Caring about Benghazi
We on the right condemned Hillary Clinton back when she issued the outrageous statement “What difference, at this point, does it make?” when being questioned in Congress about Benghazi. But it seemed to me even back then that Hillary had a point; just not the point she appeared to be making:
…If the public doesn’t care about a certain tree falling in the forest, does it actually make a sound, even if the right is fussing about it?
…If the public doesn’t expect integrity or truth from what used to be called our public servants (what a quaint phrase!), then lies and strategic stonewalling will not bother most people at all. What matters is what those public servants can get for you, and what they can scare you into thinking the opposition will take away from you.
This same issue came up here recently in the comments section of a post of mine on Benghazi. The relevant part begins with my addressing commenter “Eric,” here (his reply is here, and my further response here).
I wrote:
Benghazi seems small [to some people] because it only involves “four people”…That’s the kind of thinking I’ve encountered.
So Iraq is much bigger because so many more people died. It makes sense to reason that way if you believe both presidents lied for political reasons. Why people in Iraq died, whether Bush really lied, who and what Saddam was – none of this is relevant to them and they will never never never be convinced he didn’t lie to get us into Iraq, either. Never.
A few hours later I happened across a Slate article defending the administration on Obama, and bingo! In the comment section there I found a host of nearly perfect exemplars of what I was writing about. Here are just a few:
I gotta admit..I’m no fan of the president, but I have a hard time caring about Benghazi.
Not to sound callous but four people aren’t terribly important in the grand scheme of things, they knew the risks involved in their dangerous foreign posting, and Al Qaeda–given sufficient time and husbanding of resources–is going to kill Americans somewhere. It’s inevitable…[Benghazi is] a city on the marches of civilization with very little strategic value anymore, and it’s kind of silly to expect our security apparatus to be at 100% there.
I feel similarly. It’s not callous when talking about security and national interests. More death is worse than less death; strategic locations are more important than less strategic locations.
I’ve never quite understood what the “crime” is w/r/t Benghazi and the administration… So they put spin on the situation at the start. what else is new? What is the so-called failed policy that caused the attack? Radical muslims were there long before Khaddafy fell, there now, and will be there for a long long time after we’re gone – and they will do anything they can to attack anytime — especially on the anniversary of 9/11. Those killed knew the danger in their situation far, far better than anyone in Washington, and they put themselves into the un-guarded situation knowingly. Does someone think Obama ordered them to go on a suicide mission? Does anyone think the president has a role at that low a level?
My main objection to it at the time was Hillary Clinton’s pretty weak response to it as sec state (i.e. basically apologizing for the inflammatory video), but I kind of stopped caring about that a year ago or whenever it was.
I think spin is standard and I have long since stopped being upset by it. Politicians always try to shape public perception of events in ways that help their political fortunes. I can understand why someone might be bothered by that, but it’s so incredibly normal that I find it difficult to get upset over any particular incident.
Somehow “Obama spun the CIA’s talking points” doesn’t have the ring that “Obama killed Ambassador Stevens” did. This scandal keeps getting less and less scandalous.
What percentage of the comments to the Slate article are of this type? Since there are now over 1200 comments, I’m not going to do the research to find out. Let’s just say they were common enough that it was no trouble at all to find them.
This sort of cynicism and weariness is what leftists such as Obama are fully aware of, and count on and exploit. Clinton knew what she was doing as well. The people writing those comments may or may not be leftists themselves, or they may just be useful idiots. But they are politically aware enough to be frequenting and participating in the comments sections of political articles. I think their ranks are more numerous than we know.
Bringbackourgirls v. bringbackourambassadoralive.
The groups can be identified. One exhibits cynicism and weariness. The other exhibits outrage and a call to action. The cynical outlook results from despair; but a purposeful existence generates outrage.
More than we know? I don’t believe that. I think there is a category of the numbed and dumbed down who are captured in that cynical group but the emergence of a leader would change that.
One thing is for sure: The batshit crazy Pelosi and Reid aren’t those leaders. The feminine Obama is not. Where are the murderers? When does negligence mean the same as murder?
How far will the left go to defend the WH.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/05/12/incredible-liberal-argues-ambassador-stevens-wasnt-murdered-n1836883?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall
As far as it takes!
It’s actually kind of horrific for military and diplomatic personnel to contemplate, you know – likely even for hired security guards, also. That if your embassy or base is attacked by a mob, you’re on your own and basically screwed if the CinC finds it embarrassing, or potentially embarrassing to do anything about it. Like send a rescue force in time.
And then to stonewall and lie about it for months, and months, with the establishment media enthusiastically giving cover…
I believe that Wretchard at Belmont Club may very well have the right of it, with regards to what happened in Benghazi and what was going on there.
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/05/11/the-day-obamas-presidency-died/
I’m of the opinion that the WH and disorganizing for America is cynical enough, manipulative enough, to sponsor ‘talent’ of the nihilist bent to get its vibe across the Web, tangling it up with deceptions.
Such ‘inputs’ are now commonplace across all of the influential blogs.
I’m reminded of Microsoft’s ‘voice of the people’ scam — going back fifteen + years. At the time MSFT was in real hot water — and at trail over their monopoly.
So Gates and Coy created an Astroturf squad to send in canned ‘letters-to-the-editor’ — as if the general public was sympathetic to MSFT.
At first MSFT flatly denied that they were Astroturfing. Then their in-house binder — with its enclosed letters for submission — was produced. The story/ scandal faded quickly. (Inverse payola?)
I also see bizarre screeds from what I deem to be slander-trolls. They pop up on every contentious blog with either hyper anti-Semitism or racism. The only possible result being to defame the commentariat of this or that blog.
Many bloggers are naive enough to let such screeds post on through.
The net effect of such bizarre ‘comments’ is to deflect the entire thread stream towards intemperate remarks — going back and forth. The original post’s theme being buried thereby.
This is a persistent tactic.
One is reminded of classic NKVD/ KGB/ SVR gambits. They LOVE to join discussions — flying false colors at every turn.
Such gambits are afoot in Ukraine as we speak.
blert:
Oh, I agree that a certain percentage is planted. But I’ve encountered the very same opinions in people I know. The plants take root.
There’s no way to know the proportion of plants to the proportion of others. But I think the majority of the comments are sincere.
At this point it’s important to let our representatives know that we do care about Benghazi. Write or call – don’t be bashful.
Here’s what I wrote to my Congress critters this weekend:
“I am writing to you to express my opinion about the Benghazi investigation. I think it is very important for the Congress to exercise its oversight of the executive branch. This is a case where answers are needed because the executive branch’s primary mission is to protect and defend the United States. An attack on a consulate is an attack on this country. Four Americans died in that attack and nothing has been done about it.
I want to know why:
1. The requests for more security in Benghazi were ignored?
2. The military in the Mediterranean area was not in a state of alert on 9/11/12 when intelligence reports indicated there would be unrest in Egypt?
3. Why the military chose to stand down and who, specifically, gave the order?
4. Why the administration chose to blame the attack on an anti-Muslim video rather than admit that it was an organized, para-military attack by a group associated with al Qaeda?
5. Why nothing has been done to go after the attackers? The leader of the attack gives interviews to journalists in Libya and the United States of America does nothing? Is the executive branch with the combined force of the military, FBI, CIA, and Department of State helpless against terror?
This has been a failure by the administration to perform their primary duty to protect and defend us. The very least we can expect is an explanation for this failure, the cover up, and why nothing has been done to apprehend or kill the attackers. That is why we have Congressional oversight.
As a retired combat veteran I am especially upset about this. I want some answers.”
You may think they don’t listen, but they do when people take the time to sit down and write to them or call their offices.
Zombies are zombies. They are there so I get my katana and cut off the headies.
This has been a failure by the administration to perform their primary duty to protect and defend us.
Still think it is a “failure” I see. You obviously must think the Left and Islamic Jihad are enemies or something.
Is this due to ignorance or something more sinister.
You err in thinking that there is an innocent “public” out there that will buy or not buy, care or not care about this or that scandal of Obama/Hillary/IRS/Lerner, etc.
All of the commenters you cited are exactly the problem we have! Who cares? They only thing they care about is how much “stuff” they can use Hillary and their other Capos to steal from decent people – “stuff” being material or spiritual, or anything. It has “value” to them.
The problem has never been Barak Obama (the only President we’ve ever had who hated this country), or Bill or Hill or Pelosi. or Reid, or Lerner…
The problem has always and only ever been the people who hire them = Dem Voters.
The rest is….as they say.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/rep-tom-cotton-we-will-not-leave-these-four-men-behind/
It’s obligatory! The post by a veteran (me)! And so let us began:
Have you been in the military? If you haven’t, doesn’t the idea that “we will not leave you” kind of sort of means something? If it didn’t, how many troops are going to charge forward? How many will fulfill their life threatening orders? Imagine any sort of opposite ideal: Well, yeah, you have a high chance of death, so, you’re on your own.
It’s not just a matter of those four; it’s the matter of any man who will risk his life only because that life is valued and will not routinely be sacrificed.
Speaking of outrageous statements, I wonder whether Hillary Clinton will ever again wear the now-infamous green outfit?
Or anything green?
Come to think of it, I also wonder whether she ever wears blue dresses?
Just wondering.
VDH wrote a whole book on this. His thesis and proof was that a democratic army incorporating ideals of “no man left behind” as well as others, has been the reason why huge armies and offenses of tyrannical and totalitarian regimes have failed against the democratic force.
@ Sgt. Mom, 12:53
Fernandez’ theory is interesting, but I’m more of an Occam’s Razor type so I don’t think it’s probable.
I will say that, if true, it is of a piece with the 3-D chess scheme of Fast and Furious. The utter collapse of that plan should’ve told the administration something about the dangers inherent in intricate plans.
But then, to learn lessons from failure one must be honest with oneself.
er, “one’s self.”
An excerpt from Sgt Mom’s link is in order:
The curious thing about September 11, 2012 – the day of the Benghazhi attack – is that for some reason it marks the decline of the Obama presidency as clearly as a milepost. We are told by the papers that nothing much happened on that day. A riot in a far-away country. A few people killed. And yet … it may be coincidental, but from that day the administration’s foreign policy seemed inexplicably hexed. The Arab Spring ground to a halt. The Secretary of State ‘resigned’. The CIA Director was cast out in disgrace. Not long after, Obama had to withdraw his Red Line in Syria. Al-Qaeda, whose eulogy he had pronounced appeared with disturbing force throughout Africa, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Almost as if on cue, Russia made an unexpected return to the world stage, first in Syria, then in the Iranian nuclear negotiations.
It bears repeating; the Obama administration didn’t merely have hours to respond. According to this WH press release dated 10 September 2012 they had spent a month preparing for the anniversary of 9/11.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/10/readout-president-s-meeting-senior-administration-officials-our-prepared
If you’ve ever served, then you know a few questions immediately pop into mind. Such as, what hell did they do for that entire month? It appears nothing, because AFRICOM clearly had nothing available to respond to a contingency in its entire AOR. If they couldn’t respond to a contingency due south of Italy then they couldn’t respond to anything. Which is gobsmacking because if anywhere was going to be a hotspot on 9/11 North Africa would have to be high on your list.
Another question would have to be how early in the evening did the Obama administration write off these men’s lives?
The moronic commenters at Slate saying “they knew the risks” are wrong. It never occurred to me, and I’m sure it never occurred to Doherty, Woods, and Smith (all former military) that our own administration would be among the active threats to my life.
And now I guess among the threats we must include the readers of Slate, who think it’s just fine to join the Obama administration in flipping the bird at anyone in uniform.
That’s why it’s important to have the hearings. To identify just how big of a threat the left is to those serving in this country’s armed forces or as foreign service officers so the rest of us can make informed choices.
Naturally Obama’s accomplices on the left can’t see what the big deal is. That is precisely the issue. It is this level of either malice or obtuseness that makes them dangerous. Patriotic youth thinking of joining the military need to know just how much callous disregard this administration and the readership at Slate has for their lives.
Democrats lack the moral ability to care about anything other than winning elections. This is why they don’t care about lies, slander and character assassination. This is why they don’t care when poor inner-city kids get screwed in favor of powerful unions or people needing jobs get screwed in favor of rich environmental wackos.
All that matters is winning. And those who stand in the way of winning are evil. No Democrat will cooperate with evil. So no Democrat will ever care about Benghazi, or IRS abuse, or Obama’s shredding of the Constitution, or the treason of Clinton, Carter, Kennedy or Kerry or any other scandal. If ‘caring’ hurts Dems in the next election, they will never care. Ever.
To them, the only scandal is losing power.
That people can dismiss this because “it’s only four people who die” is just depressing.
While the commenters above have covered most of what my response would be, there’s also this:
*It would have been many more lives (36+???) if Woods, Doherty, and unnamed others hadn’t intervened. Somehow the Benghazi discussion keeps omitting all of those nameless, disappeared survivors that Obama & Clinton had abandoned that night. Is that enough potential death to care?
*This was an act of war against the United States. One need only look at the escalation of attacks/deaths perpetrated by Bin Laden to see that thinking “only four dead” inevitably leads to “over 3,000 dead” when these attacks go unanswered. For example: The 1993 WTC attack only killed six people (but over 1,000 injured), so no biggie, right?
*Obama created a criminal out of whole cloth – the Innocence of Islam video maker – and had him jailed (in solitary confinement!) for months, knowing full well it wasn’t his fault. A president willing to abuse his power like this once is willing to do this again (such as, with Dinesh D’Souza?), which is a very big deal. The makes us no better than Cuba, China, N Korea, etc. regarding jailing of political foes. Even if Nakoula is free, Obama has offered him up to the Muslim world as a target, so I would not be surprised if he is eventually attacked/murdered just like Theo van Gogh (dead) and the Mohamed cartoonists (thankfully still live).
I guess this means Stalin was wrong then, when he said “one death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”
But I don’t think he was wrong, rather I think the stark fact of the murders of those four Americans got lost in all the talk about a political cover-up. I’m going to put at least part of the blame on the Republicans for not having a well-coordinated line of attack against the Obama Administration from the very beginning. They should have been hammering almost solely on the lack of adequate security and then the lack of rescue efforts — that’s what would have made those deaths a close-up, personal tragedy.
What Waitforit and Steve said … do those civilian morons at Slate have any notion at all about what it means to serve? And realize how callous it comes off to just say, ‘well, screw’ em, they knew the risks? Well, obviously not…
Just compare and contrast what we know of Benghazi, and of what happened in Mogadishu, in “Blackhawk Down.” Gee, can you imagine the rescue mission NOT being launched, and our CinC dithering and jetting off to a fundraiser and letting the troops die … even more of them that were killed then?
Look, if the lives our our military, diplomats and miscellaneous security contractors are going to be considered as disposable as pieces of used Kleenex, I’d sure as hell want to know WHY and FOR WHAT, and I’d also appreciate a little shame and regret displayed on the part of the administration who sent them to Benghazi and then took the phone off the hook. I’d also like to know if military commanders in the theater wanted to launch a mission, were overruled and then purged.
I served as a career NCO, my daughter did two hitches as a Marine, my dad was in the Army in Korea, my mom’s brother served in the Army Air Corps … and at this point I am glad to be retired and my daughter done with service. I would not, at this point, suggest that any young person that I cared about, enlist or take a commission, s’help me god. I walk into the military medical facility where I have my routine appointments, and I look at the bulletin board in the entryway with the pictures of the commanders, all the way up to the CinC, and I about want to vomit. I’m pretty certain that a lot of other veterans and active-duty feel the same.
Per the discussion about the apathy of citizens:
“The first casualty of war is the truth.”
That’s what we’re in…a cultural war.
Don’t believe anything you read (at least, not at face value), and only half of what you see. We’ve said many time before that the other side has no sense of “morality” that we’d recognize as such.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that citizens’ apathy is real. Apart from the flag-waving patriotic be-bop (which, some of the people actually believe in and live by), I’ve been coming around for a while to the view that most Americans never were as idealistic as our side has mythologized.
For these people, the case needs to be made in terms of their self-interest. It shouldn’t be that hard, since the left’s position is based on lies.
Ann @ 4:24 said,
“I’m going to put at least part of the blame on the Republicans for not having a well-coordinated line of attack against the Obama Administration from the very beginning.”
The rank-and-file GOP members in the House have no channel through which to be widely heard. Only the leadership does.
This makes it *especially* important to have a leadership that can articulate our case.
Instead, we have John Boehner and Eric Cantor.
The entire GOP House leadership needs to be demoted back to the rank-and-file, at least. Personally, I don’t think their egos could handle that, so it’s more likely they’ll need to be removed from office, lest they start engaging in intrigues to recover their power.
Couple of points:
The coverup is one thing. All the rest is also important, but the coverup–which killed nobody nor left anyone to die–will be the equivalent of Clinton’s getting a blow job. It’s just about sex, what’s your problem? To obfuscate rape, harassment, intimidation and perjury.
If your point is that abandoning soldiers is no big deal, it would be well to insure your audience does not include soldiers. That, I imagine, is the case with Slate readers.
This gets to my take: “What is the so-called failed policy that caused the attack?”
Expanding on my comment that Neo referred to in the post, see my comment here:
http://neoneocon.com/2014/05/09/the-times-whips-up-its-partys-fury/#comment-773217
Excerpt:
Neo: “This sort of cynicism and weariness is what leftists such as Obama are fully aware of, and count on and exploit”
I agree with you that the Left has been breeding the public’s cynicism and weariness for a long time.
The Vietnam War is a good data point, but the opponent’s activist strategy goes even further back in the modern period. At the height of reputed American solidarity, WW2, which began the modern period of US liberal hegemony, ‘American Friends Service Committee’ pacifists and ‘American First Committee’ isolationists worked in tandem to undermine muscular American intervention. Their activist project progressed through the Vietnam War to the leftists and libertarians who’ve worked in tandem since 9/11.
Proper activism is first, non-stop, and always.
For current foreign affairs, however, the directly controlling data point for this generation’s cynicism and weariness is not the Vietnam War protest chain-link – rather, it’s the false narrative that the Iraq enforcement and peace-building was an “unnecessary foreign adventure” or worse conspiracy.
The false narrative of the Iraq mission is the Left’s foundational, fundamental lie that has sapped the American will to lead and compete in a dynamically changing world order. It’s patient zero. It’s the malignant, metastasized source of the cancer.
If the Left’s foundational, fundamental lie on Bush and Iraq is not corrected in the popular narrative of the zeitgeist, then the rest of your social-political corrective efforts are undermined from jump.
Context colors everything.
Setting aside the larger workshop of activist method needed to compete, the Benghazi controversy must be housed in a proper narrative in order to generate a larger social-political effect.
Right now, the narrative is insufficient in its contextual frame. Without a proper narrative, even should the GOP prove the negligence case on the merits within the scope, the achievement won’t have the desired impact on the zeitgeist.
You need to set the stage to put on a passion play. Correcting the popular narrative on Bush and Iraq is a prerequisite for prosecuting the Benghazi controversy effectively in the court of public opinion.
Curing the Left’s socially cancerous, foundational, fundamental lie on Bush and Iraq is necessary to lay the foundation, set the context, fix the public’s cynicism and weariness, and replace it with a righteous betrayed ire at the Democrats.
When the necessary premises are underfoot, if you’re activist enough to face off in the arena against left activists, then you might be able to compete for a larger social-political difference viz the Benghazi controversy on its merits within the scope.
Right on cue.
I, for one, am glad that the Bush perspective is so well represented.
You know who else I’ve heard good things about? Some guy named “Jeb.” We should really look into that. [/sarc]
Add, for the contention that Obama lied about the Libya policy failure because he conducts foreign affairs with partisan calculation:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/07/11/Why-Obamas-Foreign-Policy-Process-is-Broken#page1
Excerpt:
Matt_SE
neo-neocon
Hodor.
I was just thinking, “We need someone to advocate for a Marxist-activist method, but applied to the Tea Party!”
…if only we had such a commenter here. *sigh*
Matt_SE,
If you have a better solution for the problem Neo has posed for the way ahead on the Benghazi controversy, then put in the table.
Fix: … then put it on the table.
“You may think they don’t listen, but they do when people take the time to sit down and write to them or call their offices.”
Both of my senators listen, Grassley ® and Harkin (D), and their staffs respond promptly and on point. Grassley is as sincere as a politician can be. Harkin is a nice guy, but a staunch leftist, yet his staff does respond to my concerns in a respectful manner. My rep, Braley (D), is okay as far as (D) is concerned; but there is some hope we can replace him this fall.
So, yes, J.J., dependent upon where you live, they do listen.
Eric,
It’ll have to wait about 5 hours, as I have to go to work.
I’ll get back to you.
This sort of cynicism and weariness is what leftists such as Obama are fully aware of, and count on and exploit. Clinton knew what she was doing as well. The people writing those comments may or may not be leftists themselves, or they may just be useful idiots.
But their weariness about politics never stopped them from chanting “Bush lied; thousands died.”
Gringo:
The cynical and weary I’m speaking of are not the same people who were going to the demonstrations and chanting anything.
It never occurred to me, and I’m sure it never occurred to Doherty, Woods, and Smith (all former military) that our own administration would be among the active threats to my life.
I suspected something on that level in 2007-08. I was simulating and gaming out scenarios where Hussein could achieve emergency power, hold the families of US officers hostage on bases, and then order the US military to do certain things. By using an infiltrated kill squad brought on base, to occupy the barracks and housing.
Some ex military or civilian consultants said that US military bases were hardened, that this wouldn’t happen.
Then Ft. Hood 1 happened some months after I made that simulation. Then Ft. Hood 2 happened.
Obviously nobody put me in the loop for command decisions.
So if I understand your point Neo, you’re demonstrating that Hillary and company exploited the left’s disinterest in the event because it was essentially a non-event for various reasons- low head count, terrorists will be terrorists, they knew the risks, etc.
“This sort of cynicism and weariness is what leftists such as Obama are fully aware of, and count on and exploit. Clinton knew what she was doing as well.”
If this is true, I have to wonder, Why all the effort to blame a video and lie about the actual event? I think your argument about cynicism is correct, but I don’t believe they thought a majority of Americans would be as disinterested or as cynical, or as understanding. All of their subsequent actions pointed to, and still point to a fear that they’d be held responsible in some way.
Hillary’s public temper tantrum wasn’t anything more than rage that anyone would dare question her or hold her responsible. She has never had to answer for anything, or be held responsible for any position she’s held. She’s royalty. Answering questions from lowly senators and especially republicans is beneath her position. Her outburst was a “how dare you!” moment of pompousness that should have sent shivers down your spine.
She and her minions crafted a BS story that she fully expected to be accepted at face value. While she’s as prolific a liar as her husband, she’s nowhere near as smooth, and her frustration with the ongoing doubters and inability to glibly talk her way out of things fueled the tantrum.
My opinion, for what it’s worth is the opposite- they were terrified a majority of Americans would question their leadership and their foreign policy strategy. Ansd so the video story was hastily concocted and as silly and flimsy as any lie that’s crafted in a state of panic.
The dummies who you are citing, are the people they know they can count on to be unwavering, unapologetic hypocrites, but their internal polling, (which has proven to be very good) said they might have a problem.
Slate comment: “What is the so-called failed policy that caused the attack? … Those killed knew the danger in their situation far, far better than anyone in Washington, and they put themselves into the un-guarded situation knowingly. Does someone think Obama ordered them to go on a suicide mission? Does anyone think the president has a role at that low a level?”
This is the key question because it makes sense in a close-focus frame.
Catastrophe resulting from a chain of events limited to on-scene decision-makers and systems is something. Calculated risk in an inherently dangerous job is something.
The public’s lens must be pulled opened to a wider focus.
Did the Sewol ferry sink and 300+ passengers die because the 3rd mate made a sharp turn and the captain abandoned ship? Or because the Sewol ferry’s owners overloaded the ferry, changed its balance, and didn’t maintain their life-saving equipment and train their crews for evacuation?
Drawing a straight blame line from the ground to the top would be easier for the Left to do. Eg, the Slate comment asks the questions that should have dispelled the narrative that any and all contributory conditions (eg, levee strength) and shortcomings in the municipal, state, and Fed agency response to Hurricane Katrina were to be blamed on Bush. The Right lacks the activist capability to brazenly assert an Alinsky Rule 12 attack like that. They actually need to lay a foundation and build a cohesive narrative.
JJ and Steve57 get at it best with their questions.
Their tactical, procedural questions must be answered. Then the answers must lead to strategic and political probes. The answers to JJ and Steve57’s questions must not be leveled off within mid-level SOP and managers and contained at a tactical echelon.
The Slate comment is correct that Ambassador Stevens was not ignorant of the inherent dangers of his posting and that particular area.
So, as the Slate comment implies, did Stevens endanger himself and his staff recklessly, and the buck stops with him?
Or was Stevens doing his job as reasonably safe as he could? Were the inherent dangers of his job otherwise manageable but made fatally dangerous by conditions created from the bad politics of his superiors?
Similar question for the botched rescue. Establish bad execution at the tactical level per JJ and Steve57’s questions. But from there, was it just poor decisions by decision-makers on the ground, or were ground decisions constrained by bad strategy imposed from the top by bad politics?
It’s not as though Middle East diplomatic security was a new thing demanding learn-as-you-go development, like COIN in Iraq. How did diplomatic security in Libya compare to diplomatic security elsewhere, particularly in Iraq? If they were different, why?
southpaw:
We’re not really in disagreement.
The American public is not unitary. There’s a sizable group that Clinton and Obama thought they could placate by putting forth the video story, especially at the outset when the story was fresh and intense, which got them past the initial reaction and past the election, which took place less than two months later. That was their first priority.
However, some Americans were cynical and weary from the start, and had been for some time. But some became weary of this particular story over time. Hillary’s “what difference does it make” remark was made in January of 2013, two months AFTER the election and four months after the incident, and IMHO was addressed to both those groups. It would not have worked very well to have said that on September 12, but I think they were counting on increasing weariness and cynicism by January of 2013.
And of course, some didn’t buy any of it and are still outraged, engaged, and angry.
The Leftist alliance is based on evil. Why make things more complicated? See evil… kill evil. Is that complicated? No.
southpaw: “My opinion, for what it’s worth is the opposite- they were terrified a majority of Americans would question their leadership and their foreign policy strategy.”
I agree with this. Obama’s Libya intervention was overtly represented as a showcase of smarter foreign policy to compare and contrast to Bush on Iraq.
The threat to the 2012 election was the narrative that the conditions that endangered Ambassador Stevens and his staff and then handicapped their rescue weren’t merely due to the inherent dangers of the job, but grew out of deliberate policy choices made with partisan calculation. The fear was Obama’s deliberately compare/contrast-to-Bush Libya policy had backfired and would reveal the broader failure of Obama’s counter-Bush Middle East policy.
Since the Democrats so heavily rely on the anti-Bush narrative and the anti-Bush narrative was formative in Obama’s Libya and broader ME policy, the Benghazi controversy threatened to flip the script against the Democrats just in time for the 2012 election.
So, they went into damage-control spin mode with lies about the Benghazi killings to protect Obama’s showcase policy based on the Democrats’ foundational, fundamental lie on Bush and Iraq. Then they lied to protect the damage-control spin lies.
It would seem that once you had actively advocated for the abortion of 40 million babies, the loss of 4, or 40, or 400 lives is just so much chaff in the wind.
Neo: “The cynical and weary I’m speaking of are not the same people who were going to the demonstrations and chanting anything.”
Also, those who are too cynical and weary to be aroused now may not have been so jaded on election eve, 2012. At least, the Democrats couldn’t risk that until the win was won.
The only useful thing the LEft’s cannonfodder zombie, Obamacan acolytes are good for is being turned on their necromancer masters.
Other than that, there’s no inherent worth in convincing a zombie of anything. It’s not like they are humans involved in a debate.
parker: So, yes, J.J., dependent upon where you live, they do listen.”
I get quick responses from all my democrat reps – Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congresswoman DelBene. They are seldom on point, however. I have an old friend who worked in DC for many years. He claims (and I believe him) that most in Congress keep a pretty close running tab on how the winds are blowing with their constituents. They may not agree with you, but they note where you are on an issue. I don’t know how many people write and call. My guess is that it’s not too many, except those who want some benefit. It takes some time to sit down and go through the boilerplate that you have fill out in order to just send an e-mail. It used to be that a snail mail letter held more weight because you had to take the time to do all it takes to mail a letter. That shows conviction. However, with the new security procedures with snail mail, it can take a month for it to get there – it loses it’s immediacy. Calling is fast and easy, but there is no record (that I know of – except maybe at the NSA) of what you said. When the IRS or FBI call, (Five years ago I would not have thought this a possibility – no more!) I want to have a record in my possession of all my contacts with my employees. Yes, remember we are their employers. Don’t ever forget that! Those who aren’t writing and calling shouldn’t complain when things don’t go the way they would like. We need to tell our employees how we want them to do their jobs.
Thanks for the recognition of my questions, Eric. I tried to phrase them without naming Obama or Hillary. Take the personal out of it. Concentrate on what we have no answers for and how any administration should be held accountable for not protecting and defending our people. Which, in my opinion, is the big failing. They failed to mount a rescue attempt. They have done little or nothing to punish the terrorists. When I see Sean Smith’s mother and Ty Woods’ father on Foxnews I can feel their pain. They want to know why there was no rescue attempt and they want some justice for the murders of their sons. I stand with them. And so should any American who cares about this country.
I don’t know if it was because they were all run together like that and so were repetitive, but almost all those comments sounded fake to me. They sounded like a Journolist meme. I just don’t think real people talk like that. The casual vagueness was too studied, too cute by half. Like it had been focus-grouped.
Fake – I find it difficult to get upset over any particular incident.
Fake – I kind of stopped caring
Fake – Somehow … This scandal keeps getting less and less scandalous.
Fake – it’s kind of silly to expect
It stinks.
JJ,
You and Steve57 asked incisive questions calling for tangible, measurable information within the scope.
That sets the baseline.
The line you draw at “They want to know why there was no rescue attempt and they want some justice for the murders of their sons. I stand with them” ought to be enough. I’m an Army veteran. As such, that America’s official representatives, among whom was no less than a US Ambassador, were abandoned on the ground under enemy fire when a relief/rescue effort was practical is disturbing. They may have died in the ambush anyway, and more may have died trying to rescue them, but at least the effort needed to be made. That’s our ethic for those who serve. Moreover, having known Marines embassy guards, I’m shocked that the relief/rescue mission for a US ambassador was anything other than reflexively automatic anywhere, let alone in Libya.
With contemporary diplomatic experience in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, as high-threat environments post-9/11, diplomatic security measures and response for Libya should have been a settled issue, beyond any learning curve.
That it wasn’t seems to make it obvious that something not just bad but wrong happened in Benghazi.
However, that’s not enough. This is the activist game with a narrative contest for the zeitgeist, not just an investigation. Context colors everything. If the Benghazi killings had happened in the 1990s, like Mogadishu or the African embassy bombings, then it could captivate the public as is. Your take would be enough.
Instead, it happened against the dwarfing, cynical, wearying backdrop of the predominating false narrative of the Iraq mission and, on top of that, subjected to smudging by Dems and left activists.
Your and Steve57’s incisive questions are a necessary piece, but they need more pieces to be effective, including a contextual re-frame.
If you want to know how all this works, watch (or buy) “Blocking The Path to 9-11“.
It’s a documentary about how the Clintons and their attack machine went after the Disney/ABC docudrama miniseries The Path to 9-11, and is as hair-raising as the miniseries itself.
Especially interesting to me were the remarks of Buzz Patterson, who carried the “nuclear football” for Bill Clinton for two years, a pace from his elbow, and who clearly detests him.
But the whole thing is worth watching: also, that miniseries was worked on by mostly liberal Democrats, many of whom were shocked awake (changers?) after seeing the abattoir of Leftist political destruction up close.
Ymarsakar: “Other than that, there’s no inherent worth in convincing a zombie of anything. It’s not like they are humans involved in a debate.”
They aren’t the target audience. Which is also to say, when you engage one, do so with a purpose (eg, modeling the correction for the false narrative of the Iraq mission for Neo’s readers) and with a productive target audience.
I just don’t think real people talk like that.
They aren’t real people. They are zombies.
In the same news vein, Book got a good video on Trey G slapping the MSewerM around.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2014/05/12/trey-gowdy-schools-the-media-about-its-abysmal-lack-of-curiosity-regarding-benghazi/
Seems a lot of Americans liked that one.
I used to comment and read a lot of mil blogs, during the 2003-06 invasion, and surge counter insurgency.
Then when I discovered certain things about the Left and connected the dots at the end of 06 and 07, it became obvious what would happen given the Left’s vast reservoirs of power in the US they had yet to tap and since nobody was breaking their back, it would just grow.
In 08, Hussein O was elected. At that time, I could no longer recommend that people join the US military for career and life benefits. I suspected… no I knew that the Left would intentionally get them killed and smile back in DC as they have champagne parties. Just like Ayers did when Saigon fell.
The people at milblogs, that read them, that kept up the fight, that still believed. I couldn’t tell them the truth. They wouldn’t have believed it. And irregardless, if they still wish to fight, I shouldn’t get in the way.
But my prophetic abilities and predictive analysis visions saw several decades into the future. Several strategic fronts were doomed to collapse, not due to enemy action but because America’s own leaders would order it. There was no way out of that steel trap. Not with the current strategic, tactical, socio-political, psychological warfare assets available to patriots at the time.
neo-neocon wrote:
“The cynical and weary I’m speaking of are not the same people who were going to the demonstrations and chanting anything.”
But what are they weary of? A “war” that only intrudes upon their daily lives when they are sitting in an airport departure lounge, held hostage by CNN? Or if they happen to get trapped by traffic and are forced to listen to the top-of-the-hour radio news wrap up?
I regret, neo-neocon, if this thread isn’t going the way you intended. Although I remain unconvinced of that as well since, as you have proven, you are wise beyond your years.
Did Woods and Doherty look weary of war in the hours before they were abandoned to die?
This is different, neo-neocon. Hold up the mirror, and force the people who are convinced it doesn’t matter to look into it.
Steve, humans without psychological conditioning and interrogation training, are notoriously weak to enemy psychological warfare. A society generally has some defenses against foreigners, but not against one’s own so called “patriotic Americans” at home.
Just so long as I can walk into McP’s and not be marked for death.
Well, not marked by death by those likely to frequent McP’s.
Ymarsakar,
It’s the activist game, the only social-political game there is.
Steve57: “But what are they weary of?”
The cynicism and weariness of which Neo speaks is social, engineered by left activist manipulation of the collective consciousness, not borne from the personal experience of typical Americans.
As neo-neocon notes, the populace is not unitary. Which is why to a great many people it matters what curve-hugging outfit Kim Kardashian is going with on some red carpet event this weekend, but to to an equally great number of others others it matters more if the Westboro baptist church will be disrupting the funeral. And arguing whether they should be letting the air out of their tires or drowning them out with their Sportsers.
I don’t know if I could win a “silent majority” type debate. Outside the beltway, outside the subscrbership of the NYT, there is populace for whome the “what difference, at this point, does it make” line just doesn’t fly.
They just may be obligated to go to the wake. And let’s be honest. Chelsea won’t. That’s why her mom could deliver that line.
There are two Americas.