The Canary in the Coal Mine….Why the events in Benghazi and the Aftermath Will Tell Us All That We Need To Know About America’s Future
In yesterday’s article on Benghazi I expressed my opinion that nothing of any real import will change for the better as a result of the events in Benghazi or any of the relevant Congressional Hearings which are currently in session. This was not meant to suggest that the lessons to be learned or the knowledge to be gained will not reveal in even greater detail the almost insurmountable conflict between those on the Left who wish to destroy what is left of America and those who oppose them with every fiber of their being and yet continue to search for a viable strategy with which they might successfully counter its effects.
One of the primary mistakes which grass root conservatives, as well as others, make in attempting to formulate an effective response to the actions of those on the Left is to assume that the lower level supporters are unaware of the facts and/or the consequences pertaining to any particular issue. This is somewhat akin to the infamous response of British Prime Minister to Adolph Hitler’s increasingly aggressive actions in Europe prior to the outbreak of hostilities which became know as WWII. The response being referenced is Mr. Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement which he pursued as his basic strategy rather than taking an aggressive position against the German Chancellor’s policy of confrontation under the rubric that he had ensured “peace in our time”.
The fundamental question at issue in the Benghazi Affair is whether enough Americans care about saving the United States of America. As I pointed out in my previous article there are very few, if any, actual facts in dispute. In effect we are in the sentencing phase of the trial and the question is whether or not enough Americans believe that the actions of those in the Obama Administration are worthy of significant censure. I am afraid that I am not optimistic as to what the answer will be to either of those two questions.
In the first place, as has been pointed out on more than one occasion, today’s “main stream” media outlets have lost any claim to being members of what was at one time characterized as being the “watchdog media”. Instead, and with few exceptions, they have apparently all elected to become card carrying members of the newly constructed “lapdog media”. Take a look at virtually every article written on the subject of Benghazi and make an attempt to find a single article in which the primary focus is on what constitutes the national interest rather than evidencing an almost obsessive need to score the action based on baser political considerations. In an even greater display of hubris many members of the “lapdog media” actually attempt to take the position that it is the Republicans and conservatives who are attempting to take political advantage of what might better be viewed as a national catastrophe. Ironically, those who take this position are unaware that in recognizing the seriousness of the event and the Obama Administration’s responses they are themselves pointing the finger at those responsible.
A particularly ignorant analysis of the Benghazi disaster may be found, once again, at the Washington Post in which Eugene Robinson really embarrasses himself…..
Those who are trying to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal for the Obama administration really ought to decide what story line they want to sell.
There is no need to “try to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal”, nor is there any confusion as to what the story line is, nor is there any real need to “sell” the truth. In sum, it is a scandal based on the facts of the case which seems to be an almost impossible concept for liberals to understand or accept. This is not a manufactured crisis or scandal the importance of which is confined to the effects the fallout might have on the political fortunes of a particular individual or party. This is not “just a story” on which talking heads and opinion writers can feed for their personal career advancement until such time as another story breaks to which they choose to divert their attention. And Mr. Robinson goes on to say…….
Actually, by “those” I mean Republicans, and by “the Obama administration” I mean Hillary Clinton. The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clinton’s record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016.
If the only “coherent purpose (you) can discern” is reflected in your above statement one has to wonder how in the world anyone even cares about your opinion. While it is certainly true that Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State should be enough to preclude her even considering a run for the nation’s highest office, the implication that those actions should not have such an effect is even more mind-boggling. Mr. Johnson must be confusing the propensity of Democrats to smear their opponents with lies and innuendos which often have little relationship to the facts with the necessity of holding politicians of both parties responsible for their previous actions and decisions. If Ms. Clinton’s actions “sully” her record than the only reasonable response is to suggest that such “sullying” is appropriate and necessary.
That’s not a particularly noble way to use the deaths of four American public servants, but at least it’s understandable. Attempts to concoct some kind of sinister Whitewater-style conspiracy, however, don’t even begin to make sense.
Is Mr. Robinson truly attempting to excuse the behavior of the relevant members of the Obama Administration which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of four Americans and instead place the blame on those who wish to hold those same individuals responsible? Well, yes he is, but we will get to that in a moment.
Mr. Robinson than presumes to ask some “rhetorical questions” for which he apparently feels he can provide reasonable answers.
Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
There is no “in retrospect” about it, and suggesting otherwise barely merits a response. The fact that “three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence…….” is both irrelevant and meaningless. Those same three diplomats gave no evidence that Melbourne is in Australia, but it doesn’t follow that the lack of testimony provides sufficient proof that Melbourne is not in Australia.
House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences. Bureaucrats have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they will be wrong.
Once again, a conclusion which does not fit the facts while at the same time being both irrelevant and meaningless. I realize the orgasmic potential of Mr. Robinson’s falsely held belief that all the blame can be laid at the feet of House Republicans, but only dyed in the wool partisans will abandon all pretense of employing logical thought and share Mr. Robinson’s obvious glee in finding a way to use the Benghazi Tragedy for partisan political purposes. In addition, memo to Mr. Robinson, in the real world when individuals, bureaucrats included, make judgment calls which have such catastrophic consequences those individuals generally quit one step ahead of being fired.
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound? This is a decision that clearly still haunts and enrages Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who sat helplessly in the capital while Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were being killed at the consulate 650 miles away.
Well, yes, that is certainly a part of it, particularly when the man on the ground clearly believes that dispatching the Special Forces team would have made a difference.
But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
And Mr. Robinson knows this how?
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees. It is difficult not to feel his pain. But it is also difficult, frankly, to believe that he knows more about deploying troops than do the professionals.
I don’t know if it is really that difficult to believe, particularly when one has to wonder how much pressure was put on the “professionals” by the Obama Administration. Certainly other reports and time lines suggest otherwise.
Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet.
Yes, indeedy. As has been proved by the release of the talking points disseminated by those in the Obama Administration, they lied.
The problem is that there were, in fact, tumultuous anti-American demonstrations taking place in cities throughout the Muslim world because of the video. President Obama labeled the Benghazi assault an act of terror almost immediately — as Mitt Romney learned in the second presidential debate — but it was hard to imagine that the attack was completely unrelated to what was happening in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum and Jakarta.
Embarrassing in the fact that Mr. Robinson actually believes that people will accept what he asserts here as having any validity.
The Obama administration was eager to make clear, as George W. Bush tried to do many times, that the United States is not fighting a war against Islam. The administration was slow to recognize that the uproar over the video, at most, provided the opportune moment for a well-planned, highly organized terrorist attack involving heavy weapons. This was an error, but it makes no sense as a deliberate attempt to deceive. What would be the motive? To cover up the facts and maximize the administration’s embarrassment once the truth finally came out?
And yet we know that it was, in fact, “a deliberate attempt to deceive”. How much more Kool-Aid can this man drink?
Maybe that’s it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clinton’s failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said — well, I’ll just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee: “The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.”
Sigh….
Seriously, this is what the Left considers to be journalism…….
Some readers may be wondering why I took the time to respond to such tripe when clearly the article is filled with erroneous assumptions, faulty thinking, and more than one questionable fact. The real point is that it does not matter. The conflict between America’s haters and those who remain steadfast in their support of American Values will not be decided by who is right or wrong or what the truth is. We are in the phase which will determine who wins and who loses and the outcome of the Benghazi Hearings and subsequent findings will go a long way towards showing which side that will be.
AaronInvestigates 