Saturday, November 10, 2012

Benghazi-gate Smells Even Worse

Suddenly CIA Director General Patraeus has resigned due to an "affair" and he will not be testifying at House and Senate Intelligence committee hearings next week.  Acting director Michael Morrell will testify instead.

Fox News reports that the investigation was underway since September.  What is the FBI doing investigating and intercepting emails from the Head of the CIA?  Who authorized the investigation and why?

Maybe it was because Petraeus "threw Obama under the bus" as reported by the Weekly Standard?  Recall that Petraeus or someone at the CIA had tweeted that no one in the CIA had hindered response to pleads for help by our men under attack in Benghazi Libya.  The tweet could imply that they knew who did.

In  my blog "Obama Received His 3AM Call...and Failed",  I highlight the various and evolving "stories" the White House, Obama and Susan Rice used to try to explain the causes and responses (or lack of responses) to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 others on the night of September 11, 2012.  This despite that it was clear to everyone in the administration from the first hours that it was a planned terrorist attack. Why the lies?

Now, suddenly Petraeus is not going to testify to the intelligence committees?   It sounds more and more "fishy."  Maybe they should subpoena him to testify?  When you survey the major media outlets, none seem to make any connection between the timing of his suspicious resignation and his upcoming testimony.  Thanks a lot "Free Press!"

In the Weekly Standard article by Bill Kristol on October 27, 2012 asks 10 important questions of the President  that are still not answered.
The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections.
1.) To whom did the president give the first of his "three very clear directives"—that is, "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?"
2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?
3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?
4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?
5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?
6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?
7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?
8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?
9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?
10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a AC-130 or MC-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has asked the White House these questions, and awaits a response.
Is all of this secrecy and spinning to cover up mistakes or lack of response capability?  Or was there a failure in leadership at the White House, the Defense Department or CIA?  The American people deserve to know all of the answers to Bill Kristol's questions.  This whole affair smells "fishy" to me.  Why not to others?

No comments: