Janet M. LaRue
Recommend this article
Why does it take an investigation for President Obama to tell the American people what he knew and what he did or didn’t do in response to calls for help from Americans under enemy fire in Benghazi?

It doesn’t. He’s the gate keeper of his own mind.

Consider what Obama told KYLE CLARK of Colorado’s 9News.com on Oct. 27, when he asked Obama about Benghazi:

KYLE CLARK: “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we're going to find out exactly what happened, but what we're also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

Obama said: “The minute I found out what was happening.”

Which minute was that? He used the present tense, meaning the attack was occurring when he learned about it. Did he watch any of the seven to eight hours of live feed from a Drone circling above the battle?

Obama said he “gave three very clear directives.”

“Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”

What does “securing our personnel” mean? What personnel? What specific directives did he give and to whom? He mentioned “the state department, the military, the CIA” Who else?

“Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again.” Why was Obama concerned about an investigation to prevent reoccurrence during an ongoing attack with American lives at stake?

“Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”

Former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty fought gallantly together on the roof of the CIA safe house, pointing a laser on those who were firing mortars at them. They called for help twice.

Help didn’t come. Both men died. Obama refuses to tell Americans why he didn’t bring justice to the terrorists then and there.

It’s about trust and transparency.

Obama claims that we know him and can trust him, unlike Mitt Romney.

Romney can’t be trusted as President, Obama told those attending a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio on Oct. 24:

"There's no more serious issue in a presidential campaign than trust. … Trust matters. You want to know that the person who's applying to be your president and commander in chief is trustworthy, that he means what he says, that he's not just making stuff up depending on whether it's convenient or not."

Obama pledged on Jan. 21, 2009, that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency?”

Instead, we have a cover up, aided by mainstream media, which portends to be worse than Watergate. Nixon lied but nobody died.

The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Watergate paper of record, have buried Benghazi on back pages. The Post’s endorsement of Obama was page one on Oct. 25, and with an editorial on Oct. 26. And Big Bird’s Beak is sealed.

Obama might want to put Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on bayonet watch, judging by her comments during her press conference on Oct. 24. She barely looked up and chuckled inappropriately about “an attack like this.”

What were her “clear directives”? What did she do to locate Ambassador Chris Stevens when she learned that he was missing as a result of the attack?

Were Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s “clear directives” to do nothing militarily? According to Bloomberg News, Oct. 25:

“Panetta said the U.S. military lacked intelligence needed to respond during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, during which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. ‘The basic principle is don’t deploy into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on,’ Panetta said today at a Pentagon news conference. He said he and top generals ‘felt very strongly’ that deploying forces sooner wasn’t the right option.”

Seven hours of real time video taken by a Drone hovering above the attack site wasn’t sufficient intelligence to send a fighter jet or a gunship to strafe a crowd waving guns and torching the consulate?

Is Panetta admitting that he advised Obama not to intervene militarily, or did Panetta advise intervention and Obama refused?

CIA Director David Patraeus issued a statement that raises questions about Obama’s “clear directives.” According to Fox News on Oct 26, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood denied claims that requests for support were refused.

"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."

Is Patraeus acknowledging that it was a CIA Drone circling above the attack site that was providing the Agency’s “aid to our colleagues”? Was it armed? Is that all Obama directed Patraeus to do?

There are more questions for Obama that don’t require an investigation:

1. Why didn’t you send help to Americans under attack?

2. Where is the transparency you promised the American people?

3. How can we trust you as President?

Obama told Rolling Stone Magazine in an interview posted Oct. 25:

“You know, kids have good instincts. They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bulls******, I can tell.’”

Kids aren’t the only ones.
Recommend this article

Janet M. LaRue

Jan LaRue is Senior Legal Analyst with the American Civil Rights Union; former Chief Counsel at Concerned for Women; Legal Studies Director at Family Research Council; and Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families. Be the first to read Janet LaRue's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.