Nobody wake Barack

NYPost.com ^ | February 10, 2013 | Michael Goodwin

[RoosterRedux]

Finally, we have the answer, thanks to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. In his reluctant Senate testimony, he provided the missing piece of the puzzle: The commander in chief was MIA. The coverup was created to protect his absence.

According to Panetta, President Obama checked in with his military team early on during the attack, then checked out for the rest of the night. The next day, we already knew, he blamed the video maker and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

Meanwhile, half a world away, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been slaughtered by Islamists. Their murders on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 gave the incident extra gravity and led the White House to conceal the facts. An honest chronology would have revealed the president’s shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

Imagine the questions that would have come: What did Obama do through the long, bloody night? Whom did he talk to? When did he learn that Stevens was dead?

There is still much we don’t know, but Panetta, under persistent Senate probing, revealed that Obama simply wasn’t involved. Did he just go to sleep?

That question, like other good ones, was asked by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs, Martin Dempsey, told Graham they didn’t sleep, but said they didn’t know if Obama did.

You would think a presidential conscience would keep him awake and engaged until he knew what had happened in Benghazi. You would be wrong.

[Delta Dawn]

‘the President wants to distance himself from any involvement in Benghazi.’

When Panetta said this I as well had the gut feeling that Hitlery and Obama were both trying to distance themselves from any tangible connection to what happened in Benghazi.

I have no idea why they would want to attempt to distance themselves in this manner.

[Revolting cat!]

Absence? That's the best they can come up with? The 12 minute gap in Nixon's tapes? Something real heavy must be hiding inthere, like an O.J. glove that does fit!

[houeto]

Too many people have a vested interest in the current regime and it’s policies.

Do you consider those with that "vested interest" as some people taking everybody elses money for themselves? And I'm not talking about welfare queens, they have no power to control.

Despite claims to the contrary, the leeches are not our problem IMO. You can't tell me that the Speaker of the House is not able to call a major press conference and tell "The People" what the known facts are. He can, but he won't.

WHY NOT?!?

[houeto]

The CIC was probably hiding in a closet, in a fetal position, sucking his thumb scared $%^t to make a decision.

I'd like to know what you truly think was going on. This is no issue for clowning around with.

[houeto]

These hearings are revealing that neither Obama or Clinton were ‘involved’ during the 7-1/2 hours of the attacks, and neither of them apparently called for any ‘involvement’ by any US military support — some stationed just two hours away.

Tom, we had fighter jets only minutes away and a drone onsite.

[houeto]

The media is derelict.

Even more so is the GOPe.

[houeto]

Maybe we ought to be asking the better question...which side are we on?

Maybe we ought to be asking the better question...which side are we on?

[houeto]

The only way "the other shoe is going to drop" in a way that will force the mainstream media to give this story extensive coverage will be if somebody high up - Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs, somebody the media can't ignore - decides to throw Barack under the bus and tell the American people the real story. Not very likely, however.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives is higher up in the food chain than any you just mentioned. He COULD do it but WON'T!! Kinda funny huh?

[GreenHornet]

The only way "the other shoe is going to drop" in a way that will force the mainstream media to give this story extensive coverage will be if somebody high up - Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs, somebody the media can't ignore - decides to throw Barack under the bus and tell the American people the real story. Not very likely, however.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives is higher up in the food chain than any you just mentioned. He COULD do it but WON'T!! Kinda funny huh?

I understand what you're saying, but even if the speaker (or any other prominent Republican) were to raise this issue, the media would gloss over it and dismiss it as "an attempt by the Republicans to politicize a tragic situation." Someone close to Obama would have to "flip" in order to force the media's hand on this.