Comments

In the meantime…remember Benghazi? — 28 Comments

1. RT is printing the emails….
   Guccifer is now posting up a billionaires emails

   Venture capitalist John Doerr had his AOL account breached several days ago by the same hacker responsible for illegally accessing the e-mails of Colin Powell, former White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, and assorted Bush family members (among others).

   During his months-long spree, “Guccifer” has employed a series of “burner” e-mail accounts, and has also sent correspondence while “inside” e-mail accounts he has breached (including those of Doerr; John Negroponte, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; and the wife of a Hollywood actor).

   Nato is trying to define the rules of cyberwar
   China is ratcheting up things as a cyberattack came from their computers
   Homeland security basically admits 66% of south border open… (kim dont need a missile given borders n venezuela
   Vennezuela has ejected us dips
   Russia has completed 4 nuclear bomb runs at the us since june (much likecwhat we r doing to korea)
   Korea is threatening japan n us bases
   Korea cyberattacked the south

   Imf, citibank, and lots of others uncluding the known unknowns military paper rcdiscussing use of soldiers

   Napolitano will not answer why they bought 400,000,000 rounds of ammunition that would be illegal to use in war
   2700 armored vehicles
   And just in… a huge order for checkpoint booths
   She refuses to answer why they need twenty years worth of a hot war level of ammo

   And lots of new stuff that went through while the rubes r distracted

2. But still, this must be done.

   Indeed it must. Allowing this to fade would make the Republicans and the msm confederates.

   Lindsay Graham continues his odd meandering

   But for the lack of a trainer and a smack on the snout Mr. Graham could be made useful. Lindsay’s bone is Benghazi — he should not be allowed another — no chewing on the Constitution, or Islam – just Benghazi.

3. Lindsay Graham will huff and puff every time he gets access to a camera or microphone, and nothing will come of it. Nothing to see here.

4. I can’t agree that Benghazi “is of no interest to most people”. I believe it to be of great interest for the great majority of those who voted for Romney.

   The ‘apparent disinterest’ is indeed the result of the MSM refusing to report on it who are fully onboard with the administration’s cover-up. Democrats and RINO cooperation are responsible for the DOA Congressional investigation.

   The Benghazi debacle is a perfect barometer of just how extensive a hold on information the MSM still retains with the public.

5. Geoffrey Britain:

   Exactly.

   “The majority of people who voted for Romney” is NOT “most people.”

6. Graham is hardly my idea of a leader, but I’m glad he’s on this. The young turks need to join in and keep ankle biting the misadministration. Especially Cruz because I’m getting partial to that new senator.

   BTW, its the spring equinox and the temperature in my area is above freezing for the first time in many cold, cloudy days. Here comes the sun and its alright. Happy spring everyone.

7. neo,

   Ok, I see what you mean and must agree after all.

   That said, I think its important to keep in mind that if millions of liberals knew the truth, of exactly what happened regarding the administration’s involvement in Benghazi, both before, during and after, they would be outraged.

8. You’d think that some reporter would see this a a golden opportunity to capture a Watergate-sized story (bigger, really) – and yet that hasn’t happened. Same with other serious scandals like Fast & Furious. Just don’t get it. Let’s hope that Congress will get the details so that at least the history books contain a more accurate portrayal of Obama’s presidency that the current media.

9. Geoffrey Britain: I disagree. Unfortunately, I don’t think all that many liberals would be outraged even if they knew. Some would, but I’m not at all sure it would be many.

   I wrote about that topic here.

10. I am not a lawyer, but I believe Goober Graham and congress can and do have legal authority to compel testimony from the rest of the witnesses.
    Anyway, he and Dumbledorf McCain would rather grandstand and scold their own party, than actually get their hands dirty doing their jobs.
    I believe they have staked out Benghazi as “their issue” in the senate, so that they can control the flow of information themselves. If the conservatives- Rand Paul, Rubio, and Cruz were to start pressing for testimony and making waves, those two idiots would do their best to shut them down.

11. “Geoffrey Britain: I disagree. Unfortunately, I don’t think all that many liberals would be outraged even if they knew.” neo

    You may be right. But if you are, then all that is left is capitulation or civil war. If we capitulate, the end result will be barbarians storming through civilization’s gate. It will be unavoidable.

    If we choose civil war, it will not only be far more terrible than we currently imagine but a Pyrrhic victory, for even if we win, a civil war between liberals and conservatives would destroy the country’s soul because it will have proven that representative democracy can only temporarily work.

12. That said, I think its important to keep in mind that if millions of liberals knew the truth, of exactly what happened regarding the administration’s involvement in Benghazi, both before, during and after, they would be outraged.

    You’re joking, right? If Obama did it, and Clinton, it’s good. There is no more to it.
    If the republicans think it’s an issue of right and wrong, they’re wrong. Since it’s good. Presuming you could get any lib to definger his ears long enough to present the facts.

13. Oh, yeah. How badly hurt is required to be stuck in a hospital for half a year, so badly hurt that even your family can’t visit? Since if family had visited, at least one of them would have said something. Anything.
    How do you think the families are being controlled?

14. suothpaw,

    I am not a lawyer either but I suspect it is more complicated than that. Or at least is more complicated because the political will, the Congressional votes needed, to uncover the truth of the administration’s involvement in Benghazi do not exist.

    If Rand Paul, Rubio, and Cruz were to start pressing for testimony and making waves, it would be propagandized as more ‘proof’ of their radicalism and disconnection from politically correct ‘common sense’.

    In this particular case, I suspect that to also be the political calculation that McCain has made regarding Benghazi. I suspect that for Graham, that calculation is a pill too large to swallow.

    Is is also highly probable that Obama’s execrable M.E. foreign policy will result in another Benghazi and that Rand Paul, Rubio, and Cruz will have another ‘opportunity’ to join Graham in demanding answers to the next debacle.

15. “You’re joking, right? If Obama did it, and Clinton, it’s good. There is no more to it.”

    No, I’m not joking though I am making my assertion conditional upon liberals knowing the truth beyond reasonable doubt.

    My 90 yr old WWII veteran Father is one of those liberals and if he knew, without reservation or doubt, the truth… his outrage would be incandescent. It would be an eye opener and a paradigm changing event. He simply cannot believe that so many Americans could be that disloyal and/or hoodwinked. To his mindset, it suggests a ‘conspiracy’ and one, too large to credit.

    He cannot believe that he’s been subjected to 50+ years of propaganda.

16. Neo,

    Seems to me the “not caring” attitude you ascribe to liberals is a little bit of a different critter than as you characterize. These same people would care about a lot of stuff they supposedly don’t care about now if a Republican president were the one doing it. If Bush’s 8 years taught us anything, it’s that they really care when they want to care. So, I say if they can turn the caring on and off depending upon who’s in office, then you can’t accurately say they don’t care. It’s a different kind of caring.

    What kind of caring is it? I don’t know, but I can describe features of it. Your word cynical fits. Maybe some of that comes from their comedians, the ones they rely on for opinions. It’s also partisan, or more accurately anti-Republican. When the media refuses to cover a story such as Benghazi it is then left to conservative outlets to do so, and it thereby becomes just a crazy Republican thing. There’s more, but this will do for now…

17. Geoffrey Britain, 9:06 pm:

    ” . . . [A] civil war between liberals and conservatives would destroy the country’s soul because it will have proven that representative democracy can only temporarily work.”

    A. We’re already in a civil war, except

    – one side (ours) doesn’t know it
    – there isn’t (and may not need to be) any shooting.

    B. The other side has just about completely succeeded in destroying the country’s soul; is there anything on the horizon to suggest a change of direction? (I’m talking about the cointry’s soul, not those of individuals such as congregate on this forum. Are there enough of us? I’m not optimistic. Should I be?)

    C. For a representative democracy to work permanently, there is a ncessity for an electorate that is permanently sufficiently moral and aware. But among us frail humans, the temptations are great: loot the treasury, follow demagogues, . . . .)

18. country, not cointry
    necessity, not ncessity

    (I mistakenly had hit “submit” instead of “preview”.)

19. Neo: “Benghazi has become old, old news that is of no interest to most people.”

    The Benghazi attack has been defanged as an issue because people buy into the foundational premise of Obama’s foreign policy, ie, President Bush’s foreign policy and Operation Iraqi Freedom were wrong, so by that fact itself, a foreign policy that is designed to be anti-Bush and anti-OIF is right.

    Of all of Obama’s foreign policies, his Libya policy has been the most explicitly framed to the public as a deliberately designed anti-Bush/anti-OIF policy. Since the people have accepted the premise that Bush/OIF is the wrong way to do foreign policy, they have also accepted the Benghazi attack as a tragic but ultimately acceptable cost of business of avoiding Bush/OIF.

    This is why, among other reasons discussed on this blog, it’s very important to keep beating the drum of rehabilitating the narrative on the Bush administration and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    Do you truly want to hold Obama and his Libya policy accountable for Benghazi? Then you need to expose the fundamental flaw in the foundation of Obama’s foreign policy. Convince the people that Bush was – in fact – on the right track with his Iraq policy, and that by deliberately going away from Bush’s foreign policy, Obama thrust American foreign policy on the wrong track.

    See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/middleeast/iraq-war-offers-lessons-for-syria-and-iran.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

    In response to the NY Times article on the 10th anniversary of OIF, I observed (@ http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2013/03/10-year-anniversary-of-start-of.html ) that “misconceptions about Operation Iraqi Freedom have confused policymakers in the Obama administration. Their chief operating premise seems to be the dogma that OIF was wrong, while their chief animating principle seems to be to avoid an OIF-type situation at all costs. This bias has thrown Obama’s foreign policy into disarray. In August 2004, Tom Junod wrote a compelling piece on President Bush and Iraq for Esquire magazine titled, The Case for George W. Bush i.e., what if he’s right?. With the confusion of Obama’s foreign policy evident, I believe it’s time to revisit Junod’s question: What if President Bush was right?”

    I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again: As long as Republicans run away from championing Bush’s legacy, especially with Iraq, they will concede the strategical moral high ground to the Democrats and President Obama.

20. * strategic moral high ground

21. Geoffrey,
    My father, WW II vet, doesn’t believe, either. He may or may not have been a lib. However, his reaction is always to do what libs do; ask why somebody would do such a thing–fake climate change, for example–and then dispute any imputed motivation.
    The point is, even if a lib would be angry, the truth cannot be presented to them because they simply will not see, will not believe, will blame Bush, will…. But they will not see.
    Neo’s blog has discussed this situation frequently. I think the reason is that a lib’s pov is tied up with self-image. They can’t question the pov without questioning who they are. They can’t change their view without questioning who they were in the past up to this point, and being completely without any resource to make themselves feel good about themselves.
    Plus, anything said by a conservative is wrong. Interesting study quoted on, I think, Insty. Conservative ideas are far more popular in polls if you don’t mention the republicans are pushing them.
    I would go so far as to say libs–treading on neo’s profession here–feel inadequate and need libism to make themselves feel good.
    But, if I’m anywhere close to right, being presented with the facts is simply not going to make any difference. They can’t afford to let it.
    Example: I was shocked to find Hoboken is below sea level, protected by a dike or levee for a hundred and fifty years. Sandy busted the earthwork and Hoboken flooded. Nobody blamed Obama. Unlike Bush and NOLA.

22. MJR @ 11:28,

    We are in a cultural war. A civil war involves bullets…

    There isn’t anything I can think of on the horizon to suggest a change of direction. It will get worse and liberals coming collision with reality is the only hope that they will start to awaken. Currently, there are not enough of us, nor am I optimistic. Nor is there reason to be.

    C. Yes.

23. Republicans championing Bush’s legacy has a fundamental problem. He and we neocons were wrong. Not in invading Iraq or in his desire to confront the axis of evil. He was wrong in proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace and, he and we were wrong in believing that freedom was a universal desire that superseded culture. That belief led to the assumption that democracy and western classical liberal values could be successfully transplanted into M.E. cultures.

    Thus the argument that Bush was partially right is too complicated for the political roughhouse of soundbites which form the basis for the votes of the indoctrinated, low information voters who currently determine elections.

    Take away support for Bush’s neocon strategy of imposing democracy in ME cultures, while retaining the false premise that Islam is a religion of peace and you are left with a hamstrung, ineffective policy.

24. Geoffrey,

    I added this to my post:

    On January 30, 2005, a harsh critic of Bush and OIF rethought his views after witnessing the Iraqi people risk their lives to vote and joyously participate in Iraq’s first free election.

    The Americans soldiers who served in Iraq during that time often cite their roles protecting and facilitating the Iraqi election as a highlight of their military careers.

    Today, after the partisan vitriol poured onto OIF followed by disappointment with the Arab Spring, it’s fashionable to say that the social-political culture of the Middle East is incompatible with liberal reform and President Bush was wrong to try.

    I’m not ready to admit that liberal reform in Iraq is a pipedream. As a soldier, I served in South Korea 50 years after the GIs who fought the Korean War. They were disillusioned by the Korean War and had the same doubts that liberal reform would ever take hold with the non-Western Koreans. But it did. From the beginning of OIF, experts and government officials cautioned that we must have patience because liberal reform and nation-building is a process of change that requires a long time nurturing – a lifetime, perhaps more than a generation – to bear fruit.

    South Korea’s first free presidential election was held in 1987. The difference is we stayed to protect and influence South Korea after the Korean War. We’ve left Iraq, and now we can only hope we did enough so Iraq will resist anti-liberal influences.

25. Eric,

    I too remember the purple thumbs and smiles of Iraqi’s in early elections in Iraq. At that time I was hopeful, though whether those smiles were over democracy or at finally being able to select the tribal/religious leader they preferred, I could not say.

    You may be right that had we stayed in Iraq as we did S. Korea, the outcome would have been different. But there never was a consensus of American opinion on OIF and so arguably it never had a chance. IMO, its prospects at this time are dead.

    And, IMO the primary reason for that is the incompatibility of Islam with democracy. As evidence, I offer Turkey, with was exposed to generations of democracy and where as long as a secular government was retained, democracy managed to survive if not thrive. But even under those conditions, Islam destroyed democracy.

26. Geoffrey,

    I discussed the lack of consensus on OIF in my post, too.

    It was expected that factions on the Left and Right would oppose Bush’s liberal response to 9/11. The one group Bush needed for his strategy to have a fighting chance was the endorsement of American liberals, except they – with rare exceptions like Joe Lieberman – betrayed their principles and decided it was more profitable to be power-grabbing Democrats.

    I think it’s overlooked how much the anti-Bush misinformation at home, legitimized by the Democrats, warped the overseas views of his foreign policy. The ME liberals didn’t buy in because they distrusted Bush. When asked why, their reasons echoed American anti-Bush misinformation. If ME liberals refused Bush’s agenda because American liberals discredited it, it’s to be expected the ‘Arab street’ would be more skeptical.

    Maybe if it had been all-systems-go at home, Bush’s strategy still wouldn’t have worked. After all, Bush said a peaceful liberal transition in the ME was a process that would require generational patience. That may have been too much to ask regardless. But we don’t know, because Bush’s plan was sabotaged at home before it could be honestly tried over there.

    All that said, Iraq was not just any ME country to us. We were in a situation with them. What was the better alternative to solve the Iraq problem? The IR realists among conservatives have re-imagined Saddam into some kind of benign watchdog of Iran, but I don’t see any alternative that includes Saddam in power and noncompliant ending well.

    If we reject the “Bush’s neocon strategy”, aka muscular Wilsonian liberalism, of intervening to galvanize change in the ME and don’t believe ME liberals can independently effect reforms, then Obama’s post-Arab Spring strategy makes sense. Ie, try to kill off the worst of the Islamist terrorists, wait for the Arab Spring victors – whether Islamist or other – to consolidate their control over their countries, and then deal with them like the autocrats they replaced.

27. The first problem was the fact that traitors in the US were allowed to live and people used military force to liberate foreigners, while ignoring all the Americans under the Left’s heel. That doesn’t have a happy ending.

28. “And Lindsay Graham continues his odd meandering course of veering from capitulation on many issues to standing strong on others.”

    A mere illusion. He was paid off on those other issues he capitulated on, in favor of his pet theories. But his pet theories won’t threaten the Left in any substantial fashion either.

    A tool that can be bought, if you know his preferences and likes.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>