Benghazi...

Bumped for Update the Second:

Commenter Anonymous forwarded this video, thinking it might be the one I couldn't find.  It's not, but it's certainly of the same ilk:


Bumped for Update:


Mark Steyn weighs in on this topic, and you really don't want to miss it...

Original post:

It just keeps on getting worse.  Yesterday we found out that:

• as the Benghazi attacks were underway, our Ambassador and his staff repeatedly asked for military assistance – which was denied
• we had the right kind of military assistance within range of Benghazi
• we apparently had a Special Forces Spectre (AC-130 gunship) overhead (this is inferred from the fact that one of the guys on the ground was “painting” a target with a target designator, something one would do only in the expectation of support from a gunship)

Now this morning I read these three things:

• Petraeus (CIA director) says flatly that the CIA never denied any request for military assistance
• Panetta (Secretary of Defense) says the Pentagon didn't have enough information to respond militarily – while other reports say we had military support available on scene
• Obama says he was “not personally aware” of any requests for military assistance at the time

This leaves me very suspicious of the very worst: that we lost four good men because someone up the chain of command decided not to support them.  Who could that someone be?

CIA?  Petraeus makes it abundantly clear that it wasn't the CIA, and I believe he's an honorable man (though someone could, presumably, be lying to him).

Pentagon?  Panetta's “no information” claim seems laughable, based on what we've been told by other sources.  It's the kind of thing you'd say to cover up the real reason.  If some person under his command made the decision not to supply military aid, that person would have been fingered by Panetta and Obama weeks ago, to cover their own butt.  If Panetta made that decision himself, Obama would have thrown him under the bus.  That leaves one alternative: Panetta is covering for Obama – and damn it, that's plausible.

White House?  Imagine being in the White House on 9/11, as the Benghazi attack was unfolding.  Obama was in Washington that day, and so presumably able to easily communicate with his staff.  The calls and emails from Benghazi, asking for military assistance, come in.  What does the staff do?  Does nobody notice?  Does a staff member decide not to inform the President?  Does a staff member respond directly, denying the request?  Or does a staff member forward the requests to Obama, who either doesn't respond or who denies the request?  Those are all the possibilities I can think of, and every one of them is completely unacceptable for a Commander-in-Chief and his staff.  Their reaction (or lack thereof) killed four Americans.  They must be brought to account.

You'll note that several of those links go to Fox News, which is the only mainstream media outlet working this story.  Of course, if something like this had occurred during President Bush's administration (or that of any other non-Progressive President), the mainstream media would be all over it.  There would be giant headlines and “Breaking News Alerts!” every time another piece of the story emerged.  Dozens of reporters would be working just as hard as they possibly could, diligently tracking down every lead.  But this is a Progressive administration, and the mainstream media studiously ignores every sour note – even on a story like this, involving downright criminal (perhaps even treasonous) behavior on the part of senior administration officials.  Most of the media are co-conspirators in the Progressive efforts to tear up our Constitution and “evolve” into a Progressive, socialist state modeled after Europe.

Of course, even worse is that most Americans don't care enough about this to even inform themselves.  Even the carefully edited sound bytes from the mainstream media are heard by relatively few Americans.  The other day I saw a video of an on-the-street survey of a couple dozen randomly-selected people, each asked just one question: “What can you tell me about Benghazi?”  I can't find it now, dang it.  From memory, just one person answered in a way that made it clear they knew Benghazi was in Libya, that Americans had been killed there, and that there was controversy over the events there.  Several people thought “Benghazi” was a musician; one even rhapsodized about the glories of his lyrics.  Two or three others knew it was a place (one thought it was a country; another a city in Turkey).  Most had never heard of it.  Just one person in a couple dozen had a clue –  roughly 4%.  Ay yi yi...