#BENGHAZI: Obama Did Nothing

I recently reported Panetta’s incredible statement that the President was not around during the night of the Benghazi attack. Now, it’s confirmed. The night four Americans were murdered at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, President Obama was not involved. No calls were made by him nor did any instructions come from him as an over 8 hour engagement raged at our consulate. Was he just too busy getting some shut-eye so he could jet off to Vegas the next day?

Utter dereliction of duty:

President Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

“During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama’s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.


“We still don’t know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn’t talking to,” Mr. McCain said.

(Source: Washington Times)

More deck chair shuffling.
So now we are to believe that the Commander-in-Chief was briefed and then just went missing while Americans fought for their lives abroad? Remember, this past Fall this administration made the claim that the President not participating in the ongoing Benghazi investigation. This disinterest and lack of participation easily can be viewed as the first step in protecting the President from future fallout. That begs the question: Is this recent declaration a move to further insulate the President from coming revelations by removing him from the equation completely? It would certainly seem so.   If this was a Republican President who just admitted this, we’d already be gearing up for impeachment.

Gross negligence or willfully dismissing the events – to borrow from Mrs. Clinton, “What difference does it make?” No matter how you try to put this one in context, the President was AWOL from his primary job: defending Americans and their interests.

We are pretty sure at this point that Ambassador Stevens was involved in the running of guns and weapons to Syria; some with the assistance of the Turkey. This scenario is a likely tie in with the White House now standing firm that the President had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 in Benghazi.

More from NiceDeb: Senator Graham: “Benghazi Was About Breakdown of Security, Failure of Leadership, and a Prez Who Was Virtually Disengaged” (Video)

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) held a press conference, today, to make a  statement in response to Obama’s letter acknowledging he did not call anyone in Libya on September 11, 2012 during the 8 hours the U.S. mission was under attack. He didn’t pick up the phone to call any government officials in Libya until Sept. 12, after everyone was dead.

If it were not for the three of us and other colleagues, you would still believe – the American people would still believe that this was a spontaneous event caused by a hateful video, Graham told reporters.  “That’s what was being told by Susan Rice five days after the attack, that’s what was being said by the POTUS for weeks. The reason we know that’s not true, is because we dug, and we pushed, and we prodded. And now we know, that during the entire attack, POTUS never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office into the mix, and there’s no stronger voice in the world than the President of the United States.”

Video via NiceDeb:

“The record needs to be clear”, Graham continued, “this was not about a hateful video, it was about a breakdown of national security, it was about an ambassador who was begging the State Dept. to send reinforcements for months, this was about a deteriorating security situation, this is about a attack you could see coming, this is about a complete failure of leadership Sec of Defense never talked to the Sec of State,  and a President who as far as we know was virtually disengaged.”

He concluded, “America needs to learn what happened, and we need to learn from our mistakes.”

Yes, we do need to know what happened — with the White House confirming this President,in essence, blew off his job, the time to request an independent counsel has come.

Still more from Politico:

President Barack Obama did not speak with Libyan leaders as the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under way last September, the White House acknowleged Thursday in a letter to lawmakers.

White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler said then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did reach out to Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf at Obama’s request on the same day the attack began, but Obama didn’t personally call the Libyan leader until the following night.

“Secretary Clinton called Libyan President Magariaf on behalf of the president on the evening of September 11, 2012 to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya and access to Libyan territory. At that time, President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences  and pledged his government’s full cooperation,” Ruemmler wrote. “The President spoke to President Magariaf on the evening of September 12.”

The big story here is that our President was absent as an act of war was committed but the other big story here is that, according to this letter, Hillary Clinton was the only one on record having communicated with Libyan officials. Now that she’s gone, the narrative is being steered her way. Convenient.

Flashback to Obama on Responsibility:

Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: “When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.” (Source: FOX)

The buck stops here…or in my bed or Vegas. Whatever.

In an interview that aired today, President Obama said that “if we find out that there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job” regarding the attack on the U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, “then they’ll be held responsible.” (Source: ABC)

Well, funny he should say that since HE was the one not doing his job.

Small wonder we have no photos from the situation room that night. According to the White House, he wasn’t even there. This confirmation of his absence makes his junkyard dog act at the press conference where he defended Susan Rice all the more insulting.  The President stood in the room and defended a woman he sent out to lie to the American people, but the lie about the YouTube video wasn’t the only lie. She was out there distracting from the fact he was nowhere to be found during the attack.

Flashback: Obama the next day… (Transcript here.)


…and then he jetted off to Vegas.

More from LL1885 on Benghazi here and here.


UPDATE 2/17/13: Ambassador Chris Stevens didn’t have to die in Benghazi – The real story of what led to his death on 9/11

Chris Matthews On Obama's SOTU: 'There's Nothing Lefty in Here!'
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • EricSteel

    Obama got himself re-elected. So what difference does it make now?


    • herddog505

      Small correction:

      MiniTru got Barry reelected. Part of how they did this was by making damned sure not to ask any embarrassing questions. Another way was to slime anybody who did as (wait for it!) RAAAAACIST for DARING to suggest that Susan Rice was lying through her teeth.

  • 914

    Maybe Mr. Stevens knew too much?

  • LiberalNightmare

    Present … well, uh not actually

  • Wild_Willie

    Don’t worry. During the next press conference the NYT’s will ask Obama if he thought Rubio looked silly reaching for a drink. ww

  • jim_m

    It is not accurate to say that obama did nothing. He simply put his effort where his priorities are: Campaigning and not the safety and security of the American people.

  • 914

    Before we know it the now infamous ‘Drink of Water!’ will be blamed for the economy, Benghazi, Gun runner and the Holocaust.

    • jim_m

      The left would have to start believing in the holocaust in order for them to blame someone for it.

  • Hank_M

    Obama did nothing.

    That really describes his whole career, doesn’t it?
    He campaigns, he lectures, he vacations, and that pretty well sums it up.

    As for Benghazi, if they had been union workers, I’m sure he would have acted.

  • herddog505

    And lefties assured us – CATEGORICALLY, comrades – that OF COURSE Barry was fully engaged. Why, he was right on it! Yessir, totally on top of things. Not his fault at all that – gee whiz – the military can’t handle every little thing that comes up. I mean, it’s not like there was any warning or anything.

    Oh, wait…

    Remember: these are the same lefties who see incompetence if not malice in Bush spending a few minutes to finish reading a story to small children on the morning of 9-11 (wait: are we allowed to talk about that now, or is it still embargoed as politically touchy?).

  • 914

    This warrants a Nakoula pardon. Maybe it can be given at 1:30 am so as not to embarrass anyone.

  • stan25

    Just as Obama was not personally involved in “Operation Fast And Furious” If you believe that I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.

  • Brucehenry

    Seems like only yesterday you high-information geniuses were swearing up and down that Obama and Panetta were watching a live feed and cackling with glee at the deaths of brave Americans. Both stories can’t be true, can they?

    • 914

      Obama was sleeping on the job.

      He SHOULD have been watching and acting accordingly. But I guess the stress of golfing/campaigning day after month was just too much for Mr. AWOL.

    • retired.military

      Well Bruce

      You have to go with the info you have at the time.

      If the Obama administration had simply laid out a timeline the day after this event (one that wasnt so full of holes it looks like swiss cheese) than maybe this issue would have been settled. Instead 6 months later we still dont have a timeline for all the players or know for sure who knew what.

      In short it has been all about spin and nothing else.

      I dont mind giving any Pres the benefit of the doubt on national security issues. But when it is obvious that they are playing 3 card monte (with no truth in site) then the benefit of the doubt goes away.

      • herddog505

        I think that this hits the nail on the head. Barry and his gang have acted guilty from the get-go. They blamed the film, setting up the director as a fall-guy cum sacrificial lamb. They sent Susan Rice out to be their mouthpiece, banking on the idea that, even if anybody asked her embarrassing questions, the race and gender cards would insulate her from criticism or scrutiny. We never knew anything about what the president knew, when he knew it, or what he said and did. Instead, we were fed pap about “thorough investigations” and “determination to find and punish the guilty parties” with hazy stories – fantasties – that Barry was on the case, totally involved, doing his best, but it was simply too late to help Ambassador Stevens and his party.

        It has been a tissue of lies from the beginning, culminating in the Hilldabeast’s brazen, “What difference does it make?”

        But lefties have felt good about it: boy, Hildy really stood up to those nasty ol reichwing rethuglikkkans, huh?

        Four Americans murdered, but they’re happy because one of their shining lights threw a temper tantrum. Nice.

    • herddog505

      We were? My recollection is that we wondered just WHAT he was doing, as concrete word was (shall we say?) hard to come by. Transparency and all of that, you know.

      The “he watched it on TV”, to the extent it was discussed, was a lefty meme: Barry was just all over it (he never sleeps when the good of the country is at stake), but – dang it! – the military just couldn’t get there in time.

      And, of course, there WERE stories that a Predator was circling overhead, and we wondered why it didn’t fire. We’re still wondering, really.

      Transparency: I don’t think that word means what lefties thing it means.

      • Brucehenry

        The “live feed” thingie began with a fat talking head on a late-night FOX show, repeated on Hannity, and then appeared on the Weekly Standard’s blog. You and I discussed it on a thread here, but, to be honest and fair, you didn’t really commit to the idea. It was mostly me bitching about the fat guy on FOX. I made more of in my memory than it was, apparently. Beg pardon.

    • stan25

      He was watching the take down of Osama Bin Laden. That is what the photoshopped photo shows. We all know that a photo always tells the truth. Then he goes out and tells the world that he personally led the take down. Next thing he will be telling the whole world, is that he was the person that fired the fatal shots that kill bin Laden, not the personal of Seal Team 6

    • jim_m

      Gee Bruce, I seem to recall that we were complaining that obama was informed but did nothing and that we were wanting full disclosure of what exactly happened from the most transparent administration in history. It would be awfully nice of you to pony up a link or two to support your BS.

      PS: When exactly, do you think obama will start coming through on the transparency thing? Or are you really so stupid to think that his constant stonewalling is transparency?

    • Evil Otto

      [citation needed]

      • Brucehenry
        • jim_m

          Actually, since your comment was phrased, “You high-information minded geniuses” the only rational understanding of that statement was that you were referring to the people here on the blog.

          Nice try to weasel out though.

          However, Your NY Post link does not talk about a live feed, only about drone surveillance.

          The LA times references one person, of whom I have never heard before or since (a Maryland insurance exec? WTF? Why not ask some asswipe on the street? Or for that matter why not just make shit up? That’s what the left does), who claims, “officials watched a live feed”, not obama.

          The final link is to a blog that claims only that administration officials stood by and watched as our people died, which does not accuse them of actually watching a live feed specifically, and does not mention either obama or Panetta.

          Face it Bruce. Your claim is bullshit and you are caught in your bogus lie. You don’t have one single credible source for your claim. You used to be better than this. Not anymore.

          • Brucehenry

            And I said to Herddog, above, that my memory was faulty in that regard. Then I looked at some of the threads. If I was weaseling out I’d just disappear.

            You know what “as mentioned above” means, right?

            EDIT: As to the links, there are dozens if not hundreds. You’re not claiming that the “watching a live feed and doing nothing” meme wasn’t a thing, are you?


          • jim_m

            I know what “as mentioned above” means. Are you aware that you can configure the display order in several different ways with Disqus? Mine is set to show the newest posts at the top.

            Your claim was specific to obama and panetta as well as to Wizbang. None of your initial citations backed up either claim. That’s all I’m saying. If it were really that big of a deal you could have found an article citing someone other than an unknown insurance salesman from Maryland.

          • Brucehenry

            My larger point, and one that I often find myself making, is the perpetual snit conservatives have been in for the last 5 years when it comes to Obama.

            If Obama doesn’t do enough on Libya, he’s weak and leading from behind. If he does a little more, he’s a power-grabber and all unconstitutional and shit. The whole No-Fly-Zone thing was hilarious in a way, especially when Gingrich and McCain demanded one, then criticized Obama for implementing it.

            You guys are the party who cried wolf. Everything Obama has done has been met with such drama, such over-the-top rhetoric, that when he TRULY fucks up, as he did here, your criticism sounds the same to the public as criticism of, say for example, his claim that he shoots skeet “all the time.”

            THAT’S why you guys can’t get traction when you blast him. You’ve blasted him in apocalyptic terms for everything from healthcare reform to the shape of Michelle’s biceps. If EVERYTHING he does is described as Hitler-like and Machiavellian, the public stops listening. They just figure you’ve got an unreasoning and unreasonable hatred of this particular guy, for some reason.

          • jim_m

            A perpetual snit? Oh the horrors!!!

            Yes, obama leads from behind because he is incompetent and indecisive. He had over 8 months to decide on killing Bin Laden and then when push came to shove he still stalled a full 16 hours before saying yes over the objections of his advisers who preferred to let Bin Laden live. There would be less criticism if the dumbass could make up his mind. If you want another example look at how many months he dawdled over strategy in Afghanistan.

            He’s corrupt. Selective enforcement of he law for his friends and punishment of the rest of us for opposing him (Gibson Guitar). Complicit media ignoring issues that they would have been calling for impeachment with Bush (Gunwalker, drones, Payoffs to donors etc). Complicit media calling an economy with real unemployment in the 12-16% range better than the Bush economy with 5% unemployment. Complicit media saying how great things are when income inequality is growing and poverty is increasing, whereas they were both shrinking under Bush.

            It isn’t that the public stops listening. It is that the public is never told. The MSM simply does not cover anything negative. They withheld stories about unemployment that would have hurt him in the election. His government covered up scandal after scandal until immediately after the election.

            What is sad is little useful idiots like yourself who think hat everything is OK and you will blame the Republican who ends up having to pick up the pieces that the dems leave us, assuming that they even let us have a vote in 2016.

          • Brucehenry

            Four things stand out in your reply. One, the nothingburger Gibson guitar story. Two, the dark hints that the election of 2016 may be cancelled. (Hysterical — and I mean that in both senses of the word) Three, the News That Would Have Happened meme. And four, the “complicit media” thingie.

            Thanks for clearing that up for me, Jim. Not unreasonable or unreasoning at all. Take a breath and look at your reply, and see if you can tell why you lost the last two presidential elections, and why you may just lose the next one.

          • jim_m

            I believe that the GOP will continue to lose elections as long as they are willing to let the media control the terms of the discussion. The media is totally in the tank for the left. It will never give anyone else a fair shake. This country is going to hell and there really isn’t any stopping it.

            And yeah, I think that Gov Perdue’s pleas to suspend elections will get a very favorable reception in 4 years. obama is already saying that the problem is that he is not the emperor. I’ll bet that you will be calling for his acclamation soon.

          • Brucehenry

            I didn’t see the emperor thing. (Your link didn’t work.) Does it bear any similarity to this?

            Perdue’s thing was a brain fart. There were no “pleas” as you well know.

          • jim_m

            Oh yeah, just a brain fart. Other lefties in the media have said that we need to be more like China, or Cuba or that we should just suspend the constitution and make obama dictator so he can “just get things done”.

            That is the sentiment on the left. It is the same sentiment of the left that believes that voting multiple times is not vote fraud. It is the same sentiment on the left that fights against ballot security and fights to enable vote fraud at every turn. You will have your dictatorship. I said 4 years ago that if obama was elected in 2012 that we would likely have him as president in 2020 and I stand by that.

          • Brucehenry

            Shorter jim_m: “Don’t tase me, bro!”

            Is “pleas” not the plural of “plea”? Even if Perdue were serious, where was the second plea to make valid your claim of “pleas”?

    • [citation required]

  • jim_m

    Hey the problem is not that obama is President of the United State. The problem is that he is not the emperor.

    And the left thinks it is silly when we say that he aspires to be President for life. If obama steps down in 4 years I will be pleasantly surprised. If he does not I will be telling you “I told you so” from the gulag.

  • Porkopolis

    Here’s some food for thought. Theory: Obama was disengaged on Benghazi because he wanted to disassociate himself from a policy (shipping weapons to Syria) that he was against all along. Details on this theory can be found here:

    The ‘You Break It, You Own It’ Theory on Benghazi: http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-you-break-it-you-own-it-theory-on.html

  • GarandFan

    Once again, Barry voted PRESENT!

    When the going gets tough, Barry goes and hides.