Translate

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Protecting POTUS

This last week we had an interesting development in the Benghazi coverup story when Defense Secretary Panetta claimed that the President was absent from the meetings on September 11, 2012, concerning the then-ongoing attack on the Benghazi consulate. Panetta claimed:
Under questioning by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R.-N.H.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.) in the Senate Armed Services Committee today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that they spoke to President Barack Obama only once on the evening of Sept. 11, 2012, when the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya were under attack by terrorists.
Panetta and Dempsey had a pre-scheduled meeting with Obama at 5:00 p.m. Washington, D.C. time on Sept. 11. The meeting lasted about thirty minutes. After it was over, they did not hear from Obama again or anybody else at the White House.
The presumption has been that this is just another example of Obama's "empty chair" approach to the Presidency. However, Glenn Beck suggests something a bit more sinister: that the testimony is provide cover for Obama from something even worse.
“Well, they don’t know where he is. They don’t know where the president is.”

“Then they send out pictures to show that he’s engaged, having meetings: This is where the president was on September 11th. Remember the pictures that came out, make him look very presidential? He’s meeting with the generals and Panetta and everything else. Okay. To make us feel like he was engaged and watching everything.”
“Now Panetta comes out and says, ‘Oh, well, that’s just from a meeting. We met with him for just a few minutes and we told him and he said, well, you guys handle it.’ I don’t even believe that’s constitutional. Do you? Do you have a ‑‑ I don’t even know if that’s constitutional. ‘You guys handle it.’ He didn’t even ask what assets we have. Nothing. ‘You guys do it.’ And then they left him alone from 5:30 for the rest of the night. And he doesn’t check in.”
“Why would they now make the president look like he wasn’t engaged at all, that he wasn’t a part of this?”
“Remember the president wants to be viewed as a guy who killed Osama Bin Laden. So why would you do that? Why would you make it look like he doesn’t ‑‑ had nothing to do with it?”
“Okay. Here’s why: Because as bad as that is, we’ll play some audio for you here in a minute from Rand Paul. Rand Paul is the first guy that I have heard in the public eye that has said, yes, they were running drugs ‑‑ or guns. I told you that Week 1 when this happened: They’re running guns. Those guns that had just suddenly disappeared and all those weapons of mass destruction, they suddenly disappeared, we were running guns. Later the New York Times reports that, yes, and they found a captain of a ship that was running those guns, and we were part of it.”
“So here’s what happened. This is why this testimony came out yesterday. What is on the horizon about what that ambassador was doing and what our response was is so much worse than the president being involved. So they know that the president is going to get heat and people are going to say, ‘You weren’t involved at all’ So when the real story comes out, he can say, ‘Oh, my gosh.’”

“‘I should have been involved. That’s why they kept me at arm’s‑length. That’s why they told me that they could take care of it and they wanted me out of it. I had nothing to do with this at all.’”
“This is to protect the president from some ‑‑ from another shoe that’s going to fall, and that shoe is going to be bad. And hear me now: This president was involved. He knew. And they are protecting him right now. Do not believe the cover. Because that’s all Panetta’s was yesterday was a coverup, to distance the president from what is going to be exposed in the future.”

No comments:

Post a Comment