Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Obama’s “strategic partnership” with radical Islam

 

http://lastresistance.com/365/obamas-strategic-partnership-with-radical-islam/

byFrank Camp

Obama’s “strategic partnership” with radical Islam

Filed under 2012 Election, Foreign Policy, Islam, Middle East, Terrorism

6

The Arab spring. This was supposed to be a time of revolutionary change; a movement into the future of the Middle East; something both grassroots and grandiose. But things that begin in one way often end in another. The Egyptian revolution that began in January of 2011 started off with good intentions. The people were organizing to overthrow what they saw as a corrupt government and a corrupt presidency that limited free speech, caused high unemployment, and rigged elections. Many of the protesters were even said to be secular in nature.

A year and a half passed until an election was held. On June 14th, 2012, Mohammed Morsi was declared the winner of the election, and the presidency. All of this seems good on the outset, right? A people rebelled against a corrupt government, radically changed a nation and democratically voted in a new president. Well, not so much.

Unfortunately, the newly elected president, Mohammed Morsi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Though he officially “resigned” as a member of the Brotherhood upon his election, he still holds dear their radical belief system. The Muslim Brotherhood originally stated that they would NOT run a candidate for the presidency, but later reneged. In all, the Arab spring has turned into a nightmare of massive proportions.

In case you are wondering about the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood; this is their stated mantra: “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

And according to the NY Times: “The Muslim Brotherhood’s deep hostility to Israel — which reflects majority public opinion in Egypt — would pose difficulties for American policy. Its conservative views on the rights of women and intolerance of religious minorities are offensive by Western standards.”

And in case you think Morsi’s “resignation” from the Brotherhood (though he is still a member of their political party) means that he holds more moderate views than the radical organization to which he belonged, this is a direct quote, straight from the horse’s mouth:

“I grew up with the Muslim Brotherhood, I learned my principles in the Muslim Brotherhood. I learned how to love my country with the Muslim Brotherhood. I learned politics with the Brotherhood. I was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

So, in addition to his obvious ties to an extremist organization, Mohammed Morsi has decisively aggregated power to himself by dismissing many military personnel and essentially putting himself in absolute control of the formation of a new constitution.

This is a quote from the NY Times: “The powers Mr. Morsi assumed on Sunday allow him to select a new panel to write Egypt’s constitution, if the current panel cannot finish their work. And he has broad powers to pass laws, though he has promised to turn over that responsibility when a new parliament is elected. Still, his moves were certain to revive concerns that he and the Brotherhood were becoming far too strong.”

If this aggregation of power doesn’t seem to be a problem, let’s take a look at some more quotes from Morsi:

1. “We are talking about values, beliefs, cultures, history, reality. I will not prevent a woman [or Christian] from being nominated as a candidate for the presidential campaign…This is not in the Constitution. This is not in the law. But if you want to ask me if I will vote for her or not, that is something else, that is different.”

2. “We must restore normal relations with Iran based on shared interests, and expand areas of political coordination and economic cooperation because this will create a balance of pressure in the region.”

3. According to FOX News, “Lip reading by the Anti Defamation League and the Middle East Media Research Institute confirmed Morsi’s approval of a prayer delivered by influential Imam Futouh Abd Al-Nabi Mansour last Friday, in which he stated, “Oh Allah … grant us victory over the infidels. Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters.” Israelis already nervous by the rise of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood say it is the latest example of a disturbing trend.”

This is a man who has said that neither a Christian nor a woman would be fit for the presidency. This is a man who claimed that he would appoint a female Vice President, then failed to do so. This is a man who claims to have resigned from the Muslim Brotherhood, but remains a part of their political party. This is a man who says he wants to open up relations with Iran. This is a dangerous “ally” to have.

Mohammed Morsi may seem on the outset like a rather nice, charming, menial individual, but his close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be ignored. Members of the Muslim brotherhood have committed violent acts upon violent acts, including crucifying opponents of the new political regime, according to WND.com.

According to El Balad, “…The supporters of Tawfik Okasha, another vocal critic of President Morsi…gathered around the presidential palace, only to be surrounded by Brotherhood supporters, who attacked them with sticks, knives, and Molotov cocktails, crucifying some of them on trees, leading to the deaths of two and the wounding of dozens.” There are even reports of the Brotherhood terrorizing and beating secular journalists as well, who are trying to expose the Brotherhood’s alleged agenda.

What does this mean? It means the Obama administration has failed miserably in regards to their foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East.

In June of 2009, Obama said this: “I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world — one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles – principles of justice, and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

Islam, as it is practiced by the Brotherhood, is not tolerant, nor does it share common principles with the West. With this statement, Obama is either being deliberately disingenuous or naive. Either way, it does not amount to anything worthwhile.

And now, there is even more. According to Reuters, Obama sent a letter to Morsi, thanking him for securing the US mission in Cairo after the riots. However, Morsi reportedly didn’t send police to intervene in the embassy riots until four hours after they began and only really moved to action after a phone call from Obama. In the letter, Obama went on to say that he wanted to develop a “strategic partnership” with Egypt.

However, despite apparently wanting a “strategic partnership” with a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; a man who has already made outrageous statements, Obama recently and quietly cancelled a meeting with Morsi. Hmm, election season anyone? Seems similar to Obama’s comments about post-election flexibility, made to Medvedev.

When asked on Univision last month about whether he considered Egypt an ally, Obama responded by saying that he doesn’t see them as an ally or an enemy. This, in turn, caused Morsi to echo those sentiments. This seems to be getting more convoluted and warped as each day passes.

Finally, after this brouhaha (that they claimed for two weeks was ignited because of some online video made moths ago…sure), the party of the Muslim Brotherhood issued this statement: “The U.S. must enforce the laws firmly and punish those who produce and promote such abusive material, so as to prevent the recurrence of such criminal acts rejected by civilized peoples and all heavenly religions, especially since Arab peoples no longer react so passively as they did in the past, after the revolutions in which they fought for their freedom and dignity.”

So, lets break all of this down:

1. Morsi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhoods political party, and a “former” member of the brotherhood.

2. Morsi has said outrageous things, referenced earlier.

3. The Freedom and Justice Party (Muslim Brotherhood party), issued a statement demanding that the US restrict and criminally punish those who speak against Islam. In addition, the Brotherhood has made outrageous, anti-Israeli statements, continues to commit extreme acts of violence, up to and including crucifying their opponents.

4. Morsi is a member of this party that issued that statement. He has not, as of yet, condemned the things that the Brotherhood does on a regular basis in any formal way.

5. Obama still wants a “strategic partnership” with Morsi. Yet he quietly cancelled a meeting with Morsi. But then, Obama tells Univision that he does not consider Egypt an ally or enemy.

6. Obama makes time to visit Jay Z, Beyonce, and to make an appearance on the View, but makes no time for Bebe Netanyahu (our biggest Middle Eastern ally)? Robert Gibbs claimed that phone calls are sufficient, but to me that shows weakness in the ties between the US and Israel.

7. The United States still spends billions of dollars in foreign aid to Egypt.

What’s the conclusion to this story?

Obama is desperately trying to walk a line. He wants to have a “strategic relationship” with Mohammed Morsi, yet he doesn’t consider him an ally or an enemy? He claims that he supports Israel, but won’t meet with Bebe Netanyahu? Obama continues to support sanctions on Iran; a country whose president is widely regarded as dangerous and deranged. These sanctions continue to do absolutely nothing to halt Iran from its march toward nuclear weapons, but Obama insists on continuing down this path.

This is an excerpt from a 60 Minutes interview with Obama several weeks ago:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Well—look, I have conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu all the time. And I understand and share Prime Minister Netanyahu’s insistence that Iran should not obtain a nuclear weapon, because it would threaten us, it would threaten Israel, and it would threaten the world and kick off a nuclear arms race.”

STEVE KROFT: “You’re saying, you don’t feel any pressure from Prime Minister Netanyahu in the middle of a campaign to try and get you to change your policy and draw a line in the sand? You don’t feel any pressure?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “When it comes to our national security decisions—any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people. And I am going to block out—any noise that’s out there. Now I feel an obligation, not pressure but obligation, to make sure that we’re in close consultation with the Israelis—on these issues. Because it affects them deeply. They’re one of our closest allies in the region. And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.”

Barack Obama seems to want it all. He wants it to appear as though he is an ally of Israel (as shown in his 60 Minutes interview), yet he wants to develop a relationship with the Radical president of Egypt. He claims to share the concerns that Israel has about Iran, but does essentially nothing to draw a line in the sand (Essentially calling Israel’s concerns “noise”). He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Not only is Obama’s foreign policy demonstrating to the world that America is weak, but it is frustrating and alienating our ally in Israel. In addition, the US continues to provide billions of dollars in foreign aid to Egypt. As recently as 2010, the amount was approximately $1.5 billion a year.

Obama needs to draw a line in the sand with Iran, he needs to listen to Israel, he needs to cut off all aid to Egypt, and he needs to take a tough stand against their radical Islamist regime. However, he will do none of these, which is one more reason (as if we need one more) to elect someone who will do what’s right for this country and our ally, Israel.

More Gun Control Talk Just Before Elections

 

More Gun Control Talk Just Before Elections

Gun control is a topic that Barack Obama seems to have purposely avoided during this year’s campaign.  Besides most conservative Republicans being against gun control, there are a number of good ole boy Democrats who are also against gun control and with such a tight race, Obama can’t afford to lose any of their votes.

However, the topic of gun control is starting to surface right before the elections.  The John’s Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health just issued a news release titled, Restricting High-Risk Individuals from Owning Guns Saves Lives.  The report centers around the amount of gun related violence that occurs in the U.S.  They claim that there are an average of 30 deaths a day in the U.S. due to guns and that there have been 3,035 gun deaths in the U.S. since the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado.  In 2011, guns deaths reached 31,000, although only 11,000 were homicides.  According to their study, they point to three key issues relating to gun deaths and violence:

  • Easy access to firearms with large-capacity magazines facilitates higher casualties in mass shootings.
  • “Right-to-carry” gun laws do not reduce violent crime.
  • Prohibiting high-risk groups from having guns–criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence, youths under age 21, substance abusers, and those with severe mental illnesses–and closing loopholes that enable them to have guns are integral and politically feasible steps to reduce gun violence.

Based on these findings, they recommend that high risk people not be given access to purchase or own firearms.  If that is their reasoning, then perhaps we need to restrict access to motor vehicles for all high risk people who drink, do drugs, are impaired physically and mentally, and the elderly.  After all, there were 32,788 vehicle related deaths in the U.S. in 2011.  Depending on which study you look at, alcohol is involved in 40% to 70% of all vehicle related deaths.  Should we restrict alcohol from people determined to be high-risk – alcoholics, teens, drug addicts, elderly, clinically depressed, etc.?

What about tobacco related deaths?  According to the CDC, there are 443,000 tobacco related deaths each year in the U.S. and that includes second hand smoke.  One of every 5 deaths in the U.S. each year is attributed to tobacco in some form.  That’s 14 times more than die from guns.  When is tobacco going to be outlawed as a dangerous addictive drug?

In 2009, there were 41,592 deaths attributed to poisoning in the U.S.  Actually, poisoning, suicide and lack of health insurance all accounted for more deaths (individually) than those attributed to firearms.

Are we going to become a society that legislates everything we can own, eat or operate?  There comes a point when you have to say enough is enough.

But the bottom line is that owning firearms is a constitutional right.  Firearms in the hands of the colonists were one of the main features that led to our defeat of the British to gain our independence.  As our country is on the verge of collapse, the right to bear arms could soon play an important role in self-preservation and the defense of our country from a hostile takeover.

I think the people behind the John’s Hopkins Bloomberg study need to get out of the inner cities where most of the gun violence is and start talking to the millions of Americans that live in real America.  Ask them what owning a gun means to real Americans.  Perhaps by talking to the rest of the country, they might realize that the problem isn’t guns, but a society that has been taught from their first day of school that there is no God and that the strong survive and weak perish.  The strong also make the rules and determine what’s right and what’s wrong.  There are no moral absolutes other than what they make them to be at that particular point in time.

No, we don’t need more gun control or laws.  What we need is God and the Bible.  Until our nation turns back to God, nothing is going to solve the problems faced by a lost people.

__._,_.___

Did Obama Withhold Cross-Border Authority?

Bracken: Did Obama Withhold Cross-Border Authority?


From Matt Bracken:

Did Obama Withhold Cross-Border Authority?

Please help me.

I am trying as hard as I can to get out the word about cross-border authority (CBA).

I just can’t believe reporters don’t know enough to ask the right questions! It’s infuriating.

Libya, as far as standing down the rescue, is 100% Obama’s show, and nobody else’s. Only he can grant CBA, not Biden, not Panetta, not Dempsey, not Hillary, and certainly not Ham in Germany.

The entire episode is explained perfectly inside the context of not granting CBA. The CIA QRF in Tripoli? No problem, send them on the local Tripoli station chief’s say-so. He merely informs up COC that he has done so. CCs them so to speak. “This is what I am doing.” Ditto if Predators were in country, no problem using them.

But the big rescue air armada streaming toward Libya right away after the alarm got to Stuttgart and Africom? That has to stop. I believe at the 5pm meeting with Panetta and Biden in the Oval Office, he said, “No outside military intervention,” on the basis that the last report was the “lull” from the consulate, at about 1030 p.m. in Benghazi, when the attack appeared to be over and the situation stabilizing.

(As a soft exception, Obama may have authorized sending an unarmed Predator from outside of Libya, but I am thinking the two Predators were already in-country, and hence available to use within “no CBA granted” rules.)

“No outside military intervention” equals “no cross-border authority” and that constitutes “standing orders” until POTUS changes them. Nobody else can “un-decide” the POTUS decree. The rescue air-armada of C-17s, C-130s and SOF helos like MH-47 Chinooks and Pavehawks cannot proceed directly to Libya without CBA being granted, so instead they are all staged at Sigonella, Sicily.

USN ships are in position to “lilypad” helos for long over-water flights. Airborne tankers are coming into position. SOF forces in Sigonella are going over their gear for different contingencies. Fuming all night as officers keep checking in with operational commanders. “Hold in place, no rescue yet. We can’t find the President, it sounds like,” say the colonels to the majors and captains. 100s of military must know about this. I keep waiting for the conclusive whistle-blowers to come forward BEFORE the election. After won’t matter, it will be for the historians.

Panetta is falling on his sword for Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, “The military doesn’t do risky things” defense of no rescue. Panetta is destroying his future reputation entirely, to save Obama. The question is why? Loyalty?

Petreaus was probably “used” in some way early, about the supposed CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his PAO, “The stand-down order did not come from CIA.”

Well, what is higher than CIA? Only White House. Obama, nobody else. Petreaus is naming Obama without naming him.

Now, as far as Obama / Huma Abedin / Valerie Jarrett etc actually wanting Ambassador Stevens dead, to terminate the end of the very dirty Libyan arms to Syrian AQ programs, I can’t speculate. Obama is not competent enough, I’m thinking.

But for sure, the ambassador going to unsecure Benghazi on 9-11 of all days stinks to me of a setup. You can bet Stevens would have told the Turks, “No, 9-11 is not a good day for us,” and stayed in Tripoli behind many high and thick walls. For him to go to dangerous Benghazi on 9-11 means the Turks totally insisted, but why would they care about the meeting date, unless they were in on a “hit” as the Judas goat?

Alternatively, ordering Stevens to meet the Turks in Benghazi on 9-11 may have come from down OUR chain of command. Stevens seems to have been wearing two hats as ambassador and CIA arms shipper. Moving between more-secure Tripoli, the Benghazi “consulate,” and the CIA “annex.” So orders to him might come down the State or the CIA commo channels, or both. I am unclear on his job title and true position, but either the CIA or State sends him final instructions. How this works with “dual-hatted” ambassadors, I haven’t a clue.

But Stevens meeting the Turks at the unsecure Benghazi “consulate” on 9-11 stinks to me of a deliberate setup. The Turks left the meeting and probably flashed their headlights to the attack team commanders lurking in shadows. A coded text, a word on a phone, meaning, “The ambassador is there, with minimal security: proceed with the attack plan.”

That is all pure speculation. What I know FOR SURE is that the big “stand down order” issue revolves around granting or withholding cross-border authority.

Every SOF officer and ops officer all the way up has this drummed into his head. We can make Obama respond to this question, even if reporters must shout it at him while he’s doing storm cleanup photo ops. If the reporters KNOW enough to ask the quesion.

That’s why I am shouting all over the internet about CBA.

I can’t believe cross-border authority permission is not one of the top discussion points about Benghazi.

That, and who “set him up” by sending him to Beghazi to meet the Turks on 9-11, with them leaving after dark.

And of course, down the road, was the military rescue-in-progress turned back because Obama actually wanted to make sure the consulate was wiped out? Is that why the spooks at the annex were refused permission to travel the under one mile to intervene? That would connect it all together, but for now, the best focus is on Obama either granting or withholding cross-border authority for the rescue.

Feel free to repost these musings of a long-ago SOF officer anywhere you please.

Witches in my Mailbox

 OHH NOOO!!

Untitled_attachment_00044

There are witches in my mailbox.
What am I to do?

I found them there this morning,

doing things they shouldn't do!!

Untitled_attachment_00047

How the witches got there,

I haven't got a clue.

But they won't be there much longer

because I'm sending them to

Untitled_attachment_00050

YOU!!!!!!

You've been Witch Kissed!

Untitled_attachment_00053

Before the warts begin to spread,


pass the kisses on instead!

Got you first!

The Quran and Muslims = Americans?

Let the facts speak for themselves

This world is in for a awful awakening one of these days.
                                                                  
   

 Question:            
 

CAN  MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS ?
 
Can a good Muslim be a good  American ?
 

This question was forwarded  to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20  years.

The following is his reply:
 

      
Theologically - no.  Because  allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of  Arabia . 
 

        
Religiously - no... Because  no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran,  2:256)(Koran) 

           scripturally - no.Because allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the  Quran.
 

        
Geographically - no. Because allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times  a day.
 

        
Socially - no.. Because  allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or  Jews.
 

        
Politically - no.. Because  he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach  annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great  Satan.
 

        
Domestically - no... Because  he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife  when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34 )
 

        
Intellectually - no.. Because  he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is  based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be  corrupt.
 

        
Philosophically - no...  Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of  religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.  Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or  autocratic. 
 

        
Spiritually - no... Because  when we declare 'one nation under God,' The Christian's God is  loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly  father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent  names. 
 

Therefore, after study  and deliberation... Perhaps we should be very suspicious
of ALL  MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both  'good' Muslims and 'good' Americans.  Call it what you wish  it's still the truth.. You had better believe it. The more who  understand this, the better it will be for our country and our  future.
      

The religious war is bigger than we know or understand!
 

Footnote: The Muslims have  said they will destroy us from within.


                          " SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE " .    

THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.  

       
Please don't delete this until you send it on.
 

Monday, October 29, 2012

Pat Caddell on Jeanine Pirro 10/27/2012 -

Video:   4 min.

 

Democrat Pat Caddell's comments begin about 1:15. Powerful. 

Discussing Benghazi, Pat says the press has "been in the tank on this in a way I've never seen... I am appalled right now. This White House, this President, this Vice President, this Secretary of State, all of them, are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected...willing to cover up and lie. The worst thing is the very people who are supposed to protect the American people with the truth - the leading mainstream media...they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people... these people have no honor... coverup is too nice of a word..."

Benghazi: Obama Emerges from the Fog of War

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331892/benghazi-obama-emerges-fog-war-bing-west

Benghazi: Obama Emerges from the Fog of War - Bing West - National Review Online

If Obama ordered the military to “secure our personnel,” where is the order?

Our ambassador to Libya was killed in our own consulate in Benghazi on the night of September 11. For the next six weeks, President Obama repeated the same talking point: The morning after the attack, he ordered increased security in our embassies in the region.

Suddenly, on the campaign trail in Denver on October 26, he changed his story. “The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive,” he said, “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”

Notice the repeated use of the present tense, implying that he gave the order during the attack. Mr. Obama met with his national-security team, including the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at 5:00 p.m. Washington time. For over an hour, the consulate staff had been constantly reporting that they were under assault by terrorists and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing in action. In the White House, group-think leads to the mistaken assumption that the attackers are a spontaneous mob.

An hour after the attack has begun, the president orders the CIA and the military to do “whatever we need to do.” Yet the CIA and the military do nothing, except send drones overhead to watch the seven-hour battle. A CIA employee and former Navy SEAL, Tyrone Woods, twice calls for military help. He has a laser rangefinder and is pinpointing enemy targets, radioing the coordinates. The military send no aircraft to attack the designated targets. Special Operations forces standing by, 480 miles away — less than a two-hour plane ride — are not deployed.

Secretary of Defense Panetta later explained that this passivity was in keeping with a rule of warfare. “A basic principle,” he said on October 25, “is 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.”

Rarely has a spontaneous mob so thoroughly intimidated our nation. And so much for sending our squads out every day in Afghanistan on patrol, when they don’t know what’s going on. The next time a platoon is told to take an objective, some corporal will say, “SecDef says we don’t have to go into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

Apart from the questionable philosophy of turning battle into a poker game where all cards are face up before anyone places a bet, Mr. Panetta ignored the fact that the former SEAL on the ground was giving real-time information to everyone listening in at least eight operations centers (the embassy in Tripoli, State, White House, Pentagon, CIA, Special Operations Command, Africa Command, and the National Ops Center).

The SecDef and the president have issued contradictory explanations. Either Mr. Obama ordered the Secretary of Defense to “do whatever we need to do,” or he didn’t. And either the secretary obeyed that order, or he didn’t. And he didn’t.

It is also not clear whether the SecDef countermanded the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is the direct military adviser to the president. Did the president as commander-in-chief issue an unequivocal order that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs received but chose not to execute? Or did the chairman reply that he would do nothing?

Yet the general in charge of the Africa region has allegedly said he received no directive from Washington to dispatch military aid. Members of the mutual protective society of generals are offering the bizarre defense that our Africa Command could do nothing because it has no military assets; it’s some sort of ghost command. Even if that is true, the most powerful nation in the world has sufficient forces and flexibility to send fighter aircraft over a consulate in flames, or to land some troops at the secure airport east of Benghazi. After all, our embassy in Tripoli, 400 miles away, sent an aircraft with six Americans to fight in Benghazi. But our base in Sigonella, 480 miles away, sent no help.

If General Dempsey had concluded that the U.S. military should do nothing, he would have reported his decision not to act back to his commander-in-chief before the latter went to bed to rest up for his campaign trip to Las Vegas the next day. After all, the ambassador was still missing. And brave Tyrone Woods was to die in a mortar attack five hours later. President Obama would naturally be more than a bit interested in why the military and the CIA did nothing after he explicitly ordered them “to make sure we are securing our personnel.”

Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up. 

— Bing West, a former assistant secretary of defense, is co-author with Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Dakota Meyer of Into the Fire: A First-Hand Account of the Most Extraordinary Battle of the Afghanistan War.