Fiddling While Benghazi Burned

While my last post on Benghazi contained four questions, and none appeared to be more important than the other, there is one that should be the main focus: where was the president that night and what did he do as commander-in-chief?

This question isn’t meant to be partisan; it’s intended to understand how this administration intends to protect the public servants it puts in harm’s way. It’s certainly a reasonable question for the president to answer. In the president’s first significant test on how he would react when American interests were under attack he, by all outward appearances, voted “present.”

A lot was made of George W. Bush reading to schoolchildren for another ten minutes when he first learned of the 9/11 attacks. Following that first moment, however, we knew what he and his young administration was doing throughout that awful day and in the days, weeks and months ahead. The current president? Not so much.

But, maybe the president was busier than we all suspect. Instead of working with his senior civilian and military advisors on how to protect the more than 30 Americans still under seize in Benghazi, it appears he was working on his cover story.

After his scheduled 5 p.m. meeting with Panetta and Dempsey, by the president’s own words, he went dark until about 10 p.m. that night when he took a phone call from then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. At that time – six hours into the attack – the White House knew at least one State Department worker was killed and the ambassador was missing. The two former SEALS who, it appears, disobeyed orders and went to the diplomatic annex and then the CIA site to protect co-workers, wouldn’t be the last two American victims of the attack for several more hours.

What did the president and Clinton talk about? Neither are talking in specifics, but we do know at 10:08 Clinton put out a press statement that mentions the dead American and then takes a strange twist by denouncing “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” This was clearly a reference to the YouTube video that became the accepted administration narrative of what caused the attack.

Was the video excuse cooked up during the conversation Obama and Clinton had only moments earlier? Did Clinton mention the content of the press statement she was putting out shortly after their call ended? Or were they conspiring on how to spin events that night instead of arranging for a rescue attempt? Keep in mind: two more Americans lost their lives only a few hours later. Surely these two heavy thinkers could have come up with a better use of their time than putting out a press statement blaming the video while others were in the heat of battle fighting for American workers and American secrets in Libya at the CIA site.

Questions Persist On Benghazi

There are still numerous unanswered questions regarding the Benghazi attack that claimed the lives of four Americans. Nine months after the attack, not only are there outstanding questions, but many have not even been asked by Congressional oversight committees or the press lazily covering what happened. In no particular order, they are:

1. Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack after he had been warning the deaf, dumb and blind in the Department of State that security was very inadequate in the Annex? Stevens and his security team had been asking for, in fact, pleading, for greater security for months leading up to the attack. He didn’t trust the locally-hired February 17th Martyrs Brigade and they proved his concern correct by melting into the streets as soon as the attack began. That left him with just a few bodyguards in an area of increasing violence aimed at Western diplomats. So why risk a trip to Benghazi when all his instincts should have been telling him it was an incredibly bad idea?

2. Why did the U.S. have such a large CIA presence in Benghazi? The CIA annex, which became the American survivors’ Fort Apache during the attack, had at least 30 intelligence officers stationed in Benghazi. What were they doing there? What was their mission? It’s not the most carefully guarded secret that the CIA was trying to locate and purchase Stinger missiles and other advanced weaponry that went missing in the turmoil following the American-supported overthrow of Gadhafi by the Muslim Brotherhood. Stinger missiles can take down civilian aircraft so the CIA is understandably concerned, but that’s what we get with a reckless president who seems hell bent on supporting Muslim radicals. But, were there other reasons we had so many spooks there – perhaps double the number of officers in Benghazi than we have in Russia? The answer may lie in why Stevens was in town meeting with the Turkish ambassador just before the attack. Turkey has been the supplier of weapons and aid to Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the Assad regime. Was Stevens effectively running guns, through Turkey, to Syrian rebels? Will an outpost to buy back these weapons soon be appearing in Syria should the rebels, Al Qaeda-connected, prevail? Are these questions being answered in the classified briefings to Congress? Shouldn’t the American people know why and who we’ve chosen to support and arm?

3. Where and who are the survivors? Throughout the night the CIA annex was under attack and defended by whoever had a gun. It’s been reported that as many as 100 attackers were killed in the seven-hour assault. In addition to the four Americans who died, another seven Libyan security personnel were killed defending the annex. Aside from those killed, a number of others were also injured including one still recovering nine month later at Walter Reed Hospital. Why haven’t the survivors been interviewed by Congressional investigators? Why haven’t even the names of the survivors been released to investigators? These are people with firsthand knowledge of what occurred that night. Surely they could offer insight into events and help provide answers to what went wrong that night and how to improve the security flaws that existed. Certainly no investigation can be complete without key witnesses being interviewed.

4. Where’s the beef, or in this case, the ham? What happened to General Carter Ham? Ham commanded U.S. Africa Command during the Benghazi attack and rumors have persisted that he intended to disobey orders and send in a rescue team but was effectively relieved of his command that night. Was this, in fact, true? Good generals never publicly discuss how and why they are promoted or relieved – which officially happened to Ham in April this year. As head of military operations for Africa, Ham would have been in charge of any military response in Benghazi. When the president tells the world he ordered all efforts be undertaken to protect American lives, Ham would have been given that order. Did Ham decide to disobey that order and stand down or was the order never given? Only a few people know what happened and I’m guessing Ham has a story to tell that wouldn’t be all that flattering of the president or the civilian leadership of our military.

5. Where was the president during the night? We know the president had a scheduled White House meeting with then secretary of defense Leon Panetta at 5 p.m. that night; an hour after the attack began. The president has said he was informed of events and that Ambassador Stevens was missing. He claims he ordered Panetta to do whatever was necessary to protect our interests and then left for an as yet publicly announced location. That’s the last anyone says they heard from the president that night. Both Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that neither heard from the president following the 5 p.m. briefing. An American Ambassador was missing and Obama didn’t have the curiosity to check back with his military leaders on how things were going? He certainly had no problem releasing photos of him in the White House situation room during the killing of bin Laden, so where is the photographic evidence the president was on top of things that night? For a president so vocal about his military successes, such as they are, why is the president so bashful now? Why are no reporters asking the president where he was that night and what he did? His teenage advisor, political hack Dan Pfeiffer, danced around the question during a mindless trip through Sunday talk shows last week, eventually declaring the president’s exact whereabouts to be “irrelevant.” Try putting that answer on a campaign bumper sticker…

Whether or not the American public is informed on what occurred that night and why, there are a few unavoidable truths: this president is in way over his head as commander-in-chief and in foreign policy. American voters were so blind to Obama’s campaign rhetoric that they never got around to taking a look at his slim resume.

He accomplished so little in a brief political career there is really no way he has the experience to make tough decisions in a dangerous world. And that’s being kind. The larger truth is he cares little about American security or our leadership through strength in the world, so it’s more likely he heard the annex was under attack and thought more about the dangers he faced in a hotly contested election to take place two months later.

To the president, I’m guessing, the ambassador was already dead, so why send in a rescue team and potentially face a “Black Hawk Down” crisis in the homestretch of an election campaign? All he really had to do was hide his feckless leadership for less than 60 days and let the details emerge after he was reelected. Yes, I believe the actually truth is that cynical.