Obama: No 'There' There

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
By now, you've probably heard the architect of the Least Transparent Administration in history try once again to weasel out of giving an honest account of what happened surrounding the terrorist attack at Benghazi, by telling the press that there's "no 'there' there."

And while the description of "no 'there' being there" more aptly applies to the current occupant of the Oval Office, notice how once more Obama tries to go from "We'll get to the bottom of this!" and "We need to wait for the investigation" to "Nothing to see here! Move along!"

Mr. Transparency has stonewalled and refused to answer even the simplest of questions from the very beginning. When a reporter finally managed to ask him a question of where he was when he heard Benghazi was under attack, Obama said we needed to wait for the investigation.

That, too, was misdirection. Obama was asked where he was and what he did. There is no need for an "investigation". No witnesses. No subpoenas. All Obama needs is a spine. He is free to tell us what he personally knows to be true. He could answer the question of where he was during the attack. Exactly when did he learn of the attack. And what specific instructions or orders he gave, and if he gave them, to whom and why didn't they get carried out?

What has he got to hide? If Obama, as he said, responded
"...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."

So, Mr. Obama, which minute exactly was it? What exactly was done to "secure our personnel"? And whatever in the hell did you mean by "doing whatever we need to"? To whom did you give those "very clear (as mud) directives" to? Did they carry out your orders? If not, why not?

Rather than saying, "there's no 'there' there", and not providing a single shred of evidence to the contrary, why should we not take your silence to assume the very worst, that you were frozen with indecision, afraid that your re-election campaign might be derailed by a terrorist attack from al Qaeda, a group that you had implied had died with the execution of Osama bin Laden? That in your political calculation, keeping your job was more important to you than protecting the American citizens you swore an oath to protect?

For eight months the President of the United States has been dodging simple questions that he could answer himself, without subpoena or committee or tribunal, about where he was, what he did, or didn't do. The Narcissist-in-Chief, who has his picture taken on every occasion imaginable cannot produce a single picture of himself in the situation room, doing "whatever needed to be done" to "secure our personnel"? Maybe it was because he never went near the situation room. Maybe he was getting his beauty sleep for his fund raiser in Vegas the next day?

One person can tell us. He won't. Is the truth more damaging than what we can imagine, Mr. President? Is that why you kept all the survivors under wraps and away from the press, so no one would ask the embarrassing questions of you of why you did nothing to save them?

What you really meant to say, Mr. Obama, is that there is no 'there' there that doesn't make you look bad. That doesn't make you look weak and cowardly and craven. Doesn't fit the "narrative", does it, Barry?

Cross posted at Proof Positive


  1. Silence has been his biggest ally. As long as he says nothing and avoids even approaching an answer he is safe. Silence is golden. It will also probably be his demise. Let's hope.

    1. Silence and a peculiar lack of curiosity by the MSM.

  2. At this point, anyone who has read my blog knows that Benghazi is much deeper than a talking points memo. President Obama is likey amazed that the talking points are dragging him down instead of violation of treaties and arming terrorists. The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has made a career of lying and this might be the first time that he has ever been held to the truth by the everyone.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

    This is finally an all of the people all of the time situation. It was only a matter of time before it arrived.

    1. I have long stated that there are three scandals associated with Benghazi*. The first, was why were all the repeated calls for extra security ignored and our people left in harm's way, when every other prudent nation and NGO was retreating. Second, was the inactivity and failure to rush to the aid of our people who were under attack, with the possibility that the White House may have even obstructed some efforts. And thirdly was the cover up itself.

      The talking points memo, which has proven that the White House lied, is a minor point in three serious scandals. The White House would love to take our focus from the tragedy of lives lost through incompetence, and make it all about paper pushing.


  3. I grabbed my tea, a couple of cookies, pressed "Reader", stuck my feet up on my desk and began to work my way through a long and good op-ed. "Merde" said I, as I realized that you itemize(d) the points I always enumerate separately, as well. What you might have failed to mention is that both Teddy and Barry are morally bankrupt, which is why they did what they did. To them, the end always justifies the means.
    It is now May 14th, 2013 and VERY slowly the Fairy Tale of the Massacre of Benghazi is unfolding. We know why the Massacre occurred, we are just glued to our seats awaiting the punchline from the Writers-in-Chief. We may have to wait two years for the final sentence. ??? Because, as one phony explanation follows another, there are several other issues coming to fruition: The disaster called Obamacare, the illegal wiretapping of the AP lines, the illegal IRS targeting of Tea Party/Patriot Tax apps and returns, and whatever else will rear its ugly head in the meantime. Fast and Furious is going to have lots of company, and maybe, just maybe, there will be closure for Brian Terry's family.
    How much trash will we find under all those buses?

    1. I take the moral bankruptcy of Democrat politicians for granted. At least the modern ones. It is unbelievable how many scandals have piled up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over the past four years, with no end or resolution in sight, and yet the MSM still plays deaf, dumb and blind.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.