More information about the Benghazi incident is coming out everyday. Of course, the source of the information isn’t the White House, which is continue to stonewall. It’s been obvious for weeks that the Administration is trying to run out the clock on the murder of four U.S. citizens, which includes an Ambassador, until after the election. If information concerning the incident continues to move towards its logical conclusion, however, the election may not matter.
We already know that our Ambassador was attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 of this year. We also know that the attack took place at a “safe house” where Ambassador Stevens was meeting with a diplomat from Turkey. We still don’t know why they were meeting, however. We also know that Stevens requested additional security from the State Dept. several times, and was ignored. Since the attack, the Administration has been regularly changing its story as to who knew what, and when. Things are starting to become clearer though, and the White House is beginning to look complicit in the murders.
Today we learned that the White House was receiving continuous emails concerning the attack, the first one coming only 20-30 minutes after the attack began. Also, the White House knew, as soon as two hours after the attack, that an Islamic terrist group, Ansar al-Sharia, was to blame. It should be noted that Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen is considered to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda; no word on whether Ansar al-Sharia in Libya is such an affiliate (although if it isn’t, it may want to come up with a new name). All of this information comes from emails leaked to Reuters. As everyone knows by now, the White House first called the attack a spontaneous outburst resulting from some Youtube video that nobody saw. This story continued while, at the very same time, the State Dept. reported it was a terrorist attack.
Now, one would think the alleged failure of Hillary Clinton to tell her boss, the President of the United States, that terrorists murdered a U.S. Ambassador would be an important issue to Americans. On the other hand, when one’s presidency has been filled with incompetency, the failure to effectively communicate with staff doesn’t necessarily amount to a “holy crap” moment. Either way, Libya does not seem to be impacting the President’s poll numbers much. Now that we have the emails, however, the “failure to communicate” theory has been replaced with an active cover-up.
Why cover it up? I believe it becomes obvious the longer this plays out. This is from the Reuters article linked above:
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line ‘U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack’ and the notation ‘SBU’, meaning ‘Sensitive But Unclassified.’
Yes, you read that right: an email was sent advising the reader of the attack only 20-30 minutes after it started. Keep in mind, the attack last several hours. Who received the email?
While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.
Yep, it went to the White House. Where was the President? This was his “3:00 a.m. phone call,” and by all accounts, it seems like he hit the snooze.
And it gets worse. This isn’t just about the Prez lying to us about knowing it was a terrorist attack almost immediately. We had an unmanned drone flying over the attack as it was happening. In other words, we were watching it happen. If a drone can get there, why can’t our military?
The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.
‘They stood, and they watched, and our people died,’ former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.
So let’s review. Not only did the White House absolutely know about the attack, as it was going on, it did nothing to protect our people. This isn’t incompetence, or a failure to communicate. This was purposeful inaction on the part of our Commander in Chief. And not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but it sure looks like the White House was pretty okay with Ambassador Stevens being killed on September 11. Why? As we said earlier, we still don’t know why Ambassador Stevens was meeting with a Turkish delegate in a safe house in Benghazi; although we do know that heavy weapons are being shipped to Syrian rebels through Turkey. We also know that Stevens was instrumental in running guns to Libyan rebels during the whole “let’s overthrow the government” thing. We also know that some of the “rebels” who we were shipping guns to were members of Al Qaeda.
What does all of this look like to me (as well as others)? Stevens, and three other Americans were killed by a group of terrorists that America armed, and it all went down with the President looking on. Why did he do nothing? We still don’t know. But we will. The biggest mistake the President made in all of this was blaming the CIA for bad intel. Information will continue to leak out, and we’ll eventually have the full picture. You won’t be able to ask Barry about it though, because he’ll be on The View, talking about Big Bird.
Now that we’re getting closer to election season, I will attempt to write more often. Who knows…maybe I’ll even start my own radio show. I’m certainly popular enough, and I have very profound things to say. And I’m really smrt. (Note: I spelled “smart” wrong on purpose. Unlike that Alanis Morrissette song, doing so made the statement ironic. I had to “note” this because, if I hadn’t, certain somebodies would be embarrassed that they
married know me).
As you’ve probably figured out by now, I am a member of the group that does not support our current commander-in-chief. I’m a member of this group for a lot of reasons. The most recent reason has to do with his stance on, well, killing Americans. Here’s the framework that the prez will work through before deciding to kill you, courtesy of Attorney General Eric Holder:
Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which ‘an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful.’
Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed ‘an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States’ and that ‘capture is not feasible.’
Thirdly, the ‘operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,’ Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.
Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not… assassinations are unlawful killings,’ Mr Holder said.
Look, I’m down with killing terrorists. But the foregoing is asinine. First, there is so much ambiguity built into the foregoing analysis that it might have been written by one of my kids. What does “imminent threat of violent attack” or “capture not feasible” mean? Who decides? The President decides, that’s who. All by himself.
Keep in mind, this framework was made up by the government that just did the killing. It hasn’t come from courts, legislatures, or the Constitution. The Obama Administration simply made it up to support the killing of an American citizen. That should concern you. Why? Well, because there’s nothing in the framework that keeps the government from arbitrarily bombing you; at home or abroad.
I know, I know…I can hear you now. “But Holder’s comments above were only related to terrorists in ‘foreign countries.’ San Francisco may be full of crazy people, but it’s still America.” Well, here’s Holder again:
‘Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan… We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country,’ he added.
In other words, the battlefield exists everywhere. Maybe even outside of an abortion clinic. Of course, all of this stems from our government shooting a missile at Anwar al-Awaki, while he was presumably stroking his ample beard in Yemen. Anwar was a U.S. citizen at the time. Our government could have gone through the simple process of renouncing his citizenship or indicting him, but they didn’t. Instead, they simply decided he was a terrorist and blew him up. Again, this should concern you.
The Constitution guarantees due process. What is due process? It’s basically the government accusing you of something, while giving you the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to defend yourself in open court. Why do we have due process? Because the country we ran away from, England, had a habit of arresting people on rumor and imprisoning/executing them without fair trials. According to the Obama Administration, however, due process doesn’t mean, er, due process:
As Holder put it, ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.’
When it comes to U.S. citizens, due process and judicial process are one and the same. The Administration’s position on this is astonishing, and it makes any past criticism of water-boarding and Iraq by the Dems border on lunacy. Here, you have the Attorney General, a guy appointed by the President, abolishing the Constitutional requirement of due process, not to mention mountains of laws and decades of Supreme Court case law, all by himself. There’s been no vote; no legislative process. Just one man’s ideas.
I’m not one of those people who likes calling the president a Nazi. It’s generally inaccurate and otherwise dilutes the point I’m trying to make. That being said, unilaterally changing laws to centralize more power in one person has been practiced by totalitarian dictators throughout history. Stalin murdered millions of his own people, simply because they disagreed with him. So did Hitler. And Pol Pot. The list goes on and on, and they all justified it by calling the exterminated “enemies of the state.”
Am I being extreme? Maybe. After all, the only reason you, the reader, probably hasn’t heard about Holder’s statements is because no one really thinks it could happen here. And maybe they’re right. Of course, once it begins happening, it’ll already be too late.
Barry’s speech last night was astounding. He outlined the ‘Obama Doctrine,’ which basically says the U.S. will use military force in any country where we think civilians might be killed, or something like that. He criticized the Iraq War for implementing a regime change, when that is exactly what the mission is in Libya. Finally, he blatantly lied to the American people when he stated our involvement is ratcheting down, because we’re handing the mission over to NATO; as if NATO has its own military sitting around somewhere.
Libya is a disaster in a myriad of ways. First, it sets a precedent that will be used for every humanitarian crisis of the month. I can hear it now, “if we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons, why not the Ivory Coast? Or Bahrain? Or Haiti?” Second, it’s a mission that will take months to complete…although we’re not exactly sure what will constitute completion. Obama says regime change is not what we’re about…although we’ve sided with the rebels, and regime change is most certainly what they’re about. This isn’t a peace-keeping, or humanitarian mission; it’s a military action. What’s happening in Libya is a civil war, and we will be providing military support for the rebels. If their goal is regime change, doesn’t that make it our goal by proxy? Our government is even considering arming the rebels. The rebels consist, at least in part, of members of Al Qaeda! We’re actually contemplating arming our enemy. Do we learn absolutely nothing from the past?
And who is NATO? Well, it’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it was primarily created as an allegiance against the Soviet Union. It’s members consist of us, France, England, and then some other countries with the military equivalent of catapults. Simply removing the American flag patch from our uniforms and replacing it with a NATO patch doesn’t change the fact that it’s our troops being shot at. Just as an example, 2200 Marines are being shipped out for a 10 month tour of duty off the Libyan coast. And for what? To protect armed rebels? Armed rebels that choose to hide out within a civilian population? Why do you think Q was sending his troops to Benghazi? It wasn’t to check out the scenery; the rebels selected the city, with all those human shields, as their base of operation.
If this is a humanitarian mission, then why the hell is our secretary of state meeting with a rebel representative, to “determine Libya’s future?” If this doesn’t constitute regime change, than I don’t know what does. And of course, the reason for all of this has already come to pass for Western Europe: the rebels are going to start selling oil again.
Note: this post is kinda long…so if you just want the Cliff Notes, read the last paragraph.
This is the question that is on everyone’s mind, and rumor has it that our president will actually address the issue tonight. Of course, we started shooting missiles at Libya last week, but what’s a few days? Someone recently asserted that Obama is showing leadership in dealing with Libya. Is he? From my perspective, it certainly appears that we have been pulled into a conflict by the rest of the world — France and England primarily — even though we have absolutely no national interest in being there. Not only are we spending money we don’t have on a country that provides us nothing of value, we’re now fighting on the same side as our enemy…and no one seems to care.
The people of Libya, in a “spontaneous uprising” for “democracy,” move against their wacky dictator Q (I’m not going to try and spell his last name…since it has, at least, three different spellings). I think we can all agree that dictators are bad, at least theoretically. Interestingly, the regular people of Libya rather quickly got their hands on some pretty significant fire power. Thus, the Libyan revolution is not exactly Tiananmen Square. So, what do you get when you have two different intra-state factions taking up arms against each other? That’s right: a civil war.
Q, still wanting to remain in power, used the weapons at his disposal to put down the revolt. Unfortunately for the rebels, and civilians as well, Q has planes with missiles. So, Q starts killing his people; both rebels with guns and unarmed civilians. While the world watches in horror, our leader is filling out his NCAA brackets…both men’s and women’s?! (no, I don’t think he can multi-task).
Eventually, the rebels start to lose, and then France, and then England, call for United Nations intervention. Why do France and England care? It’s most likely because they, and the rest of Western Europe, get a lot of oil from Libya. Thus, they have a national interest in Libya.
We, however, don’t. America gets virtually no oil from Libya. As such, Barry can’t argue that we’re fighting Q for the oil (not that he ever would…oil is evil). Eventually, it becomes clear that the U.N. is going to do something after France and England demand action. So, after the U.N. security council votes to allow military action to be taken against Q, Barry jumps on board too. Of course, he does it without consulting Congress, which makes our military action in Libya significantly different than Bush’s military action in Iraq (where a majority of Congress voted in favor of such military action). I would argue that Barry’s actions appear to be more appropriately placed within the “follower” column, rather than “leader.”
What do I expect our president to say tonight? I’m guessing he’ll talk about a large coalition of countries agreeing to stop the atrocities taking place in Libya. Of course, the “large coalition” consists of about eight countries, none of whom want to take charge of the operation, thereby requiring NATO to take over…which is curious, being that the Libyan rebels we’re defending are no where near the North Atlantic. But I digress…Barry’s point about ending the atrocities will also be a bit vexing, since other countries, like Bahrain and Syria, have civilians being killed by their governments too.
Now don’t get me wrong…there are lots of Republicans who support what we’re doing in Libya too. Why? Because everyone has the same knee-jerk reaction to people crying out for democracy. Hence the reason why the western world has chosen to support the rebels in this civil war. Here’s the problem though: there’s a reason why no one in the Middle East/Northern Africa region, save Israel, has ever had a functioning democracy…it’s hard to do. A country needs several things to be a democracy, not the least of which is the implicit understanding that those in power will cede that power voluntarily through free elections. In other words, it’s not an accident that the Arab states are almost exclusively ruled by monarchs, theocrats, and petty dictators who don’t like giving up their power.
So what’s my point, you ask? Well, look at Egypt. Egypt just had a mass uprising of people seeking more freedom. Of course, like a wind-up toy, every Tom, Dick and Harry in our government supported the uprising. Democracy totally rules! A few people, including me, argued that supporting the people of Egypt over a moderate, and stable, dictator was a bad idea. We argued that the ultimate beneficiary of overthrowing the government was going to be a group like the Muslim Brotherhood, a small, but organized, radical Muslim group whose sole goal is the destruction of Israel and America. I was told by those on the right and left that I was wrong; Egypt constituted a secular uprising and the Muslim Brotherhood was too small of a group to have a significant impact on the new government. Well looky-here: I was right; and a long-time middle eastern ally is quickly becoming the exact opposite.
So, did we learn a lesson in Egypt? Obviously not. We’re now bombing Q’s forces. And who is fighting along side of us? None other than Al Qaeda! Simply put, our country is being run by a bunch of idiots. And when it comes to bringing democracy to countries that have no hope of remaining functioning democracies, it ain’t just the democrats. We’re still dealing with the government Bush set up in Iraq, and I’ll guarantee that once we pull out all of our troops, some radical group will take over there too. And what’s more frightening is that our government (or France or England’s), even after 9/11 and a myriad of other terrorist attacks, still doesn’t understand who our enemy is. It’s not the wacky dictator in Libya, it’s the group trying to throw him out.
So, let’s review: we support the overthrow of the Egyptian dictator, only to have the new government consist of, at the very least, a signficant anti-America, radical muslim group. Now, we follow France and England into Libya to help Al Qaeda, and other like-minded individuals, seize power. Oh, and we’re borrowing the money from China to do it! We’ve officially gone down the rabbit hole Alice, and there’s lots of options to play the Mad Hatter.