Posted on 02/11/2013 5:28:45 AM PST by Kaslin
There were two extraordinary disclosures in Thursday's testimony of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
One is that there was no communication between them and Barack Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the seven hours of Sept. 11, 2012, when Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were attacked and murdered in Benghazi.
This is a vivid contrast with those photos we've seen of the president and his leading advisers watching the video of the attack on Osama bin Laden.
At a 5 p.m. meeting, when it was first known that Stevens was under attack, Obama did issue Panetta and Dempsey a directive to do whatever they could to protect him. And then left the matter, in Panetta's words, "up to us."
After the meeting, according to White House records, Obama did have a one-hour phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a phone call The Weekly Standard editor William Kristol has called "non-urgent, politically useful."
But he apparently wasn't curious about what was happening in Benghazi. He wasn't too concerned either the next morning, when after the first murder of a U.S. ambassador in 33 years he jetted off on a four-hour ride to a campaign event in Las Vegas. I don't think you have to be a Republican partisan to consider that unseemly.
Obama's odd response to the Benghazi attack and the efforts, surely choreographed by his White House, to attribute it to a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video suggest that his first priority was winning re-election -- and that Benghazi was an irritant that must not be allowed to stand in the way.
The other disclosure in the testimony of Panetta and Dempsey was that they, Secretary Clinton and CIA Director David Petraeus all backed aid to the Syrian rebels and that the president decided against it.
Of course, that was his decision to make under the Constitution. And there are reasonable arguments against involvement. We could end up aiding the wrong rebels. We could get sucked into a quagmire.
We have seen in chaotic Libya and in the fighting in neighboring Mali and the hostage-taking in Algeria negative developments that have flowed from our "leading from behind" support of those seeking to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi.
But there are also arguments for aiding the Syrian rebels if, as Obama stated months ago, you want to see the regime of Bashir Assad ousted from power in a country far more strategically located than Libya. And if you want to reduce the bloodshed going on now for more than a year.
Evidently those arguments weren't persuasive to Obama. On Syria, he chose to lead from very far behind.
"This now looks increasingly like a historic mistake," writes Walter Russell Mead in his invaluable American Interest blog, and not just because it helps the rebels aligned with Islamist terrorist groups.
"Iran seems much less worried about what this administration might do to it," Mead writes. "The mullahs seem to believe that faced with a tough decision, the White House blinked." And, he adds, "both the Israelis and the Sunni Arab states have smelled the same weakness."
The two disclosures last Thursday came at a time when other presidential actions sent a similar message. One was the withdrawal of one of the two aircraft carriers scheduled to patrol the Persian Gulf.
The other was the nomination to be secretary of defense of former Sen. Chuck Hagel, a longtime opponent of not only military action but also economic sanctions against Iran.
The Hagel nomination was baffling. Most incoming secretaries of defense in the last 40 years have had extensive experience in the Pentagon, at the White House or on the congressional armed services committees.
Hagel has none of these. And, as he admitted at the end of a confirmation hearing, when he misstated administration policy, "There are a lot of things I don't know about."
"A decade of war is ending," Barack Obama declared in his second inaugural. His response to Benghazi, his decision on Syria and his nomination of Hagel suggest he thinks he can draw down our forces and avoid military conflict.
But weakness is provocative and retreat invites attack. Threats abound -- Iran, North Korea, China versus Japan. Obama's moves may end up making war more likely, not less.
Hillary’s famous last words:
“What difference does it matter now?” looking frustrated.
The elections over. Dems succeeded. They were not challenged in time to stop that.
What? They can do and say these things in MY name... represent me...cast dishonor on ME? HOW DARE THEY!
I am so sick of being represented by clumsy, irresponsible and reckless clowns like this!
I would like to know if Valerie Jarrett was on hand and if she was giving the orders to Panetta while an ambassador begged for help over a seven hour period.
What exactly is “leading from behind”?
To me it is in effect a MSM euphemism for to reacting after the fact.
“I am so sick of being represented by clumsy, irresponsible and reckless clowns like this!”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Me too! These are the people who were going to overhaul our diplomatic relations with other nations after George Bush’s ineptitude had made the world hate us. Imagine how bad things would be if we had not been rescued by the Democrats.
FULL BLOWN ALERT FOR THE SARCASM IMPAIRED.
Conservatives are childishly permitting themselves to be intimidated and all out ‘handled’ by a party that couldn’t properly vet its own nominee…proceeded to elect this blue-ribbon cipher... THEN appointed a crowd of equally ill-vetted ‘czars’ and world class bounders to their so called ‘administration’!!!
These Conservative leaders, sitting around on their hands while America spirals into abject irrelevance, deserve absolutely EVERYTHING that is happening to them!
Unfortunately, any one of us could do a better job than THESE idiots in our sleep… but WE have to pay the price and bear the weight of every successive blunder and failure with the certain guarantee of more, worse and positively unalterable depredations in the immediate AND long term future!!
I wish that someone with a brain was at the helm. I used to think that Liberals who couldn’t sail the boat would routinely foul the rigging. I have changed my mind.
Liberals foul the rigging whether they are IN or OUT of the WH!!
The expression ‘ship of fools’ comes to mind!
Waiting for a consensus to form, then making decisions based on the consenses aka “leading from behind”.
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.