By Nancy Thorner and Jane Keill –

Information about the attack has rapidly changed in the past weeks, and so has the Obama administration’s positions on it. The real story about what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in which four Americans were killed just gets worse and worse. Not only did Barack Obama and his team perpetuate a lie for nearly two weeks as to the cause of the attack, but in breaking news, we are now learning that during the attack, Americans called out for help, and were denied any assistance.

For several weeks, in an effort to write an article that would relate our frustration and dismay over the lack of transparency and honesty that has been forthcoming from the White House since the 9/11 Benghazi terrorist attack, we asked ourselves this question: What if we pretended to interview Barack Obama about the Benghazi attack whenever more news surfaced, asking him questions through a series of fake interviews?

We would further relate, continuing in our “Let’s Pretend” mood, that although the President agreed to sit down with us, he refused to answer any of our questions, except for one answer, “The attack was caused by an inflammatory video that was insulting to Muslims.” Beyond that, he wouldn’t say anything.

Our imaginary interviews with President Obama ended on October 25 so our thoughts could be set down to submit to Illinois Review. Little did we know that on Thursday, October 26, these new revelations would surface through Breaking News by way of Fox News:

“Sources who were on the ground in Libya, ready and available for military action during the attack on the U.S. consulate, were told to ‘stand down’ rather than to help the ambassador’s team. When shots began to be heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11, the CIA denied approval of action despite multiple requests.”

It is outrageous that the mainstreet media refuses to hold the President’s feet to the fire, instead it elects to play footsie with the President.

Four years is a long time for this nation, its people and the world to live with a Commander-in-Chief and a President who can’t be trusted.

In our series of pretend conversations with Obama, we would ask these questions:

Before the attack:

1. The President of Libya, Mohammed el-Megarif, says he advised you three days in advance that there were possible attacks coming up for the 9/11 anniversary. Did you receive those warnings? What did you do in response to them?

2. What steps did you take to protect our properties and interests around the world before the anniversary of 9/11?

3. What steps did you take specifically in Libya?

4. Are there Marine guards at all our embassies? If not, why not?

5. Do all our Marines have bullets in their guns? If not, why not? Who made this rule?

6. How many full intelligence briefings did you attend in the week before the attack in Libya?

7. Did you know that Ambassador Chris Stevens would be in Benghazi on 9/11? Did you warn him there might be an attack there on 9/11?

8. Did you know Ambassador Stevens personally? Did you know Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, the Navy Seals who were killed with him? Did you know Sean Smith, the foreign services officer who was also killed?

9. Did you write personal letters of condolence to each of the families of the victims?

Immediately after the attack:

1. When, how and by whom, were you told about the attack? Was this a ‘3 AM’ phone call?

2. Why after the attack, did you go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser? Why did you not stay in Washington and try to find out what had happened in Benghazi?

3. Why, in the days after the attack, did you go on the David Letterman show, party with Jay-Z, Beyonce, Anne Hathaway, Jerry Springer, have your picture taken with a pirate and go on The View? Do you think it was Presidential to do that?

4. Was Sufyan ben Qumu actually involved in the attack? (He’s the Gitmo detainee who was released in 2007 to Libya after we were assured he would remain in prison.)

5. Was Al Qaeda involved in the attack?

6. Ever since you ordered the death of Osama bin Laden, you insisted you would not ‘spike the football’ about it. Yet at the Democrat convention and thereafter, you, Biden, Axelrod, Clinton and many others, have constantly chanted, “Osama’s dead and General Motors is alive’. How did this contribute to the anger that Muslims around the world feel about the USA and perhaps lead to the deaths of our four Benghazi representatives?

During the weeks after the attack:

1. Why do you think the Muslim rioters in various countries were chanting ‘Obama, Obama, we’re all Osamas!”

2. Five days after the attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice (come on now, you didn’t know she was our Ambassador to the United Nations, did you?) went on all the Sunday talk shows and repeated over and over again that the attack was the result of the nasty movie mentioned above. Was she lying?

3. What instructions did you give her to tell about the Benghazi attack?

4. What did you tell Hillary, David Axelrod, Biden, Jay Carney and everyone else to tell as the ‘story’?

5. Why did you go to the United Nations on September 27 and continue to insist that the attack was the result of the nasty movie?

6. Why did you and Hillary make a tape and have it played all over Pakistan that blamed the attack on the nasty movie?

7. Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and our embassies are under her direction. What was Hillary’s responsibility in this?

8. When you were asked during an interview if Egypt was an ally or an enemy, why could you not answer the question?

So, it really was a terrorist attack:

1. Although early on it had become pretty evident that this was a terrorist attack, possibly with Al Qaeda connections, why was it eight days before your administration began to admit that?

2. If it was a terrorist attack, why did you not have Amb. Susan Rice return to the Sunday talk shows, and retract her earlier statements? Will you fire Rice for lying to the American public about the source of the attacks?

3. Why did you and Hillary not make another video for Pakistan and the rest of the Arab world to retract your insistence that the nasty movie caused the attack?

4. Shortly after the assault, CNN was able to get into the scene of the attack and found the journal of Amb. Stevens. In it he said he was worried about his safety. You said the FBI had been sent to begin a thorough investigation into the attack. Why did CNN find this journal and not the FBI?

5. Why was the FBI still in Tripoli while CNN and the Washington Post were able to get into the US compound in Benghazi and collect consular records and material?

6. Recent news reports also indicate that the State Department was contacted by the Libyan US embassy before the attacks with a request for more protection in US enclaves there. These requests were reportedly turned down. What has been Hillary’s explanation for turning down these requests?

7. On September 28th, the American news media were finally reporting the attack was a coordinated terrorist assault. What information about this did you have before 9/28?

8. Why did the FBI just get to Benghazi on October 5, and only stay 24 hours and then left again? Was there nothing left to find after 3 ½ weeks?

9. What happens when the Harvey Weinstein movie ‘Seal Team Six’ is shown on 11/4, two days before the election? The movie trumpets your giving the order to kill bin Laden and ‘spikes the football’ about your part in his death. What plans do you have if riots break out all over the world because of this movie? After all, look what happened all over the Muslim world when they were upset about the nasty video that caused the Benghazi attack. What effect will riots all over the Muslim world have on your possible re-election two days later?

More recently, the news about the Benghazi attack seems to have something new every day. We continued to interview Obama and he continued to refuse to answer):

1. Several security officers from Libya and the State Department have testified before a House investigation committee that they gave multiple early warnings about other recent attacks in Benghazi. When were you told about this information?

2. These witnesses have also indicated they made multiple requests for additional security for Libya and were turned down. Why were they turned down?

3. If money was the reason additional assistance was not sent to Libya, how do you justify the money spent on buying Chevy Volts and building a charging station for them at our Embassy in Austria? Couldn’t we have used some of that money in Libya for security?

4. Why has your Press Secretary, Jay Carney, not been able to give a straight answer to questions at press conferences? He keeps changing your position on this issue.

5. At the recent Vice-Presidential debate, Joe Biden stated that ‘We did not know of any requests for more security in Libya’. In view of all the additional information and testimony that has come out, why did he say this?

6. David Axelrod, from your campaign, was on Fox News Sunday on 10/14, and he said all questions about the Benghazi attack should be addressed to the State Department where this type of issue is handled. Was he throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus? Was he trying to save your skin for you?

7. Why did Hillary throw herself under the bus by admitting responsibility for the handling of the attack? Why did it take her almost five weeks to realize the State Department is in charge of this type of thing?

8. Will you ask for Hillary’s resignation as Secretary of State? If not, why not?

9 Why did she make this admission just before your second debate with Romney? What did you discuss with her about this acknowledgement and the timing of it?

10. During the debate with Romney, you insisted that you talked about ‘terror’ attacks the day after the Benghazi assault, and indeed you did mention ‘terrorist attacks’ in the Rose Garden, but it was in a much broader context than the Libya raid. Even moderator Candy Crowley admitted that – after the debate, of course.

If you thought it was a terrorist attack in the Rose garden the day after it happened, why did you and Hillary and Susan Rice and Axelrod and Jay Carney and Biden all spend the next two weeks insisting Benghazi was the result of the nasty video about Muslims? Why were you so confused about this?

As of October 25, 2012, the Benghazi attack continues to play in the news:

The CIA station chief in Libya reported that within 24 hours of the attack, he had sent a message indicating the attack was the result of militants and not because of a mob.

1. CBS and Reuters have released evidence that e-mails that detailed the first few hours of the attack were sent to all pertinent parties in your administration, including the White House situation room. What did you know about these e-mails and the information they contained?

2. Some of these e-mails reportedly said the attacks were planned and were terrorist attacks. If you had this information within hours of the assault, why did you, Hillary, Susan Rice and most of your administration spend the next two weeks telling everyone from the news media to the UN to Pakistan that the attack was the result of the nasty video?

3. According to various news reports, the battle at Benghazi lasted between 6-7 hours. Reports also indicate that US drones were sent over the area to observe what was happening. If this is true, why didn’t you send in military reinforcements or a rapid response team (from Italy or Spain) to give assistance?
Did you do anything to try and rescue our Ambassador and the other Americans under attack?

4. If the drones sent images over the satellite network, were you able to see what was happening? If you could see what was happening, why didn’t you send help?

5. Even as you, Mr. President, continue to vow that the perpetrators of the Benghazi consulate attack will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities.

He has spoken to a New York Times reporter from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments. The FBI, when it was in Libya, did not talk with him. If the NYT could find him to interview, why haven’t your people found him? What is the status of the investigation? What have the Libyans done about it?

6. Will the investigation of the attack be completed before the November election? Oh, of course. What was I thinking? Never mind.

Realizing that any coverup attempts are many times worse than the actual “crime” itself, if and when we do decide to continue our pretend interviews with President Obama, the following two questions would head our list:

1. Mr. President, how did you think you could get away with spinning a story for weeks about Benghazi that exonerated the White House from all blame in what was known from the beginning as an organized terrorist attack? Why, instead, did you and your administration cling to the spontaneous attack script prompted by what was an obscure video?

2. Mr. President, was it your purpose to have the American people believe that the threat from Al Queda was over with the capture of Bin Laden and that knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack would have shattered the misconception you have presented to the American people?

Now might the mainstream media do its job by asking questions in real time of President Obama? To start with: “Mr. President, there seems to be so much more information that is available than you are telling us. It’s clear that you knew a great deal more. It’s also clear that you have been lying to us since the beginning. From the information we do know – from public sources – we can only draw the following conclusions:

-If you were warned beforehand that something was astir in Libya and you did nothing to forestall or prevent it, then you were grossly negligent and derelict in your duty to our overseas delegations.

-If you didn’t know anything was coming, you should have anticipated that something was likely to happen on the anniversary of 9/11, and should have been prepared for it.

-If you received information from the early messages and the drone images and the requests for help during the attack and you did nothing to try and assist the people in the Benghazi consulate, then you are utterly responsible for the deaths of four Americans and you should resign immediately. Their deaths are on your shoulders.

The American people deserve the truth before Nov. 6th!

Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

Presidents can’t vote present!  –  Commentary article by Nancy Thorner and Edward Ingold

The events in the Middle East this past week stagger the imagination. They are the culmination of nearly four years of failed foreign policy in the Obama administration. It started in Obama’s tour through Europe before being elected, apologizing for American principles, leadership and sacrifices for world peace, continuing with his practice of  “leading from behind,” never taking a stand that might affect his popularity, at home or abroad. For nearly four years the President remained silent while minions in his staff and Congress have made countless proposals, waiting to see what the reaction of the public will be. Only when they succeed did the President stand up and take credit. Only after the landmark “Affordable Health Care Act” passed did he embrace it as “Obamacare.” While the debate raged on this, and many other issues, the President held back and, as in his lackluster Senate career, merely voted “present.”
In the present crisis, the State Department responded with a lame apology for a 14 minute film, allegedly insulting Islam, which hardly anyone had seen, then issued an affirmation of this message two hours later. Recognizing the film in this manner served to make it a convenient focal point for Islamic protests.
There is a long-standing principle that American embassies are US territory, which we have a right to defend, and the host country has an obligation to protect. Sixteen hours elapsed before Governor Romney brought the real issue before the American people. Another half hour elapsed before the State Department followed suit, and the President began denouncing Governor Romney for jumping the gun, “shooting then aiming.” This criticism was nearly identical to that issued by President Carter concerning a speech by Governor Reagen in 1979, following the Iranian takeover of our Embassy in Tehran.
A fundamental principle of statecraft is that sovereign nations do not have friends or enemies, only interests. President Carter ignored this principle when he helped topple the Shah of Iran and invited Ayatollah Khomeini and Islamic extremists to take over the country. Besides the  lasting effects in Iran, this served to alienate the friendly Arab nations of Jordan and Saudi Arabia (and others). If the US betrays the Shah, who could count on support from the US? The Camp David Accord, between Egypt and Israel, was largely due to Egypt’s desire to regain the Sinai Peninsula (with it, complete control of the Suez Canal), and Israel’s ability to hold it if they desired. The agreement holds as long as the Egyptian government remains secular – a status in question following last year’s “Arab Spring” revolts.
Much as President Carter’s foreign policy was dominated by his version of “human rights,” so is President Obama’s policy dominated by his ideology of “Global Government,” where human rights are those bestowed by a benevolent government, rather than endowed by the Creator. Each President has ignored the need to defend interests of the US, and incidentally, its values as expressed in the Constitution and its history.
In the “Arab Spring”, extended to the uprising in Syria, President Obama remained nearly silent until it was clear which side would win, and only belatedly threw long-standing leaders under the bus. While these leaders were hardly benevolent in terms we understand in the US, they largely coincided with US interests. Rather than support rebels, unknown entities, it would have been prudent to remain silent until that sovereign nation resolved its own fate. Having done otherwise undermined faith that friendly governments in the region, including Israel, can expect our support. Moreover, this vacillation makes the United States appear weak and irresolute. As a result, we can expect more attacks on our embassies, citizens and interests in the future, and not just in the Middle East.
There are two ways to deal with schoolyard bullies. You can hang your head and give up your self-respect (and lunch money) in exchange for fewer beatings, or you can send the bully home to explain to his mother why his nose is bloody and clothes are torn. Even if you get “whupped” in the attempt, you keep your self respect, and often respect of the bully. The US did not emerge from WW2 as the leader among nations because we were tough – we got “whupped” a lot more than the Bowdlerized history books would suggest – but because we persevered.
We see a strong contrast between the way various administrations have handled foreign affairs. President Carter created a lasting disaster for our standing in the Middle East. President Reagen brought down the Soviet Union and freed Eastern Europe without firing a shot. President Clinton (whom I largely like) tried to rescue Bosnia with air raids and rockets. The genocide did not abate until there were boots on the ground. Within six weeks of 9/11, President Bush brought the Taliban to their knees, and drove Al Qaeda from their safe haven Afghanistan. The photo of members of our Special Forces riding into battle on horseback is burned in our memories  – our “allies” were slow to allow deployment of motorized cavalry.
President Obama needs more time to “explain” his position – which is firmly in the rear of events both foreign and domestic. The killing of Bin Laden, for example was through the efforts of a brave and dedicated team of SEALS, culminating years of intelligence gathering, which virtually halted once Obama took office. The mission was only approved after several denials at the urging of his advisors – because it was dangerous politically if it failed. To paraphrase President Kennedy, “We do these things not because they are necessary, but because we can succeed.