How Do We Make Sense of Obama’s, Clinton’s and Panetta’s Actions during the Benghazi Attack?

The following summation was taken from the last page of an article in the PJ Tattler by Bryan Preston, on May 7, 2013.

The full article is about his theory regarding Obama’s, Panetta’s, and Clinton’s actions (and perhaps those of David Axelrod) the night of the attack on Benghazi:

Barack Obama comes to the job of the presidency with no command experience at all. His career included years as an adjunct professor and a community organizer before becoming the senator best known for voting “present” in Illinois. He was never a leader when he was in the U.S. Senate. His experience is chiefly as an agitator against command, not in exercising command itself. The largest effort he had ever run had been his own campaign for president, and it’s debatable how much of that he ran and how much was run for him by his lieutenant, David Axelrod.

Just weeks before the election, the Benghazi attack threatened to undo Obama’s carefully crafted al Qaeda campaign narrative. That night, during the attack, President Barack Obama had no idea what to do. He is not a born or trained commander. With lives and American prestige in his hands, he flinched. He stayed true to his character and voted “present.”

Two debacles of the past were probably foremost in his mind and in the mind of David Axelrod, who was probably involved in decision-making during the attack: Desert One and Mogadishu. Desert One was a U.S. rescue attempt in Iran in 1980 that ended in humiliating failure, and contributed to the building narrative that President Jimmy Carter was not up to the job of the presidency. Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993 handed the U.S. military and President Bill Clinton a humiliating public-relations defeat in what turned out to be an early battle against al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden later turned Mogadishu into a rallying point, using it to cast America as a “paper tiger” that would run from a real fight. Both Desert One and Mogadishu happened under Democratic presidents, both began as military rescues, and both were failures. Desert One helped cost President Carter his job. Benghazi threatened to cost Barack Obama his.

The night of the Benghazi attack, Obama had command authority and responsibility in his hands, and he froze. His inexperience in command — he never served in the military, and none of his close cabinet members ever served in the military — and his eye on the election owned his mind. He ordered the stand-down (an order which must ultimately have come from him as the commander-in-chief) to preserve his political narrative as best he could by avoiding any possibility of suffering both an undeniable terrorist attack and a Mogadishu catastrophe on his watch. He chose to let four Americans die rather than risk sending in any rescue attempt, because the potential political optics were so dire. He chose to blame a movie for the same reason his Defense Department has chosen to call the Ft. Hood massacre “workplace violence” rather than a terrorist attack, which it was. Acknowledging the truth could destroy his precious narrative and cost him the election.

In this theory, then, Panetta, Obama and Clinton actually were communicating during the attack. Axelrod was also involved, which itself should be a scandal as he is not in the national security loop. He is a political adviser. But because of Obama’s actions during the battle and Clinton’s refusals to improve security before, they have chosen to lie to preserve their own respective political positions. Panetta, ever the party man, has played along to defend the Democratic Party from any consequences if Axelrod’s role is exposed. If they acknowledge that they were communicating during the attack, they acknowledge that Obama was in command and that he ultimately failed and left four Americans to die. Or, they acknowledge that he misread the attack so badly that he never bothered to authorize a rescue until it was too late, then ordered a stand-down to avoid a Mogadishu situation. They are covering up their collective failure to secure the U.S. mission before the attack, they are covering up Obama’s failure to send forces to the rescue that night, and they used the movie to prop up Obama’s crumbling al Qaeda narrative long enough to get past the election, which after all was only a few weeks away. In at least the latter, they succeeded.

This theory doesn’t account for everything, nor does it attempt to. It doesn’t account for why Stevens was in Benghazi that night, for instance, and it doesn’t account for why Clinton’s State Department left the mission so exposed. It doesn’t account for what the U.S. mission in Benghazi was doing, or whether it was involved in any way in the war in Syria. But it does try to account for Obama’s and Panetta’s and Clinton’s actions that night, which on their face make no sense.

The article is about what the three individuals most intimately involved in the Benghazi event did or didn’t do and Preston’s theory about their motives. It’s my favorite of the theories (so far) to explain who likely did what and why. It is supposition to be sure, but I find it to be entirely believable and based on known facts.

Whether you believe the reason for the attack to be related to gun-running (missile-running) or a botched kidnapping scheme, Preston’s theories hold up.

This is the most egregious example of political ass-covering that I’ve ever seen. I was an aware adult during Nixon’s Watergate cover-up and it was dumb and stupid – and he paid the price for it. At least he had the guts to resign before impeachment proceedings began. And I remember Bill Clinton’s White House antics, Monica’s cigar “smoking,” and the bimbo eruptions, wag the dog, etc. and even though he wasn’t forced out of office, at least he was impeached.

But, nothing comes close to this snafu – a classic example of FUBAR (if you don’t know that acronym, Google it). Four men died, including our Ambassador, and United States prestige got a black eye from a group of rag-heads – and apparently, those consequences were viewed as acceptable by this administration as the price he was willing to pay for his reelection. I wonder what the over/under would have been on the number of other lives he would have been willing to sacrifice to win reelection?

How REPUGNANT is that?

What were the president, secretary of state, and secretary of defense doing while our citizens were being murdered?

Apparently, they were busily trying to concoct some narrative that would absolve them of any responsibility. Insulate them politically, as it were.

It wasn’t their fault that security was sub-par, it wasn’t their fault that no help was sent, it wasn’t their fault that someone told the Special Forces team to stand down, it wasn’t their fault that a pack of lies was fed to the American people. And even as evidence mounts to the contrary, they refuse to admit ANY wrongdoing – it wasn’t their fault – and besides, as Hillary said, what difference did any of that make?

Where were they as the events were happening? We know that they were aware of what was transpiring. They were getting a narration from people who were there as well as seeing drone images – they knew what was going on.

Where was the president? In his jammies, sleeping soundly, visions of reelection prancing about in his head? Of course, he was resting before his arduous and demanding campaign trip to Las Vegas the next day.

As bad as his other screw-ups have been (like ObamaCare & Fast and Furious), this is the worst – this time he’s gone too far.

I’m not a very religious man, but I do hope that they all burn in hell for what they’ve done – but that’s not enough – I want to see justice NOW, in this life. I want to see Hillary so badly tarnished that she can’t win a city council election and I want Obama IMPEACHED.

I will pray to God that he won’t serve out his time and that he will leave office in disgrace; chains and an orange jumpsuit would top that image off nicely.

 

About garnet92

Retired business owner, car nut, gun nut, veteran and granddad, I live in a suburb of Dallas
This entry was posted in Political and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to How Do We Make Sense of Obama’s, Clinton’s and Panetta’s Actions during the Benghazi Attack?

  1. BrianR says:

    Yep, interesting stuff. I came at this from a bit of a different angle at my own place with my latest essay a couple of days ago, but essentially agree with the premises of the analysis.

    The thing that makes all this particularly troublesome for Obozo right now is that it’s a confluence of events coming together at the same time that he’s managed to alienate his cheerleaders in the MSM by illegally seizing a bunch of AP phone records during his second term. That’s a pretty big tactical, if not strategic, blunder. The press can now feel unfettered in criticizing him as they won’t in any way be jeopardizing any electoral possibilities for him, while at the same time reinforcing their claim to journalistic “objectivity” and “integrity”, at least in their own minds. That could prove dangerous to the ObaMessiah.

    And in many ways the press can be like a pack of hyenas: they smell blood, and gang up and encircle their victim and hound him to death. Look at Carter. It’s particularly bad when the TV comedians are ridiculing you, which is also happening now. Even Jon Stewart.

    We’ll see. Interesting stuff.

    • garnet92 says:

      I’ve just returned from your place after leaving a pile of steaming stuff for you to clean up! I do agree that SODDI is one of Omammy’s SOP directives, but there is another that he and Holder are fond of, IDK (I didn’t know). Isn’t it amazing how two of the “smartest” guys in the country don’t seem to know anything when a problem comes up – it’s either IDK or SODDI – nothing bad is ever his (their) responsibility – what a wonderful world they live in, they never do anything wrong [extreme sarcasm]. Only this time, he/they screwed up and while the sharks haven’t started swarming yet, there is blood in the water. I wish I could find a way to chum the waters around the president, I’d love to watch his reaction when he realizes that his bedfellows have become the enemy. He might as well resign without the press to wipe his ass when he drops another bomb on us.

      • BrianR says:

        Yup. SODDI and IDK are really two elements of the same “defense”. “I don’t know” how it happened, but it wasn’t me, so Some Other Dude Did It.

        See how it works?

        LOL

  2. Gar Swaffar says:

    Make sense of it? Logic and reason indicate PinochiObama would run out of office, impeached and then separately placed on trial as a traitor to the nation. However, Logic and reason will simply not be tolerated.

    • garnet92 says:

      Thanks for visiting, Gar. Isn’t it a shame that logic and reason have been declared
      “verboten” by this president? If the media weren’t covering up for his screwups, impeachment would be a real possibility – of course, we need to retake the Senate first.

  3. Grey Neely says:

    Garnet, I don’t see this going anywhere. The only way that something might occur is if all 3 scandals (Bengazigate, IRSgate, and APgate) are still in the public’s mind in October of 2014. For anything to have a chance of changing the political scene in DC, the mid-term elections that November will require the US House to remain in the GOP’s hands with even more “TEA Party” types elected. Control of the US Senate would also HAVE to go to the GOP. If the Democrats lose control of the US Senate (and the US House remains in the GOP’s hands) then and only then would an empeachment be worth going after. Obama will not resign, no matter how bad the scandals get. Even his “handlers” realize that if he resigns the damage to the Democrat Party will be immense. And regardless of APgate, the Main Stream Media is still in the back pocket of the Liberals. If the scandals get too bad, the Democrats and the Main Stream Media will “circle” the wagons and throw a few low level personnel under the bus.

    At this point in time, I am putting more faith in the various Conservative governors who are setting up state militias that the feds cannot control, unlike the national guard. Obama has even threatened these governors about these perfectly legal para-military groups. I believe that the reason the US military is being down-sized, homosexualized, under-paid, and having extreme pressure placed on Christian elements within the military is strictly for the purpose of changing the US military so that it will follow orders from the federal government and not obey the US Constitution.

    So where does that leave us? Any chance of change in DC MUST come from the states. The 2012 election proved that the Liberals have so corrupted the “election machinery” that it is entirely possible that an honest election is no longer possible in certain key states and areas. Unless something is done about this election corruption, then even the states can no longer affect a change. And with the Democrats in charge in the run-up to the 2014 elections, I do not see any meaningful change occurring.

    If all of this is starting to sound like the run-up to 1775 and 1861 to you, then you are like me.

    • garnet92 says:

      Thanks for stopping by, Gray. While I can’t disagree, I am holding out hope that we will have more whistle-blowers come forward and will help to keep this issue alive, rather than let it die. You’re right, for anything substantitive to happen, we need to capture the Senate and hopefully increase our hold on the House. These problems (or others like them) need to be front and center leading up to the 2014 mid-terms to show voters how disasterous this president and complicit Senate have been for the country. And I don’t see any real turning of the media although they (as a group) are asking more questions today than ever before during his reign. In short, I am hopeful, but not confident that Obama can be wounded and (at least) will leave office with some disgrace sticking to him and not as the Creator of all that is Good and Holy, as he planned.

  4. Buck says:

    A couple of things come to mind. Both dispel the lies that Obama and Hillary are two of the smartest folks in the world.
    1. When it came time for action, Obama froze. And 4 Americans died. Now he is trying to shift the blame.
    2. Remember back in ’08 primaries wasn’t it Hillary that asked you who you wanted to answer that 2 a.m. phone call? And when it came time to answer that phone call she was absent. A true leader would’ve seen the failings of Obama and done what was necessary to save her troops, career be damned.
    Didn’t happen

    • garnet92 says:

      Thanks for stopping by Buck. Yep, that’s part of the demon-crats bag of tricks – to annoint their standard-bearers as the “smartest” candidates and at the same time, demean their opponents as “dumb,” as in G. Bush. I expect that Hillary probably does have an above average IQ, but fails miserably as anything but a tyrant. Barry, on the other hand, is not half as smart as he thinks he is – other than speaking from a teleprompter, he has shown no measurable skills, not even bowling, basketball, or golf. He can “hang with the celebs” and he can accept adoration, but he has no management or leadership skills. He can’t really cope with adversity and he was just plain scared that doing anything to help our citizens in Benghazi could result in another Mogadishu shortly before the November elections and he decided to let four Americans die rather than take a chance that it would result in him losing the election. Given a choice, I’d rather have Larry the Cable Guy as my president rather than B. Hussein Obama.

  5. pepperhawk says:

    Great article and critique, Garnet. All of it makes perfect sense. One thing that bothers me however is how few people paid attention from the very beginning. I never ever believed a little known anti Muslim video kicked of either the riots in Egypt or what was a definite AQ attack on Benghazi. A lot of us knew from the get go this was a big LIE from the King’s administration. So what the hell do other people in this country know? Nothing.

    During the Egypt riots they were not demonstrating over a damn video, but over Obama himself because I saw with my own eyes, written on walls across Cairo, “OBAMA, WE ARE ALL OSAMA”.
    They were telling the jerk King that they were still alive and not kicked back on their heels as he claimed.

    All the people in this cover up need to be prosecuted for treason. And still the Alinsky party tries to tell us that this is nothing compared to Watergate. I beg to differ with that inane statement. No one DIED in the Watergate scandal. Men died in Benghazi. Deliberately left to die for political reasons and to cover up the arms and military equipment gun running Obama was doing. Stevens was involved in this. The Turkish official who met with him that night was a contact for them where Obama shipped the stuff from Benghazi to Syria through Turkey. Everyone in the ME knows about this. Isn’t it interesting that Congress pretends to know nothing about it. They also feign not knowing who gave the stand down order. I say BS to that. Only the president gives the order for men to go into harm’s way and the order to stand down.

    I still don’t think that anything will ever come of this. Congress will not charge impeachment and dingy harry reid will never allow this to come up for indictment in the Senate. It’s a fool’s game to even try as sad as that is.

    I heard Arron Klein tell Huckabee last night that Hillary will survive this and be elected for prez in 2016. Why not? Most of the country doesn’t know a damn thing about Benghazi and part of it doesn’t give a damn what she did. The Alinsky party need her to be president for the next 8 yrs to make their dynasty live on forever. And with all the fraud done by the Alinsky party I cannot see a Repuke or Libertarian president any time in the future.

    So what is left to be done. We know the answer but at what point will the American people stand up and say enough is enough and go about what is their duty to do?

    • garnet92 says:

      Thanks for dropping by Pepp! Unfortunately, you’re right – most of the low-info citizens don’t know what’s going on and probably wouldn’t care anyway if it doesn’t directly affect them. I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary has primary responsibility for the lack of security and the whitewashing of the talking points and I have no doubt that Obama is the one who directed the “stand down” order. His problem was that he had told the country that AQ was defeated and was no longer a factor and like Preston said, Obama was afraid of being blamed for another Mogadishu so he directed his minions to go with the demonstration story. If the press hadn’t been in his back pocket all along, at least more citizens would be aware of Obama’s complete lack of character.

      BUT … there may be a leak in the dike … a few of the big media people are becoming more interested in doing stories about Benghazi and now, with the “Justice” department wiretapping the AP (which has them hopping mad), the little leak may be heading towards a trickle!

      One can hope.

      • pepperhawk says:

        Garnet,

        One can only hope as hope springs eternal, but even with the little leak coming from the Pravda news outlets is still not enough. If this were Bush, he would have been arrested for treason and/or dereliction of duty. Notice how the King never says where, what, he was doing during the Benghazi attack? Was he so busy he wasn’t notified? That would be too much for anyone to ever believe. Did he see what was going on and then just simply went to bed, saying, “oh screw it, let em die”. “I’ve got to worry about my election now so we can’t have this public”. I’d like to know just WTH he was doing. He NEVER explains that or says a word about it. That just blows my mind away and nobody asks him either!

      • garnet92 says:

        Thanks Pepp! Maybe it won’t “stick,” but Barry has trouble in paradise. Even some of the lamestream media are beginning to ask questions – especially relating to the AP records grab. The good news is that he’s got arrows flying at him from multiple directions – something he’s not used to – he has been so protected throughout his career one can hope that it will rattle him and he’ll commit an unforced error to go with the other problems he has. One can hope!

      • pepperhawk says:

        Garnet,
        This is in reply to your comment below. Yep, there’s trouble in Paradise now and I like your description of him having arrows coming from 3 different directions. Maybe he’ll slip up with all 3 of these at one time. I still think the IRS and the AP stories came out to divert people from Benghazi which was starting to get real HOT! I’d like to see him slip and say something where he would actually indict himself.

        Even though the non news outlets are asking questions, he won’t take many of them, but leaves the Carney Barker to give answers at the press conferences daily, but his lies are becoming unraveled, especially after the testimony of the 3 whistle blowers. That dummy is still claiming they made “one stylistic change from Benghazi being a consulate instead of embassy”. How much longer are they going to continue with that big, fat lie? Do they think all of us are so stupid out here?

  6. Pingback: The Pesky Truth About Stuff — Some Serious, Some Satire | Pesky Truth

  7. Davetherave says:

    Excellent article G! I personally believe in Preston’s theory (neither of them are battle or commander worthy) and also that The Three Stooges sat back and let the massacre occur, because their gun running to the Syrian rebels was unfolding and need to be covered up. Like you stated; I believe there are sufficient facts to back both explanations, but everything I’ve heard out of this administration has been nothing but lies and bull crap. They’ve changed the talking points TWELVE times! Twelve different lies and they still can’t get their disgraceful actions off their backs. The Three Stooges have American blood on their hands that will never wash off.

    I’m still waiting for the 13th lie where they blame Bush!

    • garnet92 says:

      Good to hear from you Dave! It’s a damn shame that we don’t have hidden camera video of Obama’s activities that night. He was apparently disinterested and disengaged – couldn’t have cared less that our ambassador and other citizens were under attack and he just “voted present” and went to bed. I honestly don’t believe that anyone I’ve ever known could have dismissed those lives without missing any sleep. He is beneath human execrement.

      • Davetherave says:

        Hey G, this commie administration had no problem coming up with a photo staring Ovomit from the situation room when Bin Laden was killed by Seal Team 6, but seeing how this happened during the final run up to the campaign I guess King Sumb*tch was getting his evil sleep when this happened. Surely he would have done something if he was awake to assist those poor helpless Americans. Surely…surely not!!!

        “Beneath human excrement”….LMAO!!!! :-)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s