Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi, General, “We Never Received a Request for Support From State Dept.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on Sept 11, 2012. Panetta said that Obama left operational detail, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, “up to us.” In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. He said that, save their 5 o’clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. there were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State department never requested “support” in Benghazi. “why didn’t you put forces in place to be ready to respond?,” Senator John McCain asked the general. Dempsey stated, “Because we never received a request to do so, number one, And number two, we–” McCain interrupts, “You never heard of Ambassador Stevens’ repeated warnings?” “I had, through General Ham,” responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. “But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces–” “So it’s the State Department’s fault?,” queried McCain. “I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded. The Weekly Standard

31 thoughts on “Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi, General, “We Never Received a Request for Support From State Dept.””

  1. This is silly. No one cares about Benghazi. It happened. Get over it. If you care so much about 4 dead people half the world over, then join us to help ban the sale of assault weapons and high capacity clips. So where is the outrage for 6 times that number killed on the floor of Sandy Hook?

    Zero. there is none. The only reason you even mention Benghazi, is because you thought you had Obama cornered and the fact that no one cares is gnawing the heck out of you… 🙂

    Again, Benghazi… No one cares. If you care about people getting murdered, ban assault weapons here in the US… If you don’t join to ban them, then don’t expect anyone to care what you think or say about something that means nothing to anyone anyhow….. .

  2. Kavips
    People care enough to have congressional hearings about it. I care enough to post it. There is a cover-up going on and it must be exposed. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but it is news and it happened today and I wrote about it.
    People were murdered with no help from the Obama Administration, as perhaps you have read in the post. This is news. Grin and bear it!
    If you have a comment on the cover-up, please let’s hear it.

  3. While I don’t in any way share kavips seeming apathy over the lives of 4 Americans his point about the selective outrage depending upon the political consequences is absolutely valid. I’m not saying it doesn’t go both ways, but damn if this isn’t a pretty obvious example.

    The absurdity of the overreaction on the right side of the aisle rivals that of the left during the discussions of the proposed surge in Iraq.

  4. Falcor
    I don’t believe for one instance this is an overreaction and I know that the events that happened today are news.
    I believe the Obama Administration is at fault for the incident portrayed in the post. The events that happened in the post are reported correctly and accurately and this is not an overreaction.
    You can also comment on the cover-up if you would like.

  5. The hearings are not an over reaction or circus. We have US citizens all over the world and we have a powerful military and extensive Embassy structure to protect our citizens.

    These victims included an Ambassador and three others who could have been saved with the forces available.

    Now, for the morons who might equate the Assault Weapons Law with Benghazi show their ignorance about the responsibilities of the President. You and I both know Harry Reid could put a bill on the Senate agenda in 30 seconds but the majority of his Dem membership in the Senate would not support it.

    Provide the hard evidence the difference the Assault Weapons Ban had and could have. You can’t point to one single law which could have stopped any of the mass shootings.

    Obama could not care one but about the lives of our service members or Foreign Service.
    Mike Protack

  6. kavips writes in #1: “This is silly. No one cares about Benghazi.”

    SHOULD they? It doesn’t matter if they do. Should they?

  7. Kavips, does anyone care about a third rate burglarly of a minor Democrat National Committee office in the Watergate complex?

  8. kavips writes in #1: “If you care about people getting murdered, ban assault weapons here in the US… ”

    How will that stop anyone from getting murdered?

  9. “If we’d have left Gaddafi be, 4 Americans would still be alive.”

    Now insert Saddam, and deduce that absurd number…

  10. If we had let Saddam Hussein be, a nuclear bomb would have gone off in New York City by now.

    Falcor, do you understand that the news media lies to you?

    During the Scooter Libbey trial documents were released proving that Iraq had an active program developing a nuclear bomb. But your thought masters will never tell you that.

  11. In fact, it was the invasion of Iraq that caused Gaddaff to renounced terrorism and the pursuit of WMD’s, hand over intelligence on terrorists, and hand over components of his previous daliance with WMD’s

  12. Again, Benghazi… No one cares. If you care about people getting murdered, ban assault weapons here in the US…

    In other news, Obama Inc. is establishing a program with multinational corporations in which American citizens can send their assault weapons to Syria or Mexican drug cartels.

    Just kidding.

    Anyway, if you care about people getting murdered then don’t ban assault weapons… because that would be stupid.

  13. In fact, it was the invasion of Iraq that caused Gaddaff to renounced terrorism and the pursuit of WMD’s…

    A lot of good it did him.

    I don’t care about dictators and tyrants of one form (open dictatorships) or the other (occult banksters).

    But from the perspective of one group of psychopaths against others it’s like his son said, they may as well have built up their military assets to fight it out.

    Side note, depleted uranium = WMD already anyway…

  14. “If we had let Saddam Hussein be, a nuclear bomb would have gone off in New York City by now.”

    That’s the dumbest freaking thing I’ve ever heard. Ever. Post some of these documents Jon. Since they are so obviously available this shouldn’t be a problem.

    You don’t care about the people who died in Iraq, you don’t care about the people who died in Benghazi, and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  15. Falcor, I have posted them for years. They were on a website I have since let lapse, so I will have to repost them.

    But they are undeniable facts that:

    1) Iraq already had a stockpile of uranium ore.

    2) It did not need any more. It wasn’t using the uranium it already had.

    3) The UN was watching the uranium stockpiles.

    4) However, Iraq approached the country of Niger to acquire more uranium. The Prime Minister of Niger reported to the US State Department that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium UNDER THE TABLE.

    5) There was a false report about Niger agreeing. Niger said NO. The report that Niger agreed was false.

    However, the Prime Minister of Niger officially reported to the US State Department that Iraq was SEEKING to buy uranium COVERTLY.

    6) If Iraq had stockpiles of uranium already, but being watched by the United Nations inspectors, what do you think they were buying MORE uranium for NOT being watched by UN inspectors?

    7) Finally, read the book by the man who was building the nuclear bomb for Saddam Hussein:

    Saddam’s Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda [Hardcover]

    http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Bombmaker-Terrifying-Nuclear-Biological/dp/0684873869/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360345164&sr=8-1&keywords=saddam%27s+bomb+maker

  16. But most important, the US State Department had the official reports indicating an active Iraqi nuclear bomb program.

    Whether you agree or not, the US Government and George Bush had US State Department reports that Saddam was building a nuclear bomb.

    And remember that the US State Department would be expected to soft-soak and downplay such things.

  17. “Whether you agree or not, the US Government and George Bush had US State Department reports that Saddam was building a nuclear bomb.”

    And you’ve yet to cite anything other than a link to a book on Amazon.com.

    Is that really what you consider documentation?

  18. And even if that was all true, which you’ve yet to document, the jump from what you posted to this:

    “If we had let Saddam Hussein be, a nuclear bomb would have gone off in New York City by now.”

    is absolutely absurd.

  19. Falcor writes in #19: “And you’ve yet to cite anything other than a link to a book on Amazon.com.”

    You mean a book interviewing the man who was actually building the nuclear bombs for Saddam Hussein.

    And I told you I will need to resurrect part of a website, which contained many documents. I will get around to it.

    As for New York City, is a certainty, not absurd.

    The invasion of Iraq was 10 years ago. If Saddam Hussein had had the last 10 years with a free hand, he would have built and handed off to Al Qaeda nuclear bombs.

    All Al Qaeda would need is a boat to sail up into New York Harbor or a truck to drive into NYC from a remote beach somewhere.

  20. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate George Bush the Elder out of a desire for revenge for the first Gulf war.

    You really think he was the forgiving type?

  21. “You mean a book interviewing the man who was actually building the nuclear bombs for Saddam Hussein.”

    No, you mean a book interviewing a man who claims he was building nuclear bombs for Saddam Hussein. For all you know, he built something filled with old pinball-machine parts.*

    *Reference from “Back to the Future” that I don’t expect you to get.

  22. “Whether you agree or not, the US Government and George Bush had US State Department reports that Saddam was building a nuclear bomb.”

    They also had plenty of reports that he was not doing so. Kinda like Benghazi that way.

  23. “The invasion of Iraq was 10 years ago. If Saddam Hussein had had the last 10 years with a free hand, he would have built and handed off to Al Qaeda nuclear bombs.”

    So sayeth the prophet, Jon Moseley.

    You can’t pass off an ill-informed opinion as fact, especially not when you are prognosticating an imaginary future.

  24. The reason for BO’s lying and the press coverup is simple- BO is the Messiah. BO has brought the world together. Thanks to comrade Omaba, Muslims now love America.

    So, when a US Ambassador is dragged through the street, blame it on a video than nobody even saw. Simple.

  25. Commenting about Saddam Hussein is great, but do you think about the cover-up that has happened with the Benghazi incident?

  26. How exactly does law abiding citizens voluntary disarming themselves stop terrorists (foreign or domestic) from attacking and killing Americans?

  27. Falcor
    Well, in the famous words of Clint Eastwood, I will agree that it certainly was and is a clusterf–k.
    It’s that nobody wants to admit to any responsibility. They believe it should just go away.
    It is one of the greatest examples of non-leadership on the defense of an embassy that I’ve seen at the national level.
    What scares the heck out of me, it was Hilary Clinton’s responsibility as Secretary of State to take immediate action to defend American property and lives and she did nothing.
    She could very well be the next President of the US; What a joke!

  28. Paula
    “How exactly does law abiding citizens voluntary disarming themselves stop terrorists (foreign or domestic) from attacking and killing Americans?”

    You’re right, they have nothing to do with each other. These people did not take responsibility for their actions and now they will discuss anything but the Benghazi debacle. The did not defend an American Ambassador and his staff, and now four people are dead because of their lack of action.
    The worst part of it is, that now America has a reputation in the Middle East of non-defense of our embassies and diplomatic missions. No wonder Obama doesn’t want to go to the Middle East. It could be him next.

Comments are closed.