In other words, "What is Missing" can provide you with insight you do not have by only observing "What is There."
Case-in-point is the American Embassy attacks in Libya and in Egypt. You might have observed that what is missing is a more pro-active foreign policy, in contrast to the Obama doctrine of bowing to, apologizing to, and/or propitiating to our political opponents. That is something that is missing, but its absence is so blatantly obvious that it might qualify as "something missing that is so obvious, that it's there."
But what is profoundly missing; what is utterly and definitively omitted; what is absolutely and certifiably missing, or "not there" in these very rapidly developing and unraveling scenarios, is the absence of the CIA. More specifically, the absence of intelligence that would have announced, warned, estimated, or at least sounded the alarm, is entirely missing.
And has anyone asked: "Where's the CIA?"
It appears that the Obama administration was caught in the Libya and Egypt attacks, completely by surprise. Even the lack of a coordinated, positive, aggressive message or response was clearly absent, and the bumbling and fumbling made the Administration, and therefore, the U.S., appear weak.
And we know that a weak appearance invites more hostility and possibly more violence.
The announcement by some Congressional Legislators that the attacks may have been planned is beyond lame. What kind of an idiot would proclaim such, when the attacks were obviously of a sophistication that explicitly shouts-out that the violence is coordinated?
Are we not at war?
This speaks to, very directly, the Obama Administration's chronic denial that we are at war. You may recall that the Obama team in 2009 ordered the Pentagon not to refer to "the war" as the "Long War," or the "War on Terror." Instead they were to refer to it as an "Overseas Contingency Operation."
So again: Where's the CIA? Where's the FBI? Where's the NSA? Where's the DIA? (Defense Intelligence Agency).
In the hot-bed of volatile, potential, political upheavals, there was not only an undefended, un-secure embassy (or consulate), unable to thwart an attack, as evidenced by the now Obama/Hillary Clinton scrambling to put Marines in place, and take other security measures, apparently the same lack of security scenarios exist across the globe.
We now find out that there were local cops or local security personnel charged with defending our embassies, and that U.S. Marines load up with rubber bullets. We also learn that the President misses half of his intelligence briefings. HERE and HERE. and the Press Secretary thinks it's "hilarious."
The result? Four dead Americans.
And what of the alphabet-soup list of intelligence agencies? It leaves us to conclude from one or all of the following choices:
1. There are no or inadequate intelligence operations being conducted.
2. Obama's failure to attend intelligence briefings have caused "security" to not be a priority
3. Obama is intentionally leaving our foreign outposts undefended.
After shamelessly taking credit for getting rid of Bin Laden, bragging about it to the extent that they collaborated and gave privileged information to movie makers to produce a movie about the Bin Laden assassination, what would you expect a severely wounded enemy to do? Did the Obama administration think they would just crawl into a cave and lament their lost leader?
Wouldn't YOU have braced yourself for a counter-attack?
If you haven't already, brace yourself now, because you are experiencing the counter-attack.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration and its lackeys in the Socialist Liberal Media (SLIME) do not know who the enemy is. They think it's Mitt Romney.
Can you tell me what else is missing?