Let me be clear. The nation’s understanding of Benghazi-gate remains fuzzy at best. We’re still experiencing this administration’s version of Chinese water torture as it slowly drips out information, one contradictory drop at at time. We’re more than six weeks on, and all we have are more questions.
For a president who constantly says, “Let me be clear,” none of this is clear. The Benghazi attack was the result of a video and a protest getting out of hand, then no, it was not. It was a spontaneous attack; no, it was planned. The President kind of, sort of, may have referenced the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” in the 9/12/2011 Rose Garden speech, or he was referencing the attacks 9/11/2001. It’s not clear. To make that even more unclear was Ambassador Rice, just a few days after the President’s Rose Garden speech, saying that it was a spontaneous event in response to the video leading one to believe that the administration didn’t believe the 9/11/12 attacks were an act of terror. Of course this was again redressed when the moderator in the second presidential debate stepped in it and muddied the waters further.
This goes on and on, and on. So, naturally, in response to questions about the changing stories, the administration blamed the intelligence community. Okay, that’s clear. See, we let him be clear, and he was clear.
Then, we learn, “The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans…,” and, “They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
The “they” in “they watched” I presume refers to pretty high up officials, including the president. An embassy is sovereign territory. For a president to not be included in an attack on our sovereign territory would be a dereliction of duty. So if they watched, why the changing stories? If they didn’t know all the details, why not state that instead of coming up with the video-protest-run-amuck canard?
It’s starting to smell, and I’m not the only one who’s caught a whiff. CYA operations are afoot.
From the Examiner, Clinton asked for more security in Benghazi. Obama said no.
From Fox, CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say. From whom? Who has the authority to “deny” CIA operators, the director of the CIA? Well, CIA director David Petraeus via a spokesman said: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.” If it wasn’t the CIA director, who else has that authority?
The President in response to the direct question, from the Daily Caller:
“Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” Clark asked [the President] again, referring to reports that the U.S. military could have intervened before militants killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” Obama repeated. “I guarantee you that everyone in the State Department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened.”
First, notice the dodge to the denied requests question. Secondly, how could that last part be true? How could you have “…everyone in the State Department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe,” and also have four dead Americans, a burning embassy, and a destroyed safe house as a result of an attack that lasted over seven hours with military assets only a few hundred miles away, and all of this watched by high up officials?
Do you believe that guarantee? Let me be clear, I don’t.
P.S.: This just in after I wrote this: Obama Watched Benghazi From Situation Room. This whole things reeks.
