Benghazi attack: Obama refused aid

I'm embarrased that the CIA had to step up to shut down all the noise from the Obama haters by exposing their plans, their position (covert) and their actions. So the US must compromise it's security to quiet the irrational in our nation?

By EXPOSING themselves like this,.. the CIA is less effective in it's protection of US interests - The right has made us look stupid and would rather compromise our national security in pursuit of ousting the president than trying to protect our own.

Which reminds me,... Didn't the GOP CUT FUNDING for overseas security of our embassy's??? IF so,... Wouldn't the LACK OF SECURITY be the rights fault in the death of our Ambassador???

The day following the attack, Libyan TV as translated on MemriTV, showed a female newscaster, pointing to Morsi as the mastermind behind the attacks. The evidence came from amateur video taken during the raid where the insurgents were yelling in Arabic obviously, don't shoot we are from Morsi as in sent by Morsi! This was just a few hours after the attack, so why did Obama hit the airwaves and blame some movie that had only received roughly 500 views since July? Libyan Pesident, Libyan TV and Libyan intelligence sources had already reported it was a planned armed raid against the consulate and they were pointing fingers at Morsi in Egypt! As far as the protests in Cairo, that the Admin also used as a backdrop, which was pre-planned via Facebook... interesting when you listen to the translated (sub-titles) of what was being yelled by the crowd... it wasn't about a "video". So I ask, 1) how did the Admin even know about this obscure video, 2) why did they blame it, 3) why did they dismiss all the reports coming in from Libya, 4) why did they keep up the charade for so long? 5) Why are they still denying the facts and attempting to re-write this tragic event? Since Obama mentioned the video, which sky-rocketed in views after his announcement, more people have died and more protests occurred. Not only doesn't he want to admit there is a war-on-terror, he seems willing to fan the flames, give them gasoline and then apologize to THEM!

Obama's negligence and incompetence are directly to blame for this tragedy. It is absolutely disgusting how obama continues to lie about it as well.

Obama is trash, time to take the garbage out on November 6th, the vote for Democrats is November 8th.

bama doesn't give a rats patootie about the libya thing. he just cares that it might hurt the election.

...then prosecute him ASAP.

There is much discussion as to whether or not aid during the attack would have done any good. What bothers me the most is the LACK of security provided to diplomats and American personnel assigned to the volatile region and the actual pulling out of what security there was there just weeks before the incident. Had Ambassador Stevens had the proper security, this might not have happened. The State Department found money to put Volts in European Embassies, including charging stations, so I don't want to hear it was a 'financial' issue. Of course the continued blaming of a video for 2 weeks following does little to give me confidence in the current Administration, especially as it comes out that the President may have actually been in the situation room during the attack! Obama and his surrogates can spin it all they want --- his policies failed these people!

Yes, convicted of Treason !

As the lies are exposed and the excuses pile up, it is reasonable to assume Obama will find someone to throw under the bus -- after the election, of course. No matter who is held accountable, the real decision maker is at least one or two levels higher than the scapegoat.

One way to "cut to the chase" is to vote Obama out of office. That way, no matter who is responsible for the Benghazi incident, they are fired. Elect Romney and they ALL go. That may not be a total solution, but it's a good start. As an added bonus, the investigation of this incident will be unimpeded by desperate politicians trying to save themselves. Does anyone seriously expect the Obama administration to investigate ITSELF?

Fire them all. It's that simple.

(more)

So with all of these denials, how does it make sense that no help showed up?

Your post is full of contradictions. If the quote from Vietor "No one denied any requests for assistance" is true and covers the entire administration, why is Obama STILL ducking the question? http://www.humanevents.com/20...

If Panetta claims that he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground, IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS THAT NOT A DENIAL TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE? WHO TAKES OWNERSHIP OF A DECISION THAT CAN ONLY BE MADE BY THE PRESIDENT?

A decision was made by someone to do nothing. WHERE is the person who says, "It was my call" ? Until such a person materializes and the President explains why he followed that advice, the lies and the coverup will continue.

From the article, which I assume you did not even read,

But Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, in a post published Friday, doubted Panetta's explanation and said the fault must lie with Obama himself. "Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No," Kristol wrote. "It would have been a presidential decision."

"He's wrong," said Vietor.

On Friday, Obama himself forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the attack in Benghazi, which claimed the lives of four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Your assumption is as misguided as your logic.

I did read the article, but all it does is prove my point. Sure, the article says "On Friday, Obama himself forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the attack in Benghazi..." But there is not a direct quote from Obama that supports the claim. Not one. Several quotes from Obama are included, but none of them support the author's assertion.

The accusation is that Obama decided to do nothing and then initiated a coverup. Nothing in the article takes Obama off the hook.

You can't have Panetta rationalizing inaction, combined with denials of CIA and DOD that no request for assistance was denied. Those two stories cannot be combined because they are CONTRADICTORY!

Since we already know that military assistance was requested 3 times and denied, the only person who has not checked in with their response to the "Did you refuse to authorize military support?" question is Obama himself. I can only laugh at your attempt to produce an article that uses a baseless assertion to try and defuse the situation instead of a direct quote from Obama.

Based on the known facts, there is a 100% probability that someone is lying. The President needs to explain the strategic decisions made that day, and the story must not conflict with what is already known. That explanation is several weeks overdue.

The president is not going to share confidential briefings with you or anyone else. Get over it.

That's a load of crap. This administration has leaked more intelligence than someone shot in the head. But only when it furthers Ol'Bowdown's agenda. Or aids our enemies.

You want facts? Fact is Powers had a target painted. That doesn't occur until there is an air asset above your head communicating with you. He had to be talking to either the Predator controllers, the Spooky crew or an FA-18 aviator. Whichever it was, and for whatever reason they were ordered not to engage the target, and by whom, Powers was left twisting in the wind to die. Once he put the light on the target his posit was exposed - the laser designator requires a clear LOS - if you can see them, they can see you.

Another fact - there are far too many of us out here that know the drill to allow Ohblowme to get away with lieing his way out of this. Whether he gets re-elected or not, this is going to take the slimy, red diaper bastard down.

Well Said !

LOL - what a maroon!

I have no problem at all with Obama's lack of an explanation. It's not like I am running for re-election and one of my decisions worked out badly, leading to a botched coverup.

As each day goes by, Obama's non-answers lead people to believe that the truth is worse than the latest available information. Otherwise, Obama would address the issue, taking ownership of the decision to leave the entire matter to the Libyans.

New Zealand ?????????? - WTF ?
What do they pay you to promote this crap ?

The bottom line is , With four Americans dead from a terrorist attack and our Embassy turned to ruins ,You would think the POTUS would show more concern and put off one day to find all the facts before running off to a campaign event to sling out more one liners and lies of his opponent. Would it have been any different if it was on America`s soil ? Probably not

Actually, the consulate is considered US sovereign territory. But more to your point, the next attack will probably be closer to home. Certainly, Obama's non-response will make Al Qaeda even bolder next time.

People are quick to forget that Al Qaeda attacked US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania before the famous 9/11 attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Clinton's response to the embassy bombings was ineffective, so the terrorists decided they could afford to be even bolder next time. And sure enough, they were.

Some future President will have to deal with another 9/11-style attack, probably on the US mainland, because Obama refused to lift a finger [literally] to respond to the attack in Benghazi.

Exactly what they`re thinking , These infidels aint gonna do nothing

What would you have had him do? Bomb an allied nation? Oh, that has worked so well for folk in the past!

Hadn't we been doing that in Libya all summer?

Yes We Have ! ( only This Time it would have been to protect Americans On American Soil )..................... we can't have THAT can we ?

Yes, exactly that. Send in the F-16s out of Italy, and use laser-guided bombs to hit the targets that the seals were illuminating. Send in the AC-130s with night vision and clear the area of attackers.

A consulate is US sovereign territory, therefore defending that territory is totally acceptable under international law. BTW, Pakistan is an ally as well and Obama had no problem sending in all sorts of military assets to kill UBL, right?

If a military op went badly, I can understand the inherent risk of such things. But leaving people to die without even a whimper of response is totally unacceptable.

If our alliance with Libya was worth anything, why did the Libyans let the attack proceed for SEVEN HOURS? I suspect that the State dept. got some kind of reassurance from the Libyans that they would handle the situation. But in the heat of battle, muslims were not willing to kill other muslims to save Americans.

That is, of course, why Libyans died trying to protect the Ambassador.

There would be fewer US/Libyan losses and more enemy casualties if an airstrike took out the Al Qaeda machine gun and mortar positions. It was as simple as dropping laser-guided bombs and letting them track to the targets that were ALREADY ILLUMINATED FOR EXACTLY THAT PURPOSE.

I think the entire problem consists of Obama trusting Libyan assurances that they would handle the situation. As the battle developed, the Libyans were overwhelmed, undercommitted, or just flat-out lying (take your pick). If the Libyans requested an airstrike, I'm sure Obama would responded. When he withheld military support from the Americans who asked for it, Obama bet the ranch on the Libyans winning the battle.

A consulate is sovereign US territory, which makes the President responsible for defense. Outsourcing that mission to the Libyans makes sense -- but only if they are successful. Obama had a military option available and failed to use it. Worse, he resorted to a cover story (the YouTube video fairy tale) instead of explaining the decision process. Funny how he had no problem explaining the details of the UBL mission in Pakistan.

LOL

:-))

ROFLMAO@THAT1

:-))