Just How Drunk Was Obama September 11th, 2012?

That's a fair question, isn't it? I mean, there's no real evidence that Obama was falling down drunk, hugging the porcelain phone and calling Ralph, during those eight hours, but then, there's no real evidence that he wasn't either! Given his proclivities to drugs, maybe he reconstituted the Choom Gang? Did Aunt Zeituni bequeath him the family crack pipe?? Somewhere, there's an explanation for what occupied the Commander-in-Chief from the time he heard our Ambassador was under attack, until he popped into his jammies to rest up for a big day of fundraising in Vegas the next day. Problem is, we've never heard it!

Democrats, known for their lack of partisan posturing (stop laughing!) are telling us that there is no need for another hearing into Benghazi, because there have already been, by their accounting, seven that they've stonewalled, er, participated in!

Democrat Jack and Democrat Jill went up to the Hill,
to fetch a pail of water.
Jack came down with an empty pail, again, and said:
"But I've gone up the Hill seven times now!!!"
Well! That makes all the difference! The problem with the empty bucket headed Democrats, is that there are too many unanswered questions and the questions are by no means new.

As I pointed out in October 29, 2012, the scandal is threefold:

The negligence that preceded the attack.

Who specifically, person or persons, was responsible for the security of the Benghazi compound prior to the attack? Given the known dangers in the region, it is not unreasonable to assume this could reach upwards to the offices of an alert and conscientious Secretary of State or President. How engaged were they in monitoring what was going on in Libya and the region? Secondly, what consequences has that person or persons suffered as a result of this abysmal breach of security? Anyone fired? Demoted? Reassigned??
Make that part of the public record.

(Please don't echo the canard about stingy Republicans and sequestration. The State Dept admitted they had the money and even spent millions for art in foreign embassies. That dog won't hunt!)

The response of the administration as the attack was taking place

Why was no one sent to help Americans, under attack, in threat of their lives? Aside from the lame, "we couldn't get there in time", which presupposes knowledge not present at the beginning of the attack, to whom did Obama gives orders, what specifically were those orders, and if they were not carried out, what were the consequences of disobeying those orders?

This in not, as so many Democrats bleat, a "gotcha" on the President, unless he didn't issue the orders. But he said he did. In an interview, Obama said, and I quote:

"...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."

Question: Sir, which minute exactly was that? To whom, specifically, did you give those "very clear directives"?, and what actions precisely were taken as a result of your orders?

For a year and 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. We found out this week, through the testimony of former spokesweasel for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, that he was in the White House situation room and Barack Obama wasn't. When pressed where Obama was, if not the situation room, Vietor bleated "in the White House".

Please note that Tommy Vietor neither confirmed nor denied that Obama was falling down drunk and throwing up on the Resolute desk, even though we have just as much evidence for this as any vague explanations the White House has given to date. And lastly...

"The bewildering, ham handed attempt to cover up a naked act of terrorism with some fairy tale about an obscure video, and the escalation of a demonstration that never took place."

In the latest batch of emails pried from the grubby mitts of the "most transparent administration in history" (stop laughing!), we see clearer indications that the whole "blame the video" game was a naked political ploy. How anyone, even the slimiest of politicians could stand by those coffins of four Americans being brought home to rest and tell their grieving families the same cockamamie fairy tale about a video, and "getting the guy who made it", is beyond me.

Who is responsible for creating the narrative about a video and gave the talking points to Susan Rice to lie to the nation on five separate Sunday talk shows, when from hour one of day one, the president and his men knew it was a terrorist attack? Why was the charade continued for weeks by everyone including the president? What consequences have taken place to ensure that the American people are not lied to again on this grand a scale?

Democrats like California's Adam Schiff (above) can pretend that a committee finally trying to pry the truth about Benghazi, and its cover up, out of this administration is purely partisan, as if the stonewalling of this administration were not, but that dog isn't going to hunt, either.

Within weeks, hostage survivors of the Algeria oil fields were being interviewed on 60 Minutes. Some thirty survivors of Benghazi are yet to be heard from. If any Democrat can point out to me the public transcripts that contain the answers to my questions are found, or the tesitmony of the Benghazi survivors who were first hand witnesses, I will apologize to Barack Obama and Hillary and kiss the feet of Nancy Pelosi (it sure beats the other end!). But, they can't do it, because this time, we need an honest, genuine investigation, with people under subpoena, to get to the bottom of this, ascertain guilt if applicable and demand accountability.

As Barack Obama would say, "Period."