Benghazi scandal may well turn the election tide

Much was made (and continues to be made) about President Barack Obama’s role in taking out Osama bin Laden. In reality, his role was more like that of a participant in a big game safari who is led to his prey and handed an elephant gun to execute the coup de grace. The difference on the safari, however, is that the participant is actually exposed to some danger and has to undergo the discomfort of traipsing through the wilds of Africa.

Killing bin Laden was set up in advance and relied on the excellence of our country’s military and intelligence assets. Obama’s role was no more than that of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt when Japanese Admiral Yamamoto’s plane was shot down a few years after Pearl Harbor.

 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, left, accompanied by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, gestures during their joint news conference at the Pentagon, Thursday, Oct. 25, 2012. Panetta said the U.S. military did not intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because it was over before the U.S. has sufficient information on which to act.The recent fiasco at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a different story and displayed what the commander in chief is or isn’t capable of when pressured by an unplanned event. In this situation (the “3 a.m. call” as Hillary Clinton once described it) Obama failed miserably in every respect:

His State Department ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ pleadings for more security;
It was reported that the White House watched as the attack occurred and clearly knew from the start that it had to be a planned terrorist operation;

The government refused to send help and didn’t even want the CIA personnel on the ground to attempt to help; and,

Most egregiously, highly potent military assets within two hours of the Benghazi consulate were not placed on alert status and were held back with the ridiculous claim that we never send anyone into harm’s way unless we have absolute certainty. It is hard to believe that decision would have been made if the president or secretary of state had been under fire at the consulate.
This is what we get with an amateur commander in chief. And I haven’t even touched on the disastrous economic performance and lack of political leadership for the past four years. Can we really afford another four years?

 

MISSION VIEJO, Dennis Leroy: On the Sunday talk shows, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated (roughly) that we don’t send our military into harm’s way unless we know a great deal about the situation. He knew this much: the mission at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was pleading for help. And I submit that that is exactly what the military does; it goes into harm’s way to protect and save Americans.

Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines “to the shores of Tripoli” in Libya to save American sailors. America did not back down in 1805, in 1941 (World War II) or in 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis), but now we must wait while our ambassador and others are being killed. The difference between those days of American exceptionalism and now is the attitude in Washington about what America really is. Politics trumps everything.

The morning after, the president makes a little speech and then goes off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. How sad for America. The emperor has no clothes.

COSTA MESA, Kenneth Lindberg: Weeks ago, over a seven-hour period, the defenders of our consulate in Libya asked for help three times. The calls were received by persons in high places. The help was refused, and the men were left to die.

The public has a right to know the details, but they met a stone wall. Now the White House has scheduled an inquiry to begin after the election. If this inquiry ever happens, this cover-up will make Watergate look like chicken feed.

CERRITOS, Bruce Milroy: What is wrong with this picture? An administration can “release” information about the Osama bin Laden raid that is favorable to the administration, although this classified information endangered special operations and the safety of special operations troops, but it can lie about a situation (Benghazi) that reflects negatively on the administration.

ANAHEIM, Kerry Condon, President, Anaheim Police Association: I recently viewed two political mailers for Anaheim City Council candidate John Leos by the Orange County Employees Association Independent Expenditure Committee. These two mailers show photographs of Mr. Leos with firefighters and another with an Anaheim police officer. The mailers insinuate that Leos has Anaheim public safety support when he does not have the endorsement of the Anaheim Police Association or the Anaheim Firefighters Association for his 2012 candidacy for Anaheim City Council.

Leos has publicly called for Anaheim to have local government transparency, but I guess this does not pertain to him or his campaign committee.

NEWPORT BEACH, Judy B. Rosener, Professor emerita, Paul Merage School of Business, UCI: The O.C. League of Women Voters supports the principle that the functioning of government should be transparent. This nonpartisan organization also calls for full public discussion of issues on the ballot with accessible and understandable information made available to voters. These principles have not been honored by the Newport Beach City Council’s placement of Measure EE on the Nov. 6 ballot, and the League of Women Voters asks for a No vote.

The measure’s amendment allows the City Council to adopt legislative acts (ordinances) at special meetings with inadequate notice to the public. It proposes changes which relax conflict-of-interest restrictions on the Council and staff at the expense of the people.

Most important, it includes 38 changes to the way the city operates, written in five pages in very small type, which had very little citizen input. This is hardly a way to inform citizens of what the amendment includes, and what the changes mean. Please vote No on Measure EE.

LAKE FOREST, Dan Lee: It appears letter-writer Richard Green needs reminding about how the fiscal disaster played out under the Obama regime [“Economically unpatriotic,” Oct. 30]. It is well documented that the stimulus provided no “shovel-ready jobs.” All it accomplished was to fund many green companies that have since gone bankrupt and “gave” union control to General Motors at the expense of the stockholders.

The GOP gave several jobs bills to the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would not even bring them up for a vote. The Senate has not passed a budget for almost four years. Why is that? The GOP had no hand in that Democratic maneuver. The Democrats controlled Congress during the first two Obama years. So, Mr. Green, place the blame squarely on this administration and the Democrats. Remember that Nov. 6.

Source