The Washington Post is hardly a conservative newspaper like its competitor, the Washington Times. The paper that took the lead with investigative reporting on Watergate has not replicated that effort when it comes to Democratic scandals.
Yet, David Ignatius has written the below op-ed in the Post that states that President Obama owes the American public a full disclosure on what happened in Benghazi, and he should do it before the election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-benghazi-questions-the-administration-must-answer/2012/10/30/02d02538-22e2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html
I seriously doubt Obama will do what Ignatius requests, but it is important that as many people as possible read the above op-ed. Eventually, somebody is going to talk, and I believe the results will be devastating. The public deserves to know the truth before next Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
At the moment President Obama is concerned with mobilizing the resources of our nation to respond to the aftermath of a devastating storm. He's taken time off the campaign trail to do so. Maybe you should also back off and let him put first things first.
I expect that a full explanation of what happened in Libya would take time and attention to put together properly... if you want comprehensive facts, not sound bytes. It should not be done in a rush.
Unless you're looking for sound bytes.
It was the Washington Post that led the charge against Nixon on Watergate. It is a shame they dropped the ball until now.
Its a teeny weensy ball, Findalis. Its hard to hold onto, and probably not worth the effort.
On this as on many other issues, I wish Obama would stop accepting advice from PR types to stonewall the issue, and state forthrighly, "We are not going to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, by anyone, including me, giving instant off-the-cuff sound bytes, with incomplete information, while speculative nonsense makes the rounds of radio shows. We're going to assemble all the evidence, make it widely available, and provide a comprehensive analysis of what went wrong and what we will do differently in the future. That will take time, and until then, I won't be answering isolated individual questions."
Siarlys,
Obama already knows the truth.
Gary, I thought you were worried about "Big Government"!!! Here you tell us that the government is actually so small that the President knows in intimate detail every transaction on multiple chains of command in at least two cabinet departments, each with tens of thousands of employees! Don't ever complain about the size of government bureaucracy again if you think that President Obama could possibly know the whole truth instantaneously.
What do you think this is, the era when the president-elect and a good fraction of congress stayed in some old lady's boarding house and trudged the muddy marshes to the capitol together? When the entire State Department fit into one three-story Georgian and the War Department into another?
Siarlys,
Let me break it down for you. Obama says when he heard of the attack, he ordered the military to do whatever was necessary to save our people. That order was presumably one hour after it started when he and Panetta and tyhe chairman of the joint chief of staff were in the WH.
panetta has said that it wouldn't be wise to send in troops when they didn't know the situation. Africom commander Carter Ham was ordered not to send troops. He was in the process of defying that order when he was relieved of duty.
It comes down to this: If Obama gave such an order to move, was he countermanded by Panetta? Or was Panetta following Obama's orders? It has to be one or the other.
"presumably" is markedly different from "documented." Also, was Ambassador Stevens still alive, one hour after "it started"? Did the relevant military commands know where the two Seals were holed up?
Its not at all clear that Carter Ham WAS disregarding orders OR relieved of duty, nor, if so, why, for how long, under what circumstances. Has he been called back to the states, like McCrystal was?
All you've made a case for is that we don't know enough to reach conclusions, and a careful, sober, analysis, free of premature political sniping, is essential.
Yes, Siarlys, from Hillary Clinton's Accountability Review Board at DOS.
Based on the facts you have alleged, State wouldn't have had jurisdiction over the primary events at issue...
Post a Comment