Asked about denial of aid during attack, Obama ducks the question
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16679)
Boston, Massachusetts
October 27, 2012 5:43am CST
During an interview with a local TV station in Denver, CO, President Obama was twice asked directly whether requests from personnel in the area to go help Ambassador Stevens and staff was denied.
Reports have surfaced that indicate that CIA operatives in Benghazi requested permission to render assistance during the attack and were twice told to "stand down". Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty lost their lives because they ignored that order and went to their aid anyway. Another request for military backup was denied. This was all during the attack that was live-streamed to the WH by a drone.
Twice Obama ducked the question by launching into the standard "we will investigate and find out who did this and bring them to justice, blah, blah, blah..." He did not answer the question.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/reporter-obama-would-not-answer-repeated-questions-on-whether-requests-for-help-in-benghazi-were-denied/
A spokesman from Gen Petraeus' office said that it was not the CIA who gave orders to "stand down" and refused the requests.
If the requests were denied and it was not the CIA who denied them, then who did? If there was no denial of requests to help, then why didn't Obama just say so?
His inability or refusal or cowardice in not answering the question tells you much more, doesn't it? American CIA and military personnel asked for permission to go to the consulate to save the lives of those four Americans and they were denied permission. If their orders didn't come from the CIA, then who sent the order not to render assistance? Had to be higher up. Who is Petraeus' boss? Well, that would be the president.
It would be nice if we could believe it was mere incompetence. I would call it incompetence if the President didn't think about how to render aid or did it badly. But refusing assistance that was there and ready and allowing Americans to die is not incompetence. It's treacherous, treasonous behavior.
Kudos to that local reporter who asked the tough question.
So, what do you think? If the answer to the question was NO, why didn't Obama answer the question? And if the answer is YES, then who gave the orders not to give backup and aid to the consulate during the attack?
4 people like this
8 responses
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
27 Oct 12
I can only guess who said the words, "Stand down," but whoever gave that order would have made it in accordance with the desires of the administration. What American military would intentionally leave an American Ambassador in harms way unless the order was from higher up and Obama is the Commander 'n Chief.
There should be no surprise that Obama dodged the question. What else could he do? He and his administration have already been caught in so many lies concerning Binghazi. To respond truthfully would sound like the boy who cried wolf. By dodging the question, he can't be accused of any more lies even if it happens to be the truth.
3 people like this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
29 Oct 12
Thanks Rollo, I searched found a Washington Post article and others, am going to post on facebook..
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
30 Oct 12
Rollo, I don't know if you heard this or not, but it kind of goes along with General Ham's situation. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/29/latest_on_benghazi_tyrone_woods_painted_a_target_but_the_missile_never_came
@laglen (19759)
• United States
27 Oct 12
Hilary already fell on her sword. I think it is great that Patraeus won't. That means one of two things. Either Obama will have to answer or they will hold it up so long that the short attention span of Americans will kick in and people will stop asking. Have you noticed, that seems to be their MO the last four years.
3 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
27 Oct 12
I think one possibility is that it's been about the election since the beginning. All the decisions about not increasing security, the decision not to send military backup or allow anyone to render assistance during the attack, the decision to not have the AC 130U that was off shore to fire at the target that was firing on the compound, all of this was to avoid having it look like an attack. If we fired, if we engaged militarily, it would make it an attack. The decision was made to blame it on a video and pretend it was a riot gone chaotic and too far, was a decision made to avoid Obama admitting that al Qaeda was not "on the run" and to avoid the accusations of him getting us embroiled in another military action.
The worst possibility is that the protests in Cairo about a video were staged to cover up what they already knew was going to happen in Benghazi and the original plot, as has been rumored, was to kidnap the ambassador so he could be traded for the blind sheik. After all, we don't know how much flexibility Obama has promised nations and factions in the Middle East, do we?
4 people like this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
27 Oct 12
Kudos to that reporter for having more guts than Bob Schaffer and Brian Williams, prominent award winning reporters who continue to throw softball questions to a president even in the midst of social, global and economic upheaval.
I think it's clear that Mr. Obama is either working in collusion with those who hate us or is so disengaged that he is not running the country at all. He's been campaigning since he got into office when he wasn't golfing, partying, shooting hoops or going on expensive vacations so I would say it's the latter. We know that Valerie Jarrett, who essentially runs the WH, was born in the Middle East and many on Obama's staff and in the WH have ties the the Middle East. So I'm not sure which option it would be, who is working with our enemies. I would not be surprised if it is all of the above. And I know that if there was this much speculation about an ordinary citizen they would already be in HSA custody or up on charges as the result of a sting operation.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
27 Oct 12
If no one denied requests for help, Obama could have answered the question. He could say, "no - that is not true, we did not deny any requests from other personnel in the area to go to the aid of the consulate".
Not answering means that the answer is "yes", but they don't know who they are going to blame it on yet, or how to explain it or even just how to keep it under wraps until after the election.
Petraeus says the CIA didn't do it. He didn't say no one did it, just that the CIA didn't. So, who did?
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
28 Oct 12
I'm shocked he was even asked the question. I assumed everyone would rub his bottom with velvet gloves while doing anything they possibly could to lead Obama into a safe, comfortable overview about the "investigation."
Brian Williams. Enough said.
I'm not shocked Obama ducked it when eventually asked, though.
I can see being an Obama fan. He has a lot going for him, especially when compared to the rest of the field. And that's especially true if you're a progressive individual in America. But if anyone in the history of human civilization ever dares to call the man transparent, the penalty should be having an anvil dropped on their head.
3 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
28 Oct 12
I think Kyle Clark should be immediately hired by a major news network that wants to go back to being a news network. There must be one that's tired of being nothing more than a branch of the never-ending Obama campaign to remain in perpetual power.
I didn't mention the very real possibility that Obama doesn't actually listen to questions and has only the memorized script to go by which he launches into based on keywords in the reporter's queries. Obama hears "Benghazi" and thinks "okay, that's the 'we will investigate and bring them to justice' speech".
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
2 Nov 12
General Ham relived of command of African Operations: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-repor...
Rear Admiral Gaouette relieved of his command: http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/10/obama-f...
Obama is arming al qaeda according to some reports.
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7015
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
29 Oct 12
Yep, a non answer sure does say a lot.. unless you have blinders on!! Otherwise a simple no could have been said!
@millertime (1394)
• United States
29 Oct 12
It's not only Obama ducking the question. I saw a discussion with 2 democrat members of congress Sunday morning and when asked about whether the drones over the situation were armed, they both launched into their scripted "we're going to investigate" speeches. One even tried to spin it and say how bad Romney is saying he's trying to "politicize" the issue by even bringing it up. They intend to look into it AFTER the election. Right...
I have to tell you, this one's got me stumped. I can't figure out Obama's motivation for not doing anything. He must have refused help for some reason, somehow thinking he was making the right political move somehow. How could he think it could benefit him politically though? It makes no sense.
This is just one more, and definitely the biggest, debacle of the Obama administration. The mishandling of the situation itself is monumental, but the attempted coverup after the fact is even worse. The actions of the Obama administration are nothing short of despicable. Nixon resigned for less.
Someone needs to answer for the gross negligence which cost people their lives and Obama needs to start by telling the truth. The administration is trying to sweep this under the rug and the democrats in government are in lockstep with them. They are desperate to not have the truth come to light before the election because they know it's so bad it would destroy Obama's chance at re-election. Hopefully, the voting public will see their pathetic attempt for what it is and realize that this administration needs to go.
