The Democrats need a Howard Baker.
Unfortunately, Democrats with principles (other than political victory) seem to not exist.
I would note that the Republicans took a long time to finally get on the ball, compared to Watergate. This August will be the fortieth anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, at exactly the same time in the presidential cycle that Obama’s in now.
[Update a few minutes later]
Americans have a right to know where their president was while a terrorist attack was taking place — and the daily diary will provide that information. There will be a record if Obama held a secure video teleconference (SVTC) with his military commanders in the region or even spoke with them by phone. There will be a record if he met or spoke with his national security adviser to discuss the unfolding attack, and how many times he did so. If properly kept, the logs will show precisely what Obama was doing — whether he was carefully monitoring events on the ground or was otherwise occupied.
…During Watergate, Richard Nixon had his infamous 18 1/2-minute gap. When it comes to Benghazi, Obama has an eight-hour gap. That gap needs to be closed.
If Obama has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear.
I think it’s similar to his unwillingness to release his college transcripts. Or let people see the Khalidi birthday-party video. There’s something there they don’t want us to see.
Where Obama was during the night of the Benghazi attack may be embarrassing, but it shouldn’t be the rallying cry for the investigation.
According to the majority report (PDF – see page 15) of the House Armed Services committee, Obama was in the Oval Office meeting with Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey. They told him that the consulate had been overran and re-secured and that Stevens was missing. Obama then told Panetta and Dempsey to “do everything we need to do to try to protect the lives” of the diplomats.
Obama then did what he should do, which was get the hell out of the way. Panetta and Dempsey did what they could do while keeping Obama’s staff informed (page 19 of the above report). As previously mentioned (at length, in fact) and documented in the report, “The Department of Defense had no armed drones or manned aircraft prepared for combat readily available and nearby on September 11.”
When talking of ground forces, the GOP-written report says that: “As for the two FAST platoons, the CIF, and the special operations unit in the U.S., the posture of each meant they needed as much as six hours preparation before departing for Libya and they then had to travel varying distances of considerable length. The attacks in Benghazi were over within approximately seven and one-half hours, before any of these units arrived.”
One can, and the report does, ask why weren’t units closer and/or at a higher alert status. Asking where Obama was that night is frankly stupid and irrelevant.
“Upon arrival, the two discussed the attack with the President for fifteen to thirty minutes… He and General Dempsey also testified they had no further contact with the President, nor did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ever communicate with them that evening.”
Sounds like Obama was really on the ball there. He spent 15-30 minutes dealing with an ongoing terrorist attack on 9/11 in a country he just helped Islamic militants overthrow the government.
And what good general wouldn’t fall on his sword for the President?
“Obama then did what he should do, which was get the hell out of the way. ”
That is not what he should have done (get out of the way).
You see to it that youru orders are carried out – and how they are carried out.
You watch the operation to seeif the people under your command are being rescued.
You stand ready to make decisions shold they need to be made.
You get frequent updates.
One would think that the Grand Admiral of the Fleet would understand this.
You see to it that youru orders are carried out – and how they are carried out.
In December, 2004, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. consular employees. Where was the president when that happened? What orders did he give? How did he make sure those orders were carried out? Did he watch the people under his command being rescued?
Or do your rules only apply to Democrats?
“In December, 2004, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. consular employees. Where was the president when that happened? What orders did he give? How did he make sure those orders were carried out? Did he watch the people under his command being rescued? ”
Of course not…situational ethics are a Liberal game.
If you have reason to believe that the President, in 2004, wasn’t doing his duty, state your facts. Or state your rationale as to why you think he was AWOL. We know for a fact the MSM would have done just that if there was a shred of reason to believe there was a problem. Heck the MSM and Harry Reid make up possible problems out of vacuum (mitt Romney’s taxes).
But you don’t…all you have is an event. Whereas with President Clown we have facts, statements, definite proven lies, and non-action over 9 hours.
situational ethics are a Liberal game.
OK, then make sure you know Bush’s answer to your questions before demanding that Obama answer them.
If you have reason to believe that the President, in 2004, wasn’t doing his duty, state your facts.
I don’t have reason to believe that either President wasn’t doing his duty, and neither do you.
“One can, and the report does, ask why weren’t units closer and/or at a higher alert status. ”
One can also ask how they were so prescient that they knew for a fact when the whole thing would be over and so didn’t move any forces to intercede.
Several operational plans could have been executed and they were described to you, Grand Admial, in detail. There is no reason they should not have been done.
Those people who died were left to twist int eh wind by a president and an administration that were utterly AWOL.
No, Gregg, as you can read from the GOP-produced report, there were no viable responses.
No, Gregg, if in the 4th year of an administration you can’t trust the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense to execute their orders, you’re doing it wrong.
” in the 4th year of an administration you can’t trust the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense to execute their orders, you’re doing it wrong.”
Then why wasn’t anyone held accountable for not obeying Obama’s orders?
No Gerrib every officer from shiny gold bar Lt to General of the Joint Chiefs knows you must *always* follow up to see that your orders are carried out. Human nature makes that a necessity.
Furthermore, if you are in command of people being shot at, you don’t go off and do other things. Unless, of course, you are a callous, indifferent nitwit without a shred of conscience.
And direct testimony refutes your points and that report.
Grand Admirals of the fleet should know that. I think your epaulettes should be torn off.
Actually, there were plenty of viable responses, but the commanders who were about to execute them said they were ordered to stand down. In clarifying such an incorrect account, the Pentagon said that the commanders were not ordered to “stand down”, they were ordered to go do other things, such as prepare an airport greeting committee for anyone in Benghazi who might make it out alive.
Gerrib,
Name ONE THING that was going on that night…just one….that was more important for Obama to focus on instead of the people under his command fighting and dying.
By your standards, the answer is Afghanistan. We’re fighting a war, which, almost by definition, has lots of moving pieces, and of course an enormous people under the president’s command would be fighting and (trying to avoid) dying while carrying out their various orders. This comment isn’t intended to defend (or attack) Obama, but rather to point out that under your model of the Presidency, a wartime president would never have time to do anything but pursue the war, and would probably drive his generals nuts in the process.
Also: Terrorism.
Your comments in this thread bring up a question I’ve long wondered about the Presidency: how can anyone (or any process) decide where should the President’s attention be? I’ve never been a CEO of a large organization (I know, I know, and neither has Obama), and I’ve never been a General (or, an Admiral, ha ha ha) and the same questions would apply there as well.
Benghazi wasn’t just a battle in a war. It was an unexpected (though it shouldn’t have been) attack on our sovereign territory.
Actually, no, consulates and embassies are not sovereign soil.
Oh, so it’s OK to attack them and kill personnel?
Although it’s often described as such, the post in Benghazi technically wasn’t a consulate (see page 14), it was a “U.S. Special Mission.”
Oh, so it’s OK to attack them and kill personnel?
Rand, you chose to (inaccurately) describe the mission as “our sovereign territory”. You could have just described it as a murderous assault on U.S. diplomatic and intelligence personnel, but to really drive your point home you thought it needed to also be seen as an attack on U.S. sovereignty. Don’t get sarcastic just because you let your rhetoric get ahead of the facts.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
By Gregg’s standard (which isn’t awful, just possibly myopic) the President’s attention should be on the people under his command who are fighting and dying.
Even if the soil isn’t sovereign, the people in question are Americans who deserve the President’s attention because a) they are american and b) they are under the president’s command. That’s Gregg’s standard. I’m just pointing out that a lot of people are covered here.
I’m reminded of a comment from one of the Navy Seals involved in the raid on Bin Laden. Obama said that in the event the main team ran into trouble, there would be a large number of American forces available, not just to rescue the team but to fight off any Pakistani armed forces that intervened as well as, of course, Al Queda. Under no circumstances would Obama allow any Americans to fall into captivity, even if required a large fight against the Pakistan. The Seal heard that that and conceded that he was finally starting to like this Obama guy.
Well, that’s great but how often does the President have to intervene like that, and how often can the President say to the military “just do you’re thing, I’ve got every confidence in your ability to be the best”? I have no idea. But I know there is a lot more to being president than worrying about the details of each and every military operation that is going on.
Well, since Benghazi is not “our sovereign territory” then the attack was just another battle in a war.
No, it wasn’t.
Whoops. That wasn’t very coherent because most of the above comment wasn’t supposed to be posted. Sorry about that. Rand, I hope you enjoy Alaska.
Gerrib,
I’ll answer for you:
There Was Nothing.
I think it’s similar to his unwillingness to release his college transcripts. Or let people see the Khalidi birthday-party video. There’s something there they don’t want us to see.
I think it’s similar to his long form birth certificate, something no other president would be asked for in similar circumstances. There were a dozen fatal attacks on diplomatic facilities while Bush was president that killed over 60 people. Do you know where Bush was and exactly what he was doing for each one? How many House Select committees were convened to probe the unanswered questions raised by those incidents?
There’s only one reason anyone wants to know where Obama was, and that’s the desire for political advantage.
The inverse is equally applicable:
There’s only one reason Obama’s team wants to obfuscate where Obama was, and that’s the desire for political advantage.
You are positing a false symmetry; there are reasons other than political advantage for not wanting to indulge a partisan fishing expedition. Obama’s motive in not releasing his long form birth certificate wasn’t political advantage (it didn’t help him any to keep it secret), it was the principle at stake, and the fact that it was a ridiculous demand. If, for example, Democrats wanted to look for dirt to hurt Scott Walker’s 2016 chances, they could demand a minute-by-minute accounting of all his time as a governor and county executive. But here you are saying that the only reason Walker might refuse such an outrageous request would be his crass desire for political advantage.
” If, for example, Democrats wanted to look for dirt to hurt Scott Walker’s 2016 chances, they could demand a minute-by-minute accounting of all his time as a governor and county executive. But here you are saying that the only reason Walker might refuse such an outrageous request would be his crass desire for political advantage.”
the two examples are not the same:
One has to do with a completely specified Constitutional Requirement for office.
The other is a fishing expedition.
I would have thought even YOU could see that. Apparently I’m wrong.
One has to do with a completely specified Constitutional Requirement for office.
Obama is constitutionally required to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces; Walker is constitutionally required to be “commander in chief of the military and naval forces of the state” of Wisconsin. In neither case does that requirement imply an obligation to produce a minute-by-minute accounting of the commander in chief’s time. In both cases, demands for such an accounting are (or would be) a political fishing expedition.
I’d love to hear what you mean by “completely specified”.
“I’d love to hear what you mean by “completely specified”.”
You haven’t the slightest clue as to what I’m talking about…do you?
The requirements for holding the Office of the President of the United States are completely specified. Any person wanting to hold that office must meet the requirements.
To ask someone to prove citizenship is totally reasonable. Anyone should be able to ask and any candidate should be willing to present the data.
That’s why your example with Walker was infantile, grasping.
To ask someone to prove citizenship is totally reasonable.
And yet, it was not done routinely until Obama ran. And then, when he proved his citizenship with a short form certificate of live birth, GOP figures demanded that he go beyond that. Nothing about the birther phenomenon was “totally reasonable.”
“To ask someone to prove citizenship is totally reasonable. ”
Should you ask for any more information then any other citizen born in that state would provide?
Every Hawaiian citizen uses a short form birth certificate to get a passport, join the military, get certified for electoral office, be appointed into federal or state service.
I thought it was amusing all the Birthers out there.
Should you ask for any more information then any other citizen born in that state would provide?
Do you mean like tax returns? Seriously, Jim and DN are barking up the wrong tree complaining about demanding information. Harry Reid demanded far more than just a birth certificate. And comparing a request for a birth certificate to the truthers that believed Bush set demolition charges in the WTC and flew a drone into the Pentagon is obviously absurd. Let us know when we can watch the numerous Netflix documentaries on Obama born in Kenyan, and I don’t mean the youtube videos of his wife or publicist mentioning it.
As I said above, I could careless where Obama was. I want to know why he allows his subordinates to mislead Congress and the American people? Why Timmy Geithner claims he was told to lie to the American people? Why does the President of the United States have no interest in bringing the murderers of a US diplomat to justice and is uninterested in disciplining bureaucrats that want to play games with the investigation. That’s not bold leadership, it’s corruption. Americans have every right to demand better from Obama. Obama could rectify this today by demanding cooperating with the investigation like Bush did in La Affair Plame. If Obama feels after the fact that a witch hunt has occurred, then pardon those found guilty for political purposes.
Harry Reid demanded far more than just a birth certificate
Every recent nominee had released years of tax returns; Reid was just asking Romney to do what everyone else does. No one but Obama was ever pestered for a long form birth certificate.
And comparing a request for a birth certificate to the truthers that believed Bush set demolition charges in the WTC and flew a drone into the Pentagon is obviously absurd
Who’s making that comparison? If you want to compare them you might note that major GOP figures (and half the GOP primary electorate) were birthers; truthers have always been fringe.
Why Timmy Geithner claims he was told to lie to the American people?
Source?
Why does the President of the United States have no interest in bringing the murderers of a US diplomat to justice
He’s shown more interest than Bush showed in bringing bin Ladin to justice.
Obama could rectify this today by demanding cooperating with the investigation like Bush did in La Affair Plame
You must be joking. Bush told his staff to cooperate, Libby proceeded to lie to the FBI and grand jury, and Bush rewarded Libby’s “cooperation” by commuting his jail sentence.
He’s shown more interest than Bush showed in bringing bin Ladin to justice.
That bin ladin was found while Obama was President has nothing to do with interest level. This one line was the most egregious of your post. It’s as ignorant as your claim that Obama wanted and did shrink the size of the federal government. Why do you write these stupid comments?
Perhaps you can provide a source that says Tax Returns are required. Birth Certificates are requested when starting a job even if you are not a politician.
Bush told his staff to cooperate
Yes he did. Let us know when Obama does the same.
“I think it’s similar to his long form birth certificate, something no other president would be asked for in similar circumstances.”
I think you are wrong. Especially if the circumstances were totally similar EXCEPT that it was a Republican President. In that case, you’d have the MSM howling for blood until the papers were produced.
His circumstances, as a U.S. citizen born in the U.S., were the same as nearly every other major candidate (excepting George Romney, John McCain and maybe Ted Cruz). I doubt anyone ever even asked Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson for a certificate of live birth from their home states, but Obama produced his anyway — and still the GOP demanded the long form.
No, the GOP did not demand it. Quit taking a few people such as Donald Trump and lumping them in with the GOP establishment.
Is it okay if I say that militant vegans accurately represent the Democrat Party?
Does Obama seek out the endorsement of militant vegans, and make campaign appearances with them? Are most Democratic primary voters militant vegans? Did a half-dozen militant vegans speak at the Democratic National Convention? How many militant vegans are serving Democratic governors or members of Congress?
Birtherism was a mainstream GOP meme.
Birtherism was a mainstream GOP meme.
No it wasn’t. There is nothing mainstream about Donald Trump in the GOP. His political ambition within the party didn’t make a blip. But Jim lies about many things, like Obama shrinking the size of the federal government as a goal, so obviously he would like about other things.
There is nothing mainstream about Donald Trump in the GOP.
Then why did Romney make a big deal of Trump’s endorsement, campaign with him, and use him as a campaign surrogate? You don’t get much more mainstream than that.
But Jim lies about many things, like Obama shrinking the size of the federal government as a goal
When did I say that Obama’s goal was to shrink the size of the federal government?
“The GOP” did nothing of the kind.
Thankfully, the person who produced Obama’s birth certificate conveniently died in a bizarre aircraft drowning accident, so nobody will waste time trying to ask questions about it, or why I have a copy of vintage bondage pr0n featuring Obama’s mom and a communist who is not Obama’s father.
Birtherism was a mainstream GOP meme.
Sure, if you believe the lies of MSNBC.
You are so wrong it is pathetic. This was never a meme. But your leftist propaganda keeps getting shoved on to the internet with the hopes of rewriting history.
This was never a meme
How quickly you forget. In February, 2011 51% of likely GOP primary voters said they didn’t think Obama was born in the United States, and 21% were unsure.
Golly, my knees are shaking now. So you find one poll out there that fits your ideology? How lame. Try this: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114682/ppp-polling-methodology-opaque-flawed
As for your flawed memory, let’s go back an hour ago:
Does Obama seek out the endorsement of militant vegans, and make campaign appearances with them? Are most Democratic primary voters militant vegans? Did a half-dozen militant vegans speak at the Democratic National Convention? How many militant vegans are serving Democratic governors or members of Congress?
Um, more facts please.
And finally, when our President doesn’t release college transcripts, people start to wonder. I’m not saying there’s anything fishy, but remember how you dems got your skivvies in a bundle when Romney didn’t immediately release his tax records? That’s what I mean.
So you find one poll out there that fits your ideology?
And you find one article critical of the pollster, as if that negates every poll they’ve ever done?
As it happens, there are plenty of other polls, by other pollsters, showing that birtherism was a mainstream view in the GOP. A CBS/NYT poll in 2011 had only 33% of Republicans believing Obama was born in the U.S. A 2011 Fox News poll found 37% of Republicans saying Obama was born elsewhere. I’m sure there are others.
when our President doesn’t release college transcripts, people start to wonder
Nobody started to wonder when Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior and Clinton didn’t release college transcripts. I believe George W. Bush is the only recent president we have transcripts for, and if memory serves they were leaked. The demand for Obama’s transcripts, like the demand for his long form birth certificate, is a politically-motivated fishing expedition, fed by disgusting conspiracy theories.
Nonetheless, “the GOP” didn’t demand his birth certificate, any more than “the CIA” said it was a video.