Why Didn’t the Turkish Consul Warn Ambassador Stevens About the Amassing Jihadis Outside the Consulate on the Night of 9/11?

Turkish PM Tayyip Erdoğan and Barack Obama  (Photo: Cihan)

Clare Lopez is an intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. She served for 25 years as an operations officer with the CIA and now writes for RadicalIslam.org. I’ve been linking to her reports not only because they’re intelligent and informative but in some cases, like this one – breaking news. I don’t know of anyone else who’s noticed that Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who had been  meeting with Ambassador Stevens the evening of the attack, was able to leave the consulate without incident even though the area outside the compound was swarming with jihadis setting up checkpoints.

If reporting from the Washington Times is accurate, it looks like the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin was in on the plot to attack the U.S. mission in Benghazi. According to an October 27, 2012 report, Libyan witnesses from the Benghazi neighborhood where the U.S. compound was located told reporters from the Associated Press (AP) that “150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants began sealing off the streets” leading to the facility “around nightfall.”

The Department of State “Background Briefing on Libya,” provided by telephone to reporters on October 9, 2012 states that Ambassador Christopher Stevens held his last meeting of the day on September 11 with the Turkish diplomat from 7:30pm to 8:30pm and then escorted him out to the compound gate to bid farewell. At that point, the briefing states, “Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual.”

But the AP witnesses said that, “The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m.” The checkpoints were described as being manned by bearded jihadis in pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns and bearing the logo of the Al-Qaeda terror franchise, Ansar al-Shariah.

That means that the Turkish Consul General would have had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American compound and left the area. There is no record that he phoned a warning to his American colleague, the one he’d just had dinner with, Ambassador Stevens. Given the description of the blockade around the American compound and of the jihadis and their trucks that were manning it, it seems unlikely that the he somehow just failed to notice. “[N]o one could get out or in,” according to one neighbor interviewed by the AP.

Except for the Turkish Consul General, it would appear.

Keep reading. The implication here is the Turkish government is at least somewhat complicit in this attack.

And Obama, it should be noted, describes the Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan as one of the five foreign leaders with whom he is most friendly.

Michael Rubin of Commentary made note of the oddity, last July:

Given Erdoğan’s anti-American and anti-Semitic rants, and his repeated support for not only Hamas terrorists, but also an Al Qaeda financier, perhaps it is time for Obama to describe why he embraces Erdoğan above most others.

Yes, indeed.

Doug Ross has more on this story: FAST AND FURIOUS IN BENGHAZI: Timing of Attack Hints at Double-Cross of White House Gun-Running Operation by Turkey:

What was the subject of the discussion between Stevens and Akin? Malta Today offers some context that hints at some strong possibilities.

A Libyan-flagged vessel which last year was used by a Malta-based humanitarian organisation in supplying a lifeline to rebels in Misurata, has been implicated in a covert US arms smuggling operation to Syrian freedom fighters, which may also be linked to murdered US ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi last month.

The ship ‘Al Entisar’ which was chartered last year by I-Go Aid Libya, then run by businessman Mario Debono, has been reported to be linked to last September’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

A Fox News investigation revealed that shipping records confirmed that the Al Entisar entered the Turkish port of Iskenderun, some 35 miles from the Syrian border, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three other US officials were killed during an assault by more than 100 Islamist militants on the US Consulate compound in Benghazi.

Another report, this time appearing on the Times of London, said that the Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines…

SEE ALSO:

Radical Islam: Why Was Security Stripped in Benghazi?

Data points continue to accumulate about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. The picture that is beginning to emerge from connecting those dots is deeply concerning on multiple levels. Two related issues dominate this analysis: The stripping of security protection from the Benghazi mission prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack and the refusal to send or even permit local help on the night of the attack.

As Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge suggested on the “Mike Huckabee” show on Oct. 27, both of these critical subjects may have been driven by a perceived need to cover up the existence of the role being played by the U.S. mission in Libya to serve as a command hub for the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad regime.

Flopping Aces: Why the AC130s were grounded: Obama didn’t want voters to find out that he had armed the jihadists with SAMs:

It’s simple logic. In Libya there is only one possible threat to an AC130 gunship: surface to air missiles. Thus this is the only way Panetta wasn’t lying when he said that it was lack of information about the threat environment that kept him from sending defenders into “harm’s way” in Benghazi. He must have been afraid that the jihadists were lying in wait with surface to air missiles, and he had good reason to suspect such a ploy.

A primary task of the Libyan mission was to round up the war materiel of the deposed and decomposing Moammar Ghadaffi and funnel it to chosen opponents of Assad in Syria. Which part of the Syrian opposition has Obama been choosing to supply? Al Qaeda:

“Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” the Times reports.

The paper quotes one U.S. official as saying, “The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” adding that “officials, voicing frustration, say there is no central clearinghouse for the shipments, and no effective way of vetting the groups that ultimately receive them.”

According to Adm. James A. Lyons (retired), the Libyan arms that have been funneled to the jihadists include substantial numbers of surface to air missiles:

Blackfive: Rumors of General Officers Arrested, Relieved, or Resigning in Protest:

On back channel, there has been talk that GEN Ham is actually being relieved for another mission – one that was denied airspace access by a sovereign nation, and that GEN Ham intentionally violated airspace rules/laws in order to complete a mission (not Benghazi).  There is also talk that GEN Ham is resigning in disgust of the chain of command – literally, with the Commander in Chief – and that he is trying to do so as apolitically as possible (and Ham is seen as being one of “the President’s guys”).  One would think that someone would wait for an election just days away to be over before resigning in protest (because you might have a new CinC), but who knows?  On Monday, GEN Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that GEN Ham’s departure was part of a planned rotation in the works since July.  Hhmmm…

Then, we have an up and coming Rear Admiral being relieved of command of the Stennis carrier group.  This is significant as it is not due to conduct unbecoming, personal conduct, or for incompetence, but for “inappropriate leadership judgment“.  What?!

Jihad Watch: Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli:

The Benghazi scandal just keeps getting worse. Clearly Obama wanted to protect the illusion that the U.S. had supported a democratic uprising in Libya, but even Obama keeps saying the al-Qaeda is the enemy — and now this. “Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli,” by Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, October 31:

A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last Julywhich resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.

It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.

The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it)…

Gateway Pundit: Classified August Cable Signed By Ambassador Stevens Warned Benghazi Consulate Couldn’t Withstand ‘Coordinated Attack’:

A classified cable on August 15 warned the Obama Administration that the Benghazi consulate could not withstand a “coordinated attack.”
The cable was signed by Ambassador Chris Stevens who was later murdered on 9-11.

Also Via Gateway Pundit”:

FOX News foreign policy analyst Catherine Herridge told Greta Van Susteren Wednesday,
“From what I see the State Department has culpability in the death of the US Ambassador and three Americans.”

Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!

Video: Happy Halloween Obama Style

Conservatives have been using Halloween to explain to their kids why redistribution of wealth is not “fairness” for ages. Steven Crowder decided to try it out on real kids in an undercover video with hilarious results.

“Hey dude, that’s not cool!” one kid exclaimed.

Via Ben K at AoSHQ, more Halloween angst from a child who is Tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney.

Gingrich Rumor: “At Least Two Networks Have Emails From the National Security Adviser’s Office Telling Counterterrorism Group to Stand Down”

Last night, Newt Gingrich dropped a bombshell on the Greta Van Susteren Show. He said that, according to a very reliable source, (a US Senator) at least two major networks have in their possession secret emails that prove that it was the White House itself that put the kibosh on the rescue operation that could have saved four American lives in Benghazi.

If this rumor is true it should be all over for Obama. This isn’t 2008 where the LA Times can sit on a damning videotape and get away with it. Now we have multiple news organizations sitting on explosive information that every American ought to know in order to make an informed decision on November 6.  And Newt Gingrich just went on national television and told the world about it. They owe it not only to their country but to their own credibility release them.

Via The Daily Caller:

“There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,” Gingrich said. “But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”

Later on, Gingrich  referenced another “October surprise” that he thinks will break in the coming days.

“The other big story, I think, that is going to break is on corruption and extraordinary waste in the solar power grants and direct involvement by the Obama White House, including the president, in the solar panel grants involving billions of dollars, and I suspect that’s going to break Wednesday and Thursday of this week,” Gingrich added.

That story, I would like to point out, has already broken in the right wing blogosphere.

Last night, Sean Hannity dropped his own bombshell when he spoke of audiotapes he’s heard the Obama administration is holding on to of Tyrone Woods pleading for help. “I’ve heard they’re damning.”

SEE ALSO :

Clare Lopez of Radical Islam: Why Was Security Stripped in Benghazi?

Data points continue to accumulate about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. The picture that is beginning to emerge from connecting those dots is deeply concerning on multiple levels. Two related issues dominate this analysis: The stripping of security protection from the Benghazi mission prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack and the refusal to send or even permit local help on the night of the attack.

As Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge suggested on the “Mike Huckabee” show on Oct. 27, both of these critical subjects may have been driven by a perceived need to cover up the existence of the role being played by the U.S. mission in Libya to serve as a command hub for the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad regime.

Jihad Watch: Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli:

The Benghazi scandal just keeps getting worse. Clearly Obama wanted to protect the illusion that the U.S. had supported a democratic uprising in Libya, but even Obama keeps saying the al-Qaeda is the enemy — and now this. “Libyan Leaks: Secret Document reveals Al-Qaeda ‘brother’ put in control of U.S. Embassy in Tripoli,” by Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, October 31:

A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last Julywhich resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.

It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.

The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a copy of that letter (translation beneath it):

Continue reading here.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!

New ObamaMedia Meme: Mitt Romney Committing Gaaaaffes By Helping People In Wake of Hurricane Sandy – And They’re Worried He’ll Politicize the Disaster (Like *Before*)

MSNBC Ridicules Romney for Collecting Food and Supplies for Sandy Victims

After introducing his Obama-supporting guests Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Lehigh professor James Peterson, host Martin Bashir played a clip of the President speaking at the Red Cross headquarters in Washington Tuesday.

When the clip concluded, Bashir said, “Mayor Reed, so the Red Cross knows what it’s doing. Did he, did you detect perhaps a subtle dig there on Mr. Romney who spent today going against the guidelines established by the Red Cross and holding a campaign rally in Ohio that was dressed up like a charity drive collecting food and other supplies when the Red Cross expressly asked people not to do that?”

Imagine that. A presidential candidate who gives millions of dollars a year to charity does a storm relief event in Ohio, and an MSNBC anchor is disgusted by it because the Red Cross would prefer people donating cash.

Dem Official Says Romney “Politicizing” Hurricane Sandy, Should “Have Just Written A Check For $10 Million”…

I wonder what this official would have said if Romney sent out a fundraising email during the middle of the storm, or asked people to phone bank as the hurricane approached their area?

Via WaPo:

Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern on Tuesday accused Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of politicizing Hurricane Sandy with a Dayton event that was billed as storm relief but also had characteristics of a campaign rally.

Romney spoke only briefly at the event, to encourage donations to storm victims, and volunteers collected canned goods to send to those suffering in New Jersey. But Romney’s biographical video, routinely played at campaign rallies, was used to introduce the event, as was his routine rally music.

MSNBC Anchor Criticizes Romney’s Storm Volunteerism: Red Cross Doesn’t Want or Need Your Non-Monetary Donations:

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday questioned the sincerity of a “storm relief” event organized by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Ohio, arguing that the Red Cross apparently has no need for donated clothes or canned goods.

“You’ve got the image of Mitt Romney doing what, they say, is not a campaign event in the same space they were going to hold a campaign event. They say they’re making collections for hurricane and storm relief,” the MSNBC anchor said during a Tuesday broadcast of “Mitchell Reports.”

“We checked with the Red Cross. The Red Cross said, while they’re always grateful for donations, that this is not what they need or want. They always tell people, ‘please donate money, because we have our own packagers, wholesalers’ — they have their own distribution system,” she continued.

Yes, with major weather events like Superstorm Sandy, the Red Cross does put an emphasis on monetary donations. That’s probably why, along with tables “piled high with flashlights, batteries, diapers, toothbrushes, mini-deodorants, fleece blankets, cereal, toilet paper and canned goods,” the Romney event also featured two large TV screens encouraging supporters to text “REDCROSS” to 90999 and “make a $10 donation.”

As the Democrat Media Complex pounded Romney relentlessly today for violating the Red Cross’s apparently sacred preferences, and holding what they considered a campaign event, some also  fretted that Romney (Romney!?) might take the occasion to “Politicize” the disaster. Because politicizing disasters is the lefts’ area of expertise (See Hurricane Katrina) and I guess they want to protect their territory.

While most White House  reporters traveling aboard Air Force One, this weekend,  questioned the White House Press staff about the president’s hurricane preparations, one reporter wanted to know if they were prepared for Mitt Romney.

Charlie Spiering of Beltway Confidential:

“Are you worried about the possible politicization of the storm response?” the reporter asked. “We’re a week out from the election.  Governor Romney might say something about how you guys are responding to it or going to rallies and that stuff.”

“Well, I don’t want to predict what Governor Romney may or may not say,” Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest answered. “He certainly does have an interesting track record on this.”

Ooooh – zing. Because Romney correctly criticized the Obama administration for its weak apologetic stance after the 9/11 demonstrations in Cairo and violence in Benghazi. And that was the worst week of Romney’s campaign because  the ObamaMedia pounded him relentlessly for “politicizing a disaster” before all the facts were out and when Americans should have been “coming together” (at least according to the White House talking points.)

Meanwhile,

Good Grief… Obama Electioneers During Hurricane Press Conference – Tells Team to “Lean Forward” in Their Response (Video)

and the White House released a Propaganda Pic Showing Obama Dealing With Hurricane Sandy In the Situation Room…

Here’s a question no one in ObamaMedia will ask: Where are the photos from the situation room on 9/11?

Oh shush – that would be politicizing a disaster.

Who Remembers When Obama Said: “We don’t turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up.”

America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won’t promise that now.  Yes, our path is harder – but it leads to a better place.  Yes our road is longer – but we travel it together.  We don’t turn back.  We leave no one behind.  We pull each other up.  We draw strength from our victories, and we learn from our mistakes, but we keep our eyes fixed on that distant horizon, knowing that Providence is with us, and that we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on Earth.

Those were Obama’s closing words from his speech to the Democrat National Convention on Sept 6 — five days before the deadly attack in Benghazi that left four Americans dead.  Ty Woods’ repeated calls for help were ignored by his administration.. They were not pulled up. They were left behind.

And I see no indication that anyone in this God-forsaken administration has the ability to learn from their mistakes.

UPDATE:

And he said it again, today, via John Nolte, Big Journalism:

Today, during a non-campaign campaign stop at the Red Cross, President Obama told the nation something his administration obviously didn’t believe during the seven-hour attack on our consulate in Benghazi (and a nearby annex) on the night of September 11, 2012: That when an “American is in need… we leave nobody behind”:

This is a tough time for a lot of people; millions of folks all across the Eastern Seaboard, but America’s tougher. And we’re tougher because we pull together, we leave nobody behind, we make sure we respond as a nation and remind ourselves that whenever an American is in need, all of stand together to make sure we’re providing the help that’s necessary.

“We leave nobody behind.” Apparently it’s a favorite Obama talking point. How sickeningly ironic.

SEE ALSO:

Sean Hannity on Benghazi Audio Tapes: “I’ve Heard They Are Damning” (Video)

Tyrone Woods was screaming for air support and Barack Obama did nothing.
Then he lied about it.

Hannity later said there are three tapes the Obama administration is holding onto including audio of Tyrone Woods begging for air support.

“We leave nobody behind.”

Linked by Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Right Wing News, Pundit and Pundette andPirate’s Cove, thanks!

Liberal vs Conservative Views on the Benghazi Debacle

On September 11, at 9:40 pm -10:40 pm Benghazi time, {3:40 – 4:40 pm est} the Benghazi attack was just getting started. A timeline of the night’s events has been compiled by Jeff G at Protein Wisdom.

We know that the President had a meeting at the White House at 5:00 pm with Sec of Defense, Leon Panetta, and Vice President Joe Biden. What did he do for the rest of the night? Why isn’t anyone in the media asking that question? You can bet that GW Bush were president, the MSM would be doing everything in its power to find out. Apparently, he went to bed early, skipped his daily intel briefing the next morning, and hopped on a plane later that day to  Las Vegas for a big rally.

Outside of Fox, the MSM is studiously avoiding this issue and some shameless left wing pundits are actually doing everything they can to cover for the irredeemably corrupt Obama administration.

I thought a compare and contrast would be instructive…

A retired Delta operator made the point at Blackfive that, contrary to Panetta’s asinine assertion that there just wasn’t enough “real time information” to act in Benghazi, Special op forces are trained for just such situations:

The Secretary of Defense, in his most determined way, continues to try to protect the President from the fiasco in Benghazi.  So desperate to shield the President he announced what will be forever remembered as the Penetta Doctrine:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Of course, in the circles that I ran with, it will be forever labeled “The Dumbest Shit I Ever Heard Doctrine”.

***

Let’s review the real-time facts that we know so far.  The entire event was being streamed live to the State Department and, in all likelihood, the White House situation room.  That’s pretty “real-time” if you ask me, but it gets worse.  Not only were we watching the entire damn thing on expensive televisions; we had at least two highly trained special operators on the ground in direct communication!

***

The best “real-time information” possible is eyes on the objective.

Even better is people on the objective with eyes on the enemy.

Even better than that is people on the objective that are highly trained with years of special ops experience in direct communications.

My God people, this was a perfect intelligence situation to execute a forced entry relief operation!

Now via MRC, here’s some wisdom sputtered by liberal pundit, Joe Klein.

“This business about the, you know, the Libya consulate has been like the October Mirage — it really isn’t an issue. And so, once again, tomorrow, Obama is going to have a very strong position because his foreign policy has been largely successful in terms of substance.”
— Time’s Joe Klein on CBS’s Face the Nation, October 21.

Roger L. Simon of PJ Media wrote:

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

Via MRC, Thomas Friedman babbled:

“It’s obviously been totally politicized at this point. I lived in a civil war in Beirut for four years. These are incredibly messy situations. People don’t show up with uniforms….You can have a flash mob turned into a planned thing. You can have planned people inside of a flash mob. To me, this is an utterly contrived story in the sense that, ‘this is the end of,’ you know, ‘Obama’s foreign policy.’”
— New York Times columnist Tom Friedman on NBC’s Meet the Press, October 21.

Jed Babbin of The American Spectator opined ominously:

Naturally, Obama and his minions aren’t owning up to their treachery and the media — except for Fox News — are burying the story.

The Washington Post and the New York Times — both of which have endorsed Obama — aren’t reporting the story on the rejected pleas for help. ABC, CBS and NBC aren’t either.

To its credit, CBS did break the story last week on the State Department emails that show Obama’s administration knew that the Benghazi attack was made by terrorists, not some mob distracted from a protest against an anti-Islamic video. The other big liberal media — i.e., most of the major media — gave little or no coverage to the CBS scoop.

As huge a scandal as the Benghazi incident is, it’s not possible for it to become an issue in the election unless Mitt Romney makes it one. So far, he hasn’t and he isn’t likely to in the final week of the campaign.

I hope he’s wrong – I hope that news of the borderline treasonous malfeasance of this administration and the ensuing cover-up on Benghazi  trickles past the palace guards to enough of the American people to make a difference in the election.

But the sad fact remains – most people live very busy lives, and rely on the MSM to tell them which stories are important – those people are being very  ill served by the corrupt ObamaMedia.

UPDATE:

Via Cry and Howl, CNC News: Armed Services Chair Demands of Obama: Whom Did You Order to Do What on 9/11/12?:

McKeon, whose committee has oversight over the U.S. military, wants to know exactly what the commander in chief did or did not tell the military to do that day.

“There appears to be a discrepancy between your directive and the actions taken by the Department of Defense,” said in his letter to Obama. “As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.”

McKeon than listed four questions he is demanding that Obama answer:

1) “To whom did you issue this first directive and how was this directive communicated to the military and other agencies–verbally or in writing?“

2) “At any time on September 11, 2012, did you specifically direct the military to move available assets into Libya to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel in Benghazi? If so, which assets did you order to Libya?

3) “At any time on September 11, 2012, other than ISR assets, did you provide the authority for the military to take any and all necessary measures to secure U.S. personnel, including specifically the authority to enter Libyan airspace?

4) “Did you have any communication with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any Commanders of regional Combatant Commands regarding military support to U.S. personnel in Benghazi on September 11th? If so could you please describe any recommendations provided to you regarding available military support and any orders you gave them?”

Chairman McKeon told the president that members of the Armed Services Committee are concerned that there might have been a ‘breakdown in communication” between the commander in chief and U.S. military forces while the crisis was unfolding in Libya.

Actually, as always with this Marxist bunch,   there’s been a “breakdown” of the truth more than anything else.

SEE ALSO:

Powerline: The Benghazi Coverup: Are Reporters Embarrassed?