Obama has had video of the Benghazi attacks since day 1. He has lied every day for 7 weeks. He classified the tapes so no one can see them. This would be on page 1 of the NY Times every day were Obama a Republican. The GOP is too afraid of being criticized by the media to do what’s necessary to see the tapes.
10/29/12, “McGurn: The Fog of Obama’s Non-War,” “Seven weeks after a U.S. ambassador was murdered and there are still no answers.” WSJ, Bill McGurn
“Mitt Romney had it only half right when he attempted in the second presidential debate to score Barack Obama for his reluctance to concede that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. The real issue is not how long the president took to call the assault on the U.S. consulate an “act of terror”—but that he still has not called it an act of war.
Plainly this is no oversight. On “The Late Show with David Letterman” a week after the attack—late-night television having become our commander in chief’s preferred venue for addressing the great public issues—Mr. Letterman asked President Obama directly whether the Benghazi attack was an act of war, one that meant we were at war. Mr. Obama said “no”—and went on to say that terrorists had attacked not only the Benghazi compound but a “variety of our embassies.”
There was a reason for that addendum, and, as odd as it may seem, a logic. As anyone who has been part of a White House communications team knows, words are chosen (and un-chosen) for a reason. In President Obama’s case, calling a textbook act of war by its rightful name would undermine a foreign policy based on a single idea: He’s the man who gets us out of wars, not into them.
Scour the president’s speeches and you will find that war is either something he has ended (Iraq), is ending responsibly (Afghanistan), or is helping us to “turn the page on.” In like manner, Mr. Obama suggests that war is something from the George W. Bush era, telling crowds that a vote for Mr. Romney means going “back to a foreign policy that takes us into wars with no plan to get out.” As for the president’s surrogates who are now on television trying to answer embarrassing questions about why the help that Americans pleaded for in Benghazi never came, the solitary reference to war has been
- to the “fog of war.”
- the president’s response to Benghazi has been political from the start.
- [Ed. note: No "treasure?" Obama has spent at least $1 billion US taxpayer dollars on his Libya debacle.]
Now those political choices are coming back to bite him. Sooner or later (though perhaps not in time to affect the election), the conflicting stories about Benghazi that we are now hearing from key players will bring down the president’s political narrative.
Start with the Central Intelligence Agency, whose spokesman declared in an Oct. 26 statement that “no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” In Beltwayspeak this means: The buck stopped somewhere between the Pentagon and the White House.
At the Pentagon, meanwhile, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says that because there was not enough real-time information available about the attack, “Gen. [Carter] Ham, and Gen. [Martin] Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” Mr. Panetta’s problem is that a Utah congressman who visited Libya is saying that Gen. Ham told him that forces were in place to move but he never got the order. Adding to the intrigue was the announcement earlier this month that Gen. Ham will be replaced as head of the U.S. Africa Command. On Monday, Gen. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that Gen. Ham’s reassignment from the Africa command was not because of Libya.
As for President Obama, just as he told Russia’s leaders that he would have more “flexibility“ about missile defense after the election, he now tells the American people that he will be freer to speak about Benghazi after Nov. 6, when the results of the investigation are (conveniently) scheduled to be delivered. So long as the only questioners Mr. Obama faced before the election were late-night comics and the incurious national press corps,
- that might have been the end of it.
- find out after the election?“
============================
10/27/12, “What the Obama Administration does not want you to see,” GretaWire, Greta Van Susteren, Fox News
“There were many security cameras at the Benghazi US Consulate. One camera was positioned to (and did) record Ambassador Stevens, on September 11, saying good night at 8:40pm Libya time to a Turkish Diplomat.
The video from this camera – I am told – shows (and proves) there was NO PROTEST outside our Consulate. The Obama Administration had that tape immediately and they knew what it showed and knew it immediately. Anyone who watched the video observed the obvious.
Don’t you think the Obama Administration should release that video so that the American people can see for themselves what REALLY happened and not what the Obama Administration tried to feed them in the weeks after the terrorist attack? They won’t release the tape – in fact, they are hiding the video tape from you by classifying it so that it remains out of our reach.
Frankly, that is the oldest trick in the book – classify it. They don’t want you to see the tape and they don’t want you to know what THEY KNEW RIGHT AWAY.”…
——————————————-
US taxpayers who were forced to pay $1 billion for Libya instead of having the precious tax dollars spent on growing the US economy.
8/23/11, “Libya war costs for U.S.: $896 million so far,” Washington Post, Jason Ukman
——————————————–
NBC’s David Gregory interrupted and said, “We’ll get to that a bit later.“ Of course, he never did.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment