Nile Gardiner is wrong—“Benghazi bungling” is not a “disaster,” although it should be
Or actually, it is a disaster, but not exactly in the way Gardiner meant.
Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based British conservative pundit with foreign policy advisor experience, and in an article in the Telegraph headlined “The White House’s Benghazi bungling is proving a disaster” he writes that the Obama “administration is already struggling with a huge credibility problem on the Benghazi front.” In line with this argument, he points out that White House press secretary Jay Carney said, in response to questioning by Major Garrett:
…that Obama “is not particularly concerned” whether Susan Rice misled the American people in a series of talk show interviews following the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US personnel in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11…Carney’s response, as the president’s official spokesman is extraordinarily dismissive of the concerns of the American people as well as the United States Congress, and is representative of the administration’s shambolic handling of the Benghazi attack…
The lack of clarity from the White House on Benghazi is proving a disaster for the Obama administration, giving every impression that it is lacking in transparency, competence and accountability. During the second presidential election debate, Barack Obama promised to take responsibility for what happened. It is time for him to do so…
These words from Gardiner, which would make perfect sense in an ordinary world (or for any Republican president, or even many Democratic presidents in the past), simply do not apply to Obamaworld. The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants (and this one was actually pretty good, as you’ll see when you watch the video), but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug:
I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
Well, they surely do—but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people. I thought Mitt Romney should have pressed this much more in the third debate, but I also understood why he did not: it probably would have been perceived as beating a dead horse.
Actually, though, I’m surprised that Garrett asked the query at all. But will most members of the press ever get tired of prostituting themselves in the service of Obama? Is there anything about Benghazi that will finally get to them, including the fact that Carney’s answer insulted their intelligence?
So far I think the answer is a resounding “no,” but I would be exceedingly happy to be proven wrong.
Its sorta like high school clicks. Nothing Obama does wrong really matters…
There is an old saying that applies to the media. “You can’t embarrass a whore.” Obama is the pimp and the media are his whores. They should all be dressed like street prostitutes so you would know their actual occupation.
A few days ago Peggy Noonan wrote that it’s going to be a long four years. So maybe at least boredom will set in and the press will then ask tough questions for a change of pace. Now that it doesn’t matter so much.
I’m thinking of getting an American flag to fly upside down ( as a sign of distress). Feedback from anyone would be appreciated.
I sound like I’m beating a dead horse, but the Democrats’ bottomless justification of Obama’s incompetent Middle East policy at a critical juncture always comes back to Iraq and Bush.
Democrats went out of their way to vilify Bush with the deepest vitriol. They won the Presidency with the strategy, but in so doing, rejecting Bush’s works became a core part of the Democrats identity. Obama kept Bush’s liberal foreign policy ends, but he reduced and cut out the means Bush employed.
Problem is, Bush merely applied the logically necessary means to pursue those liberal foreign policy ends, and rejecting Bush’s means also means rejecting the means necessary to achieve Obama’s foreign policy ends. I think, at heart, the smart Democrats understand this, but they’ll never admit it because they can never admit Bush was justified, even right in his decisions. Instead, they express their understanding of the reality of the situation with their resignation over Obama’s failures – because they realize Obama’s course is doomed to fail. Rejecting Bush’s way, the logical course of action for the post-9/11 liberal foreign policy, is the price they paid to win elections at home. They’ve accepted that and they’re okay with it.
What thomass says . . .
“The lack of clarity from the White House on Benghazi is proving a disaster for the Obama administration, giving every impression that it is lacking in transparency, competence and accountability.” — Nile Gardiner
It’s not at all clear to me that enough of the populace gives a {##} for it to matter. The One will get away with yet another outrage, yet again.
And the beat goes on (yeah the beat goes on)
Eric,
Bush was wrong. If it didn’t start when he renamed “Operation Infinite Justice” to “Operation Enduring Freedom” to placate Muslims who complained only Allah could dispense infinite justice, and further called Islam “a religion of peace,” then his slide into interventionist insanity definitely dates to when he first talked about nation-building.
The libs are just as wrong in their foreign policy as he was. I once said so to an American lefty on another forum, and he flared in anger for… comparing him to George W. Bush. Note, he didn’t deny, or address in any way, my point that he shared with Bush the same naive and totally erroneous belief in civilizing the Muslims through democratization; it was all about the mere comparison with Bush.
I think most Americans see the lying about what caused the Benghazi debacle as just a semantics or interpretation of what was said problem. They aren’t capable of the subtle reasoning required to understand how important those lies were.
I think Republicans should have emphasized that four Americans lost their lives because of criminally inadequate security more. The general population IS capable of understanding blood and guts issues.
texexec Says:
“I think most Americans see the lying about what caused the Benghazi debacle as just a semantics or interpretation of what was said problem. They aren’t capable of the subtle reasoning required to understand how important those lies were.”
But that’s the point more than Benghazi. Four Americans dead; important. That the administration’s starting stance was to lie… and this has been a pattern for years but they’re never called on it… the real issue.
example: its health care ‘reform’ (vs. government take over) et cetera. The media won’t call him on his bs and its been going on for a long time.
” . . . was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.” “
Yes, this “excuse” seems to be the common concept among those I know who voted for Obama.
No matter what Obama does or does not do – the excuse it always the same – “well, they all do that.”
Surely, Neo, with your educational background you can tell us the term for this – some sort of psychological denial – a defense mechanism perhaps?
They don’t want to admit that their “savior” is flawed or in the very least, not what they expected.
It’s hard to rouse the proletariat anymore unless it concerns freebies that might be withheld. Again, it was a referendum on the electorate and the electorate came up short.
Maybe if it had been four journos….
No, I’m a bad person for thinking that.
Charles, 2:50 pm — “No matter what Obama does or does not do — the excuse it always the same — ‘well, they all do that.'”
What’s galling is that The One was supposedly not like all those politicians; He was supposedly different. The One was supposedly a new breed of office-holder, a new breed of statesman — make that statesperson — He was ^not^ like all those others, He was special, He was The Anointed.
“Well, they all do that” does not cut it for me. These excusers can [censored].
Richard Aubrey Says:
“Maybe if it had been four journos….
No, I’m a bad person for thinking that.”
I don’t think it would have changed anything.
There is no reason to not go limbo, full-on Chimpanzee threat mode, arms akimbo and mouth agape, under the bar and to the other side of sedition, rape, war, revolution, power to the people/
This message brought to you be Occupywallstreet. Be a member.
There is nothing surprising here.
The Dems have labored long and hard to create a majority peopled by schlubbs. The schlubbs aka Dems have a 75% favorable opinion of the Federal government, per Neo’s Gallup link yesterday. It is the time of tattoos and unlimited orgasms and Down is Up and Up is Down.
Now is the time for the Leaders to revel in their triumph. And solidify it. We can understand that.
And who are the journalists, 90+% Dems, who would endanger incomes and careers in an un-schlubbing endeavor?
If you truly care, you need to keep reminding your representative and your senators that you want factual, supported by documentation, answers to hard questions. If you haven’t done so in the last 5 days, you are remiss in your responsibility as a citizen. “… and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
4 dead in Benghazi and Obama did not send support constitutes a huge grievance. Deluge your congress members with demands for the truth. Convince others to do the same. Do not let up on your demands. Do you want answers, do you want to see the light of day shine on Benghazi, or do you want to complain and let it all slide into the darkness of the MSM?
“I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
I too have friend’s exactly like this, as we most probably all have but Neo’s friend (and so many of ours) is not dismissive of what happened in Benghazi due to easily corrected ignorance or mere cynicism.
Were unimpeachable sources to inform and confirm all the facts of Benghazi to them, they still would not care and they would continue to dismiss it all. Whatever excuse or twist of logic is needed they will employ and no amount of persuasion will illuminate the cognitive dissonance of their position.
They have done so before, still do and will continue to do so.
They have drunk so deeply of the left’s memes and narrative that anything that challenges that view is summarily dismissed. In fact, the more deeply facts and reason challenge their Weltanschauung (German noun; [Philosophy] a comprehensive view or personal philosophy of human life and the universe) the more adamant the rejection of fact and evidence.
The left’s useful idiots, the liberals who voted for Obama, our relatives and friends, neighbors and fellow citizens don’t want to know and willfully refuse to hear and see the objective facts and reasoned arguments that question their beliefs.
They reject it, no matter what the cost.
Because when you get right down to it, for liberals, the cost of facing the facts is pride and once again life shall demonstrate that for nations as well as individuals “pride goeth before the fall”.
Dialog from the movie, “The Wild Bunch”
Pike Bishop: A hell of a lot of people, Dutch, just can’t stand to be wrong.
Dutch Engstrom: Pride.
Pike Bishop: And they can’t forget it… that pride… being wrong. Or learn by it
““Maybe if it had been four journos….
No, I’m a bad person for thinking that.”
I don’t think it would have changed anything.”
Only if they could have blamed it on Republicans. That is the controlling factor “Lapdogs” doesn’t begin to describe the relationhip of the MSM to Obama.
It’s hard to imagine a scenario that would cause the media and Obama’s supporters to abandon him. Those folks are still blaming Bush for deficits and the bad economy.
If you truly care, you need to keep reminding your representative and your senators that you want factual, supported by documentation, answers to hard questions. If you haven’t done so in the last 5 days, you are remiss in your responsibility as a citizen. “… and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
4 dead in Benghazi and Obama did not send support constitutes a huge grievance. Deluge your congress members with demands for the truth. Convince others to do the same. Do not let up on your demands. Do you want answers, do you want to see the light of day shine on Benghazi, or do you want to complain and let it all slide into the darkness of the MSM?
Boehlert writes:
Hypocrisy On Defective
JH:
Boehlert’s argument is a classic straw man. If a person starts out by misstating what Krauthammer has said and then knocks that down, he/she is making an irrelevant—and perhaps also knowingly dishonest—point.
So: “Rice’s sin in the eyes of Krauthammer and Fox News is” NOT “that she relayed what the intelligence community told her about Benghazi.” That would not be a sin. And in fact that is what Condi Rice did earlier, and it is not a proper analogy.
What Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and others in the Bush administration said about WMDs, etc. in Iraq involved relaying the administration’s position at the time, which was also our best intelligence at the time, as well as the views of most of the international intelligence at the time. Only much much later, some time after the war, was it clear that that intelligence had been in error.
However, on TV Susan Rice was relying something that she’d been told to say, but that something ran COUNTER to our own best intelligence at the time she was saying it. Not only that, it ran counter to reports from abroad, particularly Libya, plus it ran counter to common sense (for example, it was clear to me—and I wrote as much on the blog as early as September 12—that the video did not cause the attack and that it was obviously perpetrated by al Qaeda-type terrorists). So either she was lying (and knowingly so because she already had information to the contrary—i.e. she later told McCain and Graham that she had already seen intelligence reports that it was a terrorist attack even before she went on the air to say it wasn’t), or she was incompetent in figuring out that she was being told to lie because common sense dictated that this was no mob response to a video.
neo.
Interesting how plausible Boehlert’s point is if you take his statements ref Condi and Iraq as truthful. Which would be a mistake.
In fact, from now on, given his demonstration of complete willingness to lie, there’s no reason to pay any attention to him at all. If he hasb’t already sunk his brand, this would do it. And for what? To make a point so easily disproved?
JH Says:
“Today, Rice’s sin in the eyes of Krauthammer and Fox News is that she relayed what the intelligence community told her about Benghazi.”
Nope; is not. Next.
Holmes @ 3:49 writes: “It’s hard to rouse the proletariat anymore . . . .”
IMO that is absolutely incorrect (sorry, Holmes). It prompts the observation that the press was eminently capable of rousing the proletariat w/ regard to the great demon G. W. Bush.
The reason the proletariat can’t be roused is because of the complicit media establushment (BTW I let the typo stand because they should be blushing). OK, so we know the cause and we now know the choke point (the media). How can we change it? It has been mentioned in previous posts that the conservative establishment should be channeling its formidable resources into changing the national dialogue via a media onslaught; not be trying to get the Obamedia to carry their sotires or points of view, but by establishing and funding (in a major way) an alternative media that does.
sorry, should be
“not by trying to get the Obamedia to carry their stories or points of view . . .”
ziontruth,
Wrong or right, Obama kept Bush’s foreign policy ends or goals. And the Democrats have seemingly resigned themselves to the failure of that foreign policy.
The elevation of Susan Rice to Secretary of State is indicative of the Democrats’ abdication on foreign affairs. Rice’s claim to fame is covering for inaction or inadequate action in foreign affairs.
In short, the Dems are set on a course of talking the talk, but not walking the walk – never mind the consequences.
And they called REAGAN the “Teflon President.”
Remember?
I feel like Lear on the heath, howling into the wind, impotent.
Let me take a stab at that: Cranial Rectal Inversion.
Lindsay Graham seems to have a good focus. Today, on Face the Nation he spoke well. Here is is two weeks ago. Go to minute two for Benghazi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7_LxHM92Ak
neo-neocon: What Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and others in the Bush administration said about WMDs, etc. in Iraq involved relaying the administration’s position at the time, which was also our best intelligence at the time, as well as the views of most of the international intelligence at the time.
That’s not quite correct. They certainly believed that Iraq had WMD. However, what they did was ignore contrary evidence, shunting aside or denigrating those with contrary views, and purposefully misled the American public. A classic example was when Cheney’s office ‘leaked’ evidence concerning aluminum tubes to the New York Times, supposedly only suitable for WMD, then Cheney pointing to the New York Times as independent support. Then sending Powell to the U.N. as a perverse caricature of Stephenson, based on testimony from someone named “Curveball”.
In any case, the faulty intelligence led to fractured alliances, loss of American prestige, the death of thousands of Americans, the implosion of Iraq, the loss of a hundred thousand Iraqis or more, and millions of refugees. It also distracted the U.S. from its primary mission of bringing the perpetrators of 9-11 to justice.
There is no evidence that Susan Rice purposefully misled anyone. The evidence suggests that the jihadist attack was a local group inspired by other uprisings across the region. The real failure was putting the ambassador in such an untenable position. Apparently, there was some sort of ongoing CIA operation related to weapons tracking.
Let me throw a big red flag on the sufferer of Head In @ss Disease’s bullshit.
The incompetent Rice purposely, knowingly and deliberately lied to the American people and to the UN, all for The Jug Eared F-ck’s political campaign. Remember Ogabe stating al-qaeda was ‘dead’? Can’t have a terrorist attack putting lie to the Choomster’s fantasy statements.
I would say get yer head outta yer @ss, but obviously you like the view from there.
Zachriel,
Saddam’s Iraq is the only guilty party. We invaded Iraq only because Iraq failed to comply with the UNSC resolutions under UNMOVIC verification. That’s what triggered OIF, not any evidence of Iraqi WMD. It should never have come down to UNMOVIC in 2002-03 anyway. Saddam should have complied within days, weeks at most, after the Gulf War in 1991, let alone 2003. Bush gave Saddam plenty of notice, a lengthy trial period, and a fair (second) final chance to comply with the UNSC resolutions in 2002-03. Saddam failed again, as he had been failing since 1991.
If the Bush administration had presented zero evidence of Iraqi WMD, the legal/policy case for Operation Iraqi Freedom would have been exactly the same. In terms of policy and law, Bush followed Clinton’s case and precedent on Iraq. However, Clinton’s public argument for military action against Iraq was based not on affirmative knowledge of Iraqi WMD, but rather the absence of knowledge about Iraq’s WMD due to Iraq’s failure to meet its burden of compliance.
No evidence was necessary because Iraq was presumptively guilty of WMD. The foundational premises of the UNSC resolutions were Iraq’s presumption of guilt and the burden was on Iraq to cure its guilt by complying with the UNSC resolutions. There was no burden placed on the US or UN to demonstrate Iraq possessed WMD.
Clinton gave Iraq its “final chance” to comply in 1998. UNMOVIC in 2002-03 was Iraq’s (second) final chance to prove it was in compliance with the UNSC resolutions. In 1998, Clinton had defined Iraq as a “clear and present” danger due to the character of Saddam’s regime. As Clinton pointed out in 2003, after 9/11, there was a heightened sensitivity to the “clear and present” danger posed by Iraq.
These 2 posts from my blog will help explain.
Re the public controversy over OIF:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-of-definition-in-iraq.html
Re the American lawfulness of OIF:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/05/regime-change-in-iraq-from-clinton-to.html
I don’t think Neo’s liberal friend is totally in the tank for Obama, but rather the left’s new isolationism plays a big role. Assuming the full
responsibility of a world leader takes money and time away from the European style welfare state We can already see how the UK and Europe are toothless militarily.
Obama’s apologies were supposed to make them all go away.
As far as Susan Rice, I give her no benefit of the doubt with her actions in regards to the Benghazi attack because of her instrumental role in the Clinton administration denying the Rwanda genocide in order to avoid US and UN intervention. Rice spun the Rwanda genocide and 18 years later, she spun the Benghazi attacks. That’s what she does.
DirtyJobsGuy: “the left’s new isolationism”
That’s pretty good. I’ll probably plagiarize your phrasing. They still talk like foreign policy liberals, but they don’t seem much bothered by America failing in its foreign affairs.
parker says, “Deluge your congress members with demands for the truth. Convince others to do the same. Do not let up on your demands. Do you want answers, do you want to see the light of day shine on Benghazi, or do you want to complain and let it all slide into the darkness of the MSM?”
Well said and true. An e-mail to your Congress Critters takes less time than commenting on blogs.
It may seem a waste of time, but those representatives of the people’s will do respond to pressure. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”
Let the deluge begin.
Zachriel: unless you are logic-challenged, there is plenty of evidence that either (a) Rice knowingly misled the public; or (b) Rice lacks common sense and judgment and is therefore incompetent.
If you haven’t followed all the posts on this and all the evidence that shows it, there’s certainly no reason to waste more time presenting it to you.
Eric and ziontruth: I don’t see Obama as sharing Bush’s foreign policy goals at all. I don’t have time right now for a long explanation, but it seems to me rather self-evident that the Obama Doctrine is to let our friends down and suck up to our enemies, with the single exception of continuing (and even extending) Bush’s goals of killing terrorists by drone or otherwise (Bin Laden was the “otherwise”) without benefit of the trials to which Obama pays lip service.
Calling my senators and rep. won’t do much good in blue VA. That’s why I asked my OT – ish question about flying the flag upside down.
Will it spur questions from my tuned out neighbors or is it too disrespectful?
Eric: Saddam’s Iraq is the only guilty party.
Each party is responsible for their own actions. Even if we accept that the U.S. had legal justification (which certainly isn’t as clear as you indicate), that doesn’t make their action wise, nor does their certainty about WMD justify misleading the public about the evidence.
neo-neocon: If you haven’t followed all the posts on this and all the evidence that shows it, there’s certainly no reason to waste more time presenting it to you.
That’s fine. If you won’t support your position, readers can reach their own conclusions.
Zachriel,
Dude, I would highly suggest you lay off the host. That’s not only bad form but extremely rude coming from a young ignorant whippersnapper like yourself.
If you haven’t figured it out already, this blog is way out of your league and way over your head. You’re simply not the sharpest tack in the drawer; if you’ve been to college, get a refund.
neo is one of the gems of the intertubes. She actually reads the comments on her blog and responds to them (a rarity), as shown in her wasting her time responding to a such a churlish child as yourself.
Full disclosure: I am nothing on this blog, that is, I have no say whatsoever, except for throwing out my nickels every so often (adjusted for inflation).
OFF-TOPIC: We generally ignore such comments as off-topic, but we’ll respond this once.
RickZ: I would highly suggest you lay off the host.
We made no personal comment about neo-neocon whatsoever. She’s presumably a fine person, however, we disagree with her claims. It’s up to her whether she wants to defend her position. Our guess is that she can take care of herself.
RickZ: If you haven’t figured it out already, this blog is way out of your league and way over your head.
Chest-thumping is not an argument.
Zachriel: your goal is to waste my time by sly suggestions that I am not able to defend my positions, and thus to get me to go on and on answering you with answers that (a) I’ve already covered in many posts and comments; and (b) others have covered as well.
Typical troll behavior.
I’ve sent tweets asking about Benghazi, to every Congress Critter and to Obama.
I would like to see a #tcot leader initiate daily bursts from now till Christmas… a nice Advent activity, eh?
Oh Gosh, here’s a few:
@BarackObama, you say you gave the directive to make sure we are securing our personnel in #Benghazi ? #GetTheTranscript.
@RonWyden Why did #ChristopherStevens have to die? Support the Select Committee to investigate #Benghazi
@RonWyden Since @BarackObama is too cheap to find out why #ChristopherStevens died in #Benghazi, please use #My2K to investigate. Thanks.
neo,
See, that’s the thing. Libbies cannot defend their statements in their own words and must rely on some magic liberal link to prove them right. So since they cannot defend what they
thinkfeel, they assume no one else can defend their positions, either. (Projection: One of the liberal commandments.) I am open to facts which prove me wrong. But I will say the reverse is never true as no troll will admit that they are wrong — EVER! We’ve all seen that behavior time and time again ad nauseum.I read the Gardiner article also, and was touched by his gallantry, The lack of clarity from the White House on Benghazi is proving a disaster for the Obama administration, giving every impression that it is lacking in transparency, competence and accountability.
From 2000 to 2008, we could think that both the left and the right did not want Americans to die overseas, in any way, shape, or form.
This was a misunderstanding on our part. In broad terms,
The left cared about the death of Americans because it was the means to defeat Bush.
The right cared about the death of Americans because we think we are Americans, and we don’t want anybody’s son or daughter to not come home.
Since 2008, it becomes painfully clear the left never cared about our sons or daughters. Ted Turner says military suicides are a good thing. It’s good to know what he really thinks. I wonder what George Soros really thinks.
So no, no interest from the left, and therefore from the media, concerning the deaths of four American sons in Benghazi.
In some article or other that I read recently, a Libyan man-on-the-street guesses Obama must have wanted Stevens dead, otherwise why did he refuse to give him security? Even the Libyans wonder why we don’t love our sons.
Eric Says:
“We invaded Iraq only because Iraq failed to comply with the UNSC resolutions under UNMOVIC verification.”
I’d add that we finished invading Iraq because they were violating the terms of our cease fire agreement from the first Iraq war.
Neo and others; You may or may not be aware that “Zachriel” does this kind of nonsense on several blogs.
Perhaps it is best to just consider any comments by Zachriel as either spam or as an attention-seeking whore not worth anyone’s time.
Zachriel has already been banned from other websites.
So, yea, Zachriel – readers here on Neo-Neocon and elsewhere have already drawn their own conclusions. You, Zachriel, are the one with the problem.
(There, did this response satisfy your attention-seeking whorish crave?)
KLSmith Says:
December 1st, 2012 at 2:07 pm
My late father, a WWII veteran, had a flagpole installed many years ago so that he could fly the flag daily. After he died and left the house to me, I continued to do so, both out of patriotism and in honor of his service.
On Wednesday, November 7, I flew it upside down. Then I lowered it, folded it properly, and packed it away in my closet. I don’t expect to fly it again for the foreseeable future.
(I can think of certain events which would cause me to break it out of storage, but they’re probably best not discussed in a public forum.)
Anyway, KLSmith, that’s how I handled it. I won’t offer any advice except to say that it probably depends on where you live. If you live in an area that is still part of America, then go for it. As for me, my county voted for Obama twice. In the new Fundamentally Transformed America, I’m frankly afraid of calling too much attention to myself. Wouldn’t want to get ‘denounced’ by my neighbors, you know.
Zachriel is a lame pseudonym, and you are a lame poser. Here, you are indeed in deep water many fathoms over your head. Trust me on this, I often have to tread water to stay afloat at neoneocon. The regulars here are smarter than you or me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KulSQjjQVPE
We all see right through you. Grow up, learn a skill, get a job, prosper, find a mate, make children who make grandchildren, grow old and content, and stop being a total jerk. You only get to go around once and then you die. Die stupid and dogmatic or die free. Its your choice.
rickl: thanks for the input. I’m thinking I’ll just wait until around the 4th of July.
A bit late to offer this, but I’ve been trying to convince a liberal friend (former squadronmate) why Benghazi needs answers. This is my argument:
“Unfortunately, the real information will probably never be revealed. If it is, it will be after several months (or years) have passed. And it will not be covered by the MSM in any meaningful way.
Other questions we need answers to are these: Why were Admiral Gaouette (Commander of Carrier Strike Group -3) and General Ham (Commander of AFRICOM) both relieved of duty shortly after the Sept. 11 attack at Benghazi?
This is the speculation: Both Gaouette and Ham received the same requests for assistance that the NSC was receiving. Ham was ready to send forces in assistance but was told to stand down. (Who gave that order?) His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
Adm. Gaouette was relieved for ‘allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.’ It is believed the truth is that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to assist and provide intelligence for American military forces ordered into action by General Ham.
It is believed by me and many others that Obama’s ‘greatest fear’ during the 11 September terrorist attack in Benghazi was that a strong US Military response would hurt his reelection chances. He believes the American people’s appetite for war has all but disappeared, and he would also be open to attacks from his far-left base who remain firmly opposed to further US military actions in the Middle East. And that is why he did not order relief for those fighting for their lives at Benghazi. If true, that is disgusting to this veteran
The government is supposed to work for us. We deserve to know the complete facts behind this tragedy, including who ordered a stand down and why two high ranking military officers were relieved of command.”
My friend grudgingly found this to be worthy of a Congressional investigation into Benghazi. It’s why I keep trying to change minds.
thomass: “I’d add that we finished invading Iraq because they were violating the terms of our cease fire agreement from the first Iraq war.”
True. A belated thank you for the add. I tend to fold the ceasefire into the subsequent UNSC resolutions, but the resolutions followed upon the ceasefire.
Neo: “I don’t see Obama as sharing Bush’s foreign policy goals at all.”
Here I would differentiate between Obama’s stated/ostensible and his effective/practical foreign policy. Obama’s stated/ostensible foreign policy follows in Bush’s footsteps. But the means Obama employs and does not employ result in a very different effective/practical foreign policy than Bush.
Zachriel,
By 1998 and thereafter, our only choices on Iraq were the status quo or maintain and continue indefinitely a harmful, costly, vilified, and crumbling sanctions/containment mission that had no end in sight. Or alternative one, give up the mission altogether and restore a non-complaint Iraq with a victorious Saddam – the preferred alternative by OIF opponents. Or alternative two, give Saddam a final chance to comply and follow through if he failed – which is what we did.
“Each party is responsible for their own actions.”
Keep in mind that the actual war to depose Saddam’s regime was historically fast and low in casualties. In the post-war, our troops were in a security and stabilization posture and prepared to transition to a nation-building mode, akin to our nation-building and protection missions in Europe and Asia. In that golden hour, the international community was lined up ready to assist in the nation-building of Iraq. Then the mass-murdering bombings and assassinations started. The insurgents and terrorists are responsible for tearing apart the peace-building after the war.
The post-war death and destruction you pin on the US were caused by terrorists and insurgents, while US and Iraqi forces were doing their best to protect Iraq and the Iraqi people. We were responsible for not abandoning Iraq as many others did.
Add: As far as the legality of OIF, there is no doubt that OIF was legal in terms of American law.
The legal controversy is over international law, which is debateable because the area of law is so murky. Suffice to say that OIF is better legally grounded in terms of international law than our Balkans intervention.
Pingback:House of Eratosthenes
Pingback:I Made a New Word LXI | Rotten Chestnuts
Pingback:Hillary Clinton | lies | Benghazi | moral relativism