From the “Simple Questions without Any Answers” Department

 

Consider this:

In an interview with a Denver TV reporter Friday, President Obama twice refused to answer questions as to whether the Americans under siege in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, were denied requests for help, saying he’s waiting for the results of investigations before making any conclusions about what went wrong.

Again, while there may be an investigation going on, I have trouble understanding why it is that the president cannot answer a simple question. Were the Americans in Benghazi denied requests for help while they were under siege? Why is that so hard to answer, and why do we need to have an investigation concluded before the question is answered? Indeed, why do we have to pretend that the presence of an investigation excuses the president and other members of the Obama administration from answering basic questions about what happened in Benghazi?

Politics and the election wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would they? I mean, perish the thought.

Join Ricochet!
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 6 comments.

  1. Profile photo of Mel Foil Inactive

    Sounds to me like Michael Moore’s answers about a case of the missing cheesecake. Moore was there, in the kitchen when the cheesecake disappeared, but he’s waiting for the official investigation’s verdict. He wouldn’t want to speculate (before November 6th.)

    • #1
    • October 27, 2012 at 6:15 am
  2. Profile photo of The King Prawn Member

    I try to limit my accusations of Machiavellianism, but it’s simply not possible with this situation.

    • #2
    • October 27, 2012 at 6:56 am
  3. Profile photo of Jerry Carroll Inactive

    That Denver interview is must viewing. Obama looks and sounds close to a mental breakdown. That possibility grows as his malignant narcissism has continued to push the bounderies of grandiosity. When he speaks, “I” more and more is used in place of “we” and “our.” It was “my ambassador” and “my men” sent to Benghazi. He took out Osama, the SEALS being merely the instrument of his judgment. The time will come when, not satisfied with this, he will be among the warriors who pounded up the stairs. Then he will be the one who kicked the door open. He is the best at everything, including making chili. Although the voters turned against him two years ago, he never believed it was about him. Now that it’s happening again, the question is whether that brittle ego will snap and lead to a psychotic breakdown. Stranger things have to world historical figures.

    • #3
    • October 27, 2012 at 7:11 am
  4. Profile photo of Trace Inactive

    A nit perhaps Pejman, but a far better experience for everyone for you to chime in on the discussion started by Mollie immediately below yours on the same topic than to start an essentially identical thread on the same subject. It almost suggests that you are not actually reading Ricochet but merely posting to it – and that certainly diminishes theexperience for all concerned.

    • #4
    • October 27, 2012 at 7:22 am
  5. Profile photo of R. Craigen Inactive

    A simple and obvious thing occurred to me when we started hearing now about the actual actions taken during the Benghazi attacks, including the readiness of the C130s an anti-extremist force very early in the events unfolding in Libya.

    It is notable that this response force was at a base on the other side of the Mediterranean — though less than an hour away by air. There is no question they had the wherewithall to respond quickly and decisively. Some folks here seem quite cognizant on that side. But on the logic side — what does this tell us?

    The command for this had to come to the Regional commander (in Germany) straight from POTUS. If Obama “still had no evidence” that it was a terrorist attack (as Carney puts it) days after the event, one has to ask what he was doing marshalling a deadly response force so soon?

    What I’m saying is that, before one considers anything else, this is prima facie evidence that the prez and his surrogates have been directly and outlandishly lying to the American people for over a month now. The questions remain: (i) why? and (ii) why were forces ready, but not used?

    • #5
    • October 27, 2012 at 7:48 am
  6. Profile photo of Pejman Yousefzadeh Inactive
    Pejman Yousefzadeh Post author

    I am reading it, and saw Mollie’s piece, which is excellent. However, I wanted to make a different point than Mollie’s which is why I added my own post.

    Trace Urdan: A nit perhaps Pejman, but a far better experience for everyone for you to chime in on the discussion started by Mollie immediately below yours on the same topic than to start an essentially identical thread on the same subject. It almost suggests that you are not actually reading Ricochet but merely posting to it – and that certainly diminishes theexperience for all concerned. · 2 hours ago
    • #6
    • October 27, 2012 at 9:53 am