Well, folks... still sans working computer... remote blogging from a library which is about to close.
Busy weekend before me. Don't know if I'll get much - if any - blogging done.
But, hey... let me get this latest bit of news (via the Weekly Standard) out to you before I'm forced to vacate my perch here at the library:
* * * * * *
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
LISTEN, FOLKS... THIS IS THE WEEKLY STANDARD... I'M NOT TAKING THIS REPORT AT FACE VALUE, HOWEVER... NOTE... THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVEN READ PETRAEUS' NAME PUT IN PRINT SINCE THIS WEEK'S LATEST BENGHAZI NEWS BROKE!
PATRAEUS IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA. HE IS A MILITARY MAN. HE'S NEITHER BEEN ALL OVER THE MEDIA DEFENDING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION NOR HAS HE (YET) RESIGNED IN PROTEST OF WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON.
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need?
Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators.
Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
ONE WOULD THINK NOT...
It would have been a presidential decision.
A MILITARY ATTACK UPON A U.S. CONSULATE BEING WITNESSED IN REAL TIME VIA DRONE WHILE NEARBY CIA ASSETS ARE WATCHING LIVE AND REQUESTING PERMISSION TO ASSIST OUR PERSONNEL... YEAH... I'D GUESS THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE INVOLVED.
There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it?
When and why - and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations - did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?