Headlines

Stephen Hayes

Mysteries of Benghazi

President Obama says that he gave “three very clear directives.” They were: “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.” To whom was the first of those directives transmitted and when?

A CIA statement claims that no one in the CIA chain of command denied requests for help. A statement from NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor claims no one at the White House denied requests for assistance. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the military did not have “real-time information” to act on. Did military officials not communicate with top State Department officials such as Charlene Lamb, who testified under oath that she and others were following the attack in real time from their post at the State -Department? Was President Obama aware of requests for assistance from the men under attack in Benghazi? Panetta also said: “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.” Does this statement imply that there were requests for help from the field that senior defense officials judged it imprudent to act on? In any case, isn’t going into harm’s way without complete information precisely the job of our most highly trained military personnel? Does the president agree with Panetta? Doesn’t announcing that the U.S. military needs perfect intelligence before engaging an enemy encourage similar attacks in the future?

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/benghazi-and-the-missing-obama-911-timeline/

yep. Where was Obama? What was he doing? What orders did he give, or….not give?

ted c on November 3, 2012 at 10:15 PM

… obama SAYS that he gave “three very clear directives.” They were: “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.” To whom was the first of those directives transmitted and when?

But, of course, WE KNOW that he only gave one directive: “STAND DOWN”.

Pork-Chop on November 3, 2012 at 10:17 PM

The Benghazi debacle is a drama in three parts: the lack of security before the attacks, the flaccid response during the attacks, and the misleading narrative after the attacks.

Exactly!
this debacle does have three parts—before, during and after. Nice work, Stephen.

ted c on November 3, 2012 at 10:19 PM

But of special interest, in getting a handle on the truth, are the timelines for the duration of the attack itself. There are at least two provided by the administration at this stage. One comes from the State Department, outlined in a teleconference background press briefing on Oct. 9. The other was provided this past Thursday by the CIA. They don’t quite match up.

Yes. Ms. Rosett is right. Getting a handle on the timelines are vital to unraveling this goatrope.

ted c on November 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Does the administration maintain that no one at the White House or NSC was aware of these urgent requests?

Lots of questions, no answers. Looks like Obama is going to have to be put under oath.

ted c on November 3, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Who is the source of the youtube video lie?

Where is this political coverup’s “Deepthroat” to let us know?

fogw on November 3, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Plenty remains to be filled in and reconciled between these overlapping timelines. But the glaring omission to date is the timeline back in Washington for the commander-in-chief, the president himself. The critical interval in Benghazi spanned just over 12 hours, from the time the attack began, at 9:40 PM on Sept. 11, until the last contingent of Americans flew out, at 10 AM the next day, Benghazi is in a time zone six hours ahead of Washington. So, in Washington, that critical 12-hour interval ran from 3:40 PM, Sept. 11, until about 4 AM, Sept. 12.

What was Obama doing?? Who did he speak with? What did he see? What advisers did he meet with? What did he sign? What did his military advisors suggest that he do?

ted c on November 3, 2012 at 10:35 PM

How is it that the American public has not poured onto the streets demanding answers?
And we’re is congress? We had a special prosecutor for Scooter Libby and not for this? It is completely maddening that the won will be able to sail trough Election Day without having to explain any of this. I am afraid for our country, how can Someone like Obama be considered a suitable candidate for any office by 50% of the public?

neuquenguy on November 3, 2012 at 10:38 PM

It is very clear to me through the lens of Benghazi and Sandy that in Obama’s world “reality” is whatever he says it is. So if he says it was caused by a video, then at that moment it was caused by the video. If two weeks later, he says it was a terror attack, then it is and always was a terror attack (you are supposed to completely forget anything that he said to the contrary before that). If the timeline he gives now doesn’t coincide with a prior timeline, that is not a problem because no timeline other than the one he is giving at this moment is relevant or even real to him.

This is the embodiment of Orwell’s 1984, and it has been going on since prior to the 2008 election. Back then, things about Obama would just disappear down the memory hole. We got very good at screen caps because when you went to search for facts you had seen even the day before, they would just be… gone.

To Obama the only “reality” is the message of the moment. Remember when he said the problem was they hadn’t given the best “message” to the American people? This is why. To him, reality is whatever he says it is at the moment. You are not to question it beyond that, doing so will get you labeled a bigot, a racist, a birther, etc. You are to ACCEPT the message at the moment or else.

My only hope is that enough people have figure out his message is disconnected from reality, and they vote for reality to be more important than the message. If not, we’re toast.

UnderstandingisPower on November 3, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Who authorized the small force from Tripoli to charter a plane and fly to Benghazi?

d1carter on November 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM

But you see when he talked about “securing the personnel” he was talking about the White House personnel.

He wasn’t concerned about the group in Benghazi. Just the cover-up.

countrybumpkin on November 3, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Fire Panetta!

AshleyTKing on November 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Fire Panetta The Entire Obama Administration!

AshleyTKing on November 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

FIFY

profitsbeard on November 4, 2012 at 1:47 AM

If 0bama is claiming credit for killing UBL, then he should be held equally responsible for Benghazi.

Indeed, fire the whole misadministration. Two more days!

Droopy on November 4, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Letter: Benghazi ‘cover-up’ disgusting

“Every person in this great country should not allow our elected leaders to lead in such a manner, and should do all in their power to remove them from a leadership position.”

Sunday, November 4, 2012

My 70th birthday was last month. I have always been keen on politics, maybe because I shook President Dwight Eisenhower’s hand at a whistle stop train campaign stop long ago. Witnessing what is currently happening from the Oval Office on down makes my blood boil, and I can no longer remain silent.

Nothing in the history of our country is as disgusting as what is occurring right before our eyes. The outright deceit and stonewalling from the White House and agencies involved with the Benghazi terrorist attack and vicious murders of our Libyan ambassador and three other heroes is appalling. It makes Watergate look like innocent kid’s play.

I remember the hundreds of journalists essentially attacking anyone vaguely associated with that affair, trying to crucify Republican President Richard Nixon. Even as a conservative, I agreed the Watergate cover-up was wrong and justice was served. Yet now there is almost no coverage of this, making me feel that the press members are accomplices in the whole cover-up.

No doubt all efforts to get to the truth are postponed until after the election, by nefarious and preconceived plan. The unbelievable notion that the attack was due to a distasteful video, and the repeating of that lie for more than three weeks by President Barack Obama and his cronies, makes me sick. Every person in this great country should not allow our elected leaders to lead in such a manner, and should do all in their power to remove them from a leadership position. This happened to the whole Watergate crew. It is high time to hear the whole truth and respond as patriotic citizens must.

RONALD A. CAPELL

Grifton

ted c on November 4, 2012 at 7:28 AM

Yet in Benghazi-gate as well as Watergate, earlier lies were shed as smoothly as snakeskins. So the C.I.A. knew all along that it was a terrorist attack and not a flash-mob? Okay, then how do you explain the words of the president, his U.N. ambassador and his secretary of state — all endlessly repeated with supporting theatrics? If high officials from the Pentagon, the State Department and the West Wing knew the truth — that this was actually 9/11.2 — then how do you explain either of the administration’s mutually inconsistent cover stories? And why was the U.S. four-star general responsible for North Africa suddenly and mysteriously relieved of command after Benghazi?

Actually, you cannot explain any of these things unless you also account for the hear-see-report-no-evil approach of the media establishment.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cover-up-par-for-the-course-for-team-obama/#ixzz2BFxpkqDn

ted c on November 4, 2012 at 7:31 AM

And there is proof that the administration was watching it all happen in real time. All of this happening just two weeks before a critical election. And how does the Star Press decide to cover it? They don’t! Not a single word! Instead they chose to treat their readers to critical news about “Seasons change, and mental health can too” or how “Marines are preparing for mock zombie apocalypse,”or the hugely critical story on how a “Badger hunt has some in Great Britain gnashing their teeth.”

It is obvious The Star Press along with a great deal of the major news media is desperately trying to cover up the Obama administration’s huge Libya foreign policy debacle in an effort to run out the clock and try to help the president avoid losing this election.

The Benghazi coverup is on par with the Watergate scandal, except that nobody died during Watergate. The truth will eventually come out and just like Watergate, heads will roll. But unfortunately for the country, it may be well after next week’s election.

ted c on November 4, 2012 at 7:35 AM

My mother-in-law, the uberlibtard, is constantly trying to shove “facts” in my face. It was Patreus, it was the area commander. It was Romney for politic games, etc etc blah blah blah.

With Ear Leader, his followers, the media, and the rest of his admin, their motto is simple.

The buck stops……over there.

DStreete on November 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM

The CIA’s new timeline of events in Benghazi is not holding up.

Both American and British sources say multiple roadblocks set up by fighters believed to be with Ansar al-Sharia were in place in Benghazi several hours before the 9:40 p.m. timeline and that communications also alluded to “heavily armed troops showing up with artillery.” Fox News was told by both American and British contacts who were in Benghazi that night that the CIA timeline rolled out this past week is only “loosely based on the truth” and “doesn’t quite add up.”

The safe room to which Ambassador Christopher Stevens retreated during the assault was far from safe.

ted c on November 4, 2012 at 7:38 AM