Response to Libya attack was not effectivePublished 11:06am Friday, November 2, 2012
To the Editor:
In December of 1941 a territory of the United States was attacked. The Commander in Chief did the following: called his cabinet together, State, Treasury, Defense, Military, etc. He then notified the public of what was known and when, along with the unknown. He never left his command post, the White House. It was a big event, a very big event. Lives were lost, property was destroyed and all by an up to that moment, “Friendly” nation. It was a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, in a United States territory, by Japan.
In September of 2001 we suffered another sneak attack, this time within the United States. Our Commander in Chief coordinated his response and action with his cabinet. The President remained “hands on” throughout and following that attack. He, too, directed the United States public notifications, responses and reaction.
He, too, acted like a Commander in Chief.
On Sept. 11, 2012, a band of Islamic Radicals attacked the United States Consulate in Libya.
What did our Commander in Chief do? He announced the dastardly attack in the Rose Garden. He attributed it to a film clip negative towards Islam. Then he went campaigning in Las Vegas. Chris Stevens, Ambassador to Libya, requested help prior to and during the attack. Furthermore, the Ambassador indicated it seemed to be a well-planned, coordinated attack using heavy weapons. He would not get any help. He would be killed along with three other Americans attempting to help Ambassador Stevens.
The attack, we now know, was not a film clip-driven spontaneous act. In the Benghazi matter he fell short. President Obama did not rise to the level of an effective Commander in Chief.