Shortly after the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, a local Denver television personality asked President Obama what actions he took upon learning of the assault. The president asserted, “I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and that we are doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”
As to the first directive, we now know from Greg Hicks’s testimony that special forces were ordered to stand down rather than provide assistance. Furthermore, we learned months ago from Jennifer Griffin’s reporting that former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods requested and was denied backup three times, and was told to stand down. Who, then, gave the orders that flatly rejected the president’s “very clear directive?” Was that person disciplined for flagrantly disobeying the commander in chief?
Isn’t it far more likely that no directive was given than such directive was repeatedly disobeyed?
As to directive No. 2, if the administration was so keen on investigating what happened, why did it impede Representative Jason Chaffetz’s attempts to interview Greg Hicks? Why is the Accountability Review Board’s investigation notable primarily for having failed to interview one of the most important players in the matter – Secretary Clinton?
As to directive No. 3, although the media has been able to easily locate at least one of the suspected ringleaders of the attack relaxing at an outdoor cafe, no one has been brought to justice . . . except the administration’s scapegoat videographer.
It appears Jon Karl’s timing is off – clearly, the president began losing his “juice” even before the election.