Should the President of the United States' advisors withhold information from him?
When should advisors to the President of the United States decide to "not" share information with the President. The revelations about Petraeus' affair and the facts about Benghazi were withheld for some period of time after facts were known. Why keep the facts from the President who selected you to advise him.
You can sure bet the President was FULLY aware of the events taking place on the ground in Benghazi AS THEY WERE HAPPENING. Sr. personnel at the Consulate had requested asistance from CIA personnal who were located in a safe house (which was within a mile of the consulate) to come and help protect the Ambassador and consulate personnel. Sr. SD officials at the HIGHEST level knew exactly what was happening along with the president. CIA official at the safe house received ORDERS not to leave the safehouse. This came from the HIGHIST level of OUR GOVERNMENT. The firefight lasted for well over seven hours in Benghazi. Some of the CIA personnel watched from the rooftop of the safehouse as the firefight continued. Finially, two members of the CIA at the Safehouse defide the ORDERS not to asiste and made their way to the Consulate. These two CIA personnel died along side the Ambassador while trying to protect him. Nothing can convince me that the President did not know this was happening. This is just one of many reason why I did not vote for Mr. Obama.
What any of the officials know at any given time in a crisis and what they make public are very different things for two major reasons.
1. Have you had the time to hear from all those involved and have a clear picture of what is actually going on?
2. Have you accounted for all participating parties and verified what the situation on the ground is enough to make that information public?
The administration was criticised, and rightly so, after the bin Laden operation for saying too much too soon.
I have no problem with folks taking the time to be certain of the facts before they start telling the public they know what happened. If that means not briefing the president until you are sure of your information, so be it.
Hi Kathleen! I can understand not telling the public. My concern is not telling the President.
I agree, but having been around the military for a lifetime or two, I know there are things you don't report until they are verified. That doesn't mean you keep him in the dark completely, which I don't think was done here.
The President should always be informed on information pertaining to an incident such as Benghazi - I honestly believe he was completely informed on this terrorist attack and was part of the discussion on how to "spin" it to help his campaign.
I hate politics. It seems you have to be a liar to be a politician. You don't even have to be a good liar.
dianetrotter - I hear you loud and clear - it is getting ridiculous all of the lies that are often so blatant.
Of course he was aware of it. It was on the monitors in the Situation Room. He was probably there.
When something goes well, a pol was at the center of it from the beginning. When it goes badly, he was nowhere near and knew nothing about it. Standard issue story.
I believe that they should tell the President everything, but I could understand why they don't. In certain circumstances they can keep info from the President so he is not aware of any political scandal. I think it's called "plausable deniablity.
The answer is 'selective accountability' , If you don't know - you're not accountable . He knew as much as the agents on the street ! What president doesn't know about all that happens? He gets written breifs each and every day about intel ! But here's the thing , he was off campaigning !
Never. The President should always know what is happening. After all the President is the one who makes the choices.
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
What happened in the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept 11 remains to be truthfully explained, by those ( Omaba's White House, Hilary's State Department, Paneta's Defense Department, and...
by kestrana6 years ago
Is the United States' era of world leadership at an end?Every superpower that influenced the world has fallen - and it's happened faster and faster through history. Is it happening again now?
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus, the slow motion movie that is Benghazi-gate can now be sub-titled: "Sex,Lies,and Videotape."The terrorist attack on the US consulate in Sept 11 and the continuing ...
by Reality Bytes5 years ago
Spin this:New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside GatesThe deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as...
by LAURENS WRIGHT5 years ago
What is happening to the United States' "Uncle Sam" ?Uncle Sam of the United States represents U.S. Government, power and the Nation. In the last 20 years or so, he is described as a very old man, with...
by Quilligrapher4 years ago
In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa admitted, using more words than was necessary, that his May 8th hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks did not produce any new information.VAN SUSTEREN: "You have...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.