What was Obama doing when Benghazi was burning?

The most transparent administration in history has been less than forthcoming about President Obama’s activities before, during, and immediately after the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

You remember Benghazi, right? That was where the US ambassador to Libya, an aide, and two brave former Navy SEALs were murdered because, as the administration insisted for weeks on end, of a movie trailer about Mohammed.

FoxNews had a report last week about Benghazi. It’s been picked up by the broadcast networks and the New York Times who are insisting the President come clean about what happened. Sorry about that, we don’t know what came over us.

Here’s the report.

Panetta knew within minutes of the Pentagon finding out about the attack that it was a terrorist attack. Panetta told the President shortly after he found out. Those events happened shortly after the attack started and while it was still going on.

Breitbart has put together a timeline of the days just prior to the Benghazi attack through the following day.

14-0119 - Breitbart Timeline Benghazi

For the five consecutive days prior to and including the day of the attack the President, following his typical schedule, does not attend the daily intelligence briefing. He stops for a “moment of silence” at the White House on the morning of the attack.

That moment of silence is then followed by hours of silence and deadly inaction throughout the attack.

The President was informed of the attack by Panetta, according to Panetta. Panetta then stood by while Susan Rice peddled the lie that a YouTube video was responsible for the “demonstration” that got out of control. Hillary Clinton told the families of the fallen that they would “get” the maker of the video. President Obama went to the United Nations and – what else – apologized to the world for being President of a country where someone would make a vile video like the one that caused the demonstration in Benghazi.

We hope there is a special place in Hell for all of these fools, but especially for Panetta.

In case there was ever any doubt about the President’s priorities September 11th and 12th should put those to rest. An American outpost was attacked by terrorists known to be affiliated with alQaeda, an American ambassador war murdered along with three other Americans, and the President went to a fund raiser in Las Vegas. He was certainly involved in the decision to lie about the nature of the attack because of the ongoing Presidential campaign and his continual assurances that alQaeda was dead (and Detroit was alive).

President Obama orchestrated lies by every member of his administration and the campaign team with respect to the nature of the Benghazi attack.

There are calls for a joint House/Senate investigation into Benghazi. While we congratulate Rep. Darrell Issa for his continued digging, we’re pretty sure this will go nowhere. The administration will stonewall any investigation and the press will still be busy digging into Chris Christie and “Bridgegate” three years from now.

Someplace the families of the lost will one day find out what really happened. Unfortunately it won’t be here and now or even soon.

Enhanced by Zemanta

CurmudgeonCheckOut

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 20, 2014.
Filed under Benghazi.
Tagged with: .
Michael Becker is a long time activist and a businessman. He's been involved in the pro-life movement since 1976 and has been counseling addicts and ministering to prison inmates since 1980. Becker is a Curmudgeon. He has decades of experience as an operations executive in turnaround situations and in mortgage banking. He blogs regularly at The Right Curmudgeon, The Minority Report, Wizbang, Unified Patriots and Joe for America. He lives in Phoenix and is almost always armed.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Walter_Cronanty

    I heard a rumor that Obama is about to name an special investigator to look into this event, just as he named Barbara Bosserman, a donor to Obama campaigns and the Democratic National Committee, to investigate the IRS scandal. The investigator is rumored to be Bill Clinton. His only comment on the rumor was: “I feel the pain of the victims’ families just as Hillary does…hey, who’s that babe in the blue dress?”

  • 914

    Barry was sleeping at 3 AM , Hillary was selecting a muslom video.

    Dereliction of duty. Removal is way overdue.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    To save LawrenceWestlake the “effort”:
    This blog post is stupid…blah, blah, blah…sun rises in east…blah, blah, blah…bloggers are stupid…blah, blah, blah…horrible demographics…blah, blah, blah…commenters here are stupid…blah, blah, blah…elections have consequences…blah, blah blah.

    • jim_m

      Close, but you actually put in more content that he usually does.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        We seem to draw a disproportionate share of intellectually challenged masochists as commenters here…

  • Lawrence Westlake

    You can make a real case that this is the worst scandal not only in presidential history but in the entirety of U.S. political history. Nobody even at Tammany Hall covered up fatal derelictions of duty. Even Sandy Berger’s (unreported) political crime of the century pales in comparison to this fiasco. Of course Benghazi also makes Watergate look like a coffee klatch or a tea party at Aunt Bernice’s. It augurs quite ill for the future, too. With a media so partisan it would make Prava blush and a public so dumbed down that Hamilton is rolling over in his grave it’s difficult to conclude anything other than that we’re circling the drain.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    By the way – excellent post.

  • GarandFan

    King Barack has his priorities. At the top of the list is King Barack.

    • westcoastwiser

      Oh, you mean the sissified Obama?

  • chuckkoala

    Hangin’ w/ R. Love Givin’ n gettin’…

  • fustian24

    Personally, I suspect one of two things:
    1. He refused to make a decision. Since he was the only person that could allow US troops to cross international borders without local permission, this is probably the origin of the “stand down” orders. It wasn’t that anybody was given a specific order to stand down. It was that nobody ever got permission.
    2. Something nefarious was happening at Benghazi and Obama hoped everyone in the compound would all be killed in the attack so nothing would come to light.

    To me the most surprising thing in all this is that the administration has managed to completely hide all of the people there that survived the attack. We don’t know their names, we don’t know where they are, and we have no idea what their stories are.

    How do you do that in this day and age? I find this absolutely frightening. It tells us the magnitude of what the government can get a way with. Between this, the weaponization of the IRS and NSA and the actual murder of innocents in the gun running scandal, I’m not seeing much accountability.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      But I’m quite sure the next Republican President will have every action under a microscope, and a media simply itching to start screaming at every perceived slight and wrong.

      • fustian24

        Yeah.

        On the one side they allow and encourage total corruption. On the other they find it when it isn’t even there and they tear down good people.

        The mainstream press cannot die soon enough for me.

        “Our press” is not on our side.

      • westcoastwiser

        And toss Hagel and Dempsey into the Potomac and see if they can swim to Europe…

    • westcoastwiser

      Back in 2003, Marines from Spain entered Liberia when the US Embassy was under siege and Charles Taylor was slaughtering natives. No special permission was sought. To enter the Embassy, they put down in Sierra Leone and helicoptered into the Embassy property which is on the coast.

      • fustian24

        I read about this rule of engagement somewhere. Not sure if it’s true, or whether it’s recent only, or whether it’s nonsense.

        I’d be interested if anybody knows. A brief internet search suggests that our rules of engagement are classified.

        This is from wikileaks:

        In a section on crossing international borders, the document said the permission of the American defense secretary was required before American forces could cross into or fly over Iranian or Syrian territory. Such actions, the document suggested, would probably also require the approval of President Bush.

        • westcoastwiser

          The rules of engagement are harsh and unrealistic. In the combat areas the terrorists can drop their weapons and walk away – no firing; when doing searches and they chase a terrorist into a house they can no longer attack the building; until recently they could have a helo blow it up, but Karzai complained that they could injure innocents. Today, the villagers are anxious to get rid of the terrorists and really try to help. Karzai is so corrupt! Then, in the 2005 – 2008 time in Iraq, they also had some bizarre ROEs. The don’t dos were/are so restrictive. Best I can do as my son is an active combat Marine who has put his boots on the ground in 36 countries and served 3 years as a DI.