IMPLOSION: Obama fumbles local reporter's Benghazi question; CIA director throws President under bus

According to the official White House record, Obama, Biden and SECDEF Panetta were meeting approximately one hour after the Benghazi attack began. (See President's White House Schedule below)

When confronted with a local reporter's pointed questions regarding Benghazi, President Obama fumbled his response and inadvertently provided a few clues into the timing and the cover-up.

KYLE CLARK: Were they denied requests for help during the attack?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we're going to find out exactly what happened, but what we're also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.

Last night, attorney Mark Levin deconstructed Obama's response as follows:

• ...the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives...

Note that this is stated in the present tense. The president found out about the attack while it was happening.

• ...make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to...

Well, sir, what orders did you give? Were they disobeyed? Did you receive requests for help? Notice that the president carefully avoided the reporter's actual question (lesson for vintage media: this is what your predecessors actually used to do) about whether calls for help were refused.

• ...Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again...

So during the attack, you clearly ordered an "investigation"? Does that make sense to anyone?

• ...Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice...

So while the attack was occurring, you want to find out who was attacking and arrest them? Again, does this make any sense at all?

Late last night, CIA Director Petraeus absolved the agency of blame:

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.”

Put simply, Petraeus has handed the hot potato to President Obama.

Now let's examine the president's schedule on 9/11/12:

According to the official White House record, Obama, Biden and SECDEF Panetta were meeting approximately one hour after the Benghazi attack began.

Time for some answers, Mr. President, and we don't have to wait for the results of an "investigation" to hear your responses:

1. When did you first receive word of the Benghazi attacks?

2. Did you receive requests for help from those on-scene and, if so, when?

3. What orders did you issue, if any, after receiving word of the attacks and when did you issue them?

4. Within two hours of the attack, your own schedule indicates you were meeting with the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense. Did you discuss Benghazi and, if so, what information did you receive and what orders did you issue in that meeting?

5. There have been no White House press briefings for more than a week. Why?

Levin believes that the president received word immediately of the attacks and, whether through fear of the political ramifications or simple indecision (akin to voting "present"), watched as Americans were slaughtered as they begged for help.

And then he headed to Vegas for a fundraiser.



 

Appalling! Biden Asks Father Of Dead SEAL, “Did Your Son Always Have Balls The Size Of Cue Balls?”

Joe Biden has no business representing our country in any capacity, much less running it.  During the ceremony honoring the return of Navy SEAL hero Tyrone Woods’ body, VP Joe Biden greeted the family with an atrociously offensive and crass question…

“Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

Their son is dead.  And their son is dead because Joe Biden and the rest of the feckless politicians in the Obama administration placed politics above American lives.  So, of course, Biden wouldn’t have any instinct to understand, much less feel, the solemnity of that moment.  The offensive level of that comment is just breathtaking.

According to the Daily Mail,

‘Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?’ Biden’s bizarre question angers father of Navy SEAL who died in Benghazi attack

• VP made inappropriate comment to Charles Woods, father of SEAL Tyrone
• Father angered by White House reaction to deadly assault in Benghazi
• Said meeting Obama was ‘like shaking hands with a dead fish’
• Accused Hillary of not telling the truth when she linked consulate raid to anti-Muslim YouTube video

The father of one of the Navy SEALs who was killed in the Libya consulate attack has criticised the White House reaction to his son’s death – especially a bizarre and obscene comment Joe Biden made to him.Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, said he thought Barack Obama had ‘no remorse’ over the attack and felt Hillary Clinton was ‘not telling the truth’.
And he revealed that at the ceremony for the return of Tyrone’s body, the Vice President approached his family and asked, ‘Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?’
Mr Woods added that the President seemed cold and distant at the time, saying: ’Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish.’

It’s Dumb and Dumber running our country right now.
 

'Stand Down': U.S. Had Two Drones, AC-130 Gunship, and Targets Painted in Benghazi

Reports indicate two drones and an AC-130 gunship were in the area when Benghazi was attacked, yet their resources were not used.

This runs completely against the current explanation coming out of the White House, which is that Obama did everything he could once he learned of the attack.

You'll remember that in the second presidential debate, Obama said that as "soon as I was aware the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team." The not-so-subtle intimation is that Obama was stepping up to the protect the U.S. personnel who were in Libya. And in the wakes of their deaths, which weren't "optimal," we have been assured that stronger action wasn't taken stronger because those options weren't available.

Sec. of State Leon Panetta gave us another version this same excuse, saying: "The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over."

There are three huge problems with the excuses Obama and Panetta are making.

1. It is now known that the U.S. had two drones in the area -- both of which were filming the attacks, sending back feeds in real time, and at least one of the drone may have been armed.

2. Reports also indicate a Specter gunship, probably an AC-130, was in the area for backup. The gunship could have swooped in and not only leveled the playing field in the match between 50 attackers vs a handful of security personnel, it could have thrown the attack decisively in favor of the security personnel.

3. The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came.

Obama says he was doing everything he could, and Panetta says we didn't react more strongly because we weren't sure what was going on. Yet we now know two drones were sending back video of the attack in real time, and at least one of those drones may have been armed. We also know a massive AC-130 gunship could have been used for backup as well, but it was not. And we know that security was begging for backup and even marking targets with lasers for the drones and/or gunship so they could make quick work of the attackers.

Yet Obama chose not to respond, and that's the bottom line.

Former Navy SEAL: Libya Obama's 'Watergate,' Admin. Actions 'Unconscionable'

A former Navy SEAL told Breitbart News on Friday that allegations of negligence during the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack exemplified Obama's "failed policy of appeasement and apology" and was Obama's "Watergate" with four deaths. 

Ryan Zinke, a member of the Montana state Senate former U.S. Navy SEAL, said it was "unconscionable that the Administration would not immediately act when our consulate is under attack," and this was Obama's "Watergate with one exception" -- "the result was the loss of our Ambassador and three young heroes. "
"There is no better example of the President's failed policy of appeasement and apology than America being delayed because we had to ask Libya's permission to fly in their airspace to rescue our Ambassador," Zinke told Breitbart News. "Even sending aircraft overhead would have helped."
These quotes were in response to sources on the ground claiming that the Obama administration denied requests from Americans in Libya for military help while terrorists were attacking the U.S. consulate.