Posted by: Ann Corcoran | October 18, 2012

With debate answer, Obama dug deeper hole on Benghazi

Update:  Visit Gateway Pundit to see devastating Republican ad showing clearly that the Obama White House blamed the video for two weeks and no mention of planned terror attack, here.   Also, see my follow-up post, here, about another theory of what happened in Benghazi (kidnapping gone wrong).

More questions than answers!

I don’t plan to get into yet another deep discussion of who said what when (just a quick one!).

Did you notice that Obama, in answering the question posed to him by an undecided (?) voter two nights ago, said this (Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo) in ‘more evidence of deception:’

There is another problem with Obama’s response. Recall this part of his answer: “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 — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them”

We know that it took six hours for the compound to be destroyed and Obama knew in real time that it was happening—could we do nothing in six hours?

The WaPo blog post by Rubin goes on to discuss the fact that David Axelrod had refused (bobbed and weaved!) to answer Chris Wallace when Wallace asked on Fox News Sunday if Obama met with his national security team on September 12th before flying off to Las Vegas.

Rubin continues:

So there was no actual meeting of the National Security Council at which everyone could share information and get on the same page? (David Axelrod has refused to say.) It doesn’t sound like it. But you know Obama was busy that day — flying to Las Vegas for a campaign event. So really, why have a meeting? Well, the weeks of confusion and dissembling that followed should answer that.

Moreover, if he actually did instruct his team to heighten protection for the Libya Consulate, why was the consulate left unsecured so that CNN could waltz in to grab Ambassador Chris Stevens’s diary? Did Obama not make himself clear, or were his instructions not followed?

The more we learn the more we see how both dishonest and incompetent has been the handling of this entire incident.

Rubin reports that the Administration was not prepared for anything major to occur on the anniversary of 9/11, which brings me to a question I’ve had from the outset.   Readers, can you help me find the answer?

Why did Stevens have to go to Benghazi and leave the relative security of the embassy in Tripoli on just the day before 9/11?  What was the pressing State Department business that had to be done precisely on that critical and potentially dangerous anniversary? Who sent him to Benghazi?



  1. […] before he knew the fate of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, this theory has some merit.  And, in my previous post I wondered who sent Stevens to Benghazi the day before his death on the anniversary of […]

  2. This story just keeps getting more interesting by the day. Yesterday, 10/18, I heard an interview on the Laura Ingrahamm show. The gentleman that called in (sorry, I was driving and did not get his name) claims to have sources within Hillary Clinton’s legal team. Apparently, Hillary’s legal team are concerned about some issues concerning this whole Benghazi thing.

    According to the interviewee, Hillary received requests for the additional security. Here is the interesting part, she authorized additional security, but someone in the administration either dropped the ball, or over rode her authority, and the additional security never showed up; and we know the rest of story.

    This is, supposedly going to come out during further senate investigations.

    How is it going to look when the Secretary of State gives orders and no one under her charge bothers to follow them? How effectual is she as Secretary?

    If she is ineffective at running the State Dept., could she possibly be effective as Commander-in Chief?

    According to the interviewee, her legal team have some concerns.

    • Maybe its wishful thinking on my part, but the way I see this Benghazi is the end of Hillary’s political career….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: