February 7th, 2013

Panetta: no one to blame for Benghazi


But we are not the least bit shocked any more, are we?

Maybe ambassadors should start hiring their own security.

And speaking of shocking, I have to say that I have retained the capacity to be shocked by this:

Under questioning from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) Panetta says that President Obama knew “generally” what US military assets were deployed in the region, but did not ask for specifics. He left the strategy, according to Panetta, “up to us,” meaning himself and military leadership. Panetta says that after the initial briefing, which took place at about 5 pm Washington time, he had no further communications at all with President Obama that night. The president never even called to ask how the attack was progressing. No one from the White House ever called later that night, according to Panetta, to inquire about the attack. President Obama went to bed that night not even knowing whether the Americans under assault had survived the attack.

I wrote “shocked,” but that’s probably an overstatement. Let’s just say that, as little as I have come to expect of President Obama, this is even less than I expected.

In a comment the other day on the blog, “southpaw” wrote:

Kerry, Hagel, and Paul would be a formidable trio in advancing US incompetence in foreign policy. Under their leadership, there’d be virtually no end to what the USA can’t do.

Substitute “Panetta” for “Paul” and you’ve got Obama’s second term foreign policy. “No end to what the US can’t do!”—put it on a bumper sticker, and call it a day.

[ADDENDUM: Oh, and now we know about that 3 AM call. No need to answer it—it was never made.

Notice that all this information is coming out three months after the election, and so the almost-inevitable question is: would Obama have been defeated if the American public had learned it before November? Sadly, I think the answer is “no.” ]

67 Responses to “Panetta: no one to blame for Benghazi”

  1. Lizzy Says:

    I am *completely* shocked.
    This was an act of war on the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attack and the president shrugged it off an went to bed?!? He couldn’t be bothered to even inquire about finding our ambassador and evacuating the consulate. Given that there were riots outside of many other US embassies that. was he certain that this attack was the first of many (such as the 4 hijacked planes on 9/11)? How is this not a dereliction of duty?

  2. neo-neocon Says:

    Lizzy: I think it is clearly a dereliction of duty. But that does not shock me. First of all, I suspected that it was the case long ago, when Benghazi first happened, because—as you may have noticed—no one ever said where Obama was, what he was doing, what decisions he made. And they didn’t release photos of it, either.

    This was the obvious explanation. So it is not shocking in the sense of it having been no surprise. It is morally shocking—or would be, if I retained any faith in Obama at all. But since I don’t, it’s not. A dreadful situation, positively dreadful.

    Oh, and of course the sycophantic, enabling press refused to ask him about it. And that’s not shocking anymore, either. They are completely and totally in his pocket.

  3. DirtyJobsGuy Says:

    Both Kerry and Hillary have little evidence of any managerial or leadership talent or interests. Panetta’s background is political and political interests rise to the top.

    For all of the arrogance of Kennedy’s whiz kids like McNamara, they took their jobs seriously for the most part. This crew has no such restraints.

  4. Lizzy Says:

    Yeah, it makes sense based on the lack of details provided up to this point. Bust still, this brings the whole “Obama’s a cool customer” characterization to a whole new level: bloodless.
    Pair this ability to sleep while Americans are under attack (instead of getting them help) with him personally selecting targets for drone assassinations (including Awlaki’s 16 yr old son) and it’s really creepy.

  5. holmes Says:


    Well, he had a very big day the next day.

  6. KLSmith Says:

    I think all of you are forgetting that Obama had to fly to Nevada for a campaign rally the next day. Priorities, people.

  7. KLSmith Says:

    holmes: beat me to it.

  8. Don Carlos Says:

    There was no contact with Hillary either, Panetta and Gen. Dempsey further testified.

    I disagree that today’s revelations would have had no election effect if timely revealed. The administration’s cover-up clearly indicates they agree with me.

    It’s enough to make me puke.

    The best thing we can all do is get the word out to everyone we know.

  9. neo-neocon Says:

    Don Carlos: let me clarify. IMHO, it might have swayed a few votes. But very few. It is my impression that most Obama voters simple don’t care about this sort of thing. I base that on conversations I’ve had with people I consider a representative sample. So it would have probably changed a few votes, but not enough to make a difference. That is what I meant.

    Obama voters are generally very very concerned with domestic issues these days. Plus, they generally do not follow the Benghazi news, and what they do follow they tend to blow off as unimportant and unremarkable.

    That’s separate from the issue of the administration’s covering it up, with the help of the press. They did that because they feared it would hurt them. In a sane world, it would have. I just think they would have won anyway.

  10. Lizzy Says:

    Yeah, let’s see how the people who have complained about Bush’s decision on 9/11 to finish reading the goat book react to this (sadly, I know Michael Moore and others wont care).
    Obama & Hillary didn’t know that this was a standalone attack – it could have the first of several. Even being a single attack, they chose not to send in support for 30+ Americans. Is there anyone they consider worth rescuing?

  11. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    I for one don’t believe Panetta. Not that I’m claiming that he’s not telling the truth, just that what possible reason is there to trust the man?

    He’s a political operative and if in Obama’s judgement it’s better to have Panetta say that he was never there, then that’s what Panetta’s going to say.

    Ambassador Stevens and the others were sacrificed so that Obama’s lamentable excuse for a ‘foreign policy’ could continue.

    Nor have we reached the depths of what they are capable of, wait till Iran gets the bomb and demonstrates it, then we shall see of what real moral cowardice and appeasement consist.

  12. KLSmith Says:

    The guy just plays being president and we are living in his reality show. He’s there for the wagyu beef, lobster, $400 bottles of wine, parties, and vacations that you get to pay for.
    And some “free” healthcare for the people and stuff like that – if congress can get it done.
    He’s a cold blooded, lazy lizard.
    P O t u S.

  13. southpaw Says:

    I saw on another news site Panetta telling Congress “the military is not 911”. I wonder if John Kerry should send that out in a memo to the less conveniently placed embassies.
    Attn: Ambassador Insert Name Here.
    From: J. Kerry
    This is to inform you that neither military backup nor evacuation is likely to arrive should your embassy be attacked, overrrun, blown up, set on fire, or otherwise bothered by hostiles. Therefore, we strongly urge planning frequent dinner parties and other friendly relations with your hosts. Should you need emergency security assistance, please call local authorities, being careful to consider the host country’s religious holidays, normal working hours, and objections to your presence.
    As always, I am committed to your safety and success, and promoting American good will and financial support to your captors, or heavens forbid, murderers.
    If you find yourself in the unfortunate circumstance of a seige, or are captured by host country ruffians, feel free to show them this letter, and let them know I sympathize with their cause, whatever it may be. As you know, I was once orderd to raze villiages and burn them to the ground, for which I collected many medals of commendation, so I have some understanding of their plight.
    Above all else, don’t call the military for help, as Leon has made it clear his people have their hands full with other matters.

    Yours Truly,
    John Kerry
    (aka, the French-looking American with the oh-so haughty dispostion)

  14. oldflyer Says:

    I agree with Geoffrey, to a point.

    I have never liked nor trusted Panetta. To me, he is first and foremost a political hack. However, I doubt that he would get caught lying under oath. His testimony is damning of Obama. Of course it is also damning of Panetta, in the sense that he did not pick up the phone and call his Boss. It is also damning of Hillary who was as involved as a bump on a log. Dempsey looks like a useless toad as well; and I have no idea what the individual who was supposedly running the CIA was doing.

    The two who were apparently were proactive; General Mattis at Centcom, and the Admiral commanding the carrier force in the region were both summarily relieved.

  15. physicsguy Says:

    He’s a cold blooded, lazy lizard.
    P O t u S.

    I think you mean POS Fix it for ya.

  16. blert Says:

    He’s ‘screening’ for his patron.

    It is coming out, though, that the CIA was in favor of running guns to the anti-Assad elements.

    In the fullness of time, the Benghazi op will out.

    In the meantime, all of his minions are falling on swords all over the place — spinning the tale that o n l y the Wan was against sending arms to the anti-Assad elements: that he over-ruled his DoD, DoS and CIA.

    Boy, that ‘s rich.

  17. carl in atlanta Says:

    This story- – and especially the agitprop “It was the Video!” cover up – – is sickening.

    I have always bought into the bedrock CW that Americans have common sense and are wise enough (collectively) to discern the truth (a 12 person jury misses almost nothing). This episode has shown me that this faith was foolishly naive on my part; shame on me.

    Four good people are dead.

  18. Mark in Portland Says:

    I am as unhappy as you with the lack of responsibility being taken in this fiasco, and am also mildly, but not severely, shocked by the lack of interest expressed by our CinC while the events were unfolding. In a country and government that still had any honor left, someone at the Secretary level would have stepped up and then stepped down over the fiasco. It’s 3 AM and the receiver has been left off the hook, or maybe the cellphone turned off.

    Sadly, I agree with you that it wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the election because I expect that little out of the American people any more.

  19. Artfldgr Says:

    Of course there is no blame for it…

    Your not allowed to blame a certain class for anything

    Especially when that blame would draw or perhaps add to a conclusion of difference in ability.

    That is the rule we live under (one of many)

    Whether it be science, academia, the news, history, court, or politics… that’s the rule, and i can show multiple examples in each..

    “What difference does it make” is the plea of someone who doesn’t want to be held responsible, or believes they cant be. well, if taken literally or stronger than most would take it, the statement reduces all options to the same, or equal outcomes. the good outcome, no different than the bad outcome, and so, the person saying it cant be held responsible, as you can only be held responsible if there is a difference.

    Obama cant be held responsible either way technically. its below his pay grade. Others were responsible for things to be a certain way, he literally cant oversee the whole state down to assignments in foreign lands.

    but that’s the whole point of this game. what happened, cant be the fault of one, and cant happen without cooperation between many. They don’t necessarily have to know each other, or plan things with each other, if each harbors a passive aggressive ability to do a thing here and there “for the cause”, with one of many things being saving money in one area so it can be used in another area. at some point the right combination of pins might be left out and things go boom suddenly rather than kind of rots out slowly becoming more dysfunctional…

    the whole point i think people are missing is the stripping of things and redirection of resources to other things, or the stripping to hide conditions by leaving a facade and letting people assume things are a certain way.

    the discussion above is all about the focus on the night someone took advantage of a situation that was created prior to that night, and for which we have no answer as to when the stripping or under equipping started and where did resources that would have been there for that go to.

    I personally don’t care that Obama went to sleep. the damn systems supposed to work if he gets killed by accident or heart attack, so it should function without him when he sleeps.

    what i find more interesting to know about is the many different decisions that you can sift from the record and ask… who said that, and why was that done or not done. even more so that i know what resources they have at their disposal from those reports, and what some of them can do in terms of changing a situation.

    just call up something spooky… AC-130…
    and there was one in the area…

    for those that don’t know what they do, they basically fly in a tight circle high up in the sky and reign lots of ammunition down on whatever they want to. this is why all their weaponry is on the port side…

    the spooky version has a GAU-12 Equalizer…
    a 5 barrel 25 mm rotary cannon
    1800 – 4200 rounds per minute

    and some really crazy person decided to also put in a Bofors 40 mm
    so it can shoot an anti aircraft weapon downwards
    120 rounds a minute

    and if that aint nuts enough, they also have a 105mm cannon
    affectionately known as M102 howitzer…
    10 rounds a minute (max)

    The AC-130W is armed with one 30mm Bushmaster Cannon and can drop the AGM-176 Griffin missile (designed for low collateral damage!!!)

    so right there, is something that would have made everyone outside those buildings scatter… but there were also Apache helicopters, and other ships as well, some that could come from way off.

    and someone stopped them…
    many were and are always ready to go…

    a major reason the special forces men who refused to follow orders (remember?) died was because they were taking the time to paint a location with laser so a ship could take out the location.

    the minute they did that, every one knew where they were and had to get to them to stop what they too thought was going to come.

  20. rickl Says:

    No, I’m not shocked. It’s still more evidence, as if any were needed, that Obama and the Left actively mean the country harm.

    Their foreign policy has consisted of insulting our allies and empowering our enemies. They are destroying the culture of our military by allowing gays and women in combat. This will adversely affect recruitment and retention. And that’s before the budget cuts which will erode capability and readiness.

    On the domestic front, their policies are crippling the private sector and redistributing wealth from producers to the dependent class, which is growing by leaps and bounds. Once people get used to living on the dole, their work ethic atrophies. Children who are born and raised on the dole never develop a work ethic. Dependence on the government is all they know. These attitudes have plagued the inner cities for generations, and they will only spread as high unemployment rates become chronic and permanent.

    In short, Obama and the Left are systematically dismantling the United States of America, and none of this is accidental.

    Meanwhile, the Republican opposition is feckless and ineffectual. This is among the worst instances in history where evil is running rampant and working to consolidate its power, while the ‘opposition’ are like deer in the headlights and are seemingly incapable of resisting.

    “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

    I agree with Artfldgr that the rot and decay will reach a point where we are powerless to resist a coordinated attack by our enemies. The Left’s apparent efforts to provoke a civil war are also feeding into this.

  21. rickl Says:

    Also, the idea that no one is responsible for Benghazi is sadly appropriate in a society where at least half of the population has utterly rejected the entire concept of individual responsibility.

  22. neo-neocon Says:

    rickl: I was thinking of that Yeats quote the other day.

    Yes, the rejection of the idea of individual responsibility is linked with the failure to call the adminstration to account.

  23. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: I definitely recall reading about how the special forces men died.

    I think one of the many awful things about the Benghazi incident is that there are so many bad things about it that it’s like a game of whack-a-mole. Even for people who are paying attention (which, unfortunately, isn’t too many people), there are so many parts to it that it’s difficult to track them all successfully. A person focuses on one and the others slide by. There’s the failure of the administration to act, the failure to even monitor it in real time (according to Panetta’s testimony, anyway), the failure to prevent the problem in the first place, and the failure to strike—and then all the myriad parts of the coverup (including the Candy Crowley incident during the debate). And even that list is leaving several important things out.

    And the whack-a-mole aspect may indeed be intentional on the part of the left, as well.

  24. rickl Says:

    I think you’re right, neo.

    Obama’s entire administration has employed the whack-a-mole strategy from day one. It’s been one outrage after another 24/7, like a swarming attack. The number of people who actually pay attention are a distinct minority, and many people have simply tuned it out.

  25. Don Carlos Says:

    rickl and Neo:
    So it’s up to the MSM?
    I think most Americans, whether makers or takers, expect the cops to show up after a 911 call of murder in progress. I am not at all sure the hoi polloi would just shrug their shoulders–and neither are BHO, Hillary, Rice et al, who have now wiped the sweat off their brows.

  26. rickl Says:

    Don Carlos:

    The MSM is the enemy. The hoi polloi have no idea what’s going on, entirely thanks to them.

    Obama never would have been elected in the first place if the MSM was even slightly objective. I blame them more than anyone for his election.

    I’ve never read Dante, but I’m quite sure that the lowest circles of Hell are reserved for them.

  27. M J R Says:

    “So let’s leave it alone, ’cause we can’t see eye to eye.
    There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys.
    There’s only you and me and we just disagree.”

    — “We Just Disagree”, a Single by Dave Mason
    from the album Let It Flow, released August 1977;
    Songwriter = Jim Krueger.

    —— —— —— —— ——

    [ y a w n ]

    What difference does it make, at this point?

    —— —— —— —— ——

    Seriously now, this is ^very^ bad for my hypertension.

  28. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    southpaw @ 6:25,
    Brilliant commentary.

    Oldflyer @ 6:26,
    I too think it likely that Panetta is actually telling the truth and for the very reasons you cite. My point is that we can’t take at face value anything a spokesman for Obama claims to be factual.

    The “individual who was supposedly running the CIA” was in fact Petreaus and his silence is a personal betrayal of his integrity. Character is most clearly revealed when doing the right thing will cost us dearly. He failed his personal test, as sooner or later do most.

    carl in atlanta @ 6:45,
    I find it increasingly difficult to assign the blindness of the public to simple deceit by the left and MSM, certainly that is a factor but blindness at this level is intentional. A slim majority of the American people are in utter denial and embracing any delusion that allows them to pretend that the charade is real.

    rickl @ 7:04,

    “Obama and the Left are systematically dismantling the United States of America, and none of this is accidental. Meanwhile, the Republican opposition is feckless and ineffectual.”

    Entirely true but incomplete. None of that would matter if a slim majority of the public wasn’t in denial, gullibly naive and cognitively dissonant.

    But “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” is not entirely accurate or applicable because many on the right match the passionate intensity of the left. We here on this blog are but a few of the millions who passionately “cling to their guns and bibles” and Constitution.

    We have yet to begin to fight and the left greatly underestimates us.

    Don Carlos,

    The hoi polloi will not just shrug their shoulders when the brutality of the left visits, as it surely will and pulls the wool from their eyes. People deep in denial only awaken when reality comes knocking.

  29. kaba Says:

    No real surprise that Obama was detached. No real surprise that the media failed to show any integrity in failing to report on this. And sadly, no real surprise that few of our fellow citizens even care.

    Just give us our bread and circuses, (or in modern terms, EBT cards and reality TV shows), and leave us alone.

  30. neo-neocon Says:

    Don Carlos: I don’t think there’s any chance of the MSM doing anything to cover the story, other than making excuses for Obama and company.

    My point about people’s attitudes about Benghazi is based on conversations I’ve had with quite a few people who are relatively moderate politically, and who just don’t care about any of this stuff, and aren’t paying attention at this point. I was very surprised at their attitude, but that’s what they’ve expressed, and my gut tells me they are not unusual at all. I wrote about this phenomenon here:

    I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”

  31. Capn Rusty Says:

    Artfldgr: I have been obsessed with the events in Benghazi since the moment I first heard about it. I read a number of articles that said an AC-130 was in the air over the scene, and that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty knew it was there and were “painting” the mortars that killed them. But, I can’t find anything credible. Do you have a link?

    Meanwhile, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula sits in jail, a political prisoner. If we don’t take this country back, he won’t be the last.

  32. holmes Says:

    “All politicians lie.” A convenient and self-serving cynicism that probably gets turned off when the other party is in power. It’s a coping or self-defense mechanism. They can’t believe they’re not always the good guys, so when they’re so evidently not behaving as the good guys, they wave a dismissive hand and heavy with ennui say, “Oh, they all do it.” Craven bullshit.

  33. neo-neocon Says:

    holmes: well, this particular person is an equal-opportunity cynic. But the effect is the same, because there’s a failure to judge, differentiate, pay attention. And the net result is to take the default position of continuing to vote for Democrats while having no particular faith in their veracity, either.

  34. parker Says:

    Do not, for a nanosecond, believe BHO & HRC were not informed within a few minutes of the request for assistance from the consulate in Benghazi. BHO lied, HRC lied, Panetta lied, they all have lied. All that it takes to expose the lies is a willing congress to hold their feet to the fire under oath. Will that happen? I don’t know. It looks doubtful.

    Personally I will not be satisfied, as long as I live, if there is not a national day of mourning for all who died on 9/11/01 and 4 dead in Benghazi capped with the soaking of the Koran with bacon grease and set on fire on the White House lawn.

  35. M J R Says:

    parker, 9:44 pm — “All that it takes to expose the lies is a willing congress to hold their feet to the fire under oath.”

    Ya think any of ’em would tell the truth under oath??? And here I thought you were more cynical than I . . .

  36. Alfondso Says:

    parker,MJR: I have no faith myself that either Zero or
    SHrillary would tell the (EEK!) truth under oath but I would love to see them respond to hardcore, relentless questioning.
    (Can congress subpoena the President?)

  37. M J R Says:

    Alfondso, 10:44 pm — “(Can congress subpoena the President?)”

    Separation of powers issue, I think, going ‘way back (in my lifetime) to the Nixon Watergate hearings and then impeachment hearings.

    I think the only way to compel a president to testify is via impeachment procedures. Ain’t gonna happen, unless something ^totally^ unexpected takes place. Not in this present culture . . .

  38. southpaw Says:

    Geoffrey Britain says: “A slim majority of the American people are in utter denial and embracing any delusion that allows them to pretend that the charade is real.
    Agree. And those that are not, are absorbed with Facebook posts, their smart phones – completely unaware of what is going on around them. They’re willfully ignorant. Distracted and self absorbed,, until something changes to shake up their lives, they will ignore any event or situation that doesn’t intrude on the trivial pursuits. Somebody in this thread mentioned bread and circuses – seems to me when we are no longer comfortable and have to work all week just for the bread – people will pay attention. Who they will blame remains to be seen, but our side hasn’t shown any aptitude for PR.
    And the government has been pretty good so far about keeping people comfortably poor, but borrowing money to do so cant’t be sustained indefinitely.

  39. rickl Says:

    southpaw Says:
    February 7th, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    Who they will blame remains to be seen

    From my reading of history, they will be taught to blame those who have more than they do. Thus they will support the forcible confiscation of private property.

  40. parker Says:

    Questions, under oath, for BHO: When EST and ? What order did you give in response to the attack? At exactly what time did you give or not give an order to respond to the attack?

    Questions for HRC, under oath: All the same as questions for BHO except one; namely when did the president contact you and what orders did he give concerning the false flag of the video causing a spontaneous rampage?

    Questions for Panetta, under oath: All the same for Obama & Hillary except when EST after learning of the attack did you have communications with BHO the JCOS, and commanders within

    All questions, under oath, conducted with the use of a polygraph and rental scan. Any lie is punishable by a sentence of death by hanging.

  41. Smaj Says:

    Four Americans left to die and not a SINGLE senior military officer, Defense or State Department official resigns in disgust/protest. That alone tells me all I need to know about the decay in our government and country. As for the country, Bob Dole once asked, “Where’s the outrage?” We are in deep, deep doo-doo as a country.

  42. expat Says:

    The problem I see is that Benghazi is being portrayed as a single tragic incident rather than showing how this administration functions. I see Obama as one who gives multiple orders to square circles and then disappears. A subtle (or perhaps not so subtle message via Valerie Jarrett) is sent to the underllings that the smartest man in the world doesn’t want to be bothered with details or with coordinating various actors. Obama’s political hacks are quite good at keeping bad results from sticking to him. The buck doesn’t stop in this administration, it is put into a perpetual spin machine powered by leg tingles.

  43. KLSmith Says:

    For a glimpse of America’s future, I highly recommend reading Theodore Dalrymple’s books.

  44. Gary Rosen Says:

    Don Carlos Says:

    So it’s up to the MSM?

    We’re doomed.

  45. SteveH Says:

    I think we know what Obama was doing the night of the attack. He was seething that a bunch of American white males getting themselves killed might jeopardize his reelection if details somehow got out.

  46. holmes Says:

    SteveH: Pretty sure one of the CIA agents/Former Navy Seals was black.

  47. Ymarsakar Says:

    Treason is no longer treason when it prospers.

    Treason has been prospering in the US for quite awhile now. Nobody has the power or the will, to do anything about it any more.

  48. Lizzy Says:

    If what Panetta says is true, then Obama & Hillary left over 30 people (not 4) to die or be taken hostage (it was the former SEALs who made sure all but two survived). Many people, including Panetta, watched for 7+ hours, and either pressed Obama for permission to intervene or chose to just watch and wait for a call from Obama.

    If Panetta is lying (which wouldn’t be surprising), then what truth could be worse than this cover story of Obama and others willfully leaving the entire consulate unassisted during a 7+ hour attack?

  49. oldflyer Says:

    Neo, you said this about your conversation with a “non-leftist” Democrat friend:
    “This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.” ”

    The line “all politicians lie” is eerily reminiscent of the defense of Bill Clinton. Although back then they added the limiting modifier–“about sex”, and included all of us in the population of liars.

    If your friend ever has a loved one caught up in an anti-American attack while on foreign soil, I imagine the attitude about such events will change dramatically. I wonder if at the core your friend is a self-centered fool.

  50. LisaJ Says:

    Isn’t it a natural evolutionary characteristic to protect those that belong to your tribe, your village, etc? I don’t sense that Obama or Hillary even cared that members of our tribe were being attacked. How on earth do they do nothing or not even have a tiny bit of curiosity about an attack that was occurring for seven hours? This was just an incomprehensible response to the attack in Benghazi. I would like to see what a psychoanalysis would say about individuals that have such a lack of interest in their fellow country men’s dire predicament.

  51. artfldgr Says:

    as an aside i just found out some interesting numerical facts (And no, have had no time to read above. sorry).

    in russia today, the birthplace of modern feminism, they have 13 abortions for every 10 live births

    so i wondered, was i able to find that kind of data for the US?

    in 2009 the abortion ratio was 227 abortions per 1,000 live births in total

    non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for the largest percentages of abortions (37.7% and 35.4%, respectively)

    Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest rates 140 abortions per 1,000 live births

    non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates 477 abortions per 1,000 live births

    1/6th of white conceptions and 1/3rd of black conceptions end up in the trash (its actually worse depending on where you are).

    in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States’ high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation

    In the 1850s, the infant mortality rate in the United States was estimated at 216.8 per 1,000 babies born for whites and 340.0 per 1,000 for African Americans, but rates have significantly declined in the West in modern times

    so you can also scratch off about 7 from the 1000 on top of the abortions (on average)

    8.1 million in 2009 represents the number of children that died before age 5… which comes to about another 8 per 1000

    births fell four percent from 2007 to 2009 (the largest drop in the U.S. for any two-year period since the 1970s) Births have declined for three consecutive years, and are now seven percent below the peak in 2007 This drop has continued through 2010, according to data released by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics in June 2011

    Experts have suggested that this decline is a reflection of unfavorable economic conditions.[21] The connection between birth rate and economic conditions stems from the fact that American birth rates have fallen to levels comparable to those during the Great Depression during the 1930s A state-level look at fertility, based on a report published by the Pew Research Center in October 2011, points out the strong correlation between lower birth rates and economic distress.

    So keeping certain classes poor by redistributing their resources is a form of DEMOCIDE

    The crude birth rate may be measured as the number of births in a given population during a given time period (such as a calendar year), divided by the total population and multiplied by 1,000.

    they love to tell you a lot about how and what the numbers are, but its very hard to get the numbers themselves in a way that allows a person who is not mathematically inclined, to see the number plainly

    and math is a great way to divine honesty
    honest numbers are clear and easy and their derivations are there to see.
    dishonest numbers can be clear and easy, but if so, their derivations are missing. if not clear and easy, they can have their tallies broken down in a way that tells one story, but negates the ability to clearly see the rest of it, without reversing the math (IF you can).

    we now return to our thread in progress… 🙂

  52. Occam's Beard Says:

    Maybe ambassadors should start hiring their own security.

    I have a better idea: start sending condemned criminals to Third World hellholes as ambassadors. They’ll get just as dead, and we’ll save a few decades of prior legal wrangling.

  53. Occam's Beard Says:

    I don’t sense that Obama or Hillary even cared that members of our tribe were being attacked.

    The operative word there is “our.” Members of their tribe were doing just fine, so no problem.

  54. Bob from Virginia Says:

    I wonder if an honest history will ever be written of these times, or will the historians mimic the media and overlook everything from Honduras to Benghazi and produce hagiography disguised as history?

    On a lighter note Obama is going to Israel next month, around Passover I believe. I wonder how he will react to a population that holds him in utter contempt? My guess is he’ll claim the rotten tomatoes thrown at him are meant as offerings.

  55. Occam's Beard Says:

    Do not, for a nanosecond, believe BHO & HRC were not informed within a few minutes of the request for assistance from the consulate in Benghazi.


    Seriously, if you were a junior clerk receiving the transmission, would you just sit on it? Of course not. And by induction, that would hold true all the way up the chain of command through the JCS. The decision to deploy military forces in a foreign country is one that can only be taken by the civilian authorities, and that means at least at Cabinet level.

    So I don’t believe Panetta either, frankly.

  56. artfldgr Says:

    But, I can’t find anything credible. Do you have a link?

    how credible is credible?

    Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

    which is what i said would have to happen
    and which i said might be disobeyed, which it was

    Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged.

    There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.


    then using the correct nomenclature you can find

    CIA Denies Calling Off Backup in Benghazi

    In response to a Fox News story claiming CIA operatives in Benghazi were prevented from aiding U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens during his time of need:

    “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

    “pay no attention to the droids”…
    “it is important to remember”…

    Jennifer Griffin is the reporter who is being negated.
    [the news quotes from fox above are from her]

    What the Fox News report leaves out is who denied the requests to the CIA operatives. The only detail it mentions about the operatives’ communication is that they were “in constant radio contact with their headquarters.” Was the CIA denying those requests? Was the Pentagon? State Department? We’ve sent out questions to each agency and will update if we hear back.

    so as i said…
    lots of information, but the critical lynch pins are missing…

    that is, the small details that are needed to make a conclusion. by dancing around and giving tons of other stuff that cant be concluded, they bury the question that would reveal what you want to know.

    its akin to the lawyers providing you with 5000 boxes of paper when all you want is a memo post it..

    most people end up self hypnotizing as they wait for that answer and keep comparing the responses to the question… its a neurolinguistic game…(among many)

    just so you know…
    look up “flash traffic message”
    Message precedence

    This precedence is reserved for initial enemy contact messages or operational combat messages of extreme urgency. Brevity is mandatory. FLASH messages are to be handled as fast as humanly possible, ahead of all other messages, with in-station handling time not to exceed 10 minutes. Messages of lower precedence are interrupted on all circuits involved until the handling of FLASH messages are completed.

    they had more than one drone up filming and watching (There is video but i did not look for it)

    and the communications was not blocked
    so you can be sure a Flash Z message was sent and was clear and short…

    and note, everything has a protocol…
    a flash message has to be responded to

    and note… you dont paint a target unless you know that its going to be acted upon, or assume so. why? because the laser is a big arrow back to where you are… and the mortar team will instantly turn and use the laser as a means of adjusting their shots till they hit it. so a laser can actually help… (good thing primitive mortar guys dont know how to take a laser pointer, and lock it to one location in the strike zone, then turn it off and on to see and calibrate your shots!!!)

    so a flash message is always transmitted in such circumstances, and the reception is acknowleged so that they dont keep transmiting it.

    when that happens, someone walks over and wispers in the ear of the leaders… (the fit has hit the shan)…

    AFRICOM covers the area and has planes waiting to respond in five minutes… and there was probably a MC-130 flying around listening and relaying signals.

    we have forces preped and ready for this kind of action 24/7… ranging from Delta, to others..

  57. G Joubert Says:

    …the almost-inevitable question is: would Obama have been defeated if the American public had learned it before November? Sadly, I think the answer is “no.”

    I disagree.

    I agree that Obama voters wouldn’t have been swayed, but the Obama voter turnout wasn’t the only critical factor in his winning, nor even the primary critical factor. It was conservatives staying home on election day that allowed Obama to skate through.

    Imagine if the MSM had given the same level of coverage it did to events surrounding the embassy in Iran circa 1980 (AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE!!!!), ginning up all the moral outrage it did then. I say it’s quite possible, even likely, many more right-center voters would’ve gotten off their duffs and turned out to vote.

    The MSM knew exactly what they were doing here. By covering Iran the way they did Jimmy Carter was toast, and it directly led to Ronald Reagan’s presidency, and there was no way they were going to let that happen again.

  58. carl in atlanta Says:

    LisaJ :

    Occam’s Beard beat me to it but what he said bears repeating:

    “The operative word there is “our.” Members of their tribe were doing just fine, so no problem.”

    Their tribe is the one whose members spend their lives running for office, seeking ever-more power and getting themselves elected by whatever means necessary. They hold everyone else — especially people like the ones who died — in utter contempt.

    “It was a disgusting video that we had NOTHING to do with”. Contempt for us all, indeed.

  59. neo-neocon Says:

    G Joubert: I disagree.

    First of all, not that many conservatives stayed home, comparatively speaking (see the final totals; Romney got a million more votes than McCain did in 2008). And the ones who did stay home stayed home for different reasons (IMHO), not because they didn’t have enough info about bad stuff Obama was doing in both domestic and foreign affairs. They had plenty. They stayed home because they were angry at the Republican “establishment” and Romney, and/or because they think both parties are alike (a notion resistant to more information about Democrats being bad; they already know that), and/or because they want the Democrats to be in charge and to get the blame when the supposedly inevitable financial conflagration comes.

    The right had MORE than enough information to motivate them to get off their duffs already. If someone on the right didn’t vote in this election with the info about Obama that they already had, no more information about him would have caused them to do so.

  60. neo-neocon Says:

    oldflyer: the horrible thing about that conversation is that the friend is by no means either self-centered or a fool (at least, not ordinarily a fool). I think this person just feels overwhelmed at this point by life, jobs, obligations, and isn’t able to follow the news as before, and has given up. Also has become ultra-cynical about all politicians.

  61. G Joubert Says:


    Maybe you have other sources showing other data, but my understanding is somewhere between 3 and 5 million conservatives stayed home. Mainly social conservatives, evangelical conservatives in particular, are the ones who didn’t vote. Romney was perceived by many to be a squishy flip-flopping political opportunist who’d take whatever position he calculated to be helpful vote-wise. Don’t you remember way back in the contentious primary season all those conservatives who declared, “If Romney is the nominee, I won’t vote”? Well, they didn’t. And McCain in 2008 is a poor comparison because conservatives didn’t like him all that much either, and they stayed home in 2008 too.

    And that’s not even getting to or considering the Mormon factor, which is hard to measure, but intuitively it’s hard to dismiss.

  62. Capn Rusty Says:

    Artfldgr: Thanks. I read everything you cited as it came out at the time. I do understand that you don’t paint the mortar that’s shooting at you unless the guys upstairs are going to take it out.

    You said AFRICOM covers that area and had planes waiting to respond in minutes. It was reported that when AFRICOM Commander Gen. Ham received the reports of the attack at Benghazi, he immediately got a rapid response team ready to go, and communicated that decision to the Pentagon. The Pentagon told him to stand down. He told them to screw it, and that he was going to help anyway. Within 30 seconds, his second-in-command apprehended him and told him he was relieved of his command.

    I can only surmise that either the gunship was never deployed, or if it was on station, the crew was ordered not to fire.

    Woods and Doherty died believing that their country would not let them down, that the gunship was up there and would take out the mortars.

    I’m not so sure about Heaven, but I hope there’s a Hell.

  63. neo-neocon Says:

    G Joubert: you are incorrect.

    I don’t have time to give an exhaustive list of links that show it, but see this and this, for example:

    “Evangelicals turned out in record numbers and voted as heavily for Mitt Romney yesterday as they did for George W. Bush in 2004,” said Ralph Reed, chairman of Faith and Freedom Coalition. “That is an astonishing outcome that few would have predicted even a few months ago. But Romney underperformed with younger voters and minorities and that in the end made the difference for Obama.”

    Elections tend to spawn a lot of myths. The missing evangelical voters are just that, a myth. It was speculated before the election that they would stay home, but they did not.

    In fact, fewer Republicans in general stayed home than was earlier thought, as well. As I said earlier, Romney got a lot more votes than McCain. The only state where stay-at-home Republicans may have made a difference was Ohio, where quite a few stayed home. Speculation is that it was in connection with labor and economic issues, and some statements Romney had made about GM and the bailout.

  64. Ymarsakar Says:

    Everyone harms people who are weaker than they are. After all, the Nazis gassed the Jews and Americans enslaved blacks and Indians. So what’s the difference?

    you see, the difference is that evil needs people to think like this, in order to conquer the human spirit. When it’s a choice between Good and Evil, most people will side with Good. They don’t say, “well, we’re the worst people on Earth, and that’s why we’re going to fight and kill and sacrifice for the cause”. That’s not how people think.

    By eliminating differences, we get to the ourobos, or the snake eating its own tail. The sources of production is the same as the material input. Welfare comes from the people’s pocket, and goes back into the people’s pocket. It was always an icon of infinity, but also mutual contradiction, like a utopia, a place that doesn’t exist. The snake circle that exists because of itself, because it is the one it was waiting for, represents a philosophical concept that is anti and opposite to good and evil, +/-, male and female. The concept that the ying and yang has flaws and fulfills the other’s weak points by their own individual strengths, so that the whole is greater than the sum of its part, is not compatible with the concept of mutual self digestion and infinite sustainability through welfare and government largess.

    The Left seeks to create their own god on earth, a ruling theocracy. The fact that many people don’t even want to know about this, is the primary problem at hand.

    “It was conservatives staying home on election day that allowed Obama to skate through.”

    You’re under the impression that the elections results weren’t doctored to fit the result the LEft wanted. All those military absentee votes that didn’t show up. all those fake and dead voter registrations out of the urban Ohio corrupt heart land fiefdoms. The idea that the Left has a weapon and won’t use it to win, is similar to the idea that the Democrats are just another political party, just like the Republicans.

    The concept that one is at war, will require a supreme amount of sacrifice, such as 9/11, before people are forced to open their eyes and see what they have ignored for their entire lives.

  65. oldflyer Says:

    Neo, I acknowledge your assessment of your friend’s state of mind.

    I have developed a prejudice that views anyone who cannot seem to grasp the reality that seems so obvious as flawed; and I have less and less tolerance for them.

    I know that there is such a flood of information that it takes an effort to separate the germane from the trivial. I will confess that apparently due to the pace of their lives and the competition for their attention, there are members of my own family who are tuned out to many issues that I consider critical. I do not think they are fools, even though some of their political positions are foolish. .

    I have not given up on influencing some of those within my sphere; I am sure you will continue to try as well. (Looking to the future, I am working hard on my 16 year old twin grandchildren, but that is a task fraught with obstacles and potential missteps.)

  66. G Joubert Says:


    I read the material at your links. I spent two days writing and rewriting a reply, so I gave it up. Too lengthy and argumentative. I don’t want to argue.

    I’m of several minds about those articles and your interpretation of voting numbers. Like, this whole election was ubiquitously anomalous in my mind, all of it, before, the election itself, and the ongoing aftermath. By before I’m referring to the wildly offbase assessments and projections by many. What was that? Which leads to the aftermath, all the spinning and hand-wringing, which is still evolving. I seeyour links in that context. For instance, Ralph Reed has no motivation to profess anyone’s failure in getting out the evangelical vote. Particularly not in THIS election. Self-survival and all that. Enough said about that for brevity’s sake. But, I live in that particular community, admittedly in a very blue state (almost as blue as MA), but anecdotally I personally know or have been in contact with many evangelicals who have given up on voting until further notice. Not a majority of them, but a quite sizeable minority. I suspect they’ve “fallen off the grid” and aren’t m included in anybody’s numbers.

    The actual election numbers are what they are. And will be interpreted numerous ways. But to my mind turnout was down, even though the population grew and voting-age population grew. Who stayed home? More ongoing slicing and dicing of the numbers ensues no doubt. Bottom-line, we don’t know or understand this electorate right now.

    And that’s not even getting to election fraud. I am afraid we all may be woefully underestimating the extent to which leftist partisans have rigged the system, especially in inner cities, and some other locales as well.

  67. GOOGLE Says:

    Advantages for the test will appear reduced from the standard paid out tournaments. GOOGLE http://www.google.com

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge