Tag Archives: Panetta

Records chase refresher: where was Obama?

by Bullright

CIC Obama MIA records will provide critical answers

“I just want to know what the answer is.” – Chris Wallace, May 19, 2013

By Douglas J. Hagmann

23 May 2013: Subsequent to a meeting with my primary source inside the intelligence community last week, an individual I refer to as my “intelligence insider,” I wrote a column titled The Benghazi deception. Published on Thursday, May 16, 2013, it concerned Barack Hussein Obama’s location and activities on the night of the Benghazi attack when four Americans were murdered during a preplanned attack against a CIA operations compound. My source was extremely emphatic about this particular issue, stating that the Obama administration will never provide a truthful or detailed answer to this question.
“Why,” I asked, “I mean, what could possibly be so damning about his location and activities during the 18 1/2 hour period in question? He was in the White House, correct?” It was here that there was a long, uncomfortable pause as I waited for my answer.
“The White House is a pretty big place, you know,” stated my source in such a way that made it seem that I thought it to be a small, single family home. “I’m telling you, ‘somebody’ in the press will be asking that question and won’t get an answer,” he stated very emphatically. “Just ask the question,” he said, leaving me to wonder momentarily if I was to ask him. “Write about it, and ask the question. Exactly where was Barack Hussein Obama following his 5:00 meeting in the Oval Office until the next day? Where wasn’t he? It’s almost as if the Wizard of Oz himself waved his magic wand to divert attention away from those lost hours. Nobody is asking the question,” he said to me, almost in a scolding manner.
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/8437#more-8437

‘Obama AWOL when Americans killed’

Congress told White House left terror attack response “up to us”

02/07/2013

In his testimony to Congress …, Panetta said that the operational details of the response, the decisions on what resources were available to help, and other decisions were left “up to us.”

Panetta, answering questions from Congress about the attack on the U.S., said except for a scheduled meeting with the president the day of the attack, Obama failed to communicate in any way with him that day.

Panetta said he simply didn’t hear from anyone at the White House.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/panetta-logistics-prevented-help-for-benghazi-victims/#p8Wool7cH8WDrwP7.99

Where was the C-I-C? Where indeed?

What we do know is Victoria Nuland is on the promotion train to assistant SoS?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/24/obama-promotes-benghazi-talking-points-editor-to-assistant-secretary-of-state/

(then again, maybe he recused himself… never know?)

Con-flicted? (…on steroids)

by Bullright

 


On the previous post, Dave posted a comment that Gen. Dempsey and Panetta were “conflicted” on what to do about the attack in Benghazi. That’s what we hear. Well, could that conflicted mode apply to Obama too? [H/T to Dave for the inspiration]

So I followed that description and the latest reports confirm and echo it. (an article below)

Allow me the liberty to take a stab at defining “conflicted” to Obama.

Let me see: It was September, 11th, during the anniversary Obama was paying his respects to 9/11 attacks and taking another victory lap in his marathon to take credit for killing bin Laden. While on the same day he would hang an ambassador and 3 Americans out to dry in Benghazi, Libya – a country he takes credit for liberating on the campaign trail. Abandoning the same type people who actually got bin Laden.

Now someone may want to disagree with my conclusion, but that takes “conflicted” to a whole new level. If that isn’t an absurd amount of conflicted… I don’t know what is.

*A psychic struggle between opposing or incompatible impulses, desires, or tendencies

 
Pentagon October 25

Glenn Fawcett/Department of Defense

Panetta: Benghazi intelligence too sketchy to send troops

Details released after pressure from Boehner

By Stephen Dinan and Shaun Waterman

The Washington Times

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that the U.S. didn’t send troops to defend the consulate in Benghazi from a terrorist assault last month because the intelligence was too sketchy.

The details emerged as House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, demanded that President Obama explain why his administration failed to heed security warnings ahead of the Sept. 11 attack in, and why it has struggled to explain the matter in the weeks since.

In a letter to Mr. Obama, Mr. Boehner told the president that he must answer questions including why it took the administration two weeks to acknowledge that the assault was a terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic video.

/…

At the Pentagon, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pleaded Thursday for time for reviewers at the Defense and State departments to finish their work. [delay, delay]

“It’s not helpful, in my view, to provide partial answers,” he said.

Mr. Panetta decried “a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking” in the questions his department has faced about why it didn’t send help in the middle of an hours-long assault on the U.S. Consulate.

Mr. Panetta said the military had forces positioned to respond, but the situation was too uncertain to send them in.

“The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” he said. “It was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”

Read more: Panetta: Benghazi intelligence too sketchy to send troops – Washington Times

 

And so it was over before they had an opportunity to know what was going on?

Was Joe making a viusual point?

by Bullright

 


Maybe Biden had a real point, like that Clint Eastwood skit with the “empty chair” for Obama. And what might that be?

Well, he laughed through most of the debate weaving in and out of foreign policy flames. Maybe that is how they’ve come to view their policy of nuttiness too? At least he can have a laugh over it.

I guess that might be apropos considering the chaotic foreign policy. And then Panetta claimed recent attacks in Afghanistan were the Taliban’s “last gasp” When it comes to numbers in the economy at home or Obama’s dismal record – or lack of one – we’ve come to expect spin and distortions. But now they are spinning and lying about foreign policy too, which is supposed to be their forte’.

Obama said the Benghazi terrorist attack was a “bump in the road” (I wonder if it was a speed bump… along the highway on their victory tour?) Then their first response to the attack was blame a video, or the guy who made it, and protests. They continue to deny facts about what happened in Libya.

So in hindsight leave it to Joe to pass it off and laugh about any idea of being accountable for the consequences of their policies. Biden called criticisms a bunch of “stuff”.

He said as they learned more facts about the incident they changed their assessment. But the state department said it was never pushing that video excuse. Well, funny no one could stop Obama from riding the video excuse into the ground. He went to the UN to mention the video seven times. Then they spent 70K dollars on an ad about the video.

Now Carney is making it clear that the issues involving security at embassies are handled at the State Department. Are they getting ready to throw Hillary under the bus? Maybe Biden had a more personal reason for laughing so much.

Say it ain’t so, Joe