Friday, November 02, 2012

Why, Mr. Obama? Why?

Free Web Page Hit Counter

I have not been posting blog entries for quite some time now, and that is because I've been posting my thoughts on Facebook. This morning, I posted the following comment on Facebook, and I thought I'd share it with those who don't follow me on Facebook. Besides, we need to get the word out in all forms of media we have available to us:

I know I promised my wife and my Facebook friends that I would try to be less political, but now, in the last few days before the general election, it is becoming more and more important (for me, at least) to get the word out on what we may expect should Obama be re-elected. Many "experts" are predicting a Romney win next week, but I can't be that sure. Because the main news networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC are not forthcoming on the essential facts surrounding the tragedy in Benghazi, Libya on Sept 11, of this year, I feel it's imperative that I do my part to educate those who would rather not know these "unpleasant facts", be they Democrat or Republican. It is a sad fact that some registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, would just rather let the politicians fight it out among themselves and let the chips fall where they may. 

I can't do that

People need to know, and they need to ask questions. Questions like, Why did our President refuse to help the besieged in Benghazi? We now know he was aware of the ongoing 7+ hour conflict in real time, and we know he was asked at least three times to send help, probably in time to rescue Ambassador Stevens and the others, but he refused. 

I have to ask why. And, as freedom loving American citizens, all of us need to ask the same question. 

Why did he stand down and do nothing to help our people in Libya? 

I've heard the opinions of those who oppose him, and I've also heard the explanation from those who were privy to the decision, and none of them make sense to me. 

Republicans say he did it to improve his chances to win re-election. But, in what universe would refusing to save dying American citizens help win an election? 

Democrats say they didn't send in help because they weren't sure what exactly was going on and didn't want to act until they were. That explanation sounds plausible. Yes, it sounds plausible --- until we learn that later reports reveal they (Obama included) knew exactly what was going on while it was happening. 

Here's something else that should make an Obama supporter ask questions:

Why did Obama blame an obscure Youtube video for the attacks in Libya when it is now clear that he knew all along the video had nothing to do with it? If I was an Obama supporter, that one fact alone would make me wonder if 4 more years of Obama would be worth the risk of voting for him again.


Jim said...

Catch up, Mark.

OK, looks like ABC News, The Washington Post, The Mercury News, The Miami Herald, NBC and others are now reporting the story based on actual sources.

Looks like they took the time to get the story from people who know instead of people who guessed.

It is false that he ordered anybody to stand down. It is false that he refused to help.

"I've also heard the explanation from those who were privy to the decision." Really? Who would "those" be?

Mark said...

Who would "those" be?

Leon Panetta, for one, Jim. One of your guys.

Yeah, Jim, it took those media outlets over a month to conjure up that excuse. Why did they not make that statement at the time? Here's one possible answer:

They had have the time to make up some excuse. But there is still no explanation for why Obama lied about it. Do you have an answer to that question? Cause I don't.

Jim said...

What lie?

Mark said...

Stupid question, Jim. You're smarter than that. And, as a bright boy, I'm sure you can figure it out yourself. But you can start with my last paragraph.

Or, are you going to deny that Obama ever blamed that video or characterized the coordinated terrorist attack as a "spontaneous protest"?

Jim said...

I'm not sure that he did, but there is scant evidence that it was a lie but that it was the best information he had at the time.

Trader Rick said...

Obama is a traitor.

Mark said...

Scant evidence? Jim, Are you INSANE?

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, apparently.

Obama was present in the White House when the reports came in within the first two hours that a terrorist group(affiliated with al Qaida) had claimed responsibility for the coordinated attack. The White house had received e-mails alerting them of the attack in real time. An unmanned surveillance drone circled overhead sending back real time video within two hours after the attack started. The White House knew exactly what was going on at least 5 hours before the attack ended! They had time to send help, and could have possibly saved the lives of Ambassador Stevens and the others, but Obama and his staff did nothing to try to help. And then, he gave a press conference blaming the whole incident on that stupid video.

He proved he lied with his own words during the third debate, when he claimed, erroneously, that he called it a terrorist attack the very next day in the Rose Garden.

Then, as I mentioned, he spent the following two weeks claiming it was a spontaneous attack in protest over a bad video.

Well, Jim, those two statements can't both be the truth, because they contradict each other. So, it isn't a question of IF he lied, it's when did he lie? The first time or the next time?

Mark said...

If you don't believe me, do you believe CBS news?

Mark said...

Jim, Yesterday (Monday, the 5th), President Obama sat down for a satellite interview w/ Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV in Denver to pontificate on what I am sure he thought were going to be the standard powder puff questions such as "what advice do you have for Nicki Manaj and Mariah Carey?"

What he got instead was a serious question about a very serious issue, Benghazi.

Clarke asked the President if the reports were accurate that those under siege on September 11th had been directly denied support? To which the Commander In Chief quickly retorted, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.”

Funny thing is, the question wasn't "do you care about getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi?" It wasn't "who sent the diplomat and his security team into Libya to represent the United States of America?" It was very specifically about whether those four "folks'" desperate calls for assistance were ignored by your Administration.

A very simple "yes" or "no" question.

And since he refused to answer that question directly we as American citizens have no other option than deduct that he and his direct reports knowingly denied our fellow countrymen's cries for help in their time of greatest need.

This election has everything to do with "four brave American's getting killed." In fact the central question is who is the best candidate to lead us through these tumultuous times. Quite simply, the President has repeatedly shown that he is neither willing nor able to do the job.

Jim said...

Obama clearly is the first politician to avoid answering a direct question.

Of course, the problem might have been that the question was poorly posed and absurd in content. There were NO "reports" that the president directly denied support to the diplomatic staff and security. There was only conjecture. To ask the president if he had denied direct support was an insult and not worthy of a direct answer.

Here is a timeline published by CBS News on November 2nd. According to this timeline, the first drone would not have arrived until around 11:00, an hour and 20 minutes after the attack began. Smith was dead at least by 10:25. The president was not informed until after 11:00.

There is simply no logical reason to believe that the president would be directing any kind of military action when the CIA, the NSA, the State Department, and the Defense Department were involved and managing operations.

There is no evidence that any kind of order or clearance by the president was required to allow these agencies to provide the support they felt was necessary and appropriate. Therefore, the question was ill-informed at least and absurd at worst.

And since he refused to answer that question directly we as American citizens have no other option than deduct that he and his direct reports knowingly denied our fellow countrymen's cries for help in their time of greatest need.

No other option?

Quite simply, the President has repeatedly shown that he is neither willing nor able to do the job.

The absurdity rains down like s**t from a leaky sewer pipe.