Panetta: Obama never called back to check on Benghazi

We didn’t get to this yesterday, but it’s definitely worth watching — especially for the skill shown by Lindsey Graham in his examination of Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey. The headline takeaway will be what is remembered most: the revelation that Barack Obama never bothered to keep in touch with his chair of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense after being informed that an American consulate was under attack from terrorists.

But if that’s all you hear from this, you’re missing the big picture. Graham managed to elicit a number of damaging statements from the two. Not one aircraft had been deployed during the attack; not one boot left the ground outside of Libya. As far as the 281 concurrent threat reports that Panetta and Dempsey claimed kept them from considering Benghazi a special threat, Graham asks how many of those cables came from US Ambassadors stating specifically (as Stevens’ did) that an American installation was incapable of defending itself against a sustained attack and that government buildings nearby were flying al-Qaeda flags — “because I want to know about them, if they do,” Graham adds. Dempsey tries to push that off to State, at which time Graham informs Dempsey that Hillary Clinton claimed never to have seen that cable, even though Dempsey clearly had, which he admits is “surprising.”

Graham then circles back to the lack of action from the White House once the attack was under way:

SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’
SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –
SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –
SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –
SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?
SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.
SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then.

Graham just demolished the entire White House defense on Benghazi in less than ten minutes of cross-examination.

Left unexplored was the reason for Obama's lack of interest and communication when he knew that American lives were in grave danger in the midst of a terrorist attack on 9/11. Most of the damage occurred during the late afternoon and early evening hours (Eastern time) of September 11, so it's possible -- but unlikely -- that the president was sleeping. I'd guess he was attending to his re-election campaign; he didn't alter his plans to attend a rally in Las Vegas on September 12, a day on which he astonishingly skipped yet another intelligence briefing. Graham's interrogation was about much more than the president's shameful lack of curiosity, let alone leadership, throughout the crisis. He also exposed the mismanagement and chaos among other high-level decision makers that reigned throughout the ordeal. He methodically demolished Panetta's litany of excuses, which ranged from dubious to insulting. Panetta claimed that the US government didn't have time to deploy any resources to rescue the besieged Americans. Graham noted that the attack lasted nearly eight hours. Panetta tried to assert that the military only could have helped if they'd had boots on the ground before the attack. Graham correctly called that a grievous violation of the military's "we've got your back" principle. Panetta, covering for the president, said that Obama was made aware that the Pentagon was deploying forces to aid our diplomats. An incredulous Graham reminded him of Gen. Dempsey's testimony that no forces were deployed:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/08/panetta-obama-never-called-back-to-check-on-benghazi/

The Twisted Truth on Obama's Benghazi Response

Through it all, Obama's White House simply did not respond or engage. Given the auspiciousness of the date and the seriousness of the attack, we must now ask, with the utmost gravity, "Why not?"

Remember that we are not talking about the president's weak response after the fact; the issue is what he was (or was not) doing in real time, as the event unfolded. An attack was ongoing. Distress calls were coming in. At that point, presumably, neither Obama nor anyone else in the U.S. government could have known for certain that this attack was an isolated case. It might, after all, have been one stage in a possible series of attacks. And while it was ongoing, there was, presumably, no way of knowing how the situation would develop, how large the attack force was, whether the Libyan government was complicit in the assault, or how many Americans might be in jeopardy.

And yet in spite of all this uncertainty, mayhem, and danger, Obama remained disengaged, neither responding to nor initiating any communication with his national security apparatus.

If Panetta is to be believed -- and we can only assume that if he is lying, he is doing so to protect his boss from even worse revelations -- then Obama was either completely unavailable that night (September 11!) or completely unwilling to take steps to help Americans who he knew were in the process of being killed in Benghazi.

In a semi-rational world, no government could withstand the exposure of such inhumanity, not to mention such a total failure to carry out its primary duty -- namely, to protect its citizens against foreign aggression. In our current, thoroughly irrational world, there remains little doubt that Obama will emerge unscathed from Panetta's testimony, just as Hillary Clinton will remain untarnished after openly declaring, during her own belated testimony, that the clock has run out on any attempt to unravel the administration's web of lies about Benghazi, since "What difference -- at this point -- does it make?" (I explained this here.)

Heavily armed terrorists carried out a planned attack on a U.S. ambassador. Four Americans, including the ambassador, were killed. The attack lasted for more than seven hours. The U.S. government was aware of the attack from a very early stage and was monitoring events with surveillance technology.

The secretary of defense and his military commanders did nothing. The secretary of state did nothing. The president never called to ask, "How are things going?" His previous evasions of questions about his orders and actions at the time revealed that he took no direct action in response to the attacks. We now learn that he was not even in the communication loop that night.

Thanks to Panetta's testimony, we have once again been forced to drop the veil of humanity we sometimes hold up before this administration in order to keep our sanity. ("Surely he was aware, surely he didn't simply let people die without a thought.") At last, sadly, we have been reduced by Panetta to having to wonder where Obama was that night, what he was doing, and why he was apparently unavailable to involve himself in the biggest national security emergency of his presidency.

Finally, Hillary Clinton's grotesque plea seems appropriate: "What difference -- at this point -- does it make?" Do you really want to know? Or isn't this all just too twisted to contemplate?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/the_twisted_truth_on_obamas_benghazi_response.html

Suspected Mass-Murderer's Manifesto Endorses Hillary, Obama, Gun Control, Elite Media

While we pray for those murdered and everyone who might be in danger, we cannot forget that the media and its allies in the Democratic Party have set a standard when it comes to reporting on the possible political motives of mass murderers. Though they generally make things up to turn the death of innocents into a talking point against the Right, it is still the left who set this precedent.

And what do you know, Chris Dorner, the former police officer suspected of being behind the murder rampage presently unfolding in Los Angeles, has apparently left behind a manifesto addressed to America that the media are already selectively reporting on to leave out the more inconvenient portions. You see, there is no political upside for the media to reveal the politics of this suspected madman.

What is being reported as Mr. Dorner's manifesto not only endorses Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and vigorously defends Barack Obama and the Democrats' current gun control push; he also savages the NRA's Wayne LaPierre while expressing all kinds of love for some of the biggest stars in the left-wing media -- by name.

No Tea Partier is this suspected mass murderer, who just might be politically motivated:

Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Pat Harvey, Brian Williams, Soledad Obrien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Viera, Tavis Smiley, and Anderson Cooper, keep up the great work and follow Cronkite's lead. I hold many of you in the same regard as Tom Brokaw and the late Peter Jennings. …

Willie Geist, you're a talented and charismatic journalist.

Mr. Dorner also seems to have a soft spot for those the media tells us are "safe" Republicans to like, such as George H. W. Bush and Chris Christie, "the only person I would like to see in the White House in 2016 other than Hillary."

When it comes to defending Obama, Dorner sounds like he's been watching an awful lot of NBC News:

You disrespect the office of the POTUS/Presidency and Commander in Chief. You call him Kenyan, mongroid, halfrican, muslim, and FBHO when in essence you are to address him as simply, President. The same as you did to President George W. Bush and all those in the highest ranking position of our land before him. Just as I always have. You question his birth certificate, his educational and professional accomplishments, and his judeo-christian beliefs. You make disparaging remarks about his dead parents.

Mr. Dorner's gun control views make it sound as though much of his thinking has been affected by CNN. In a paragraph that mentions Sandy Hook, Dorner writes:

If you had a well regulated AWB, this would not happen. The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle? This is the same small arms weapons system utilized in eradicating Al Qaeda, Taliban, and every enemy combatant since the Vietnam war. Don't give me that crap that its not a select fire or full auto rifle like the DoD uses. That's bullshit because troops who carry the M-4/M-16 weapon system for combat ops outside the wire rarely utilize the select fire function when in contact with enemy combatants.

Those sound just like Piers Morgan's talking points, no? Well, surprise-surprise, Dornan agrees 100% with Morgan on gun control, though he does worry that Morgan is hurting the cause:

Mr. Morgan, the problem that many American gun owners have with you and your continuous discussion of gun control is that you are not an American citizen and have an accent that is distinct and clarifies that you are a foreigner. I want you to know that I agree with you 100% on enacting stricter firearm laws[.]

The manifesto is thousands of word long and mentions dozens of people and topics. But politically, the manifesto is pretty clear.

Which is why the media will downplay it with the same amount of energy they put into amplifying their lies.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/07/mass-killer-manifesto-endotrses-hillary-gun-control-elite-media

This Time it's One of Theirs

A rogue cop in California has gone on a killing streak, publishing a manifesto declaring himself a supporter of virtually everything liberal in America but outside the law. This renegade officer used a firearm to kill two innocent humans because of their collateral relationship to his own career failures. These were killings of retribution to get back at the parent of one of the victims who apparently had insufficiently represented the killer in a police competency hearing. The killer subsequently killed a cop who was pursuing him.

So will we hear cries from the left to disarm the potential perpetrators of such mindless mayhem? Will we hear op-ed pieces as to why all these cops are allowed to go armed amongst a helpless civilian population? Two things come to mind with the first being that the perp has published his manifesto in which he condemns every aspect of conservatism while effusively praising virtually everything liberal including the networks who should, if they were honest, be disclosing all this, but in reality won't because this time, it's undeniably a perp of the left doing the killing.

The left won't use these particular killings to further their gun control campaign because it would belie their conventional wisdom that all such madmen are conservatives. Even they know in their heart of hearts that it makes no sense to disarm American citizens who increasingly are faced with the prospect of physically defending themselves against violence because the cops simply can't get there in time. It is a reality that a liberal, generally coastal and urban minority in this country, will continue to deny for no other reason than that it makes them somehow feel morally superior to those of us with the common sense, presence of mind to keep a loaded handgun ready on the bed side stand. And fools that they are, they are the ones who fall victims to violence far more frequently than we who are armed.

And so, we will hear no strident reactions in the mainstream media because this time there is no denying this killer is one of theirs, a liberal rogue cop who advocates gun control while praising the president who seeks to disarm the American people. That this killer is black further lends to the muted response of the major networks for that is an inconvenient truth: a black man who, according to his own writings, is a huge supporter of everything liberal in this country, including the mainstream news outlets that should be reporting the truth of his mindless rampage.

It will never happen...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/this_time_its_one_of_theirs.html

PK'S NOTE: Listen to the whole. This is wonderfully good.

See the Prayer Breakfast Speech That’s Grabbing Headlines: Doctor Attacks Political Correctness, National Debt in Front of Obama

Dr. Benjamin Carson delivered a noteworthy National Prayer Breakfast keynote speech in President Barack Obama’s presence

Carson attacked political correctness as a “dangerous” threat to free speech and encouraged Americans to boldly share their views

The pediatric neurosurgeon also provided his theories about the national debt, deficits, taxation and health care, taking stances that were opposed to the president’s

Obama watched intently as Carson spoke for more than 25 minutes

Getting a Meddling Government Out of Our Lives

The next time a cashier asks "paper or plastic?" think of Abbie Schoenwetter. He spent more than six years in federal confinement for shipping lobster in plastic instead of cardboard.

There's no American law against doing so. But thanks to a vague, overly broad, and otherwise unjust federal criminal law, the U.S. government claimed it was upholding a Honduran regulation.

Abbie Schoenwetter's business, health, and family life (he has a wife and three kids) were wiped out because unreasonable federal prosecutors used an unjust law to target Abbie and a Honduran fisherman from whom Abbie purchased his seafood.

He's finally free now. But he notes that "The worst thing anybody can do to you is take away your freedom."

Indeed, the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to secure the rights and liberties promised in the Declaration of Independence.

Today, though, the federal government has acquired a nearly unquestioned dominance over virtually every area of American life.

The scope and depth of its rules means that the national government increasingly regulates more and more of our most basic activities, from how much water is in our toilets to what kind of light bulbs we can buy. This is a government that is increasingly unlimited, undemocratic, and damaging to popular self-government.

Conservatives want to restore real limits on a government that is out of control.

This will not occur all at once or across the board. Nor will it result from one judicial decision, presidential order, or comprehensive piece of legislation. We will be strategic, defining and pursuing a realistic path that measurably reintroduces constitutional limits - by focusing government on its primary obligations, restoring its responsibility and democratic accountability, and correcting its worst excesses.

America's Opportunity for All, Heritage's new plan that we have been highlighting all week, includes rebuilding constitutional self-government. Some sensible steps include:

Policymakers should execute the law, not simply make it up. The President, judges, and Members of Congress all take oaths to uphold the Constitution in carrying out the responsibilities of their offices. That means the President should appoint, and the Senate should use its advice and consent role to confirm, only constitutionally faithful judges. Also, judges increasingly seek to impose their own policy preferences on the nation. Candidates and officeholders should promote robust debate regarding the importance of approving constitutionalist judges.
Reverse the explosion of federal criminal law. Congress must halt the overcriminalization rampage and begin to eliminate vague, overbroad criminal offenses that punish individuals who, without criminal intent, violate one of these innumerable federal statutes.
Dismantle the administrative state. Administrative agencies and vast bureaucracies operate as an unelected fourth branch of government. Congress should reassert its authority by taking responsibility for all laws and regulations that govern us.
Build support for limited government. For too long, Congress has passed massive laws written behind closed doors, filled with arcane cross-references that most Members of Congress neither read nor understand. Our leaders should legislate clearly and openly. Each House of Congress should adopt a rule requiring the public posting of the text of each bill and major amendment not less than 72 hours before floor debate on that bill or amendment.
Encourage federalism. Work with state legislatures and governors, especially to slow the implementation of Obamacare and instead develop real health care solutions that work.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/08/morning-bell-getting-a-meddling-government-out-of-our-lives/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email;utm_campaign=&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Must listen audio: