long as they possibly can, preferably until after the election.

Or do you honestly think that the combined State/CIA/military still don't know what happened?; 10/26/12, 8:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Mark, I would have to believe your premise that they promulgated all those lies. They went by information the CIA had given them at the time. If and when credible information is revealed to the contrary, we will know who was telling the truth or lies.; 10/26/12, 8:56 PM
PatCA said...: If Petraeus went on the record with a denial, the inference is the White House.

Obama choked, and then he lied. It will be the final nail in his electoral coffin.; 10/26/12, 8:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Exhelodvr, how it it so evident, by your intuition?; 10/26/12, 8:56 PM
Baron Zemo said...: This will not stand. The game is afoot. Too many people can make a career out of this. Tapper is just one of them.

Obama is a mammoth in a tar pit.

Wait is that racist?; 10/26/12, 8:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Why I voted for the GOP?

One word explains.

Find out:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=1667920992513029393; 10/26/12, 8:57 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

If and when credible information is released and it implicates this administration in some negligence or other wrongdoing, I will lay blame there. For now all I'm hearing are almost hysterical conservatives wishing for an October surprise.

You know, I actually wish that Obama said that he tried to get assets there to help them out. Even if it wasn't in time, I wouldn't blame him for at least trying. Will it look like Carter 2 in the desert or a Blackhawk down situation. No one will ever know. Know why? Because he made the expedient political calculus that it was better to not rock the campaign boat instead of just doing the right thing regardless of outcome. No sane person would blame him. I swear I wouldn't if that was the case. I credited him for getting Bin Laden. I believe in credit where it's due, but this? Obama turned Benghazi into political expediency and those guys down there became the victims of that expediency. Expendable for his greater good.

That's what I'm talking about and you just don't get it with your the totality of the entirety of all of your statements. The sheer level of vacillating that you've done since this incident began has been a classic example of cognitive dissonance while exhibiting willful blindness. The truth is in your face and you still put your fingers in your ear and lalalalalala with your head down.

Why people try to continually convince you what that truth is otherwise while you continually lie in return isn't a mystery. It really isn't.; 10/26/12, 8:58 PM
James said...: If our embassies are indeed that unprotected and vulnerable to more attacks, why in the fuck are Republicans announcing to the world that we're vulnerable and unprotected for more attacks!?

Dear Terrorists,

Our President is a complete ROOKIE. NOW is your time. He don't know shit! He won't even put up a fight! Here is what we're going to do for you.

We're going to hold some hearings that reveal everything from how the first attacks were successful, the floor plans of our embassies, how we guard them, and how you can avoid defenses. You name it. Also, we'll produce some satellite imagery of our CIA facilities in your area if need be, and reveal all the spies that are working for the American government.

There is only so much we can do for your causes, however.

The rest is up to you!
.
Signed,
Republicans

As if the terrorist don't already know.

Security for the Benghazi consulate was entrusted to the local February 17th Martyrs' Brigade; and undoubtedly some of them cooperated with the attackers by failing to secure the perimeter of the consulate, and more importantly, by revealing the location of the safe house/CIA annex.

Try to keep up.; 10/26/12, 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I do think the CIA,State and military know what is going on. If Obama is perpetrating a massive hoax or coverup, someone will come forth and tell the truth.; 10/26/12, 8:59 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "They went by information the CIA had given them at the time. If and when credible information is revealed to the contrary, we will know who was telling the truth or lies."

Within 24 hours the CIA knew what was going on, but the President refused to acknowledge it. There, now, will you start condemning a man who denied his people help, then slept while they died?; 10/26/12, 8:59 PM
Mark said...: I understand the drone surveilance is pretty much uncontested. That's really all you need to know.

BTW, you do know that Obama loves his drones, right? Sort of like a queen bee.; 10/26/12, 9:00 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Then it's OK with you that they are delaying release of the information until after the election.; 10/26/12, 9:00 PM
Mark said...: I do think the CIA,State and military know what is going on. If Obama is perpetrating a massive hoax or coverup, someone will come forth and tell the truth.

And we see the beginning of a moment of clarity. It's happening. This is what it looks like.; 10/26/12, 9:01 PM
James said...: @jr565...the called claimed to be a retired Special Forces Lt. Col.; 10/26/12, 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Meth, don't speak to me, I discount every single thing you have to say, because you are insane. You can't be rational one second and a lunatic the next and be considered a credible, reasonable person.; 10/26/12, 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: And Meth when you can stop acting like a mad dog for one month, I may reconsider.; 10/26/12, 9:04 PM
David said...: By omission, the CIA is also saying that it ordered no one to take action. I'm not sure we understand just how such decisions are made (thanks, media), but certainly anything not covert like military force would require the President to approve. It is possible that theatre command said there was nothing effective that could be done, but given the timeline that is now clearly established that seems unlikely. It was a calculus of effectiveness vs. possible cost.

Panetta is out there saying that they could not go in because the situation was too uncertain. But that's not a military judgment, or at least not primarily. The military go in to uncertainty as a matter of course, especially when they are trying to support or rescue troops under fire. What Panetta actually has done is to admit that they made a decision to decline military support because they could not predict the outcome. That's political.

This is squarely Obama's responsibility. Either by inattention and lack of curiosity, or by an affirmative order, he decided not to intervene. The irony is that it's possible that not going in was the right decision. It's highly unlikely that any forces from outside Libya would have saved the ambassador's life. Maybe there would have been much more loss of American life.

Obama blundered again by not leveling with the nation about what happened, and what his role was. He pretended like it was all a mystery, and had been beyond his ability to influence. He used his passivity as an shield.

He should have scrapped the fund raiser, and taken time to explain honestly what he knew and when he knew it. He could have described the decision he had to make and why he made it. He would have taken heat, but people would have recognized that it was a tough decision. Instead he disassociated himself from the whole thing.

It turns out Obama is not like Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter went on national television and took full responsibility for the failure at Desert One.; 10/26/12, 9:04 PM
Original Mike said...: "Draw the necessary inferences."

White House, bus.
Bus, White House.; 10/26/12, 9:05 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Inga,
It is evident because they keep changing the story. That included versions where they gave out information that we now know they knew to be wrong when they gave it out.; 10/26/12, 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Mark, I hope you're right, if there IS some info that we as Americans need to know about this President and his administration, the sooner we know, the better.

But I think you are all doing some massive wishful thinking.; 10/26/12, 9:07 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The leaks are coming too fast and furious for Obama lackeys to lunch any reliable effort to tap down lingering questions.

This comment was brought to you by the letter L.; 10/26/12, 9:09 PM
yashu said...: I think something else has been and is going on with this administration and Libya. The incident in Benghazi is just a boil that burst and got noticed, but the infection goes much deeper.

I suspect this too. As horrifying as the latest revelations are, horrifying as it gets-- rock of rock bottom-- it wouldn't surprise me if there was yet more going on (beyond total incompetence/ passivity/ mendacity/ perfidiousness/ abject cowardice/ etc.).

Why was Stevens there in the first place?; 10/26/12, 9:12 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Fast and furious might be the right term for what was going on.

Just sayn'; 10/26/12, 9:13 PM
Issob Morocco said...: Inga it is not an October Surprise but a September 11th crime that 4 Americans were killed and their leaders watched and did nothing. They were acomplices to the murder.

Nov 6th; 10/26/12, 9:17 PM
Original Mike said...: "Exhelodrvr, who says they will not release information until AFTER the election, please cite credible source."

This is garage mahal stupid.; 10/26/12, 9:17 PM
Methadras said...: Marshal said...

Methadras said...
I'm doing my little part to unveil them for the scum they are.

No, you're engaging in the kind of unhinged nastiness that turns even people who mostly agree with your policy preferences against you. It's your choice, but don't kid yourself you're helping.

You ever seen someone dead at the hands of a brutal killer? Disembowled, stabbed, shot, tortured. Someone maimed horribly in an accident or a beating? I'm going to assume you haven't. I'm further going to assume that the thought of that would repulse you. It would most people. The idea of that imagery is just to incomprehensible to fathom for 99.9% of the people out there.

Now, imagine to yourself, if you can, what happened to those 4 men down in that attack. Now like I said, I knew those two guys. Not for a long time, but long enough to know them, who they are, what they did, their immediate families, etc.. We partied together with mutual friends and the like one many occasions. We ran in the same circle of friends. Now imagine if they were your friends and imagine, if you can what you envision they went through down there fighting a 7 to 8 hour battle trying to save lives and repel an attack. Now they did save lives for sure. We know this. But imagine they are fighting for their lives now. They have asked for help, they've disobeyed orders to stand down in the face of unknown opposition. They probably also may have figured that help might be on the way. Imagine what it's like at the end when none came. Honestly, the thought of it makes my blood boil, but then I think about Glens baby he will never see, or his wife again and the same for Tyrone and his wife and family. Now imagine their parents and spouses. Also for the ambassadors family as well. I just can't imagine it. I just can't fathom how they must have felt that their country turned their backs on them when they didn't have to.

Then I think of the administration apologists abroad and on this blog that nefariously find ways to slither in defense of the indefensible. You don't have to like what I do and frankly I don't care, but I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it to shame them, to expose them, to paint them as unamerican garbage. I am neither insane nor unhinged by any measure or standard. I'm quite in control of all my faculties. I'm just doing what you won't do. Whether you agree or side with me. You won't point the finger of righteous anger where it needs to go and that's at them. I am. For myself, and for those guys in Libya because their families won't. I'm more than happy and willing to do it for them and I can assure you that I'm not alone.; 10/26/12, 9:18 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

Meth, don't speak to me, I discount every single thing you have to say, because you are insane. You can't be rational one second and a lunatic the next and be considered a credible, reasonable person.

Lady, like i give two shits about what you think. Your distaste is my solace. That you are uncomfortable points at your guilt. Playing psych 101 never helps you. It just makes you look stupid.; 10/26/12, 9:20 PM
Wince said...: Have you noticed, when asked if there should be an investigation over Benghazi, Obama says we'll find out who conducted the attack.

As if the investigation should be a "who done it".

Most of the country, however, is asking "who didn't" -- i.e., who didn't authorize security before or a rescue during the attack.; 10/26/12, 9:21 PM
yashu said...: Erratum: the word is "perfidy" rather than "perfidiousness."; 10/26/12, 9:21 PM
edutcher said...: Oop is sounding like Ritmo in drag.

Which is probably the case.; 10/26/12, 9:26 PM
Nichevo said...: garage mahal said...

Housekeeping matters: I've been told to die twice today on this blog.

10/26/12 7:25 PM

Please eat shit first. It's protocol.

Inga,

So you really have to have your nose rubbed in it, you refuse to see the obvious till you can't avoid it?

Since you can't deal with abstracts, let's make it about you. I know you like that. So just imagine that it was your daughter in such a situation. Trying to protect the ambassador, or coming to his rescue. Maybe lasing a target designator on the mortar crew that is about to kill her. Or just dialing 911 from the safe room where the diesel smoke is starting to come in.

Shouldn't someone take that call?
Shouldn't someone send someone to come save your baby?

And if they didn't...when they damn well could have at least tried...would you vote for them?

Really?

Why?; 10/26/12, 9:26 PM
garage mahal said...: This is garage mahal stupid.

You watch Fox News. And you believe it. That makes you the stupid one, dude. It's not real. WWF. Supermarket Tabloids.

Aren't you a scientist?; 10/26/12, 9:27 PM
Mark said...: Inga, I am massively offended. I don't "wish" the President to be a monster. As I told a friend when Obama was elected, I hoped she was right and I was wrong. I was sincere, and I'm sincere now: If there is any way to make this incident be just an incredible cock-up by well meaning people, I hope that it comes to light.

But really, I thought from the beginning that Obama was a grifter going for gold, and I think now pretty much the same thing. Data supports my analysis. But he's burned too many people for it to hold up much longer.

Maybe I'm still wrong. But for your emotional well being, don't be among the last standing up for the monster.; 10/26/12, 9:27 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”

Answer the question Mr. President.; 10/26/12, 9:29 PM
Paul said...: A) We know Obama and Panetta. WATCHED the real-time video as the compound was attacked.

B) We know the CIA operatives DID ask permission to intervene.

C) We do know the gunships WERE above the scene of the attack.

So if the CIA didn't tell anyone to stand down that leaves Obama, Panetta, or maybe Hillary (if she was watching) to be the ones to say this. The Generals take orders from the above people. So who said to stand down?

One thing for sure, the doctrine of parties (doctrine of common purpose) says it does not matter which of the perpetrators did the actual crime, they are all equally guilty.

So Obama needs to be impeached, and the other ones that were present forced to resign.; 10/26/12, 9:31 PM
Alex said...: garage mahal doesn't watch Fox News. Instead he watch Chris "Tingles" Matthews on PMSNBC.

That makes him intellectually and morally YOUR superior!; 10/26/12, 9:31 PM
Alex said...: Ann said...

Isn't it the case that Obama would have to have had decided that no help would be sent?

Also: Why was Wood told to stand down?

*crickets chirping*; 10/26/12, 9:32 PM
wildswan said...: We did flyovers to prevent a massacre of Benghazi civilians but left our guys to die.
But there's no cover-up. Nothing is being covered-up since the whole point is that over seven hours Obama simply did nothing. Obama, I feel sure, simply went to bed so as to be rested for the fundraiser in Las Vegas. He was present; that's always been enough for his fans; how could he know that this would be different? Don't pick on baby. Panetta, however, betrayed his office since I think he is man enough to know he should have acted.
PS. I hear the plane with the soldier's absentee ballots has crashed. So very strange.; 10/26/12, 9:39 PM
grackle said...: … it wouldn't even take much of a military force to secure the area and get our people out.

A couple of platoons of ordinary, run of the mill Marines would have made short work of the terrorists – who took 7 hours to kill 4 men. Add the enemy coordinates sure to be called in to US air support from the Marines and consulate guys(who were later killed) and it would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.

Instead, I suspect to avoid a potential Mogadishu just before the election, Obama apparently decided that he would let them die and with the media's help cover it up with the bogus 'a mob understandably enraged over a disrespectful video got out of hand' narrative and ride it out until after the election. And so far it is working like a charm. To paraphrase Chris Matthews: Just read the newspapers.

Of course, Romney could force answers, but he may be too cautious to do it.

No. If Romney came out hard on Benghazi the MSM story would become Romney's "politicization of a tragedy." Better not to give the MSM that much breathing room. Let the pressure build up without sideshows.

… the source is Fox news, is that supposed lend it credence?

I watch Fox because they cover stories the rest of the MSM will not cover. Sometimes Fox forces the MSM to cover stories that the MSM would rather not cover. I get a nice feeling of satisfaction when that happens. So I watch the MSM to get the talking points and then watch Fox to find out what the MSM left out.; 10/26/12, 9:41 PM
Shanna said...: For now all I'm hearing are almost hysterical conservatives wishing for an October surprise.

Inga, I know you're a partisan, but if that is truly all you are hearing from this Benghazi mess than you have BLINDERS on.

Stop worrying about politics and start thinking about the fact that these people were in a fight for 7 hours. Do you really think that never made it to the presidents desk? Do you think if he wanted them to have support that they would not have gotten it?

Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. This was a fuckup, all the way around, and four good people are dead.; 10/26/12, 9:52 PM
Kansas City said...: I suppose there is no mystery about why military tropps were not used in the rescue. Panetta provided an on the record explanation, which is not very good, but essentially claims they did not have sufficient information. He takes responsibility. He does not comment on the role of the president. This is not inconsistent with the Petreus statement. It may just be a case of a dumb decision:

FROM YAHOO STORY:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Pentagon reporters that U.S. forces were on a heightened state of alert already because of the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington by al Qaeda.

But he said there simply wasn't enough information to responsibly deploy forces to Libya at the time of the attack.

"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta said.

Lacking that information, Panetta said he, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Carter Ham, head of the U.S. military's Africa Command, felt they couldn't "put forces at risk in that situation."

"This happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening," Panetta said.

In the aftermath of the attack, Panetta reminded reporters that the Pentagon deployed a Marine fleet anti-terrorist security team to Tripoli and had Navy ships off the coast.

"And we were prepared to respond to any contingency. And certainly had forces in place to do that," he said.; 10/26/12, 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Mark, I'm not emotionally invested in a man, unless he's my husband, or lover. Certainly not emotionally invested in a man I dont know, even if he is the President. As for my liberal ideology, yes there is some emotional investment.

So no need to worry about my emotional state should you all be right and me wrong. I want the truth, but I won't buy conspiracies, I would need incontrovertible proof.; 10/26/12, 9:55 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: They were prepared to respond to any contingency.

Except the one that happened.; 10/26/12, 9:56 PM
JAL said...: Over at Insty:

Prof. Stephen Clark writes:

The CIA statement is interesting. Kristol formulates the following question: “So who in the government did tell ‘anybody’ not to help those in need?” Good question, of course. But notice that in the CIA spokesman’s statement no effort was made to deny the Fox reports that CIA personnel had requested aid during the attack. If the Fox reporting was bunk, and some have doubted it, you might expect them to take this opportunity to deny it.

There’s a dog not barking here – and just maybe, a high-level confirmation.

Fire them.; 10/26/12, 9:57 PM
Anonymous said...: grackle: You nailed it.

And, Inga, as Nichevo pointed out, you'd feel a bit differently if your daughter had been there. Since it wasn't, since it was Mr. Woods' boy who died a horrible death, I guess that's different. He was a white guy. He probably didn't vote the same way you do. So - oh well...we can't allow his death, and the death of the others, to put a damper on Obama's reelection chances.; 10/26/12, 9:58 PM
Original Mike said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/26/12, 9:59 PM
Caroline said...: "Maybe there's something here, but it seems like people are too eager to build an "obama is evil" narrative rather than wait for facts to come out."

But the facts won't come out until people ask questions and investigate; and much of the media just couldn't care less. They allow Obama to give misinformation and stonewall with - "I wanna know just as much as you do" nonsense. He already knows what happened! He could tell us tomorrow but he won't. His administration bullshitted us with a phony video story, and our first amendment rights were scapegoated when a man was arrested and put in jail until after the election. None of this concerns you at all?

I watched Geraldo Rivera say that the President shouldn't have to answer these type of politically sensitive questions about Benghazi until after the election! Would a Republican President ever be given that much of a break? The bias is disgusting. (Granted Geraldo Rivera is an idiot, but he mouthed the same talking points that I've seen other Obama supporters use- ie: this can't be a real issue since Romney didn't bring it up at the debate... As if candidate Romney is the arbiter of what the media should investigate. ) Bullshit upon bullshit.; 10/26/12, 9:59 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Inga,
Based on what you know, what does YOUR common sense tell you what happened?

And please don't say that you don't know all the facts - we make judgements all the time without all the facts.; 10/26/12, 10:00 PM
Original Mike said...: "Aren't you a scientist?"

The White House won't answer when Obama knew of the State Dept e-mails. Obama is asked today by a reporter in Denver if the Benghzai team was denied aid, and he won't answer that question.

Scientist? The village idiot sees what's going on here.; 10/26/12, 10:01 PM
William said...: One can say with certainty that security was not properly handled before and during the attack. One can also say with certainty that the explanation for the attack, i.e. the You Tube video, was wrong. One can further say with certainty that Romney has to date received far more criticism in the press for his denunciation of the Cairo apology than Obama has for his inept handling of this whole affair.....This whole affair doesn't make either Obama or the media look very good. It's not the crime, nor even the cover up. It's the cover up of the cover up that drives me crazy.; 10/26/12, 10:01 PM
JAL said...: @ Kansas Coty -- YAHOO has a distinctly lefty slant to its news. Even after whatzisname left in disgrace.; 10/26/12, 10:02 PM