- Posted February 10, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
The Ghosts of Benghazi
It is 5 months later and we still cannot conclude on several key questions related to Benghazi: 1) Did our Executive Branch respond appropriately before the attack? 2) Did it respond appropriately during the attack? And 3) Did it respond appropriately after the attack?
The man responsible for responding is the Commander-in-Chief….and his responses from the beginning were apparently wrong and may have played a key factor in his response during the attack (or lack thereof).
He needs to answer key questions. Because of this….his grade is an “incomplete” at best….an “F” in all current indications. And that deserves understanding. The families of those killed need understanding and we The People, need to understand the truth. The responsibility for national security is the greatest responsibility that the CIC has…..as Obama has acknowledged. His seemingly apparent attempt to mislead the American People is a matter that Congress should address.
Perhaps the only possibility for truth is for Obama to testify before Congress and the American People on key questions. He should do so in the presence of his key staff and relevant Dept Heads at his testimony and available for questioning. He should be more than willing to clear the matters with full transparency. He knows this.
Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post captured some key elements of the circumstances in her commentary piece on 2/8/13. Please read this yourself before preceding further:
Key questions and comments from her piece include:
“Even today, there are far more questions than answers.”
“Recall …….the operative narrative that the attacks in Benghazi were caused by a spontaneous protest gone awry about an anti-Muhammad video. While there was such a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, nothing of the sort happened in Benghazi. The attacks — two of them six hours apart — were a premeditated assault, now widely referred to as a “terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate,” which may or may not be confirmable.”
“To the point, was the White House’s response deliberately misleading?”
“Well, it all makes quite a bit of difference, though inarguably less now than it might have just weeks before the November election.”
“Most important, obviously, is the possibility that those four American lives might have been saved. More prosaically, it is very possible that President Obama’s reelection might not have been assured had possible incompetence at the highest levels been highlighted sooner rather than . . . now.”
“Americans got a clearer picture of what transpired last Sept. 11 during testimony Thursday by retiring Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta said he personally delivered the news to Obama that the consulate in Benghazi was under attack during a 30-minute briefing that also included Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The president said, “Do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there,” and that was that. He and Panetta didn’t speak again that night — and neither Dempsey nor Panetta spoke to Clinton at all.
Under questioning..... Panetta added that the president didn’t ask about military options or deploying assets. “He just left that up to us,” Panetta said.”
“As chief executive, Obama may have felt he delegated appropriately. Let the military handle it. But he is also the commander in chief. When our ambassador is being attacked, our country is being attacked. Should he have done more?”
“….it is just and necessary to fill in the holes left gaping in Benghazi. Ultimately, the real truth may be, as one current ambassador put it to me, “Bad things happen in bad places.”
Comments welcomed, particularly any that address the specific written words in this report or Ms. Parker’s pience.