Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.
Why did he not immediately order sufficient firepower to protect our people?
For the Elite Media to be doing everything it possibly can to get Barack Obama re-elected is one thing, but to deliberately protect his malfeasance in allowing four Americans to die without sending available rescuers is absolutely abominable. Then to allow Obama to lie about it without any serious questioning from these "Elite" reporters is beyond the pale.
When asked if he made the decision to not send rescuers he refused to answer and launched into a filibuster about waiting for an investigation into what happened. The simple fact is he knows what he did and did not do and he knows when he did it and why he did or did not act. He does not have to have an investigation to know that. That, to us, constitutes a bald face dishonesty that renders him unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.
We are fast becoming to believe what Glenn Beck has been saying since two days after the attack on our territory in Libya...that the American ambassador was in Benghazi for a definite reason--on 9-11 no less--and something went badly wrong. That much is obvious. But what was the reason? Obama refuses to say. There is a reason no one sent help for hours after it was repeatedly called for. And help was available. Regardless of what they saw on the video from the drones they knew Americans were in trouble and needed help and that help was not sent. Such decisions are not made low in the ranks. Those kinds of decisions are made at the highest levels in such circumstances. And while all this was going on, Obama went to bed.
This is worse than any fictional novel anyone could make up.
We know Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi having dinner with the Turkish Counselor General. Figure that one out. We believe they were negotiating a deal to release the Blind Sheik or some such nefarious scheme. Regardless of the reason for Steven being in Benghazi and whether that reason would have caused Obama not to react, what we know is that he did not. He did not issue a clear order to save the Americans.
It is reasonable it seems to us to conclude that the tepid response to the earlier attacks (between 10:00 and 12:00 p.m.) may have caused the second wave later in the night. that of course warrents the "investigation" that Obama speaks about, but that does not mean that he needs an investigation to tell us what he knew and when he knew it and what he did or why he chose not to respond adequately.
It is inconceivable to us that an American ambassador would be sent into a lawless area such as Benghazi without adequate security and certainly not without immense backup close buy. That simply does not fit. And for the Secretary of Defense to say that for over seven hours they did not have "sufficient information to act" is laughable. Additional personnel were sent. How could those have been justified to be "put in harm's way" and the sufficient forces not sent. For some reason a "minimalist" approach was used from the time the first calls for help came in until the very end. Why minimal? Why did Obama not order, within the first few hours when he knew our people were outgunned, sufficient force to handle the situation? Why did he not immediately overpower these terrorists? Our resources were available. Why did he make, or allow to be made, the decision not to use those resources?
We deserve answers. Not after the election. But right now. He know what he did and he knows why he chose not to order sufficient firepower to respond. Tell us. Tell us now.
The bunk about Republicans "politicizing" the situation is absurd. The American people deserve an answer about why we did not protect Americans and why we did not immediately retaliate against an attack on our people and territory. That is not politics. It is reality. What is political about this is Obama trying to get past November 6 before he comes clean. And then he can thumb his nose at everyone and we will never know the whole truth unless he is impeached and we have zero confidence that will happen with the impotence we've seen from Congress.
And then to have the Secretary of State, the Ambassador to the U. N. and the President himself, not once but repeatedly over several days flat out lie about a You Tube video being the "cause" of this is even more absurd.
There is no constitutional provision for removing the President from his command as Commander-in-Chief. But there should be. Hopefully the American voters will get-r-done.