Words cannot express my anger. No leader puts good people in harm’s way and then refuses to help them when needed. I knew this instinctively as a 19 year old section leader in Vietnam. And time and maturity has only reinforced that knowledge.
Is there still time to impeach the sorry SOB in the White House?
Predictions:
No one will care — at least not enough will care — until after the election.
If Obama loses, this story will fade into the deep background. We will be too focused on trying to rebuild the country economically to have the energy to dwell on this scandal (that is, until/unless Hillary runs in 2016).
If Obama wins, it could — and should– dwarf Watergate and will grow and metastasize until he leaves office.
This should end the election right here and now.
Anyone who would still vote for that evil tyrant needs to be permanently ostracized from decent society.
Clearly Obama and his kind were thinking of the fallout to Jimmy Carter when the mission to help the Americans held in Tehran failed. Obama must have been thinking “can’t have that happen on my watch.” (see it is all about him, and no one else)
The frustration some military folks must have felt believing that, if just given the chance, they could have saved fellow Americans is something I cannot even being to imagine.
Neo, you are absolutely correct on this – if Obama didn’t care, that is one thing; but if Americans don’t care then we are in bigger trouble than we think.
At this point I feel like Romney winning isn’t enough; Romney has to win by a huge landslide and with a clean sweep of the incumbent Democrats to restore my faith in my fellow Americans.
No one will care in an official capacity.
I believe that it will cause the undecideds to decide, and those leaning towards Teh Won to rethink their position. And it will further energize the opposition.
As…I think it was Letterman: it shows that Teh Won is a lying liar who lies, and does so in obvious and uncluttered way. They have and will continue to spin this, but who you gonna believe? them or your lying eyes?
Charles,
I have long felt that it is a bad sign if Romney wins by anything short of a landslide. It is amazing Obama is a viable candidate. He shouldn’t be able to out poll Ron Paul.
The mainstream media is spiking this story. I just went to CNN.com. There is not one mention of Libya anywhere. CBS News has a story explaining how the military was too far away to help. ABC News has nothing. MSNBC – nothing. I do think Americans would care if they were told the full story. We can only hope that a lot of people are watching FOX.
If this gets out, Obama can kiss 99% of the military vote goodbye. It’s a sacred trust that no one is left behind. If they know he watched, ordered the CIA not to help, then went to bed as these people died, he’s done for.
Thanks NEO. This is so outrageuos that it is almost numbing.
I sent the link to Foxnews to all of those friends who regularly send items to dozens of email correspondents.
Also to those tweeters whom I follow: Hugh Hewitt, James Taranto and Jenifer Ruben.
Yes, it’s a joke. and Panetta is out there lying that they didn’t have the intel.
Now, read that article I posted (via Drudge). Hillary told the father that “they would have the video maker arrested.” They would? State Dept? What in the world? Even after knowing that it wasn’t the video, they still were determined to scapegoat this guy. This is criminal. Truly criminal.
I also sent the Fox link to the Tipline at CNN.
Heh.
Oh, Ace linked to that article too. But they missed the quote, but allude to Woods’ “dangerous speech.” I mean, it’s not just a joke. These people actually have imprisoned someone as a part of the cover up of their bungling.
I am spitting mad right now. I need to take a walk. I might go buy some tar and feathers. We need to bring that tradition back.
The Commander in Chief must be relieved of duty and prosecuted.
He takes credit from the seals for killing Bin Laden and fails to support seals facing overwhelming odds, all for the sake of personal political gain.
He is horribly inept, but far worse … a coward!
Americans didn’t care that the Iranian mullahs were responsible for deaths of hundreds of Americans in Beirut, KSA, Iraq and Afghanistan, so what makes you think any will care about this, especially as LisaM noted, the MSM is burying the story?
A society that would entrust someone like Obama with any power at all is already in very serious trouble. As he is most popular with the 18-35 age group I would say the situation is going to get worse.
carl in atlanta, LisaM already explained why this story is not going to be bigger than Watergate if Obama wins. Indeed only Fox will carry it. Obama as predicted is a disaster, but is representative of a greater problem. No one was forced to vote for him.
Hey as long as 30 year old impoverished law students can get their birth control 100% covered, who cares if the rest of the world is on fire?
Why is this election even close?
College kids and blacks won’t care. Ask Colin Powell.
Here in CT Joe Lieberman has raised the issue. Once nice thing is that Local news does cover what local politicians say. Every GOP congressman and senator (along with good ol’Independent Joe) should bring this up for the local news outlets. Local TV tends to be much less in the tank than Networks (they want to sell the weather and sports guys so no point in pissing off half or more of the audience).
Yes, people most certainly care that our president and others sat back and watched as Americans fought terrorists for hours and then be killed. There’s no way to spin this positively, especially with the weeks of lying about it being over a silly video. This is upsetting at a gut level. I’m thankful that at least of the fathers of the murdered is demanding accountability for this inexcusable decision.
It’s the MSM that doesn’t care, because Obama love trumps the truth.
LisaM nailed it. If the MSM reported the story as FOX is, there would be far greater outrage.
This is why Obama could not look the dead Navy Seals father in the eye. He knows he’s responsible and too much of a moral coward to take responsibility.
It’s now official; the most contemptible administration in history.
As for the MSM, near culpability in treason.
After Romney wins, heads should quietly roll and, since the MSM will not report the truth, Freedom of Information requests made with books written to expose the truth with all that participated in this debacle exposed.
Panetta and Clinton, by refusing to resign and actively participating in the cover-up are after-the-fact co-conspirators.
^ This.
I got into a facebook discussion with a liberal friend who thought Obama “slam-dunked” Romney on the last debate. A couple of his other liberal friends joined in once I posted an opinion. My remark on Obama’s Benghazi’s lies and moral failings were brushed aside. The gay male who responded felt Obama’s recent stance on gay marriage was superior to Romney’s who just wanted to violate people’s civil rights and the woman that responded strongly objected to the fact that Republicans would deney much needed contraceptives to a 30 yr/old pre-law student.
So there you have it…
I have always believed that communications to Benghazi were more important to know than anything from Benghazi. That’s now starting to seep out. I am going to make a big guess here that the no help decision was made by a campaign official(re: Valerie Jarrett) which is out of the chain of command, illegal, and shows Obama malfeseance in allowing it. If not then it is an Obama CINC decision. Either possibility can’t be let out to the public, election doom would be the least of their worries.
Oh, and Geoffrey Britain: Romney isnt going to go after Obama after what happened in Benghazi, that would look to much like political retribution. A Congressional investigation will be ignored by the press and treated like “Monica Lewinsky II”. I hate to be this cynical but Im sure this is how its going to end up.
One more thing, it is one thing to order someone to do something that the odds for survival are slim to none, if you know it and they know it. Quite another to order and have no intention giving help if needed.
Romney isnt going to go after Obama after what happened in Benghazi, that would look to much like political retribution.
Much as it galls me to say so, I think that that is the wise course of action. Even though it would be amply justified here, we don’t want to set the precedent that previous Administrations are subject to recriminations after leaving office, banana republic style.
I don’t think it matters whether Obama feels guilty or the press is outraged. The usual thing leftists pull is ‘how unseemly of you to make an issue of this ugly matter.’ It won’t work to silence the critics this time.
If this report is accurate it does indeed represent an outrageous dereliction of duty on the part of many people within Team Obama and the Pentagon. The failure of the MSM to cover this story shows they have finally sunk lower than whale excrement. I hope the House hearings start on November 7. I want to see Panetta and Hillary under oath closely watched by the cameras of C-Span.
4 dead in Benghazi
Barack and Hillary are not coming
Ambassadors are finally on their own.
Charles Says:
“The frustration some military folks must have felt believing that, if just given the chance, they could have saved fellow Americans is something I cannot even being to imagine.”
I don’t agree with the frame your trying to use. If the gunship cut down a couple hundred attackers but failed to save them; would we be more upset since the attempt failed? I wouldn’t. At least we took a lot of them with ‘us’ / our people lost. Doing nothing really sucks.
The CIA has denied telling anybody not to help. Petreus has surfaced.
Mr Frank–Correction–
Now that this story is getting some traction-five weeks after the fact–“Petreus has surfaced.”
I agree with LisaM that the MSM is indeed spiking the story, in order to help Obama get past November 6.
What I’m predicting — IF Obama wins the election — is that this scandal will NOTgo away and that at some point the MSM will turn on him, like chickens in a barnyard turning on an sickly hen.
If Romney wins the election the story will fade because — as others have noted — Romney is just too goal-oriented and magnanimous.
The Weekly Standard is on it, and so is the London Daily Mail. NY Post has it.
NY Times doesn’t. Neither does CNN. MSNBC doesn’t either.
Harry the Extremist,
You’re quite right but I wasn’t suggesting that Romney’s justice department go after Obama or any other political appointee legally and for the very reason you cite, political retribution is ultimately counter-productive…
By ‘heads should roll’ I mean the bureaucrats, the mid-level managers who actually denied the desperate calls for assistance, that the men under attack in Benghazi made.
Let those individuals be transferred to our equivalent of outer Mongolia.
NO, what should happen to Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Petraeus, Dempsey and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff is full exposure.
That’s why the Freedom of Information requests, the books and full cooperation from the Romney administration. So that the full truth of what actually happened and the parties responsible known to as great an audience as possible.
After all the facts are known and where fitting, their reputations destroyed for all posterity to know.
Let them be known in history as the modern day Aaron Burrs that they apparently are…
Let them be outcasts, shunned and given the status of pariah’s…shame, dishonor and scornful censure their lot.
Lions, tigers, and bears oh my! Is the MSM waking up and smelling the head of the fish?
James has beat me to it: Valerie girl made the call.
The boy-king was snoozing for Vegas.
The SEALS weren’t important enough to wake rip van bomba.
———-
The touted video is now admitted to being an AQ/ MB subterfuge.
They are the folks who translated it and rebroadcast it into North Africa.
———–
The sole reason we’re getting even this much accurate intel is via BRITAIN.
Britain and America have a co-joined intelligence backbone. Hence, London gets to see, practically every thing Washington does — and at the same time.
That’s why, time after time, these two ‘special relationship’ buddies see eye to eye on crisis events.
Plainly, the British are going to continue to leak the truth inre Benghazi until the gate bursts.
London can have no love of the Wan.
A caller to Rush Limbaugh today identified himself as working in military intelligence. He said that an SOS from an ambassdor would have gone straight to POTUS and the top brass. My inference from the discussion was that the decision not to act had to come from the President himself. The entire response was criminal. They could have sent fighter jets, a Specter gun ship, and a Delta force team from nearby bases that would have arrived on time to help at least some of the people who were caught in the assault.
A later caller from Ohio said that the story was all over the airwaves there. Maybe it will help R&R that way without them bringing it up directly. In any case, this story will not go away so easily.
As an exercise for the commetariat here, compare and contrast the coverage of Abu Ghraib, which was on par with a fraternity hazing, to the coverage of Benghazi.
Obama can’t lose soon enough or big enough for the good of the country.
Within hours of it happening and discussing it here i refused to back down from the assertion that someone ordered a “stand down”.
And this was the product of what happens when you say your “ideas” are superior because being a member of a class makes it so (like Sotomayor said), and so cant pick the best option if one of the equal but lesser has already chosen it.
After all, its all one big part of Obama’s change he has been making with the apologies, bows, and the left and the ladies in charge commonly bantered “idea” that the generals and the men “boys with toys” were not doing whats right, and such things were not needed.
its the same mentality that thinks that you can have aircraft carriers and submarines without support craft, and that you can dismantle the military to get at the creme filling largesse before its “wasted”. that one can do the same with less, and so we can do with 230 ships when cuts are done and 300 are needed.
In many ways a lot of the past 4 years has been experiments in economics, war, detente, etc.. as the left has finally had enough power to act upon the ideas its been crowing about since Jane Fonda sat on a Freudian cigar for communism. (her piece of work husband is on film saying he is happy soldiers are committing suicide in record numbers – which a whole other subject). They have been able to test the theory of being nicer and whether others also back down and get nicer. they didn’t, and quite the opposite was the outcome (among other not so good things).
here is what i said:
Notice that removal of ammunition was not enough in the last paragraph. they had to also be told to stand down. or they would affix bayonets, and go hand to hand with the crowd till they got live ammo from one of them, and then continued till they dropped and were carried around like the ambassador. but first and before him.
Period. no doubt. 100% certainty. as confident as you are every day you turn on a light switch and it works.
Anyone who would still vote for that evil tyrant needs to be permanently ostracized from decent society.
I was at work when I made my earlier comment, and didn’t have time to elaborate on it.
There were a lot of well-meaning people who voted for Obama the first time. They imagined that he would bring world peace, heal race relations, cause the oceans to stop rising, etc.
Many of us knew better, of course, and tried to warn them.
People who voted for him in 2008 were fools. Ignorant fools.
But there is no excuse for such ignorance today. Anybody who votes for Obama a second time is evil. And they are fully complicit in the massive evil that a second Obama term will bring.
Whether they are friends, co-workers, siblings, parents, or children, cut them out of your life. Be ruthless about it. Leave them behind and don’t look back.
Warn them beforehand, of course. “If you are planning to vote for Obama again, know that you will be dead to me. I never want to see you or speak to you ever again.”
These people need to be made to suffer for their poor choices.
I can believe Obama or a POTUS rep (say, his Chief of Staff) nixed sending in big guns into Benghazi because politically, Libya was supposed to be Obama’s showcase for his anti-Iraq superiority to Bush, specifically the superior wisdom of leading from behind and light presence on the ground. Obama won’t put boots on the ground because that was Bush’s great sin.
The problem with both the right and the left running from Bush-era foreign policy is that Bush merely married the necessary and logical means to achieve our foreign policy ends. Obama kept the foreign policy ends but deprived the necessary and logical means to achieve the ends.
“an SOS from an ambassdor would have gone straight to POTUS and the top brass. My inference from the discussion was that the decision not to act had to come from the President himself.”
“What did the President know and when did he know it?” Howard Baker, Republican Senate Majority Leader succinctly stating the key Watergate question…
“there is no excuse for such ignorance today. Anybody who votes for Obama a second time is evil. And they are fully complicit in the massive evil that a second Obama term will bring.” rickl
Complicit yes, evil no.
I know lots of liberals who are going to vote for Obama and I know of none that are evil. Yet they are going to vote for a man, that could they truly see the truth of the man, I have no doubt that they would recoil in horror.
Perhaps this will help:
I recently moved back to FL to be near my very aged parents. I stayed with them for a few months while settling into the area. They watch ABC nightly news every night. 60 minutes every Sunday. My father reads the local newspaper every day. They’ve had this routine for 50+ years.
My father, while an independent, leans heavily democrat. He’s an intelligent, thoughtful, rational man who views the world through the filters of his beliefs, as we all do. He’s one of the finest, most ethical human beings I’ve ever met. One of those men who’ll have hundreds mourn him when he passes despite never having much social status.
He’s a truly good man and yet his perception is that I’ve been ‘brainwashed’ by the Republican party.
Why?
He’s endured 50+ years of liberal media indoctrination and despite my best efforts to inform him of the media bias he’s been unaware of, he simply can’t believe that starting with Walter Cronkite through Diane Sawyer he’s been that misinformed because deception on that level would be intentional. And, Cronkite and Sawyer specialize(d) in empathy. They’re such ‘nice’ people and nice people don’t intentionally deceive, now do they?
My Dad being 90, I just don’t have the heart to prove to him (and, it would take lots of repetition) that it is he who has been lied to and not me who has been deceived.
The simple fact of the matter rickl is that most people find it near impossible to overturn their world view. Consider how few liberals become conservative and of those that do, how difficult the journey. Our host comes to mind as the perfect example.
Very perceptive Eric. Obama rationalizes that his showcase foreign policy being discredited would eventually result in far more deaths through a return to Bush era policies. Obama, his administration, and millions of liberals believe that you can reason with fanatics. In their heart of hearts they know that they cannot but their moral cowardice requires denial so they tell themselves lies to flee from the problem they lack the courage to confront.
Note: millions of liberals tell themselves lies to flee from the problem they lack the courage to confront. Far more millions live in thrall to ‘the narrative’ that the democrats and the MSM have indoctrinated them into accepting as the truth.
I, for one, have been dazed at how this tale just reveals layer after layer of horror, week after week.
I commend Ambassador Stevens and “Vile Rat” Smith for their courage, and now especially the courage of those two who went to their aid, evidently against orders.
May they all rest in peace.
How can an administration absorb this blow and survive? What has America become, that we as a nation would overlook this as a “peccadillo?”
Good post, Geoffrey, but my comment stands.
I’m not willing to put up with leftists any longer. I will not cut them any more slack. I want them DEAD.
I said on Election Night 2008 that I believed that we were now irrevocably on the road to civil war. It’s time for every one of us to choose sides.
“I will not cut them any more slack. I want them DEAD.”
rickl,
You and I often agree, but although I am ready for a civil war should it come to be the only solution, I am not willing to wish ‘them’ DEAD. I can not wish some of my neighbors who disagree with me dead because they disagree. Instead, I wish they realize the tragic errors created by their mindset. If it all comes down to dust I will kill them only if I must… http://tinyurl.com/29jo9ye
For the sake of your own well being, I advise you to never wish anyone dead unless absolutely necessary. If it comes down to an open conflict involving lead projectiles, I’ll stand beside you in spirit and in terms of putting the sights on target. Until then, I will not wish my misguided neighbors dead. Most of the misguided at not evil, they are simply misguided.
rickl: I could not disagree with you more.
What you suggest—breaking off relations with parents, children, siblings—is a very, very bad idea. Those are the deepest of human bonds, to be severed only for the most profound of reasons and often not even then.
And believe me, if you cut them out of your life they will not be the ones to suffer. You will. And the only point you will be getting across to them is that you are an intolerant fanatic who has gone off the deep end.
rickl: I just noticed your comment of 11:36 PM. In all seriousness, I think you may need to seek some help, spiritual or otherwise.
rickl,
My boo-boo…. not at evil not but are not evil. To paraphrase, never attribute to evil that which can be explained by stupidity. To everything there is a season. If it comes down to civil war I know upon which side I will fight with tears in my eyes.
“What you suggest–breaking off relations with parents, children, siblings–is a very, very bad idea. Those are the deepest of human bonds, to be severed only for the most profound of reasons and often not even then. And believe me, if you cut them out of your life they will not be the ones to suffer. You will.”
It may come down to breaking off blood relationships, but those are extreme circumstances to be avoided until all other options are void.
I don’t think anyone is beyond experiencing a change of heart, philosophy, or beliefs until they are dead.
But then, I married a Democrat from a family of union worker Democrats, and by the time Reagan was running for president he’d become a stalwart conservative Republican. His sister followed soon after. His parents, well, they’re in their 70s and still drinking the union Kool Aid, but while there’s life and communication there’s hope.
Artfldgr, sometimes your garrulousness is grating, but sometimes you are so darned eloquent it makes wading through the verbiage worthwhile.
This was one of those times:
…its the same mentality that thinks that you can have aircraft carriers and submarines without support craft, and that you can dismantle the military to get at the creme filling largesse before its “wasted”. that one can do the same with less, and so we can do with 230 ships when cuts are done and 300 are needed.
Never mind the arrogant sarcasm of his bayonets and horses comment, his ignorance of military needs is what’s truly upsetting.
Changing the subject slightly, I wish that the Republicans in close Senate and House races would turn this into an issue and ask their Democrat opponents to respond to this dereliction of duty by the administration. Doing so would not only put those Democrats in the awkward position of having to defend or denounce the administration, it could further depress support for Obama, and it might flip a few of the closer races away from the Democrats.
I don’t mean to turn this incident simply into a political football, but I think that if the lamestream media isn’t going to make an issue of it, the information has to get out, and the best way to do it is for everyone in the opposition party to make as much of an issue of it as they can going into the election. Elections are supposed to be the formal occasion for the people to register its satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the government, so a terrible incident like this can’t be brushed under the rug. We need to get him out of office–and anyone else who would excuse or enable such behavior. Americans “need to send a message to their gov’t, their military and the world that this day of self-inflicted infamy won’t happen again.”
The lack of action to at least to try and support those men in Benghazi is criminally negligent and should be sparking outrage throughout this country. You are right, Neo- if this doesn’t spark outrage and a demand for answers this country is in bigger trouble than you or I thought.
Also from Ace’s place, check this out (I actually heard this caller live, as I was listening to RL this afternoon).
>>Rush has an interview with a Special Operations planner [a Lieutenant Colonel who called in to the show this afternoon] who says that in an in extremis situation, as the attack on Libya was, the good guys would not have needed an explicit order to protect US personnel. Their standing general orders to protect US citizens and personnel would have already enabled them to act, absent a contrary order.
Only a negative order* would have stopped them.
The Rush interview is well worth listening to. The guy calling in is obviously what he claims to be (unless he’s some kind of virtuouso faker who can fluently explain details of Special Operations planning and protocols).<<
Click the link and scroll down to where you see Rush Limbaugh in his office to play the interview (I can't give you a more direct link, as I'm not a member of the Dittohead Nation!). Listen to the whole thing:
*Which would have to come from SecDef, SecState, or POTUS, no lower rank. Ambassador = Four-Star Equivalent Asset. Attack on any ambassador goes via Flash Traffic Message system, straight to the Officer of the Watch in the White House Situation Room.
Also, planes are always kept "strip-ready" and can be airborne in 5 minutes in an emergency. And there's more. . . .
To Geoffrey:
There were no “mid-level bureaucrats” telling the CIA and Air Force etc. to stand down.
There are Standing Orders to “protect American Lives” and ESPECIALLY the Ambassador, who is regarded as the living embodiment of the POTUS.
The ONLY rank that would have the authority to countermand such a Standing Order would be: –The President or Vice President of the United States
–The Secretary of Defense, or
–The Secretary of State.
Period. (Listen to the Lieutenant Colonel in the link just above: he goes through all this, his voice shaking with emotion. And YES, he says all the Special Ops guys would’ve been watching this in realtime as well, and dying to get in there and Lay Waste to the enemy.)
Parker,
I followed your link to the Washington Post and it was depressing to see the same people that wanted Bush impeached and prosecuted for ‘war crimes’ flooding the comments section with rationalizations for their Fuhrer. (Godwin’s Law be damned).
The same people that wanted blood for Abu Graihb (sp?), are calling for cool heads and a detailed investigation (one that would conveniently take months) and how dare we talk about it and draw conclusions without all of the facts (properly spoon fed by Pravda…) and “Faux News!!! Faux News!!!!”
Ugh. I was starting to become so hopeful and nearly forget these people are out there.
And as far as Petraeus throwing Obama under the bus…I am not convinced yet. The statement was far too short and frankly left a lot of room for Pravda and the Administration. The idealist in me was hoping for much more from a man of Petraeus’ character.
I’ll be convinced when my parents (as indoctrinated as Geoffrey Britain’s, decent people that they are) are seeing it on CBS Evening News and, thus, taking it seriously.
And rickl,
That is despair talking. Don’t give into it. We only win when more people see the truth and that won’t happen when we make them enemies. And if we dehumanize them, we are one step closer to “The Dark Side”.
Beverly don’t kid yourself, a right hand aide (and they are all political operatives around him ) could do it easily, Vice President of the United States
—The Secretary of Defense, or
—The Secretary of State.
would all be to afraid to countermand.
Ricki take a chill pill, it hasn’t gotten anywhere near the actions you recomend. They love that kind of talk(in their mind it would give an excuse for more dictatorial action). What it means is we need to work harder and longer within the constitution and with the tools it gives us to remedy the problem.
Look people we need to keep a clear eye on all of this. Talking is a good first step, but determined action within the bounds of our Republic is even better. If you look at everything in a certain way the Liberals are losing on almost every front. And they will lose if we keep after them.
neo,
It sounds as though you might be in the general path of Sandy. Prepare and take care.
My comments from last night stand as written.
I can neither excuse nor forgive those who would vote to enslave me.
That should have been “will”, not “can”.
In my mind’s eye I see all the spin doctors, weaselcrats, political generals in the situation room watching our guys die in Drone TV, nodding their chins and talking in managerial-techspeak. Cowards, maggots, I’m stopping now lest I offend the delegate sensibilities of the secret service.
Geoffrey Britain,
I agree: I think the Democrats, at least their leaders in charge, do know the common-sense justifications for Bush’s foreign policy decisions as well as the shortcomings in Obama’s foreign policy. But their election strategy in 2012, and in 2008 for that matter, took a radical turn from Kerry’s 2004 election strategy. In 2004, Kerry tried to argue that he could achieve the same foreign policy ends as Bush – the consensus national interest – but he (Kerry) could do the job better than Bush. The flaw in Kerry’s election strategy was that everything he suggested was already being implemented by the Bush admin.
By 2008, the Democrats had theorized that they could NOT win the presidency by presenting themselves as the better alternative to the GOP candidate. Rather, they focused on slandering and debasing Bush’s foreign policy and then presenting themselves as the alternate opposite to Bush. Obama’s chief election strategy was to be the anti-Bush in foreign policy, even in ways that were obviously unrealistic. The Democrats sold out the national interest to win the presidency. In fact, Bush’s foreign policy was unexceptional in that it represented the American national interest. Bush logically paired means with ends. To be anti-Bush in foreign policy, therefore, meant losing the logical means needed to pursue the American national interest.
This has led to the spectacle of Obama’s foreign policy successes coming from following in Bush’s path in some form, while his FP failures have come anywhere he has tried to be the anti-Bush. Obama’s supporters have done their best to rationalize away and deny the resulting cognitive dissonance. (See the Democrats’ shut-up-and-go-away reaction to Ralph Nader’s labeling last month of Obama as a ‘war criminal’ who’s ‘worse’ than Bush re OEF, drone attacks, surveillance.)
When Democrats defend Obama’s record, their bottom-line isn’t based on what course is best to achieve the national interest, but rather, their bottom-line is based on avoiding the cost and risks of Bush’s foreign policy.
Romney treads lightly because he also wants to avoid associating himself with Bush’s foreign policy (perceived as the great McCain flaw). But the cost to the nation of both Dems and GOP running away from Bush’s foreign policy is that the nation is running away from logically marrying means to ends. That means we’ll keep falling behind in the competition.
In sum, doing the necessary things in our foreign policy has become too much of a domestic political liability. Both sides knows it.
rickl,
Hm. How far away, do you think, are we from John Brown and Harper’s Ferry? And what events would need to happen in the nation in order to reach that stage?
Eric,
There’s already a slow simmering, beneath the media’s radar race war going on right now. Toss in the progressive desire to enslave via debt and communist policies and anybody who votes for that is, as rickl states, enemies. These are not disagreements over how to achieve some goal. These are fundamental differences, an existential battle for the Soul of the Republic.
How far does one cut slack for someone trying to harm me through their votes for the commie in the Offal Office? Owebama is not politics as usual. That is the scary part one must accept. He’s willing to let an ambassador he appointed die while he watched (or knew) in real time. That’s not even Machiavelli. That’s Stalin and Sergei Kirov. For now, the citizenry is safe from the Purges. But how long will that last with Owebama DC Boogaloo 2?
My Warrior Hero, General Petraeus, tossed Obama deservedly under that crowded bus last night by letting a CIA spokesman officially state: “No one at ANY LEVEL in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE.” (Caps-Italics mine.)
Thank you, General. Knowing your Warrior Heart and integrity, I didn’t think you’d allow the Obama Admin. to ‘infer by silence’ that you may have been involved in this horrific disaster.
MSM-Lapdawgs: ANY of this obvious statement going to be highlighted by you Chorus of Cowards??
Eric Says:
October 27th, 2012 at 11:51 am
rickl,
Hm. How far away, do you think, are we from John Brown and Harper’s Ferry? And what events would need to happen in the nation in order to reach that stage?
I still can’t believe that the shooting didn’t start in 2009, and I find it unsettling that it hasn’t already started.
As the saying goes, “Our forefathers would be shooting by now.” It’s absolutely true. The American Revolution started over much less tyranny, taxation, and provocation than we face today. And we have come to regard it as normal.
I’m not looking forward to a civil war, but each day that we let these outrages go unpunished makes it seem more likely that we will meekly wait in our living rooms until the DHS knocks on our doors, to lead us away to the camps.
NeoConScum:
From what I’ve read, Petraeus has been pushing the nonsense that the YouTube video was responsible for the attack.
I cannot count him as being on my side.
Hey folks, ease up on Rickl. I sort of (but not completely) agree.
For example, I just saw on The Daily Mirror that Marco Rubio’s daughter was airlifted to the hospital after an accident – she is 12-years old!
And one of the first comments at the end of the news article is posted by a hateful liberal with the attitude of “well, maybe now he will understand the good in Obamacare”
And do we all need to be reminded of the crap that they threw at Palin’s kids?
This kind of hate only comes from the left – the hate, the foul in-your-face attitude gets to be too much sometimes. Everything is political with these folks – and Yes, I’m with Rickl on this – I’m sick of their sh*t!
Co-workers who express such attitudes, neighbors, and other acquaintances are folks I now avoid. There are still in-laws that I just bite my tongue when around – but one day . . .
Charles: that’s a lot different from saying you want them dead (as rickl did), or saying (as rickl did) that if your children or parents or siblings vote for Obama this second go-round you should never speak to them again because they are evil.
Plus, of course, there are people who are voting for Obama who would never express the sort of sentiments that anger you.
Nope, neo, I mean it.
Anyone who voted for him the first time was ignorant and/or deluded. They may possibly be educable, and may repent their ways.
Those who vote for him twice are enemies, and they are beyond redemption. I will NOT forgive them.
They can beg God for mercy, because I will have none when the SHTF.
“Plus, of course, there are people who are voting for Obama who would never express the sort of sentiments that anger you.”
neo, the people who would not express the sorts of hateful invectives are also conspicuously silent. It reminds me of people who apologize for Islam, saying it is unfair to tar all muslims with the same brush. But what they fail to acknowledge is that so-called moderate muslims do not speak out against Islamists. It is so rare in fact that it makes the news when it does happen. Same for liberals as far as I can tell.
I revisited this thread and must say I am dismayed by some of the comments. Its one thing to disagree with those who often resemble ‘zombies’, its another thing entirely to speak of killing the silly, brainwashed ‘zombies’. I have noted above that I am willing in an extreme situation to put my eye on the sights and shoot straight if necessary. We are not in such an extreme situation October 27, 2012. We may in the days ahead get there, but until then keep your powder dry. And, resist the urge to hate your fellow misguided citizens. May their eyes, ears, and minds be opened.
Neo, things are getting a little squirrelly here… Free speech is our inalienable right, but incitement to violence, like crying fire in a crowded theater, is over the line, yes? So the question is whether any of the above comments may reasonably be perceived as “incitement,” I guess.
Let me add that I yield to no one in my dismay over the way this story is shaping up. As it’s been said before, at long last, have they left no sense of decency?
The tension mounts as we approach the crossroads. Who will be the captain and toward which direction will the ship of state head? Onward towards the iceberg or warmer waters? My meager and unsolicited advise is resist the urge to hate and simultaneously focus on the whites of their eyes. Its all deja vu all over again, our ancestors over the generations have been through this before. Blood looks the same once the veins are opened. We live in an ever shifting landslide.
rickl(10:56pm)…I don’t buy that nonsense. Nor does Weekly Standard from Friday night.(Bill Kristol)
Your source, bitte?
I got long time lib friends that are Obama supporters. I could never hate them but i’ll never quite think of them the same way again. Something was irretrievably lost during this debacle.
So what does the administration gain from what looks like a “pawn sacrifice?”
What’s the point? It’s terrible. But why was no aid sent?
Wry Mouth: there are several reasons why the administration might not want to send aid. It would call attention to the fact that, counter to the administration narrative, al Qaeda is alive and well and perpetrating acts such as this (as opposed to a demonstration about a YouTube video being the cause, with no need to send a counter-terrorism team). In addition, I think it’s quite clear they wanted to keep a low profile vis a vis the Libyans. In fact, I read or heard somewhere today—don’t remember where—that they were specifically waiting for Libyan forces to act. The administration wanted to preserve their own fiction that the Libyans are friendly and nice and that diplomacy can do just about anything and that everything was going swimmingly there.
“It would call attention to the fact that, counter to the administration narrative, al Qaeda is alive and well and….. wanted to preserve their own fiction that the Libyans are friendly and nice and that diplomacy can do just about anything..”
I agree, but I think there is at least one more factor; they may have been afraid of a rescue mission failing and reminding older voters of Carter’s failed rescue mission.
parker Says:
I agree, but I think there is at least one more factor; they may have been afraid of a rescue mission failing and reminding older voters of Carter’s failed rescue mission.
See, this is what pisses me off about progressives (among other things): Their complete non-understanding of military capability. If anyone with a lick of sense in this Administration knew diddly about special ops, they would know the Carter rescue mission failed because sand got into the helicopters and too many went down to continue the mission. Well, we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for awhile now, not places known for their deciduous forests. In other words, our fighting capability in desert conditions is magnitudes better than in 1979, just in special ops toys alone. Our warriors are now battle tested in desert conditions and are found to be quite capable. The progressive in the Offal Office was too cowardly to make a decision instead voting his career long and safe ‘present’, if he was even briefed (those pesky 3 a.m. phone calls have a jarring tendency to wake one up from a night’s slumber).
RickZ: you’re correct that the Carter rescue mission failed at that point. But it is highly probably that, had it not been stopped in the desert, it would have failed later on. It was very very poorly thought out. Here’s a post I wrote on the subject. An excerpt:
Debacle, indeed; the planes never even came near Tehran.
Perhaps it’s a good thing they didn’t. From the evidence in the piece, the loss of life would likely have been even greater had they done so. It’s very difficult to believe that this mission ever had any chance of succeeding. Not only was the weather problem in the desert underestimated, and the assault force relatively small (one hundred thirty two men maximum, with some planes expected to encounter technical difficulties and drop out), but here was the game plan for controlling crowds around the embassy:
“Another presidential directive concerned the use of nonlethal riot-control agents. Given that the shah’s occasionally violent riot control during the revolution was now Exhibit A in Iran’s human-rights case against the former regime and America, Carter wanted to avoid killing Iranians, so he had insisted that if a hostile crowd formed during the raid, Delta should attempt to control it without shooting people. Burruss considered this ridiculous. He and his men were going to assault a guarded compound in the middle of a city of more than 5 million people, most of them presumed to be aggressively hostile. It was unbelievably risky; everyone on the mission knew there was a very good chance they would not get home alive. Wade Ishmoto, a Delta captain who worked with the unit’s intelligence division, had joked, ‘The only difference between this and the Alamo is that Davy Crockett didn’t have to fight his way in.'”
Leave a Reply
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>
Words cannot express my anger. No leader puts good people in harm’s way and then refuses to help them when needed. I knew this instinctively as a 19 year old section leader in Vietnam. And time and maturity has only reinforced that knowledge.
Is there still time to impeach the sorry SOB in the White House?
Predictions:
No one will care — at least not enough will care — until after the election.
If Obama loses, this story will fade into the deep background. We will be too focused on trying to rebuild the country economically to have the energy to dwell on this scandal (that is, until/unless Hillary runs in 2016).
If Obama wins, it could — and should– dwarf Watergate and will grow and metastasize until he leaves office.
This should end the election right here and now.
Anyone who would still vote for that evil tyrant needs to be permanently ostracized from decent society.
Clearly Obama and his kind were thinking of the fallout to Jimmy Carter when the mission to help the Americans held in Tehran failed. Obama must have been thinking “can’t have that happen on my watch.” (see it is all about him, and no one else)
The frustration some military folks must have felt believing that, if just given the chance, they could have saved fellow Americans is something I cannot even being to imagine.
Neo, you are absolutely correct on this – if Obama didn’t care, that is one thing; but if Americans don’t care then we are in bigger trouble than we think.
At this point I feel like Romney winning isn’t enough; Romney has to win by a huge landslide and with a clean sweep of the incumbent Democrats to restore my faith in my fellow Americans.
No one will care in an official capacity.
I believe that it will cause the undecideds to decide, and those leaning towards Teh Won to rethink their position. And it will further energize the opposition.
As…I think it was Letterman: it shows that Teh Won is a lying liar who lies, and does so in obvious and uncluttered way. They have and will continue to spin this, but who you gonna believe? them or your lying eyes?
Charles,
I have long felt that it is a bad sign if Romney wins by anything short of a landslide. It is amazing Obama is a viable candidate. He shouldn’t be able to out poll Ron Paul.
The mainstream media is spiking this story. I just went to CNN.com. There is not one mention of Libya anywhere. CBS News has a story explaining how the military was too far away to help. ABC News has nothing. MSNBC – nothing. I do think Americans would care if they were told the full story. We can only hope that a lot of people are watching FOX.
If this gets out, Obama can kiss 99% of the military vote goodbye. It’s a sacred trust that no one is left behind. If they know he watched, ordered the CIA not to help, then went to bed as these people died, he’s done for.
Thanks NEO. This is so outrageuos that it is almost numbing.
I sent the link to Foxnews to all of those friends who regularly send items to dozens of email correspondents.
Also to those tweeters whom I follow: Hugh Hewitt, James Taranto and Jenifer Ruben.
I also sent the Fox link to the Tipline at CNN.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/father-slain-seal-who-made-decision-not-save-my-son_657782.html
Yes, it’s a joke. and Panetta is out there lying that they didn’t have the intel.
Now, read that article I posted (via Drudge). Hillary told the father that “they would have the video maker arrested.” They would? State Dept? What in the world? Even after knowing that it wasn’t the video, they still were determined to scapegoat this guy. This is criminal. Truly criminal.
Heh.
Oh, Ace linked to that article too. But they missed the quote, but allude to Woods’ “dangerous speech.” I mean, it’s not just a joke. These people actually have imprisoned someone as a part of the cover up of their bungling.
I am spitting mad right now. I need to take a walk. I might go buy some tar and feathers. We need to bring that tradition back.
The Commander in Chief must be relieved of duty and prosecuted.
He takes credit from the seals for killing Bin Laden and fails to support seals facing overwhelming odds, all for the sake of personal political gain.
He is horribly inept, but far worse … a coward!
Americans didn’t care that the Iranian mullahs were responsible for deaths of hundreds of Americans in Beirut, KSA, Iraq and Afghanistan, so what makes you think any will care about this, especially as LisaM noted, the MSM is burying the story?
A society that would entrust someone like Obama with any power at all is already in very serious trouble. As he is most popular with the 18-35 age group I would say the situation is going to get worse.
carl in atlanta, LisaM already explained why this story is not going to be bigger than Watergate if Obama wins. Indeed only Fox will carry it. Obama as predicted is a disaster, but is representative of a greater problem. No one was forced to vote for him.
Hey as long as 30 year old impoverished law students can get their birth control 100% covered, who cares if the rest of the world is on fire?
Why is this election even close?
College kids and blacks won’t care. Ask Colin Powell.
Here in CT Joe Lieberman has raised the issue. Once nice thing is that Local news does cover what local politicians say. Every GOP congressman and senator (along with good ol’Independent Joe) should bring this up for the local news outlets. Local TV tends to be much less in the tank than Networks (they want to sell the weather and sports guys so no point in pissing off half or more of the audience).
Yes, people most certainly care that our president and others sat back and watched as Americans fought terrorists for hours and then be killed. There’s no way to spin this positively, especially with the weeks of lying about it being over a silly video. This is upsetting at a gut level. I’m thankful that at least of the fathers of the murdered is demanding accountability for this inexcusable decision.
It’s the MSM that doesn’t care, because Obama love trumps the truth.
LisaM nailed it. If the MSM reported the story as FOX is, there would be far greater outrage.
This is why Obama could not look the dead Navy Seals father in the eye. He knows he’s responsible and too much of a moral coward to take responsibility.
It’s now official; the most contemptible administration in history.
As for the MSM, near culpability in treason.
After Romney wins, heads should quietly roll and, since the MSM will not report the truth, Freedom of Information requests made with books written to expose the truth with all that participated in this debacle exposed.
Panetta and Clinton, by refusing to resign and actively participating in the cover-up are after-the-fact co-conspirators.
^ This.
I got into a facebook discussion with a liberal friend who thought Obama “slam-dunked” Romney on the last debate. A couple of his other liberal friends joined in once I posted an opinion. My remark on Obama’s Benghazi’s lies and moral failings were brushed aside. The gay male who responded felt Obama’s recent stance on gay marriage was superior to Romney’s who just wanted to violate people’s civil rights and the woman that responded strongly objected to the fact that Republicans would deney much needed contraceptives to a 30 yr/old pre-law student.
So there you have it…
I have always believed that communications to Benghazi were more important to know than anything from Benghazi. That’s now starting to seep out. I am going to make a big guess here that the no help decision was made by a campaign official(re: Valerie Jarrett) which is out of the chain of command, illegal, and shows Obama malfeseance in allowing it. If not then it is an Obama CINC decision. Either possibility can’t be let out to the public, election doom would be the least of their worries.
Oh, and Geoffrey Britain: Romney isnt going to go after Obama after what happened in Benghazi, that would look to much like political retribution. A Congressional investigation will be ignored by the press and treated like “Monica Lewinsky II”. I hate to be this cynical but Im sure this is how its going to end up.
One more thing, it is one thing to order someone to do something that the odds for survival are slim to none, if you know it and they know it. Quite another to order and have no intention giving help if needed.
Romney isnt going to go after Obama after what happened in Benghazi, that would look to much like political retribution.
Much as it galls me to say so, I think that that is the wise course of action. Even though it would be amply justified here, we don’t want to set the precedent that previous Administrations are subject to recriminations after leaving office, banana republic style.
I don’t think it matters whether Obama feels guilty or the press is outraged. The usual thing leftists pull is ‘how unseemly of you to make an issue of this ugly matter.’ It won’t work to silence the critics this time.
If this report is accurate it does indeed represent an outrageous dereliction of duty on the part of many people within Team Obama and the Pentagon. The failure of the MSM to cover this story shows they have finally sunk lower than whale excrement. I hope the House hearings start on November 7. I want to see Panetta and Hillary under oath closely watched by the cameras of C-Span.
4 dead in Benghazi
Barack and Hillary are not coming
Ambassadors are finally on their own.
Charles Says:
“The frustration some military folks must have felt believing that, if just given the chance, they could have saved fellow Americans is something I cannot even being to imagine.”
I don’t agree with the frame your trying to use. If the gunship cut down a couple hundred attackers but failed to save them; would we be more upset since the attempt failed? I wouldn’t. At least we took a lot of them with ‘us’ / our people lost. Doing nothing really sucks.
The CIA has denied telling anybody not to help. Petreus has surfaced.
Mr Frank–Correction–
Now that this story is getting some traction-five weeks after the fact–“Petreus has surfaced.”
I agree with LisaM that the MSM is indeed spiking the story, in order to help Obama get past November 6.
What I’m predicting — IF Obama wins the election — is that this scandal will NOTgo away and that at some point the MSM will turn on him, like chickens in a barnyard turning on an sickly hen.
If Romney wins the election the story will fade because — as others have noted — Romney is just too goal-oriented and magnanimous.
The Weekly Standard is on it, and so is the London Daily Mail. NY Post has it.
NY Times doesn’t. Neither does CNN. MSNBC doesn’t either.
Harry the Extremist,
You’re quite right but I wasn’t suggesting that Romney’s justice department go after Obama or any other political appointee legally and for the very reason you cite, political retribution is ultimately counter-productive…
By ‘heads should roll’ I mean the bureaucrats, the mid-level managers who actually denied the desperate calls for assistance, that the men under attack in Benghazi made.
Let those individuals be transferred to our equivalent of outer Mongolia.
NO, what should happen to Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Petraeus, Dempsey and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff is full exposure.
That’s why the Freedom of Information requests, the books and full cooperation from the Romney administration. So that the full truth of what actually happened and the parties responsible known to as great an audience as possible.
After all the facts are known and where fitting, their reputations destroyed for all posterity to know.
Let them be known in history as the modern day Aaron Burrs that they apparently are…
Let them be outcasts, shunned and given the status of pariah’s…shame, dishonor and scornful censure their lot.
Lions, tigers, and bears oh my! Is the MSM waking up and smelling the head of the fish?
http://tinyurl.com/9bdwl8n
James has beat me to it: Valerie girl made the call.
The boy-king was snoozing for Vegas.
The SEALS weren’t important enough to wake rip van bomba.
———-
The touted video is now admitted to being an AQ/ MB subterfuge.
They are the folks who translated it and rebroadcast it into North Africa.
———–
The sole reason we’re getting even this much accurate intel is via BRITAIN.
Britain and America have a co-joined intelligence backbone. Hence, London gets to see, practically every thing Washington does — and at the same time.
That’s why, time after time, these two ‘special relationship’ buddies see eye to eye on crisis events.
Plainly, the British are going to continue to leak the truth inre Benghazi until the gate bursts.
London can have no love of the Wan.
A caller to Rush Limbaugh today identified himself as working in military intelligence. He said that an SOS from an ambassdor would have gone straight to POTUS and the top brass. My inference from the discussion was that the decision not to act had to come from the President himself. The entire response was criminal. They could have sent fighter jets, a Specter gun ship, and a Delta force team from nearby bases that would have arrived on time to help at least some of the people who were caught in the assault.
A later caller from Ohio said that the story was all over the airwaves there. Maybe it will help R&R that way without them bringing it up directly. In any case, this story will not go away so easily.
As an exercise for the commetariat here, compare and contrast the coverage of Abu Ghraib, which was on par with a fraternity hazing, to the coverage of Benghazi.
Obama can’t lose soon enough or big enough for the good of the country.
Within hours of it happening and discussing it here i refused to back down from the assertion that someone ordered a “stand down”.
And this was the product of what happens when you say your “ideas” are superior because being a member of a class makes it so (like Sotomayor said), and so cant pick the best option if one of the equal but lesser has already chosen it.
After all, its all one big part of Obama’s change he has been making with the apologies, bows, and the left and the ladies in charge commonly bantered “idea” that the generals and the men “boys with toys” were not doing whats right, and such things were not needed.
its the same mentality that thinks that you can have aircraft carriers and submarines without support craft, and that you can dismantle the military to get at the creme filling largesse before its “wasted”. that one can do the same with less, and so we can do with 230 ships when cuts are done and 300 are needed.
In many ways a lot of the past 4 years has been experiments in economics, war, detente, etc.. as the left has finally had enough power to act upon the ideas its been crowing about since Jane Fonda sat on a Freudian cigar for communism. (her piece of work husband is on film saying he is happy soldiers are committing suicide in record numbers – which a whole other subject). They have been able to test the theory of being nicer and whether others also back down and get nicer. they didn’t, and quite the opposite was the outcome (among other not so good things).
here is what i said:
September 13th, 2012 at 6:40 pm – http://neoneocon.com/2012/09/12/security-what-security/#comment-415890
Funny how I mentioned bayonets and that even with no ammunition they would not avoid the fight.
and according to articles, even the order to stand down was not enough.
“… like chickens in a barnyard turning on an sickly hen.”
Every farm boy and girl knows that when this happens its time to turn that hen into chicken and dumplings. 😉
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petraeus-throws-obama-under-bus_657896.html
rickl Says:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
I was at work when I made my earlier comment, and didn’t have time to elaborate on it.
There were a lot of well-meaning people who voted for Obama the first time. They imagined that he would bring world peace, heal race relations, cause the oceans to stop rising, etc.
Many of us knew better, of course, and tried to warn them.
People who voted for him in 2008 were fools. Ignorant fools.
But there is no excuse for such ignorance today. Anybody who votes for Obama a second time is evil. And they are fully complicit in the massive evil that a second Obama term will bring.
Whether they are friends, co-workers, siblings, parents, or children, cut them out of your life. Be ruthless about it. Leave them behind and don’t look back.
Warn them beforehand, of course. “If you are planning to vote for Obama again, know that you will be dead to me. I never want to see you or speak to you ever again.”
These people need to be made to suffer for their poor choices.
I can believe Obama or a POTUS rep (say, his Chief of Staff) nixed sending in big guns into Benghazi because politically, Libya was supposed to be Obama’s showcase for his anti-Iraq superiority to Bush, specifically the superior wisdom of leading from behind and light presence on the ground. Obama won’t put boots on the ground because that was Bush’s great sin.
The problem with both the right and the left running from Bush-era foreign policy is that Bush merely married the necessary and logical means to achieve our foreign policy ends. Obama kept the foreign policy ends but deprived the necessary and logical means to achieve the ends.
“an SOS from an ambassdor would have gone straight to POTUS and the top brass. My inference from the discussion was that the decision not to act had to come from the President himself.”
“What did the President know and when did he know it?” Howard Baker, Republican Senate Majority Leader succinctly stating the key Watergate question…
“there is no excuse for such ignorance today. Anybody who votes for Obama a second time is evil. And they are fully complicit in the massive evil that a second Obama term will bring.” rickl
Complicit yes, evil no.
I know lots of liberals who are going to vote for Obama and I know of none that are evil. Yet they are going to vote for a man, that could they truly see the truth of the man, I have no doubt that they would recoil in horror.
Perhaps this will help:
I recently moved back to FL to be near my very aged parents. I stayed with them for a few months while settling into the area. They watch ABC nightly news every night. 60 minutes every Sunday. My father reads the local newspaper every day. They’ve had this routine for 50+ years.
My father, while an independent, leans heavily democrat. He’s an intelligent, thoughtful, rational man who views the world through the filters of his beliefs, as we all do. He’s one of the finest, most ethical human beings I’ve ever met. One of those men who’ll have hundreds mourn him when he passes despite never having much social status.
He’s a truly good man and yet his perception is that I’ve been ‘brainwashed’ by the Republican party.
Why?
He’s endured 50+ years of liberal media indoctrination and despite my best efforts to inform him of the media bias he’s been unaware of, he simply can’t believe that starting with Walter Cronkite through Diane Sawyer he’s been that misinformed because deception on that level would be intentional. And, Cronkite and Sawyer specialize(d) in empathy. They’re such ‘nice’ people and nice people don’t intentionally deceive, now do they?
My Dad being 90, I just don’t have the heart to prove to him (and, it would take lots of repetition) that it is he who has been lied to and not me who has been deceived.
The simple fact of the matter rickl is that most people find it near impossible to overturn their world view. Consider how few liberals become conservative and of those that do, how difficult the journey. Our host comes to mind as the perfect example.
Very perceptive Eric. Obama rationalizes that his showcase foreign policy being discredited would eventually result in far more deaths through a return to Bush era policies. Obama, his administration, and millions of liberals believe that you can reason with fanatics. In their heart of hearts they know that they cannot but their moral cowardice requires denial so they tell themselves lies to flee from the problem they lack the courage to confront.
Note: millions of liberals tell themselves lies to flee from the problem they lack the courage to confront. Far more millions live in thrall to ‘the narrative’ that the democrats and the MSM have indoctrinated them into accepting as the truth.
Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
I, for one, have been dazed at how this tale just reveals layer after layer of horror, week after week.
I commend Ambassador Stevens and “Vile Rat” Smith for their courage, and now especially the courage of those two who went to their aid, evidently against orders.
May they all rest in peace.
How can an administration absorb this blow and survive? What has America become, that we as a nation would overlook this as a “peccadillo?”
Good post, Geoffrey, but my comment stands.
I’m not willing to put up with leftists any longer. I will not cut them any more slack. I want them DEAD.
I said on Election Night 2008 that I believed that we were now irrevocably on the road to civil war. It’s time for every one of us to choose sides.
“I will not cut them any more slack. I want them DEAD.”
rickl,
You and I often agree, but although I am ready for a civil war should it come to be the only solution, I am not willing to wish ‘them’ DEAD. I can not wish some of my neighbors who disagree with me dead because they disagree. Instead, I wish they realize the tragic errors created by their mindset. If it all comes down to dust I will kill them only if I must… http://tinyurl.com/29jo9ye
For the sake of your own well being, I advise you to never wish anyone dead unless absolutely necessary. If it comes down to an open conflict involving lead projectiles, I’ll stand beside you in spirit and in terms of putting the sights on target. Until then, I will not wish my misguided neighbors dead. Most of the misguided at not evil, they are simply misguided.
rickl: I could not disagree with you more.
What you suggest—breaking off relations with parents, children, siblings—is a very, very bad idea. Those are the deepest of human bonds, to be severed only for the most profound of reasons and often not even then.
And believe me, if you cut them out of your life they will not be the ones to suffer. You will. And the only point you will be getting across to them is that you are an intolerant fanatic who has gone off the deep end.
rickl: I just noticed your comment of 11:36 PM. In all seriousness, I think you may need to seek some help, spiritual or otherwise.
rickl,
My boo-boo…. not at evil not but are not evil. To paraphrase, never attribute to evil that which can be explained by stupidity. To everything there is a season. If it comes down to civil war I know upon which side I will fight with tears in my eyes.
“What you suggest–breaking off relations with parents, children, siblings–is a very, very bad idea. Those are the deepest of human bonds, to be severed only for the most profound of reasons and often not even then. And believe me, if you cut them out of your life they will not be the ones to suffer. You will.”
It may come down to breaking off blood relationships, but those are extreme circumstances to be avoided until all other options are void.
I don’t think anyone is beyond experiencing a change of heart, philosophy, or beliefs until they are dead.
But then, I married a Democrat from a family of union worker Democrats, and by the time Reagan was running for president he’d become a stalwart conservative Republican. His sister followed soon after. His parents, well, they’re in their 70s and still drinking the union Kool Aid, but while there’s life and communication there’s hope.
Artfldgr, sometimes your garrulousness is grating, but sometimes you are so darned eloquent it makes wading through the verbiage worthwhile.
This was one of those times:
…its the same mentality that thinks that you can have aircraft carriers and submarines without support craft, and that you can dismantle the military to get at the creme filling largesse before its “wasted”. that one can do the same with less, and so we can do with 230 ships when cuts are done and 300 are needed.
Never mind the arrogant sarcasm of his bayonets and horses comment, his ignorance of military needs is what’s truly upsetting.
Changing the subject slightly, I wish that the Republicans in close Senate and House races would turn this into an issue and ask their Democrat opponents to respond to this dereliction of duty by the administration. Doing so would not only put those Democrats in the awkward position of having to defend or denounce the administration, it could further depress support for Obama, and it might flip a few of the closer races away from the Democrats.
I don’t mean to turn this incident simply into a political football, but I think that if the lamestream media isn’t going to make an issue of it, the information has to get out, and the best way to do it is for everyone in the opposition party to make as much of an issue of it as they can going into the election. Elections are supposed to be the formal occasion for the people to register its satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the government, so a terrible incident like this can’t be brushed under the rug. We need to get him out of office–and anyone else who would excuse or enable such behavior. Americans “need to send a message to their gov’t, their military and the world that this day of self-inflicted infamy won’t happen again.”
The lack of action to at least to try and support those men in Benghazi is criminally negligent and should be sparking outrage throughout this country. You are right, Neo- if this doesn’t spark outrage and a demand for answers this country is in bigger trouble than you or I thought.
Also from Ace’s place, check this out (I actually heard this caller live, as I was listening to RL this afternoon).
>>Rush has an interview with a Special Operations planner [a Lieutenant Colonel who called in to the show this afternoon] who says that in an in extremis situation, as the attack on Libya was, the good guys would not have needed an explicit order to protect US personnel. Their standing general orders to protect US citizens and personnel would have already enabled them to act, absent a contrary order.
Only a negative order* would have stopped them.
The Rush interview is well worth listening to. The guy calling in is obviously what he claims to be (unless he’s some kind of virtuouso faker who can fluently explain details of Special Operations planning and protocols).<<
Click the link and scroll down to where you see Rush Limbaugh in his office to play the interview (I can't give you a more direct link, as I'm not a member of the Dittohead Nation!). Listen to the whole thing:
http://minx.cc/?post=334282
*Which would have to come from SecDef, SecState, or POTUS, no lower rank. Ambassador = Four-Star Equivalent Asset. Attack on any ambassador goes via Flash Traffic Message system, straight to the Officer of the Watch in the White House Situation Room.
Also, planes are always kept "strip-ready" and can be airborne in 5 minutes in an emergency. And there's more. . . .
To Geoffrey:
There were no “mid-level bureaucrats” telling the CIA and Air Force etc. to stand down.
There are Standing Orders to “protect American Lives” and ESPECIALLY the Ambassador, who is regarded as the living embodiment of the POTUS.
The ONLY rank that would have the authority to countermand such a Standing Order would be: –The President or Vice President of the United States
–The Secretary of Defense, or
–The Secretary of State.
Period. (Listen to the Lieutenant Colonel in the link just above: he goes through all this, his voice shaking with emotion. And YES, he says all the Special Ops guys would’ve been watching this in realtime as well, and dying to get in there and Lay Waste to the enemy.)
Parker,
I followed your link to the Washington Post and it was depressing to see the same people that wanted Bush impeached and prosecuted for ‘war crimes’ flooding the comments section with rationalizations for their Fuhrer. (Godwin’s Law be damned).
The same people that wanted blood for Abu Graihb (sp?), are calling for cool heads and a detailed investigation (one that would conveniently take months) and how dare we talk about it and draw conclusions without all of the facts (properly spoon fed by Pravda…) and “Faux News!!! Faux News!!!!”
Ugh. I was starting to become so hopeful and nearly forget these people are out there.
And as far as Petraeus throwing Obama under the bus…I am not convinced yet. The statement was far too short and frankly left a lot of room for Pravda and the Administration. The idealist in me was hoping for much more from a man of Petraeus’ character.
I’ll be convinced when my parents (as indoctrinated as Geoffrey Britain’s, decent people that they are) are seeing it on CBS Evening News and, thus, taking it seriously.
And rickl,
That is despair talking. Don’t give into it. We only win when more people see the truth and that won’t happen when we make them enemies. And if we dehumanize them, we are one step closer to “The Dark Side”.
Beverly don’t kid yourself, a right hand aide (and they are all political operatives around him ) could do it easily, Vice President of the United States
—The Secretary of Defense, or
—The Secretary of State.
would all be to afraid to countermand.
Ricki take a chill pill, it hasn’t gotten anywhere near the actions you recomend. They love that kind of talk(in their mind it would give an excuse for more dictatorial action). What it means is we need to work harder and longer within the constitution and with the tools it gives us to remedy the problem.
Look people we need to keep a clear eye on all of this. Talking is a good first step, but determined action within the bounds of our Republic is even better. If you look at everything in a certain way the Liberals are losing on almost every front. And they will lose if we keep after them.
neo,
It sounds as though you might be in the general path of Sandy. Prepare and take care.
My comments from last night stand as written.
I can neither excuse nor forgive those who would vote to enslave me.
That should have been “will”, not “can”.
In my mind’s eye I see all the spin doctors, weaselcrats, political generals in the situation room watching our guys die in Drone TV, nodding their chins and talking in managerial-techspeak. Cowards, maggots, I’m stopping now lest I offend the delegate sensibilities of the secret service.
Geoffrey Britain,
I agree: I think the Democrats, at least their leaders in charge, do know the common-sense justifications for Bush’s foreign policy decisions as well as the shortcomings in Obama’s foreign policy. But their election strategy in 2012, and in 2008 for that matter, took a radical turn from Kerry’s 2004 election strategy. In 2004, Kerry tried to argue that he could achieve the same foreign policy ends as Bush – the consensus national interest – but he (Kerry) could do the job better than Bush. The flaw in Kerry’s election strategy was that everything he suggested was already being implemented by the Bush admin.
By 2008, the Democrats had theorized that they could NOT win the presidency by presenting themselves as the better alternative to the GOP candidate. Rather, they focused on slandering and debasing Bush’s foreign policy and then presenting themselves as the alternate opposite to Bush. Obama’s chief election strategy was to be the anti-Bush in foreign policy, even in ways that were obviously unrealistic. The Democrats sold out the national interest to win the presidency. In fact, Bush’s foreign policy was unexceptional in that it represented the American national interest. Bush logically paired means with ends. To be anti-Bush in foreign policy, therefore, meant losing the logical means needed to pursue the American national interest.
This has led to the spectacle of Obama’s foreign policy successes coming from following in Bush’s path in some form, while his FP failures have come anywhere he has tried to be the anti-Bush. Obama’s supporters have done their best to rationalize away and deny the resulting cognitive dissonance. (See the Democrats’ shut-up-and-go-away reaction to Ralph Nader’s labeling last month of Obama as a ‘war criminal’ who’s ‘worse’ than Bush re OEF, drone attacks, surveillance.)
When Democrats defend Obama’s record, their bottom-line isn’t based on what course is best to achieve the national interest, but rather, their bottom-line is based on avoiding the cost and risks of Bush’s foreign policy.
Romney treads lightly because he also wants to avoid associating himself with Bush’s foreign policy (perceived as the great McCain flaw). But the cost to the nation of both Dems and GOP running away from Bush’s foreign policy is that the nation is running away from logically marrying means to ends. That means we’ll keep falling behind in the competition.
In sum, doing the necessary things in our foreign policy has become too much of a domestic political liability. Both sides knows it.
rickl,
Hm. How far away, do you think, are we from John Brown and Harper’s Ferry? And what events would need to happen in the nation in order to reach that stage?
Eric,
There’s already a slow simmering, beneath the media’s radar race war going on right now. Toss in the progressive desire to enslave via debt and communist policies and anybody who votes for that is, as rickl states, enemies. These are not disagreements over how to achieve some goal. These are fundamental differences, an existential battle for the Soul of the Republic.
How far does one cut slack for someone trying to harm me through their votes for the commie in the Offal Office? Owebama is not politics as usual. That is the scary part one must accept. He’s willing to let an ambassador he appointed die while he watched (or knew) in real time. That’s not even Machiavelli. That’s Stalin and Sergei Kirov. For now, the citizenry is safe from the Purges. But how long will that last with Owebama DC Boogaloo 2?
My Warrior Hero, General Petraeus, tossed Obama deservedly under that crowded bus last night by letting a CIA spokesman officially state: “No one at ANY LEVEL in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE.” (Caps-Italics mine.)
Thank you, General. Knowing your Warrior Heart and integrity, I didn’t think you’d allow the Obama Admin. to ‘infer by silence’ that you may have been involved in this horrific disaster.
MSM-Lapdawgs: ANY of this obvious statement going to be highlighted by you Chorus of Cowards??
Eric Says:
October 27th, 2012 at 11:51 am
I still can’t believe that the shooting didn’t start in 2009, and I find it unsettling that it hasn’t already started.
As the saying goes, “Our forefathers would be shooting by now.” It’s absolutely true. The American Revolution started over much less tyranny, taxation, and provocation than we face today. And we have come to regard it as normal.
I’m not looking forward to a civil war, but each day that we let these outrages go unpunished makes it seem more likely that we will meekly wait in our living rooms until the DHS knocks on our doors, to lead us away to the camps.
NeoConScum:
From what I’ve read, Petraeus has been pushing the nonsense that the YouTube video was responsible for the attack.
I cannot count him as being on my side.
Hey folks, ease up on Rickl. I sort of (but not completely) agree.
For example, I just saw on The Daily Mirror that Marco Rubio’s daughter was airlifted to the hospital after an accident – she is 12-years old!
And one of the first comments at the end of the news article is posted by a hateful liberal with the attitude of “well, maybe now he will understand the good in Obamacare”
And do we all need to be reminded of the crap that they threw at Palin’s kids?
This kind of hate only comes from the left – the hate, the foul in-your-face attitude gets to be too much sometimes. Everything is political with these folks – and Yes, I’m with Rickl on this – I’m sick of their sh*t!
Co-workers who express such attitudes, neighbors, and other acquaintances are folks I now avoid. There are still in-laws that I just bite my tongue when around – but one day . . .
Charles: that’s a lot different from saying you want them dead (as rickl did), or saying (as rickl did) that if your children or parents or siblings vote for Obama this second go-round you should never speak to them again because they are evil.
Plus, of course, there are people who are voting for Obama who would never express the sort of sentiments that anger you.
Nope, neo, I mean it.
Anyone who voted for him the first time was ignorant and/or deluded. They may possibly be educable, and may repent their ways.
Those who vote for him twice are enemies, and they are beyond redemption. I will NOT forgive them.
They can beg God for mercy, because I will have none when the SHTF.
“Plus, of course, there are people who are voting for Obama who would never express the sort of sentiments that anger you.”
neo, the people who would not express the sorts of hateful invectives are also conspicuously silent. It reminds me of people who apologize for Islam, saying it is unfair to tar all muslims with the same brush. But what they fail to acknowledge is that so-called moderate muslims do not speak out against Islamists. It is so rare in fact that it makes the news when it does happen. Same for liberals as far as I can tell.
I revisited this thread and must say I am dismayed by some of the comments. Its one thing to disagree with those who often resemble ‘zombies’, its another thing entirely to speak of killing the silly, brainwashed ‘zombies’. I have noted above that I am willing in an extreme situation to put my eye on the sights and shoot straight if necessary. We are not in such an extreme situation October 27, 2012. We may in the days ahead get there, but until then keep your powder dry. And, resist the urge to hate your fellow misguided citizens. May their eyes, ears, and minds be opened.
Neo, things are getting a little squirrelly here… Free speech is our inalienable right, but incitement to violence, like crying fire in a crowded theater, is over the line, yes? So the question is whether any of the above comments may reasonably be perceived as “incitement,” I guess.
Let me add that I yield to no one in my dismay over the way this story is shaping up. As it’s been said before, at long last, have they left no sense of decency?
The tension mounts as we approach the crossroads. Who will be the captain and toward which direction will the ship of state head? Onward towards the iceberg or warmer waters? My meager and unsolicited advise is resist the urge to hate and simultaneously focus on the whites of their eyes. Its all deja vu all over again, our ancestors over the generations have been through this before. Blood looks the same once the veins are opened. We live in an ever shifting landslide.
http://tinyurl.com/8ws5d4j
rickl(10:56pm)…I don’t buy that nonsense. Nor does Weekly Standard from Friday night.(Bill Kristol)
Your source, bitte?
I got long time lib friends that are Obama supporters. I could never hate them but i’ll never quite think of them the same way again. Something was irretrievably lost during this debacle.
So what does the administration gain from what looks like a “pawn sacrifice?”
What’s the point? It’s terrible. But why was no aid sent?
Wry Mouth: there are several reasons why the administration might not want to send aid. It would call attention to the fact that, counter to the administration narrative, al Qaeda is alive and well and perpetrating acts such as this (as opposed to a demonstration about a YouTube video being the cause, with no need to send a counter-terrorism team). In addition, I think it’s quite clear they wanted to keep a low profile vis a vis the Libyans. In fact, I read or heard somewhere today—don’t remember where—that they were specifically waiting for Libyan forces to act. The administration wanted to preserve their own fiction that the Libyans are friendly and nice and that diplomacy can do just about anything and that everything was going swimmingly there.
“It would call attention to the fact that, counter to the administration narrative, al Qaeda is alive and well and….. wanted to preserve their own fiction that the Libyans are friendly and nice and that diplomacy can do just about anything..”
I agree, but I think there is at least one more factor; they may have been afraid of a rescue mission failing and reminding older voters of Carter’s failed rescue mission.
See, this is what pisses me off about progressives (among other things): Their complete non-understanding of military capability. If anyone with a lick of sense in this Administration knew diddly about special ops, they would know the Carter rescue mission failed because sand got into the helicopters and too many went down to continue the mission. Well, we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for awhile now, not places known for their deciduous forests. In other words, our fighting capability in desert conditions is magnitudes better than in 1979, just in special ops toys alone. Our warriors are now battle tested in desert conditions and are found to be quite capable. The progressive in the Offal Office was too cowardly to make a decision instead voting his career long and safe ‘present’, if he was even briefed (those pesky 3 a.m. phone calls have a jarring tendency to wake one up from a night’s slumber).
RickZ: you’re correct that the Carter rescue mission failed at that point. But it is highly probably that, had it not been stopped in the desert, it would have failed later on. It was very very poorly thought out. Here’s a post I wrote on the subject. An excerpt: