Posted on 10/28/2012 5:21:42 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Who denied the Navy Seals’ pleas for help in Benghazi? Bill Kristol, in a Friday Weekly Standard blogpost entitled “Petraeus Throws Obama under the Bus,” noted that the CIA put out a statement that “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” Bill says that “presumably” this statement could not have been made without the express approval of CIA Director General David Petraeus and that we must conclude that Petraeus decided that he was not going to take the fall on this. It must have been someone higher up who did, Bill says, and concludes that President Obama must have given the order not to help.
I have often been asked why Mitt Romney did not attack the president and the administration on the Libya issue in the Oct. 22 debate. He knew that moderator Bob Schieffer was was likely to bring the subject up, and probably early, as he did. Romney could have easily have memorized a tick-tock of the dates on which the White House was informed that there was a militarized attack on Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues and that there was no spontaneous demonstration protesting that terrible, terrible anti-Muslim video and the dates on which the president, the secretary of state, the president’s press secretary and the oddly-chosen-for-the-Sunday-talk-shows ambassador to the United Nations kept suggesting or stating that the attack resulted from a spontaneous demonstration. Bret Baier of Fox News has been keeping America particularly well informed on this.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Very clever of Mitt to navigate around the Benghazi issue in the last debate.
A little payback, perhaps... and no one deserves it more.
And now the awful truth of Benghazi is coming out, drip by drip, with leaked stories that can't be defended with practiced lies in a staged debate forum.
“Honor, as James Bowman has written and as George Washington and so many Founders believed, is paramount.”
Honor is also guileless, and Petraeus’s statement is anything but. Honor is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, not a carefully crafted CYA for himself and his agency. But even “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate” neither verifies nor denies whether or not the CIA chief or underlings “just followed orders.” The statement’s infuriating in other ways—parsing “not to help those in need,” for instance. Is “not to help” the same as “do nothing,” “stand down,” “wait . . .,” “not our call”? Not to mention “in need.” And of course, the whole statement’s a cop-out. If the order came from Obama, General, call him out and resign instead of tip-toe tightrope-walking.
This is a HUGE article,with a dynamite closing paragraph.I hope more freepers will read it.
Excellent points.
You can’t parse honor and integrity.
Which is what Petreaus is doing here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.