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.