Benghazigate: Obama Now Looking for Someone to Throw Under the Bus

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


On MSNBC, Obama offered up the head of whoever “didn’t do their job”.

“What my attitude on this is is if we find out there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job, they’ll be held accountable. Ultimately as Commander-in-Chief I am responsible and I don’t shy away from that responsibility.”

The “breakdown” here though would appear to be not conflicting intelligence, but a denial of military support to the Navy SEALS in the consulate.

Senator Portman has shifted the question away from the traditional “intelligence failures” which have been used to cover for everything from Iran to September 11, and back to the core question of whether Obama issued an order for military support.

There was a shocking breakdown operationally not having the security there in the first place. And not to respond to these guys and their pleas for help for seven hours during a firefight. It’s unbelievable. And, now we’re hearing that the President of the United States, based on his own words, issued a directive immediately after he found out about the firefight saying he wanted to be sure the people on the ground were safe and they were getting what they needed. It didn’t happen. This means that either the president’s order was not followed. Which would be a breakdown in terms of the White House procedure or it means the order wasn’t issued. We need to find out about this. It’s not about politics.

Meanwhile Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a top ranking former intelligence officer, whose book on Afghanistan was banned, has said that his sources tell him that Obama was in the situation room watching it happen. Which means the decision came down to him.

“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

 

That puts the onus of responsibility right back on Obama. The predictable response of the administration will be to look for a sacrificial goat to blame for “intelligence failures” leading to the attack, and obviously missing a coordinated series of attacks on American diplomatic facilities across the Middle East counts as a major intelligence failure, but it conveniently diverts from the core question of what orders Obama gave or failed to give during the actual attack.

  • Christopher Riddle

    This is yet another GLARING example of this man's INCOMPETENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/charliemoney3 Carlos Leal

    Wow, how sad…and so Poor in the Part of Our so called National Leadership.

  • http://www.facebook.com/edward.cline.77 Edward Cline

    Excuse my cynicism and my core dislike of Obama and everything he stands for, but I am beginning to suspect that Obama and his Secretary of State, Panetta, Dempsey, and the rest of that gang were counting on Stevens and the others being "eliminated" as possible evidence of Obama's new "Fast and Furious" supplying of arms to the Syrian "rebels." I simply do not put anything past this creature.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It's possible but there's no real evidence of such an operation and frankly it's doubtful that Libyan Jihadists would have needed US coordination to ship weapons from the battlefield to Syria.

      • Mary Sue

        well, theoretically speaking, if it was a "fast and Furious of the Middle East/North Africa", the purpose wasn't to ship weapons in and of itself, but to do something else. Fast and Furious version 1.0 was to gin up support for gun control. There's various outcomes from doing this in Libya that may have been desirable to the administration in terms of creating a problem in order to totalitarianistically "solve" it. Notably, when the prez came out claiming the attack was a result of a Youtube video. So instead of ginning up support for gun control, he's trying to gin up support for restricting free speech.

        And you have to admit, it doesn't get any creepier coming from a sitting president's mouth than "The future does not belong to those who insult Islam."

  • http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/ Daryl Davis

    Should it turn out to be true that the President might well have saved his ambassador but refused to do so, either refraining from issuing the order itself or neglecting to see the order subsequently executed, then he is a national disgrace — particularly were this failure solely a reflection of his political ambitions.

    But the press has already disgraced itself for failing to give this story their due diligence, presumably because they aren't willing to tip the election away from the POTUS, even when this October surprise is a self-inflicted one.

    Honestly, I hope that he has not done this.

    And should he win reelection, in spite of such a record, perhaps it's time for changes to our very system:
    http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/i

  • riverboatbill

    All the O-bow-meister needs to do is look in the mirror.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Ultimately as Commander-in-Chief I am responsible and I don’t shy away from that responsibility"

    The complete statement is rendered as; "Ultimately as Commander-in-Chief I am responsible and I don’t shy away from that responsibility…of blaming others."

  • Mary Sue

    Hey, Obama. Guess what. YOU didn't do YOUR JOB. You always do not do your job. You don't go to intel briefings. It's your job and you didn't do it nearly often enough. That's called, NOT DOING YOUR JOB. Therefore, the head that should be offered up = yours. It's that simple.

    May the Karma of Carter be invoked, peace be upon Reagan.