It’s time for President Obama, Secretary Clinton, CIA Director Petraeus and Defense Secretary Panetta to be grilled extensively on their decisions, or lack thereof, during the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2012. I don’t want this hearing to be about a ton of peripheral topics. Citizen journalists will sort through Susan Rice’s and Jay Carney’s spin.

This shouldn’t even be about President Obama attending a Vegas fundraiser the day after the terrorist attacks. Again, that’s something citizen journalists can sort through. Here are the things this hearing must be about:

  1. Who was the first senior administration official to get real time reports from the consulate the day of the terrorist attack? Did this senior administration official report this immediately to President Obama? If not, why not?
  2. When did President Obama’s national security team first tell him about the terrorist attack? Was this during his afternoon meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta the day of the terrorist attack?
  3. During his meeting with Secretary Panetta, did President Obama order Panetta to send troops to protect the diplomatic staff in Benghazi? If he didn’t order protection for these American patriots during his meeting with Secretary Panetta, did President Obama order military support later in the day? If not, why not?
  4. Secretary Panetta said that he didn’t send troops in because they didn’t know what they’d be jumping into. Mike Baker dispelled that myth by saying the CIA and military are receiving a “glut of information” in real time from the CIA, specifically the Global Response Staff. Did Secretary Panetta recommend to President Obama that the military jump into the firefight/terrorist attack? If he did, what was President Obama’s response? If he didn’t, why didn’t he make that recommendation?
  5. When did Charlene Lamb first tell Hillary Clinton about the terrorist attack? When she was told about the terrorist attack, did Ms. Clinton immediately contact President Obama? If not, why not? If she did, what time was it that she contacted him?
  6. President Obama was the only person with the constitutional authority to order troop deployments during an act of war. Terrorist attacks on American consulates are without question acts of war. Did he order spec-ops troops to be deployed to Benghazi to protect the diplomats from the terrorist attack? If he didn’t, why didn’t he?

These hearings need to start with focusing in on a single subject so the American people get a detailed understanding of President Obama’s national security team operations and his decisions to protect or not protect Christopher Stevens and his diplomatic staff.

Once that base of information is established and the American people understand President Obama’s failings, then the hearings can expand into other areas. Until then, they must stay focused.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “No more dodging with Benghazi”

  • eric z says:

    Third guy in your opening sentence, odd man out.

    Reuters has a good op ed giving links to several not fully consistent versions of fact. Sampling there should be first, before too many conclusions:

    The question, who at CIA or paramour of one at CIA blew the cover on something having national security cause to perhaps float a disinformation story; what was put at risk for Romney-Ryan potential political making hay, all that. The interaction between careerists at CIA and Petraeus, the FBI investigation, all that needs examination. Did the careerists have the paramour angle in the bag from the get go, to be used in the event a Petraeus sacking became necessary or convenient? As one who did not progress through the CIA ranks, having the goods at the start on an imposed outside head from the military would not conflict with things that advance careers of CIA careerists.

    Presuming a Fox version of things truthful as a base premise for posing a set of questions aimed at dumping on Obama and his Secretary of State may be quite unwise and an amateur step.

  • eric z says:

    I reread my comment. It’s not clear, but what I tried to say is “What happened” is the preliminary question before going off in directions based on some thesis of what happened, especially one grounded in FOX vs facts.

  • eric z says:

    Then, second big question, was national security breached and a possibly very necessary CIA operation compromised for political or other reasons; and if so, by whom, with what motives, and with what actual factual consequences. The problem there, it will be a closed door questioning, with the public held to not have need to know status. As always, there are pros and cons, and other administrations before Obama have used “national security” as an excuse and classification of information as a convenience. It is a thicket of problems, Bere Rabbit’s brier patch, but I fully agree with Gary that the situation is ripe for investigation and improvement of procedures and likely personnel decisions that may never become public, but whatever happens behind closed doors, public trust in the players and motives and happenings needs to be considered and satisfied.

  • eric z says:

    Key questions you do not list, Gary, what was the CIA up to and had they given prior assurances of keeping security and not wanting any bolstering in advance of Sept. 11 to not focus attention on where they were and what they were up to? With Petraeus now thrown under the bus it appears it was a CIA failure, cowboy operation that resulted in three dead, and what value is there to telling the world’s public more about that than already has been let out? You Gary are suggesting a witch hunt, and I want the question, “What really happened, time frame, etc.” answered first. There was a substantial time delay for CIA to get from their compound to where the fan was loading up, and that level of delay would be intolerable of a local fire department. What happened, how responsible was Paetreus for it, and is this why he’s been removed?

  • walter hanson says:


    Let me try to make this easy for you since you made four posts because of the Obama reelection drink you had.

    Obama cared more about attending fundraisers then he did about national security and having people who cared about making sure Americans are safe.

    The person to blame is Obama since he is going to try to pretend to the world that it was the video and we took care of the man who made the video.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Gary Gross says:

    What I tried to say is “What happened” is the preliminary question before going off in directions based on some thesis of what happened

    Knowing what President Obama did at the height of the crisis is what’s most important. Did he lie when he told the media that he’d commanded his administration “to do everything possible” for Christopher Stevens? Did he command Panetta to not send in Delta Force when Christopher Stevens was crying for help after the compound was compromised? If President Obama refused to protect our ambassador, then he’s the scummiest dirtbag of a president in U.S. history. There isn’t another president that wouldn’t have done everything possible to rescue a U.S. ambassador in that situation.

    especially one grounded in FOX vs facts.

    Your distrust of Fox is typical leftist BS. It’s your blind spot. What’s worse is that you immediately assume they’re lying. The truth is it’s been Fox’s Jennifer Griffin & Catherine Herridge who’ve broken most of the documents that question President Obama’s statements. The other people who’ve done fantastic work breaking through President Obama’s BS are CBS’s Lara Logan & Sharyl Attkisson & ABC’s Jake Tapper. In fact, Tapper & Logan have praised the work Herridge & Griffin have done.

    But you know better, right? You just know that those documents showing President Obama was MIA are forgeries, right?

    Final question: Wheh will you admit that hatred, not facts, drives your opinions about FNC? Your ‘facts’ don’t match with the truth. Deal with it before you become the bitter man that typifies the left.

  • Gary Gross says:

    I hadn’t questioned the need for improving procedures. I’m stating that President Obama made a series of terrible decisions that cost 4 U.S. patriots their lives when their lives were quite savable. The only thing that would’ve changed the outcome was firing President Obama. Changing procedures just means the symptoms gets treated but the disease, aka President Obama, lives on for another 4 years.

    Now that the election is behind us, I just hope he doesn’t get more American patriots needlessly killed. I’m not holding my breath on that.

  • eric z says:

    Glad to read Walter saying dumping a load on Obama is what it is all about, the only thing it is about. Walter, honesty is a good trait and you showed some.

    As to an end to needless killing, Gary, is that saying get out of Afghanistan ASAP, yesterday was not soon enough? If so, Bravo.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, killing terrorists in Afghanistan & Pakistan isn’t needless killing. That’s what’s known as protecting the United States from future terrorist attacks.

    As for President Obama’s refusal to exert leadership, Panetta’s indecisiveness & Hillary’s hiding the truth, aka the things that got 4 American patriots killed, I’ll hang that millstone around their collective necks for as long as I live.

    What they did is disgusting. They’re far from the best America has to offer. They’re putrid betrayers of all that’s best with America.

Leave a Reply