Obama: No 'There' There

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 to a reporter from ABC, 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 LCR.