Skip to comments.Rick Moran: The White House’s Lame Denial of Benghazi Cover-Up
Posted on 10/28/2012 7:16:02 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The CIA is denying. The Pentagon is denying. And now the White House is denying that anyone refused to send help to our embattled CIA and State Department personnel engaged in a seven hour running firefight with more than 150 jihadists.
It just doesnt get any lamer than this:
>>>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.<<<
Why was this so hard for President Obama to say on Friday when asked a direct question about assistance to Americans under fire?
President Barack Obama said repeatedly Friday that his administration would find out what happened and punish those responsible, but he twice ducked questions about whether U.S. officials denied requests for help.
As Bill Kristol points out, Obama doesnt have to find out what happened in the White House he was there and presumably was kept informed.
>>>THE WEEKLY STANDARD understands that it will take some time to gather all the facts about what happened on the ground in Benghazi. But presumably the White House already has all the facts about what happened that afternoon and evening in Washingtonor, at least, in the White House. The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections.
1.) To whom did the president give the first of his three very clear directivesthat is, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?
2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?
3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?
4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?
5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?
6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?
7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?
8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?
9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?
10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a AC-130 or MC-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has asked the White House these questions, and awaits a response.<<<
Those are good questions, but why bother? The narrative is in place. The media is cooperating by mostly squelching the story. The cover-up, as John Hinderaker writes, is continuing:
>>> The administration knew that four Americans had been killed in a successful terrorist attack by an al Qaeda affiliate, but lied about the event for weeks in hopes of minimizing political fallout. Extraordinarily courageous Americans fought a seven-hour gun battle against well-armed and well-organized terrorists who vastly outnumbered them before finally succumbing, during which time the Obama administration did nothing. And when the bodies of the dead Americans were returned to the United States, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton misappropriated the occasion to deliver politically-motivated lies, both to the victims survivors and to the American people. All of that we now know for sure. If, in addition, there is credible evidence that American soldiers, fighting desperately for their lives against our countrys most bitter enemies, called for help but were cynically left to perish in order to protect Barack Obamas petty re-election campaign, Obama will not only lose the election but will be turned out of office in disgust by a clear majority of voters. Reporters and editors know this. It will be interesting to see how they respond during the coming days: will they do their jobs, or will they assist their candidate with his cover-up?<<<
How do we know that the White House is lying about denying requests for military assistance from our beleaguered diplomats? Consider: If a news story is published basically accusing the President of the United States of standing by while Americans were killed, shouldnt the reaction from the White House be a little more indignant? A little more agitated? Perhaps a lot angrier?
All of these denials point to one of two conclusions; either Fox News is making stuff up, or the administration is lying through its teeth. There is no other possible explanation.
And I would note the extraordinary detail in the Fox article, including specific communications between the various locations in Libya and national security people in Washington. If Fox is making stuff up, someone has a pretty vivid imagination.
Hayward wonders if the cover-up will last through the election. He also says this: So how will the media formerly known as mainstream, which have done their best to try to drag Obamas sorry campaign across the finish line, deal with the Benghazi story?
Answer: They will continue to drag the Obama campaign across the finish line just as these Italian Olympic officials dragged their 1908 marathon runner Dorando Pietr across the line to an apparent victory:
Note: Pietr was eventually disqualified.
But have we heard Jarrets denile yet?
Video: Pat Caddell lets loose!
I don't think anyone in the Administration has actually made any statement about "military assistance". Correct me if I'm wrong.
They are very careful to say something like "we never denied 'assistance' ...". That's far different than admitting that they denied "military assistance". Of course Obama did deny military assistance but there are no comments from the Administration that I'm aware of that deny or confirm such action.
And don't forget, "assistance" was sent from Tripoli. But that assistance was "security personnel" and not military. No AC-130's, no Marines, no Special Forces, no F-16s, no F-18s, no missile firing drones. Nothing military was sent to their aid. But the Administration will hang on to that supposed "assistance" as their defense of their actions.
Don't let them get away with it.
Read the Administrations comments carefully. They are the masters of the language since they reinvent it as suits their purpose.
The newest AP mop up and leave wiggle room because this scandal isnt dying story:
The “worm” is turning.
Panettas weaselly clear picture statement gives the impression of a man with a guilty conscience. He is the guy who exercised command authority over all the resources available to attempt a rescue and he is the guy who would have told them to not respond. But the idea that the President of the United States just abruptly left the situation room and did no participate in the decision is ludicrous on its face.
The facts now seem fairly clear. Forces were positioned to effect a rescue of at least some of the men who are now dead. An order was given by the Secretary of Defense to not launch a rescue attempt either by the reaction force staged in Sicily or by an AC-130 gunship orbiting over head. The White House had video feed and audio feed available presenting them with a clear picture of the situation on the ground. And the President of the United States decided four dead Americans was a small price to pay for preserving the political fiction of the Arab Spring."
A General and an Admiral have been relieved of duty bt the Pentagon.
HOW DO THEY EXPLAIN THAT.?
What’s happening there.
I do not trust or believe any of these lying SOB’s/
Because the order to "stand down" was the equivalent of a politically motivated death warrant for our personnel in Benghazi.
Hillary didn’t deny help, CIA didn’t deny help, DoD didn’t deny help and White house didn’t deny help so it seems pretty settled to me. No one is at fault. Now please move on. /s
I’m sorry I shouldn’t be laughing as this isn’t a laughing matter (I kind of feel like Biden here) but that picture made me laugh so hard. And it’s perfect!
A perfect representation of the complicent media!
It’d rather laugh than cry (or scream) at this point. I’m so tired of all the anger I feel for this administration!
So maybe they all just ignored the pleas for help?
The parsing of words that has taken place in this, the "most transparent" administration, is enough to make Bill ("it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is") Clinton blush.
I remember a great Saturday Night Live bit that was done in 1979, in the Carter years, during the Three Mile Island nuclear situation. The sketch had Carter visiting the site and being exposed to nuclear radiation, which turned him into a giant who was about ten stories tall.
A telephone interviewer asked Carter: "Is it true that you are now 100 feet tall?"
"Of course not. That's the most ridiculous thing ever."
"Well then, is it true that you are 99 feet tall?"
of course they did not denied the request...... they needed to approve the request !!!!!!
You can’t deny what you don’t hear.
If the administration did not deny rescue they had to simply turn down the volume on voice transmissions calling for help and a strike.
Sounds like they hear what they want to hear.
There is a problem with the three very clear directives. There are two versions coming directly from the horse’s mouth. The October 16th version: So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesnt happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this and were going to hunt them down, because one of the things that Ive said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.”
On October 27 the President said: Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as Ive said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, were going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesnt happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.
The October 16 version of the first directive was not to send immediate assistance, it was to “beef up security.” By October 27 it was “make sure that we are securing our personnel” which could be interpreted as “send in the Marines.” The second directive on 16 October is “investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us.” This is shortened to, “investigate exactly what happened so that it doesnt happen again,” by October 27. Why was it necessary to say “regardless of where the facts lead us?” Was the President hinting that the investigation might lead to some embarrassment for his administration? The third directives stays essentially the same: “find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.” This suggests that something was done. However, it was not “done.” It was happening as the president delivered his directives. This also raises the question, “When was the President notified?”
All the talk of who denied assistance is irrelevant. The bottom line is that help was not sent. Men requested help and it did not come. They died. The military had the capability to assist and they were not permitted. They had at least one drone on site. This event is surrounded by so much BS that a clear picture will never emerge. The administration attempted to sell the version of film critics running amok. Film critics rarely carry mortars. There are hundreds of people who have valuable information on what really happened. Many of these people are professionals with a sense of honor. They will not be silenced.
10 or 20 seconds of “AC-130 gunship” intervention would have gone a long way to help.
Keep up the denials until AFTER the election is the only hope that Obama has.
There is more than enough evidence of treason charges being drawn for a number of people, IMO,
This whole Benghazi Obama fiasco must have our allies quaking in their boots. Obama always makes his high mighty speeches saying he’s got Israels and our allies backs.But reality sinks in when they see Obama fail to even protect his own American Ambassador from a rag tag Terrorist attack in a rag tag 3rd. world sewer like Libya. Our American diplomats serving over seas are probably not feeling very secure either.
You are so right. But then many of our allies already know this is the nature of the man. Though, I expect they are floored that his betrayal runs this deep.
When Obama called the SEALS they acted with bravery, finished the job and let him boast of the honor.
When the SEALS called Obama he handed them over to die without help then covered up his dishonor like a coward.
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.