Quotes of the day
posted at 9:16 pm on October 27, 2012 by Allahpundit
The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.
“Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo News by email…
“Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No,” [Bill] Kristol wrote. “It would have been a presidential decision.”
“He’s wrong,” said Vietor.
Bill Kristol suggests that it had to be a decision by Obama himself not to help the Americans under siege in Benghazi and that David Petraeus is signaling exactly that with the CIA’s emphatic denial that the decision came from his shop. If that’s true, at what point does Petraeus have to speak out? If the reports are true, I think you can make the case that Petraeus should resign in protest. But that’s based somewhat on speculation about what I think happened. I don’t know for sure. Petraeus does.
“President Obama today said that he gave an order to everyone while the attack was going on to do everything they could to secure the personnel,” [former Reagan assistant secretary of defense Bing] West said. “Now that’s really big because that means that those who were turning down [former Navy SEAL] Ty Woods when he was asking for the help were going against the orders of the president of the United States.”…
“A chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doesn’t take an order from the president when he says ‘do everything’ and not put that in writing and send it out to the chain of command,” West said. “If that actually happened the way President Obama today said it happened, there’s a paper trail and I think people reasonably enough can say, ‘well can we see the order?’ because hundreds of others supposedly saw this order.”
“But if there is no order then people have to ask some very basic questions, ‘what the heck happened?’” he said.
1.) To whom did the president give the first of his “three very clear directives”—that is, “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?”…
7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?…
9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?
10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a C-130 [Spectre gunship] to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?
[A]s of right now, outside of a very few exceptions, the CorruptMedia has coordinated with the White House to create a complete blackout around this story. Not even yesterday’s denial from the CIA that indirectly implicates the White House garnered any media attention.
In the closing days of a reelection campaign the CorruptMedia is desperate to see Obama win, it’s glaringly obvious that nothing this potentially damaging to the president will be allowed to see the light of day — at least not until after November 6.
Had Obama answered Clark’s question yesterday, he would’ve violated this unspoken blackout agreement by making news. This would’ve forced the CorruptMedia to cover a story they’re desperate to pretend doesn’t exist. Obama knows his Media Palace Guards are covering for him, and he knew that wouldn’t have been possible had he done anything that nudged the story.