Benghazi UPDATE - 2-9-13

Well, we have heard from a lot of the players now about their role in the Benghazi incident including Clinton (Secretary of State), Panetta (Secretary of Defense), Brennan (National Security Adviser) and Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) .  Most recently we watch and heard Hillary yelling, "...what does it matter?", and Panetta telling us that the President wasn't even engaged - what's going on?  Lets talk specifically about the latest two.

First, as for Hillary (Secretary of State) we can answer her question easily, why does it "matters" - it "matters" because four lives were lost within your department and despite your hysterics and attempt to obfuscate the truth we are all watching.  It "matters" because no one listened to the Ambassador when he requested additional security multiple times the months and weeks prior to the attack. It "matters" because no one attempted to assist the Ambassador when he and his entourage were under attack - we had military assets all over the region but nothing was deployed in their defense and in fact the two ex-seals who responded from the CIA safe house down the road were told not to, to "stand down".  It "matters" because you won't tell us why he was in Benghazi, one of the worlds best known worst terrorist hot spots in the first place, hours from the main Embassy in Tripoli (he had a meeting with an official from Turkey - strange place for that).  It "matters" because you, the President, and the rest of the administration lied to the American people telling us first for two weeks that it was some stupid internet movie when you all knew it wasn't - then the President outs himself and admits during a televised political debate he knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning after we watched him speak at the U.N. some 8 or 9 days after the incident saying multiple times that this attack was because of some anti-Muslim internet video.  It "matters" because more information is coming out that we, the U.S. government, may in fact have been illegally running guns through Turkey to the terrorist fighting in Syria (the same terrorists that are own armed forces are fighting as well).  It "matters" Madam Secretary, it "matters" a lot.  

As for Mr. Panetta (Secretary of Defense), he is now telling us that the President wasn't even told of the attack on the Ambassador until they met at their regularly scheduled 5:00PM meeting - some 90 minutes after the attack began.  Now it is law, federal law in fact, that IF an American Ambassador comes under attack the President and the Secretary of State MUST be informed.  So Panetta, admits under oath, in front of the U.S. Senate, that they did not inform the President until some regularly schedule meeting? Why? We had been told for months and certainly the weeks immediately following the attack and murder of these four Americans that the President was totally engaged and knew what was occurring throughout the multiple hour event.  That story of total engagement was hammered on the American people for weeks so we knew our President cared. The President told us that he specifically issued "three directives" as soon as  he learned "what was going on". But now it is being spun at the Senate hearings by this administration that the President didn't know what was going on and as for the Secretary of State, they had no idea where she was.  Huh?  They showed us all sorts of pictures of the President in meetings as proof of his engagement in the process but now we are told by Panetta that those were just photos from the meeting and that after that the President never spoke with him and the defense department again. What? From total involvement in what was going on on the ground - remember they first came out and told us they were watching this in real time from the Situation Room - to now saying the President was not involved and basically said "you guys handle it" and went to bed.

What is going on here?  Why one story of engagement and then a switch in the story of not knowing what was going on, of non-involvement?  We know that the ship captain that delivered guns to Syrian rebels through Turkey (think here Muslim Brotherhood & Al Quida) has been found and admitted his involvement.  We know a Senator asked about why the Ambassador was in this terrorist hot spot and about gun running just prior to Hillary's diatribe, "what does that matter four Americans are dead".  We know a Senator asked Panetta if he agreed with other administration officials that maybe they should arm the Syrian rebels (a Hillary idea) - he said, "we did" (note he didn't say "I did", he distanced himself a bit by saying "we did" - "we" agreed with arming the rebels).  

So what we know from the various testimony of Clinton, Panetta, Brennan (National Security Adviser) and Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) is that President Obama did nothing to save Americans under attack from terrorists. His Secretary of Defense did nothing. His Secretary of State did nothing. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did nothing. His Deputy National Security Adviser defended doing “nothing” to help bring the perpetrators to justice. And the entire administration participated in an effort to cover up the truth.

We know for fact the testimony indicates there was a lot of confusion and a lack of leadership - very concerning in-of-itself.  But more important and disturbing for our consideration is the possibility that this gun running to our enemy's or something along those lines, is just the tip of an event that is so much worse that this administration, this President, feels that he would prefer to take the heat for him not being engaged in the attack and murder of a U.S. Ambassadors and three other Americans on his watch then be associated with whatever else may be lurking, ready to pop its ugly head.  Judging by the actions and conflicting statements of this administration over the last three months we know whatever it is he must have been well aware.

What do you think?