Under mounting pressure from tri-partisan demands of Republicans Democrats and the MSM … Obama Administration does late afternoon document dump of Benghazi emails.
As reported at CNN, the Obama Administration released more than 100 emails late Wednesday afternoon in an attempt to stop the political hemorrhaging. Obama and his minions have blinked. The AP, yes the same AP that Obama’s DOJ secretly obtained phone records sparking yet another scandal, reported that the White House had until now declined to make the documents public and had let congressional investigators review the documents without making copies. Some how the White House thinks that editing the emails to release a narrative on Benghazi to the point that the taking points became a complete fabricated lie is ok.
Jake Tapper discusses some of the releases emails with Wolf Blitzer
All of the emails can be read HERE (pdf.)
The White House released more than 100 pages of e-mails on Wednesday in a bid to quell critics who say President Barack Obama and his aides played politics with national security following the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
The exchanges detailing discussions between top Obama administration officials from multiple agencies suggest the CIA took the lead in developing talking points to describe the attack last September 11 that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Those talking points, which were requested by members of the House Intelligence Committee, were originally drafted by the CIA. The lawmakers had requested unclassified information they could use in media interviews. Following the original drafting of talking points, CIA analysts made a handful of significant changes, according to administration sources.
Isn’t it ironic that David Axelrod had stated that the Obama White House should release the Benghazi emails and puff, there they are after all this time. It is simply incredible that Democrats continue to make this political and about maintaining power rather than the deaths of four Americans who were put in harms way without the proper security and then left to die as no help came to save them. David Axelrod, Obama apologist , now turn Hillary Clinton defender, stated on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Republicans are trying to bully Hillary Clinton out of running for president by attacking her on Benghazi, Libya. For Democrats like Axelrod, politics is their religion and they will do and say anything to maintain their power, even when it is so obvious that the State Department made major errors that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens. For Democrats, its not about the truth, its not about learning from this so that it never happens again, its not about holding those accountable … its about protecting Hillary Clinton for 2016. Sad, truly sad as four brave Americans were left to die.
UPDATE I: From the PJ Tatler, “Well, the White House has just made things even worse. The released emails begin on September 14, three days after the attack. By then, both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had been blaming a movie for two days.”
OUCH … The Washington Post Gives Barack Obama 4 Pinocchio’s for His Claims that he called Benghazi an ‘Act of Terrorism’
BARACK OBAMA … YOU LIE!!!
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” (President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron new conference 5/13/13)
WOW, the Washington Post Fact Checker calls President Barack Obama a liar and gives him 4 Pinocchio’s for his claims that he called the Benghazi an “Act of Terror” following the attack that left four American dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Barack Obama had the audacity yesterday to say while answering a question on Benghazi that he called Benghazi a terror attack. Nothing could be further from the truth and even the left-leaning WAPO is calling Obama on it. As Powerline opines, Obama Bobs and Weaves on Benghazi. However, this rope-a-dope is more dope than rope. Barack Obama is twisting in the wind as he has lost all credibility.
The only one who has politicized Benghazi for their political gain has been The One
— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013 Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”
Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?
Left Kirsten Powers stated yesterday about the Obama’s Benghazi Press Conference: “I’m Just Going to Call Them Lies Because They’re Lies” … “Nobody Thought He Called It a Terrorist Attack”
WOW … Kirstin Powers on Obama’s Benghazi Press Conference: “I’m Just Going to Call Them Lies Because They’re Lies” … “Nobody Thought He Called It a Terrorist Attack”
Kirsten Powers has grown tired of the
Lion Lying King, Barack Obama.
Kirstin Powers lets President Barack Obama have in on Fox News ‘Special Report’ as she comments on Obama’s press conference being full of lies. Did we mention that Kirsten Powers of a Lefty? Are those on the LEFT finally getting tired of the “Lying King”? Powers went on to say, “And, I’m just going to call them lies because they’re lies. They’re on tape. Nobody thought that he called it a terrorist attack.” Be careful Kirsten, you may be audited next by the IRS or have your phone tapped. Powers is correct in saying that no one believed that Obama called the attack on the Benghazi consulate a terror attack, because he did not. Obama and the rest of his minions blamed it on a video tape. As Kirsten Powers stated, “Now at what point are people going to get tired of the president coming out and over and over saying things like don’t believe your lying eyes?” Honesty, not soon enough as Obama was reelected in 2012 and thus the reason why he and Team Obama politicized and covered up what really happened in Benghazi.
“He’s so centrally involving himself with these repeated lies. And, I’m just going to call them lies because they’re lies. They’re on tape. Nobody thought that he called it a terrorist attack. Last night I went up and I looked at The New York Times how they reported it (Benghazi) the day after. They never reference that we had a terrorist attack against the United States. On September 20th, however, they run a story that says Libyan envoys killing was a terrorist attack. And they say until now White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault. That is September 20th. That is The New York Times. Now at what point are people going to get tired of the president coming out and over and over saying things like don’t believe your lying eyes?“
Kirstin Powers on Obama’s Strategy: I’m Just Going to Call Them Lies Because They’re Lies
Hat Tip: The Gateway Pundit
Former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich was Asked Whether Benghazi Talking Points were Politically Scrubbed … His Response, “Of Course They Were, Are You Kidding?”
BOMBSHELL COMMENTS FROM FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO AND HARD CORE LIBERAL …
Former Democrat US Representative Dennis Kucinich and now Fox News contributor appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning and his comments regarding Benghazi were damning for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I must say that I had to check outside the window while I was 100% aggressing with Kucinich’s remarks as I thought I saw pigs flying by. When asked by Chris Wallace during the panel discussion, if he thought the Benghazi talking points were politically scrubbed, Kucinich replied, “OF COURSE THEY WERE. COME ON, ARE YOU KIDDING”? Kucinich had previously stated that the Obama administration had to call the Benghazi attack a street demonstration otherwise it brought into play on the eve of an election the fact that the entire Benghazi policy was a failure. Then there was the damning comment of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton run State Department … “So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there?”
WALLACE: Congressman Kucinich, I think it’s fair to say you’re a liberal Democrat. But I want to ask you, does it bother you that the CIA, as we now know, originally wrote about links to Al Qaeda, originally wrote about having warned the State Department for months about threats in Benghazi and that all of that was taken out and let’s put this up on the screen. State Department official Victoria Nuland wrote in pushing back against what the CIA had written, that information “could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned.” This, Congressman, from the transparent administration of Barack Obama.
FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Well, I didn’t need those memos to know that it was wrong for us to intervene in Libya. This is one liberal Democrat who said the intervention was wrong. And what the attack on the consulate brings up, Chris, is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. And that’s why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack because on the eve of an election that brought in a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States.
WALLACE: So do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?
KUCINICH: Of course they were. Come on, are you kidding? You know, this is one of those things that you have to realize, we’re in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren’t provided with protection. They weren’t provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure that they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi with under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I’m offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions that are being raised.
WALLACE: Kim, let’s assume that Congressman Kucinich is right and that the talking points were politically scrubbed to protect Hillary Clinton, to protect Barack Obama running for re-election, is that where the scandal ends? What evidence is there — there certainly were misjudgments, but what evidence is there that the administration did anything wrong, wrong, either before or during the attack?
KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, the thing is we don’t know. And this is what we found out this week, that the official record that is out there on all kinds of things, is simply not correct. OK, so, you know, apparently the White House was not involved in the talking points. That’s not true. Apparently Hillary Clinton was just a footnote in all of this. That was not true. Apparently and supposedly their requests for aid were never denied. We’ve heard this week that that was not true. And so the White House faces an issue here, which is where do we go — where do we get these answers? And that’s why you are now hearing calls for a bipartisan select committee. The Democrats keep claiming that this is partisan, this is a partisan exercise. The only way you’re going to get these answers is if you actually put a committee, put both sides on it, give them the power of deposition, give them the power of subpoena, finally get the emails, finally talk to all the witnesses in public, and if the White House really claims it has nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t fear such an exercise. But that’s the only way that you’re going to start getting any answers on this. Otherwise it’s going to drip, drip, drip on like this week after week.
Mother of Slain Benghazi Victim Sean Smith … “I Wish Hillary a Happy Mother’s Day. She’s Got Her Child. I Don’t Have Mine, Because of Her”
A Mother’s Day wish to Hillary Clinton, who screwed up, before, during and after the Benghazi attack, from the mom of murdered Sean Smith.
Last night on Huckabee, Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who was murdered in Benghazi, Libya along with three other Americans, Ambassador Chris Steve, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, let Hillary Clinton know exactly how she feels. Pat Smith wished Hillary Clinton a Happy Mothers Day by stating … “I Wish Hillary a Happy Mother’s Day. She’s Got Her Child. I Don’t Have Mine, Because of Her”. Get ready for that political ad when Hillary tries to run in 2016.
When Hillary Clinton met with the families of the slain four Americans as their bodies were brought back to the United States, she did the unthinkable … “Secretary Clinton, as she was standing next to the coffin with the body of our ambassador and the three other Americans that were killed, as she was standing next to those coffins she said, you know, a horrific video. That’s just shameful and it’s not true.”
Previously, in an interview with CNN host Jake Tapper, Pat Smith said that she blames former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for failing to ensure her staff was secure and for not taking blame for that failure after they were killed in the line of duty.
WHO POLITICIZED BENGHAZI AND THE DEATH OF FOUR AMERICANS?
The Audacity of
Hope Barack Obama. The Obama Administration and their minions are some of the most vile that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has ever seen. After ABC News had exposed the Benghazi talking points had been edited 12 times to the point where they did not even reflect the truth as to what happened … during their damage control, the Obama spin machine and chief Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney tried to blame it all on Mitt Romney. How pathetic are these people? Who politicized Benghazi and the death of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods? It was the Obama administration who as even MSNBC and CNN are reporting edited the talking points for political purposes during a reelection campaign. MSNBC is even going as far as discussing impeachment as a result of the Obama administrations actions. This administration lied and scrubbed the Benghazi talking points to get reelected and they have the gall to say others politicized Benghazi? Families, friend and Americans want answers to what happened and the Obama administration continues to misrepresent the truth.
But with President Obama, the buck always stops with some one else.
CNN’s Gloria Borger Acknowldges Benghazi Talking Points “Were Edited to the Point of Inaccuracy” … Chris Cuomo: “Safe to Say this Goes Beyond Partisan Picking”
Add another Left-leaning main stream media outlet to those that are questioning the Barack Obama administration and the edited Benghazi terror attack talking points.
First MSNBC and now CNN is coming out against the Obama administration for editing the Benghazi talking points, in the aftermath of the terror attack that left four Americans dead, to the point where the events that took place were untrue. In a CNN interview between Chris Cuomo and Chief political analyst Gloria Borger, neither had anything good to say about the 12 edited versions of the Benghazi talking points using such words as “cover-up” and “whitewash”. Gloria Borger said, the Obama Administration’s Benghazi talking points were “edited to the point of inaccuracy” and the question is “was it a cover-up or whitewash”. She would later say that the talking points were so edited that by the end, they did not even resemble the truth. The most amazing comment may have come from Chris Cuomo when he stated, “it’s safe to say that this goes beyond partisan picking.” Did the LEFT just hear that? One of your own is saying that the GOP is not acting in a partisan manner. CNN is basically saying that the Obama administration played partisan politics for his reelection bid when four Americans died. Are you kidding, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods were killed by terrorist and the Obama WH edited what occurred to the point it was a false narrative. We lost lives and needed to know what happened and Team Obama was more interested in talking points that fit his reelection. Cuomo called it unforgivable.
Maybe former Arkansas Governor Mike Hukabee was correct when he said during his radio show, President Obama “will not fill out his full term” because he was complicit in a “cover-up” surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
GLORIA BORGER: What we see in this process is that these talking points were edited to the point of inaccuracy. The question is, is it a cover-up? Is it a whitewash? We don’t know the answer to that.
CHRIS CUOMO: I know. And you took my question. That’s exactly what I was going to ask you. Right? Because that’s what this gets to, 12. What’s the context? It sounds like a lot, but we have to know the nature and purpose of what those changes were.
GLORIA BORGER: So here’s the context. Over at the CIA they’re looking at some of these points, which include mention of Al Qaeda. And there’s a sense from some at the CIA, you know what, we don’t want to tip anybody that we’re investigating Al Qaeda on this, so let’s take out some of the references to Al Qaeda. What the CIA left in, apparently, was this sort of broader context of Al Qaeda in Benghazi in that part of the world. Those were eventually edited out. And there is an e-mail obtained by ABC news from someone at the State Department which asks, why should we leave that in because “it could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.” So clearly from a State Department official asking the question, why are we going to give members of Congress information, don’t forget in an election year, which they could turn around and beat us up with. And that’s how you see in evolving. Everybody’s got a different reason for editing it. And they edit it down to something that’s totally, turns out to be in fact untrue.
More from MSNBC … Benghazi Scandal Makes White House “Look Terrible,” Possibly An “Impeachment Issue”.
Beghazi-Gate: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions … Scrubbed of Terror & Al-Qaeda Reference … Obama White House Initially Said Only One Word was Edited
BENGHAZIGATE = WATERGATE … File this one under better late media investigation than never. It is obvious that Benghazi was one big Obama administration lie for political convenience because of the 2012 Presidential election.
Remember when the Obama White House and their mouth piece minions like Susan Rice came out after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the death of four American including Ambassador Stevens and blamed it on a video tape? Of course any normal, common sense thinking person knew that was BS at the time and it was later proved to be complete BS. Benghazi “whistle-blower” witness Greg Hicks stated in from of Congressional hearings this week … “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed.” The Obama White House said that they relied entirely on CIA talking points. NOT SO FAST … ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show that they were dramatically edited and scrubbed by the Obama Administration. The initial CIA talking point draft to the final one used by the White House and distributed to Congress was scrubbed of all references to terrorism, Al-Qaeda. The story goes on to say, in an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? So Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson wanted to sanitize the talking points so the State department did not looks incompetent and derelict in their duty? Who thinks that Secretary of State was not aware of these changes? Seriously America … the 2016 wanna be Democrat frontrunner candidate knew it all.
So where would the directive come from to scrub the references to terrorism to a talking point of a terror attack just months before the 2012 Presidential election? Who was “The One” who’s narrative was Al-Qaeda was on pat to defeat and Bin Laden is dead (VIDEO)?
Click on pic to watch the ABC News VIDEO
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Hmm, this is a far cry from the “only one word was edited” from the talking points spewed by Obama White House spokesman, Jay Carney. The White House has denied accusations that they mislead the American public and did not mischaracterize the White House and State Department’s role in developing of talking points regarding the attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi. Who are you going to believe America, Obama’s chief spin-meister Jay Carney, or your lying eyes and ears?
Carney on Friday was responding to an ABC News report that the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about Benghazi underwent 12 rounds of revisions with extensive input from the State Department, seemingly contradicting Carney’s claims in November.
During a White House briefing then, Carney said that the talking points “originated from the intelligence community” and the only adjustment from the White House and State Department was “changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility.’”
Thomas Hicks, We Knew Benghazi was a Terrorist Attack “from the Get-Go” … Dem Rep. Lynch Admits that Benghazi Talking Points: ‘It Was Scrubbed … It Was False Information.”
BENGHAZI-GATE just got worse for President Barack Obama and future presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton.
The headline might as well be, CBS News reports … Bombshell tonight, ala Nancy Grace; however, in this case, it truly is a bombshell and the Obama Administration has much explanting to do. Bob Schieffer from CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ started out by saying its the story that just won’t go away. For those Republicans in the House that think they have no political juice, here are words that I never thought I would ever hear from CBS News … “there is new information raising questions about whether there was a cover-up by the State Department to deflect criticism that it had ignored requests for more security for its people in Libya.”
That is much to the displeasure this morning in the Obama White House, with former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and the among the MSM who have tried to bury what really happened at the Benghzi consulate in Libya on September 11, 2012. Just how bad is the government cover-up of Benghazi-gate when CBS News is forced to report the new information and use the “cover-up” word? As discussed at the PJ Tatler, Thomas Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya and the number-two diplomat in Libya at the time of the terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission reportedly told a congressional committee that they knew that it was a terrorist attack “from the get-go.” This is a far different story that we were told directly after the terror attack that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Also, a much different story than put out by the Obama WH and that individuals have testified to in front of Congress.
“Everybody in the mission” in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S. consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror “from the get-go,” according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”
“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens – then the U.S. ambassador to Libya – and three other Americans.
The House hearings on Benghazi this week with “whistle-blowers” Mark Thompson, Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrum just got a lot more interesting and promises to be must see TV, http://Oversight.House.Gov at 11:30 here
Also this weekend on ‘FOX News Sunday’ with Chris Wallace, Democratic congressman Stephen Lynch said that Susan Rice used “scrubbed” talking points on Benghazi to deliver “false information” to the American people. Lynch went on to say that, “Absolutely, they were false, they were wrong,” after being asked about Steve Hayes’s report on “The Benghazi Talking Points.” Damning. It is pathetic yet all too common for this Administration that the moment there was a tragedy, as stated at Michelle Malkin.com they looked for the political advantage rather than leadership and dealing with the issue at hand rather than leadership and dealing with four dead Americans. It was all about the “talking points” and how Obama could exploit this, not about the death’s of four brave Americans.
The Weekly Standard has the transcript of the key parts of the discussion:
Lynch: “They certainly weren’t accurate. I don’t know what the process was there. But, absolutely, they were false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside of the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. So any statements that this was sort of like the other protests that we saw in Cairo and other embassies- this was not that type of case. This was a concerted effort. ”
Wallace “How do you explain the fact that that Sunday, UN Ambassador Rice came on this show and 4 other Sunday shows- never mentioned Al Qaeda extremists which had been scrubbed from the talking points- but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been in any of the talking points?”
Lynch: “Well it was scrubbed- it was totally inaccurate. You’re absolutely right. There was no excuse for that. It was false information. And what they tried to was harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East. Which was totally wrong.”
Wallace: “And do you think part of that was- do you think it was scrubbed because of the fact that didn’t fit into President’s narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run?”
Lynch: “Well I, yeah, I think it was a victory of ‘hope over reality’- to be honest with you. They were hoping this wasn’t the case.”
As they say, the cover-up is always worse than the crime. However, in this case because four Americans died, both are equally as bad. It is obvious this cover up took place to play a four corners offense and delay the truth so that the reelection of Barack Obama could take place first, rather than “The One” having to deal with a “Watergate” prior to the 2012 election. And the MSM was all too willing to oblige.
I would say to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, it looks like Benghazi just got a bit more recent.
UNREAL … Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified Obama Was ABSENT Night of Benghazi Massacre … Obama AWOL
Barack Obama: The Absentee Commander in Chief …
After all these months, we finally learn that President Barack Obama was no where to be found the night that the Consulate was attacked in Benghazi, Libya and four Americans were killed. Is it any wonder why Obama and his complicit MSM did not want to make this an issue prior to the 2012 Presidential elections. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered, including US Ambassador Stevens, in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. They were left on their own.
Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o’clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, “up to us.”
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
The 5 o’clock meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, where, according to Panetta’s recollection, they spent about 20 minutes talking a lot about the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi.
Obama was absent as Americans were under assault in a massacre, yet he found time to make a phone call to save his political bacon to defuse a controversy about President Obama’s refusal to meet with Netanyahu two weeks later.
But Obama did have time to make a political call to the Israeli prime minister. “[W]e do know one thing the president found time to do that evening: He placed a call to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to defuse a controversy about President Obama’s refusal to meet with Netanyahu two weeks later at the U.N. General Assembly, and, according to the White House announcement that evening, spent an hour on the phone with him,” Kristol wrote.
More from Rush Limbaugh. Barack Obama could hardly seem to be bothered with the massacre that was taking place. How aloof could one possibly be? A US Ambassador is under attack and missing and Obama could really care less. How would the MSM treat this story if a Republican had been president when a US Ambassador was murdered? Does anyone think that maybe they would have covered the story and asked the administration why they are trying to cover up what happened?
AYOTTE: Did he ask you how long it would take to deploy assets –
AYOTTE: — including armed aviation to the area?
PANETTA: He — he basically said, “Do whatever. Do whatever you need to do to be able to protect, uhhh, our people there.” He just left that up to us.
AYOTTE: Did you have any further communications with him that night?
RUSH: “No.” So Obama votes “present.” I guess this means they weren’t in the Situation Room. Obama voted “present.” He said, “Nah, you guys do whatever you need to do.” Well, why didn’t anybody do anything then? I mean, clearly, if the president says, “Do what you need to do to protect our people there,” and they weren’t protected, then why didn’t they do it? So up next we have Senator Ted Cruz. During the Q&A, Cruz and Panetta had this exchange..