Voting "Present" again.....

[B-Man]

President Obama's "hands off" policy on Benghazi action shows only too well where we are today. Like most of you, I really have no problem with the President leaving the specific actions up to the experts, but Secretary Panetta's testimony shows more than that, it shows a President with little interest in a Sept. 11th anniverary terrorist attack.

 

Of course, there was a big Las Vegas campaign fundraiser coming up, so..................

 

 

Obama punted to Panetta for U.S. response to Benghazi attack

 

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta on Thursday revealed he personally broke the news to President Obama that the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was under attack last year — but he and the president didn’t speak the rest of the night as the assault on the compound unfolded.

Mr. Panetta said he and Mr. Obama, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, discussed the attack for 15 minutes in the Oval Office the afternoon of Sept. 11, and also covered an anti-American protest that had broken out that day at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

 

Testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Panetta said the president told them to “do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there,” though when it came to specifics the president “left it up to us.

 

http://www.washingto.../#ixzz2KJzJuAJO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Twisted Truth on Obama's Benghazi Response

 

According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, as reported at The Weekly Standard, President Obama was completely aloof from the events in Libya on September 11. He neither asked nor ordered anything. He did not respond to information sent to the White House. He was not involved at all, during the seven-plus-hour attack that resulted in the deaths of four American government employees, including an ambassador.

 

 

A few months back, when, for the sake of argument, we were all giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on being human, albeit wretchedly so, I felt compelled to qualify a critique of the president's conscienceless handling of Benghazi with this:

 

Was the president aware of these events during the first few of those seven long hours? Obviously, he would have been notified of such events immediately, were he available. Equally obviously, the president is always, in theory, available. If he could not be "reached" during those first hours, then the answer to the natural follow-up question -- "Why not?" -- is too twisted to contemplate.

 

 

Under questioning from Senator Kelly Ayotte, Panetta has at last set the record straight. We may all dispense with the niceties and call it as it is: Obama is too twisted to contemplate.

 

Repeatedly, in answer to Ayotte's probing about communications between Panetta and the White House, Panetta explains plainly that, apart from a scheduled meeting in the afternoon of September 11, he had no contact with Obama that day. The president was not involved, and did not wish to be involved, in the communications and decision-making processes of that day. An ongoing terrorist attack on his administration's diplomatic mission in a volatile region on the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001 was not considered worthy of his direct involvement.

 

Ayotte: Did he ever call you that night to say, "How are things going? What's going on?"

Panetta: No, but we were aware that as we were getting information on what was taking place there, particularly when we got information that the ambassador -- his life had been lost, we were aware that that information went to the White House.

Ayotte:

Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?

Panetta: No.

Ayotte: No one else called you to say, "How are things going?"

Panetta: No.

 

 

Through it all, Obama's White House simply did not respond or engage. Given the auspiciousness of the date and the seriousness of the attack, we must now ask, with the utmost gravity, "Why not?"

 

Remember that we are not talking about the president's weak response after the fact; the issue is what he was (or was not) doing in real time, as the event unfolded.

 

An attack was ongoing. Distress calls were coming in. At that point, presumably, neither Obama nor anyone else in the U.S. government could have known for certain that this attack was an isolated case. It might, after all, have been one stage in a possible series of attacks. And while it was ongoing, there was, presumably, no way of knowing how the situation would develop, how large the attack force was, whether the Libyan government was complicit in the assault, or how many Americans might be in jeopardy.

 

http://www.americant...l#ixzz2KK0ubpQg

Edited February 8, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Repeat after me: The majority of Americans do not care.

 

They do not care about Chris Stevens. They do not care about Brian Terry. They do not care about debt and deficit. They care about two things: ensuring they keep getting "free" stuff paid for by other people and following the squirrels. This is what they voted for. This is what they want. This is what they will get.

[B-Man]

Repeat after me: The majority of Americans do not care.

 

They do not care about Chris Stevens. They do not care about Brian Terry.

 

True enough,

 

but they might......................given half a chance.

 

 

The congressional testimony of the Secretary of Defense regarding the terrorist attack and death of a U.S. ambassador,

 

was NOT on the Thursday Evening news for ABC/NBC/CBS..........................not important enough, I guess.

 

.

[Koko78]

Testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Panetta said the president told them to “do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there,” though when it came to specifics the president “left it up to us.

 

I actually don't have a problem with this. Obama isn't really qualified to plan or execute a rescue mission.

 

Of course no one following up is an issue. It's pretty telling that Obama didn't seem to give a crap or have someone from his staff keep informed and involved when one of his own Ambassadors was under attack.

 

However, it strikes me as odd that Panetta didn't say anything about him trying to contact the White House to update them either.

[Nanker]

Repeat after me: The majority of Americans do not care.

 

They do not care about Chris Stevens. They do not care about Brian Terry. They do not care about debt and deficit. They care about two things: ensuring they keep getting "free" stuff paid for by other people and following the squirrels. This is what they voted for. This is what they want. This is what they will get.

 

You know LA, you're exactly right. We haven't cared about Cat Stevens since "Tea and the Tinkerman", and can you honestly tell us how Brian Ferry is relevant anymore since Roxy broke up? [/the fat want-it-all americans]

[....lybob]

True enough,

 

but they might......................given half a chance.

 

 

The congressional testimony of the Secretary of Defense regarding the terrorist attack and death of a U.S. ambassador,

 

was NOT on the Thursday Evening news for ABC/NBC/CBS..........................not important enough, I guess.

 

.

so can you name any of the 53 Americans killed during the Bush presidency in 12 attacks on embassies and consulates, I'm sure you can name all 53 because you are not some uncaring mouth breather like most Americans.

[B-Man]

 

However, it strikes me as odd that Panetta didn't say anything about him trying to contact the White House to update them either.

 

Its very odd that Mr. Panetta did not speak to Secretary Clinton at any point that night also, as he testified.

 

 

 

 

 

The Empty Chair In Practice.

Do you remember when Clint Eastwood did his empty chair bit at the GOP convention? The left berated him as an old senile weirdo.

Then came the Denver Debate and the

New Yorker

Cover, conservatives laughed and liberals panicked.

While some thought it a joke and some thought it a farce the true meaning of the empty chair was never clearer than it was at the Benghazi hearings. . . . The story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.

[3rdnlng]

so can you name any of the 53 Americans killed during the Bush presidency in 12 attacks on embassies and consulates, I'm sure you can name all 53 because you are not some uncaring mouth breather like most Americans.

 

 

Please provide a link.

[B-Man]

so can you name any of the 53 Americans killed during the Bush presidency in 12 attacks on embassies and consulates, I'm sure you can name all 53 because you are not some uncaring mouth breather like most Americans.

 

lol............Thanks for the laugh lybob.

 

That is the weakest distraction attempt that I have read in some time, I can just see you hunched over your keyboard "googling" Bush and embassy deaths.

 

Look ............my post was not about me or you or the "average" American, but a (rather obvious) commentary on the double standard in the media.

 

Your funny attempts to change the subject from this administration's continuing poor leadership skills and the media's defense of the same are appreciated.

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

It's pretty telling that Obama didn't seem to give a crap or have someone from his staff keep informed and involved when one of his own Ambassadors was under attack.

 

No one paying attention to politics is surprised by this. No one. Vegas was calling and nothing was going to stop that trip.

[B-Man]

Here's someone who cares, LABillzFan

 

 

The Commander-in-Chief’s Lack of Concern for His People

By Bing West

February 8, 2013

 

When Osama bin Laden was killed, President Obama and his top officials huddled before a video screen in the White House, releasing a photo depicting how deeply involved the commander-in-chief was.

 

When video from a drone showed terrorists attacking the American legation in Bengahzi, Mr. Obama discussed the matter in the Oval Office with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, for 20 minutes. They then returned to the Pentagon. Mr. Obama never talked to them again, not while Ambassador Stevens was missing, not when his body was brought to a Libyan hospital amidst concern that it was a terrorist trap, and not when a second attack killed two Americans at the CIA annex near the legation. Nor did Secretary of State Clinton ever call Mr. Panetta or General Dempsey.

 

When the senators questioned Mr. Panetta and General Dempsey today, both firmly testified that that was the unfortunate fact. As a Marine, I find that lack of concern — that un-involvement — hard to grasp and impossible to justify. If a PFC is missing in battle, the entire chain of command focuses its attention and resources like a laser upon his recovery. The commanding general doesn’t talk to his aides for 20 minutes and go to bed.

 

Our ambassador holds a rank equivalent to a four-star general. More important, he represents our country. He isn’t a symbol of America; he is America.

 

No wonder the White House has maintained a wall of silence about Benghazi.

 

That lack of concern is depressing and is the major lesson to take away from Benghazi.

 

— Bing West is a former assistant secretary of defense who has written eight books about combat, including co-authoring the book, Into the Fire: a Firsthand Account of the Most Extraordinary Battle of the Afghanistan War.

 

.

[Koko78]

No one paying attention to politics is surprised by this. No one. Vegas was calling and nothing was going to stop that trip.

 

Well, what happens in Vegas...

[IDBillzFan]

Here's someone who cares, LABillzFan

 

People who cared before the election don't count. Nothing changes until the takers are outnumbered. And that isn't happening in our lifetime.

[unbillievable]

This is what the American people want.

...just as long as the welfare checks keep coming.

[keepthefaith]

Panetta, Clinton, Rice and others are simply lying about who knew what and when and who communicated what to who. They're just continuing to play dodgeball because the criticism for not knowing is far less than the criticism for not acting. The Narcissist in chief Obama acted predictably in both the lack of urgency taken at the time and the serial lies on the subject afterward.

 

so can you name any of the 53 Americans killed during the Bush presidency in 12 attacks on embassies and consulates, I'm sure you can name all 53 because you are not some uncaring mouth breather like most Americans.

Great, let's justify bad behavior with previous bad behavior. Let's all agree on something. Bush sucked for the most part as President. Obama sucks exponentially.

Edited February 10, 2013 by keepthefaith

[meazza]

Panetta, Clinton, Rice and others are simply lying about who knew what and when and who communicated what to who. They're just continuing to play dodgeball because the criticism for not knowing is far less than the criticism for not acting. The Narcissist in chief Obama acted predictably in both the lack or urgency taken at the time and with the serial lies on the subject afterward.

 

 

Don't worry. Michael moore will make a documentary on obamas inaction soon enough!!

[3rdnlng]

Panetta, Clinton, Rice and others are simply lying about who knew what and when and who communicated what to who. They're just continuing to play dodgeball because the criticism for not knowing is far less than the criticism for not acting. The Narcissist in chief Obama acted predictably in both the lack of urgency taken at the time and the serial lies on the subject afterward.

 

 

Great, let's justify bad behavior with previous bad behavior. Let's all agree on something. Bush sucked for the most part as President. Obama sucks exponentially.

 

Don't even take lyrbob's premise as fact . He makes things up . Google 53 killed, Bush, consulates and embassies and see what you come up with. lyrbob is a headline reader. I've asked him for a link to his bs, but he's, as usual, been less than forthcoming.

[meazza]

 

 

Don't even take lyrbob's premise as fact . He makes things up . Google 53 killed, Bush, consulates and embassies and see what you come up with. lyrbob is a headline reader. I've asked him for a link to his bs, but he's, as usual, been less than forthcoming.

 

dailykos. Another "alternative media" expert.

[B-Man]

 

Nobody wake Barack

 

by Michael Goodwin

 

The Benghazi terrorist attack was a debacle in three distinct stages. The fatal mistakes occurred in the first two — the failure to provide adequate security before the attack and the failure to provide help once it started. Those mistakes were tragic, but the Obama administration’s explanations are coherent, though hardly defensible.

 

The mystery always has been the third stage — the aftermath, or more accurately, the coverup. Even before the bodies of the four Americans came home, the White House was eager to tell any story except the real one.

 

Aides twisted and turned to create the false narrative that a protest over an anti-Muslim video was spontaneously hijacked by radicals. But two problems quickly emerged: There was no video protest in Benghazi, and the attack, which used heavy weaponry, was well planned.

 

 

So, why did the White House spin the web of deceit? Don’t they know the coverup is worse than the crime?

 

Finally, we have the answer, thanks to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. In his reluctant Senate testimony, he provided the missing piece of the puzzle:

 

The commander in chief was MIA. The coverup was created to protect his absence.

 

According to Panetta, President Obama checked in with his military team early on during the attack, then checked out for the rest of the night. The next day, we already knew, he blamed the video maker and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

 

Meanwhile, half a world away, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been slaughtered by Islamists. Their murders on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 gave the incident extra gravity and led the White House to conceal the facts. An honest chronology would have revealed the president’s shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

 

{snip}

 

You would think a presidential conscience would keep him awake and engaged until he knew what had happened in Benghazi. You would be wrong.

 

Instead, the two officials said they had only one, 30-minute conversation with Obama. It began at around 5 p.m. Washington time, 90 minutes after the first attack started, and they never spoke to him again that night.

 

The president’s only instructions, Panetta said, were, “Do whatever you need to do,” though he left the details “up to us.”

The president never asked what military assets could be used, where they were and when they would get to Benghazi. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton never spoke to them at all, Panetta said.