By Candelight

To the delight of the crowd, all of the candidates in Saturday night’s debate positioned themselves as aggressively pro-immigrant and drew a sharp contrast between their outlook and that of the Republicans.

“The fact of the matter is — and let’s say it in our debate because you will never hear it from that immigrant-bashing carnival barker Donald Trump — the truth of the matter is net immigration from Mexico last year was zero,” former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said in response to weighing immigration reform against the need for border security.

He’s never going to be the nominee, but he has the same sentiment as Hillary and Bernie.

Clinton added that she has reviewed Obama’s executive action and is convinced “that the president has the authority that he attempted to exercise with respect to Dreamers and their parents.”

Net Zero Gain: The number of families illegally crossing the southern U.S. border has more than doubled over the same period last fall, prompting concern about a new surge of migrants from Central America.

Many more unaccompanied children are also crossing, with 4,476 apprehended in September — an 85% increase over that month in 2014, according to new Border Patrol data.

“If that trend even continues a little bit, if things start to go up in February as they usually do, we could be looking at things getting really high, and by spring, you’re seeing an emergency,” said Adam Isacson, a senior associate at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights advocacy group.

history2

As I write, Paris is under curfew for the first time since the German occupation, and the death toll from the multiple attacks stands at 158, the vast majority of them slaughtered during a concert at the Bataclan theatre, a delightful bit of 19th century Chinoiserie on the boulevard Voltaire. The last time I was there, if memory serves, was to see Julie Pietri. I’m so bloody sick of these savages shooting and bombing and killing and blowing up everything I like – whether it’s the small Quebec town where my little girl’s favorite fondue restaurant is or my favorite hotel in Amman or the brave freespeecher who hosted me in Copenhagen …or a music hall where I liked to go to hear a little jazz and pop and get away from the cares of the world for a couple of hours. But look at the photographs from Paris: there’s nowhere to get away from it; the barbarians who yell “Allahu Akbar!” are there waiting for you …when you go to a soccer match, you go to a concert, you go for a drink on a Friday night. They’re there on the train… at the magazine office… in the Kosher supermarket… at the museum in Brussels… outside the barracks in Woolwich…

Twenty-four hours ago, I said on the radio apropos the latest campus “safe space” nonsense:

This is what we’re going to be talking about when the mullahs nuke us.

nuclear_blast

Almost. When the Allahu Akbar boys opened fire, Paris was talking about the climate-change conference due to start later this month, when the world’s leaders will fly in to “solve” a “problem” that doesn’t exist rather than to address the one that does. But don’t worry: we already have a hashtag (#PrayForParis) and doubtless there’ll be another candlelight vigil of weepy tilty-headed wankers. Because as long as we all advertise how sad and sorrowful we are, who needs to do anything?

With his usual killer comedy timing, the “leader of the free world” told George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning, America” this very morning that he’d “contained” ISIS and that they’re not “gaining strength”. A few hours later, a cell whose members claim to have been recruited by ISIS slaughtered over 150 people in the heart of Paris and succeeded in getting two suicide bombers and a third bomb to within a few yards of the French president.

Visiting the Bataclan, M Hollande declared that “nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable”: We are going to wage a war that will be pitiless.

Does he mean it? Or is he just killing time until Obama and Cameron and Merkel and Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull fly in and they can all get back to talking about sea levels in the Maldives in the 22nd century? By which time France and Germany and Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands will have been long washed away.

Among his other coy evasions, President Obama described tonight’s events as “an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share”.

But that’s not true, is it? He’s right that it’s an attack not just on Paris or France. What it is is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity”. And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.

And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don’t want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live – modern, pluralist, western societies and those “universal values” of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who’s been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.

And all Chancellor Merkel and the EU want to do is make that large comfort zone even larger by letting millions more “Syrian” “refugees” walk into the Continent and settle wherever they want. As I wrote after the Copenhagen attacks in February:

I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what’s their happy ending here? What’s their roadmap for fewer “acts of violence” in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish “Troubles” “an acceptable level of violence”? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it’s all entirely “random”, as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it’s tough if it’s your kid, but that’s just the way it is. If we’re being honest here, isn’t that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to contain it – and you can help mitigate it by not going to “controversial” art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or…

…or soccer matches, or concerts, or restaurants…

To repeat what I said a few days ago, I’m Islamed out. I’m tired of Islam 24/7, at Colorado colleges, Marseilles synagogues, Sydney coffee shops, day after day after day. The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries.

So I say again: What’s the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn’t prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his “pitiless war” isn’t serious. And, if they’re still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel’s mad plan to reverse Germany’s demographic death spiral through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren’t serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.

So screw the candlelight vigil. (Mark Steyn)

We are but candles in a Liberal wind(bag)…

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

13 Hours

On September 11 and 12, 2012, in an attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. Diplomatic Compound (unofficially sometimes called a consulate) in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed — the first death of an American ambassador by a violent act since 1979. Chris Stevens had earned the admiration and respect of many local Benghazans by making improved relations between Libyans and Americans his calling — one that he was willing to take great risks to accomplish. Also killed that fateful night was the affable State Department computer specialist Sean Smith, known ironically to his friends in the online gaming world as “Vile Rat.”

Far more people would have died had it not been for the efforts of the Annex Security Team, a group of private security contractors, each of whom had served in the United States Marines, Army, or Navy, working for an organization called the Global Response Staff (“GRS”), who risked their lives and defied orders by leaving the nearby CIA Annex in order to save the State Department staff at the Diplomatic Compound.

But the terrorists weren’t finished. A few hours after the “consulate” burned, killing Stevens and Smith by smoke inhalation in what was supposed to be a safe haven within the primary residence on the walled property, they massed in force and attacked the CIA Annex to which the Team and the evacuated State Department staff had fallen back.

In that series of firefights, two more men, Glen “Bub” Doherty — who had arrived from Tripoli as part of a group of reinforcements — and Tyrone “Rone” Woods — a Team member and former Navy SEAL who also had paramedic training — lost their lives. Another member of the team, Mark “Oz” Geist, suffered devastating injuries to his arm (requiring 15 surgeries so far), while a Diplomatic Security agent, Dave Ubben, was also badly hurt.

The deaths of Bub and Rone, and the injuries to Oz and Ubben, occurred in the last major violent episode of the battle: a series of mortar attacks that were too precise to have been just “good luck” for the terrorists and belie the Obama administration’s early claims of a disorganized protest that simply turned violent.

The story of the attacks on both Compounds, the bravery of the Annex Security Team and others — as well as the apparent cowardice of some, including the CIA station chief on location — is told in a riveting new book entitled 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi.

The book, written by New York Times bestselling author Mitchell Zuckoff in collaboration with the remaining members of the Team, is a riveting account of heroism and tragedy, something that you might expect to find (and equally not be able to put down) in a Tom Clancy novel and from which there will no doubt be a most adrenaline-pumping movie.

After all, how could a director improve on Oz, his body pounded and his left arm shredded by a mortar blast, about to be carried on a stretcher to the evacuation airplane, standing up and saying “Hell no! I walked into this country and I’m going to f***ing walk out of this town”?

Of the five surviving Team members, three use their real names in the book: Mark “Oz” Geist (Marines), Kris “Tanto” Paronto (Army), and John “Tig” Tiegen (Marines). Two others use pseudonyms, going by Jack Silva (Navy) and Dave “D.B.” Benton (Marines). Each of them, including Rone, is a father, making even more remarkable the risks they took for their countrymen and more scandalous the reasonable conclusion that but for poor decision-making by high-ranking State Department and others the deaths in Benghazi, and perhaps the attack itself, might never have happened.

The book begins with Jack’s arrival in Benghazi, being wary of surveillance as soon as arriving at baggage claim, and being shown to the CIA Annex by Rone, who “told Jack that the summer in Benghazi would be his last job for the GRS… he wanted to spend more time with his wife and to help raise their infant son.”

After descriptions of the other team members — in which you really feel as if you know them at least a little bit — and an introduction to Ambassador Stevens, whose “optimism was tested from the start by instability and violence,” 13 Hours moves quickly into the violent events of the night of September 11 and the morning of September 12, 2012, beginning with the State Department Compound’s Libyan gate security fleeing — though they were unarmed in any case — allowing in “armed invaders ([who]… roamed freely through the dimly lit Compound, firing their weapons and chanting as they approached the buildings in packs, some stealing what they could carry, all trying to find the Americans.”

Your next enthralling hour or two of reading is of battles and tactics and bravery and confusion which for civilians is only imaginable as a 21st century Alamo — under attack by al Qaeda instead of Santa Ana’s army: “As Tig moved to join in, a [friendly] 17 February militiaman on the west side of Gunfighter Road fired two rocket-propelled grenades toward the men outside the Compound gate. The grenade-firing militiaman was positioned about twenty yards behind Tig, who heard the alarming sound of shells whizzing over his head. The grenades didn’t faze the attackers, who kept firing.”

And while I’ve offered an example involving John “Tig” Tiegen, every member of the team demonstrated almost inconceivable — again, at least to civilians — courage and determination. They would (and do) say that it’s simply what they were trained to do. Which does not lessen my admiration for them by even the smallest measure.

Yet despite everything, and this is the intention of the surviving members of the Team, if one person comes through the book as most memorable and, although I hesitate to suggest degrees of heroism, a man whom the other heroes themselves see as a hero, it is Tyrone “Rone” Woods, whom everyone on the team liked, trusted, and respected, and who lost his life in a terrorist mortar attack on a roof in Benghazi:

The former SEAL with the King Leonidas beard, who’d extended his stay in Benghazi to help protect Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who intended to retire from GRS operator trips to work with his wife, who was eager to raise his infant son and see his two older boys grow into men, who instinctively and compulsively watched over his fellow operators, who led the rescue charge into the Compound, who searched through a burning building for two missing men, and who answered the first two explosions by rising with a machine gun and returning fire, had absorbed the deadly concussive force of the explosion.

13 Hours recognizes but deliberately avoids partisan politics. Regarding some of the most common questions about what happened in Benghazi, such as “During the attack, was the U.S. military response appropriate, and if not, why not?”

Most answers have fallen on one side or the other of a partisan divide… Media reports have run the gamut on who, if anyone, in Washington deserves blame and punishment, and whether the attacks should be considered a tragedy, a scandal, or both. However, by early 2014 one conclusion had gained considerable traction across partisan lines: The attacks could have been prevented. That is, if only the State Department had taken appropriate steps to improve security at the Compound in response to the numerous warnings and incidents during the months prior.

Yes, the brave men of Benghazi are simply telling their story, but the words of Pericles ring as true as ever: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” Simply as a matter of “the buck stops here” management responsibility, one can’t avoid the feeling that 13 Hours means that Hillary Clinton has more ’splainin’ to do if she seeks to be the next president of the United States.

As you look beyond the incredible story, the events in Benghazi offer as many questions as answers. Again, one cannot help but ask questions that might have political implications despite the authors’ explicit declarations that they are not trying to make political statements but simply to get the truth of that night’s events into the public sphere.

On Monday, in an exclusive interview for The American Spectator, I asked a few of these and other questions of Mark “Oz” Geist and John “Tig” Tiegen — three men who after enduring Benghazi have been willing to risk their own now-civilian privacy in order to tell their story:

Ross Kaminsky: Many aspects of that night seem like they might have been preventable. Let’s start with the initial situation on the ground. What did you make of it at the time and what do you make of it in retrospect?

Mark Geist: It was about like every other Third World country I’d been in… kind of a piece of crap. It was a lawless city. After the fall of Gaddafi, it was controlled by several different militias and they were all vying for control of various entities within the city, like the airport, the port, commerce, things like that, so they can make money.

RK: Did you think that the State Dept. security people, the State Department more broadly, even the CIA, had taken their own security seriously enough and done enough to be prepared for what could happen in a lawless city, much less in a lawless city on September 11th?

John Tiegen: Our side, we took measures, from the get-go, when we first got into Benghazi. For the State Dept. guys I’d say no. Even the very first trip that I did down in Benghazi, they were shorthanded. There’d be only like two Americans on that Compound, no principal officer, just two RSOs [Regional Security Officers] sitting there, not doing anything. Or they’d go on a move and only leave one American on the Compound. They were always understaffed and basically no security. I mean, the guys at the gate, they had no weapons; I don’t even think they had batons. There was a total lack of security over there.

RK: Did you think at the time that there was an unsafe reliance on Libyans for the security at the Compounds?

MG: My personal opinion is because of the relationship that people felt they had with the Libyans — most of the Libyans who lived there were supportive of us — it gave a false sense of security to some people. You have a town that’s controlled by militias. The militias weren’t friendly. At best, they were neutral to us. Some of them I guess were quasi-friendly but not somebody you’d want to trust your life to.

RK: One thing that I don’t really know even after reading the book: What was your team’s explicit responsibility, if any, for the State Department Compound?

JT: We had no requirement to go rescue them or do anything with them. We were augmenting our time to even escort the ambassador to the different events he was attending, just so they’d have extra security.

RK: During the attacks, you told the Team Leader that you wanted aerial military support as well as surveillance. What happened and didn’t happen when you made that request?

JT: It was Tanto who made that request. He made it pretty quick. He requested the IR and a Spectre gunship within 10 or 15 minutes. They just kinda said “Roger that. We’ll look into it.” All we ever got was the IR (drone surveillance), obviously.

RK: Did you ever figure out why?

JT: No.

RK: What do you make of the fact that you never figured out why?

MG: I think somebody was either afraid to make the decision or they felt that the situation wasn’t as grave as it was, which could lead you to the conclusion that maybe that’s [also] why they had us stand down and hold off for 30 minutes. Because they thought it could be handled in an easier manner, or they didn’t want the exposure or something.

RK: It’s not as if you guys are the type of people to call and say you need help except in the absolute worst possible situations. I just can’t imagine who would hear a call from any one of you and say “Well, maybe it’s not that serious.” I suppose that’s more of a comment than a question…

MG and JT: I would agree. I would agree with that.

RK: You talk in the book about the CIA station chief in Benghazi, whom you call “Bob,” and who refused to be interviewed for the book, as I gather from the book’s notes. Bob made some decisions which you’ve made clear you believe cost American lives. What did Bob do or not do, and what were the impacts of his actions or inactions, and perhaps you can include any thoughts on why he did what he did.

JT: Initially it would be to coordinate with [supposedly friendly militia] 17th Feb[ruary] guys so they knew we were coming. But it doesn’t — it shouldn’t — take 30 minutes to coordinate. That’s just “Hey, we have guys coming over. Don’t shoot at them…” kind of thing.

RK: In the book, you go a little further… it really seems that you guys think that Bob was a bit of a coward.

JT: Well, there were quite a few incidents in Benghazi before this where somebody would get tied up at a checkpoint, even at gunpoint, and he wouldn’t let the QRF team leave, not even just to get to the area. We don’t just rush in and start shooting people just because something happened. We go in, assess the situation, and then we adapt to it. And he just never would — I don’t know, maybe he just didn’t know what our capabilities really were. He just blatantly didn’t want us to ever do anything.

[Note: The Daily Beast reported in May 2013 that “Bob” received “one of the [CIA’s] highest intelligence medals.”]

RK: Tell us what that time was like from the moment when you guys got into the vehicles to get ready to go [from the CIA Annex to the State Department Compound which was under attack], waiting for Bob to give you the “go,” and what happened over the next 30 to 40 minutes.

JT: A lot of anger. A lot of us were getting extremely pissed off.

RK: What did Bob say to you?

JT: He told me directly, he just looked right at me when I got out of the car, “Hey, you need to stand down. You need to wait.” And that was it. It wasn’t, “You need to wait for this.” It was just, “You need to wait.” And from previous experiences, his “stand down” or even just “wait” meant “you ain’t gonna leave this compound.”

RK: Did he use the actual words “stand down” or did he just say “wait”?

JT: He used the words “stand down.”

RK: So do you believe that the delay caused by the CIA station chief probably cost the lives of Sean Smith and Chris Stevens?

JT: I strongly believe that if we had left immediately, they’d still be alive. They didn’t die of gunshot wounds or knife stabbing. They died of smoke inhalation. And that takes time. It’s not something that just happens in a split second. Their house was on fire. Every second counts. Firefighters know every second counts. So, yeah, it directly impacted their deaths.

MG: I wasn’t there at the time that the stand down order was given, but in any emergency situation, every second is critical. And how you use that time is critical. And to save those five people there and the 20-plus people at the Annex, the time had to be used in a very efficient manner. With the delay, I think we’re lucky that they all didn’t die.

RK: So Bob was a CIA guy. One thing I’m still trying to understand is why was there a relatively significant CIA presence in Benghazi at that time?

JT: They’re trying to gather information on terrorists. [Islamic radicals] were all over [the port city of] Derna [about 150 miles northeast of Benghazi]. Derna was pretty much overrun by [terrorists] months before Benghazi. So they’re out there collecting intel.Initially, they were out there trying to find the yellow cake [uranium] that Gaddafi had.

RK: Some people wonder whether the CIA was trying to send arms to Syria through Libya. Do you have any opinion about that?

JT: I’ve been there three trips and I never once even heard them talk about running AKs or anything. Yeah, they would try to find the shoulder-fired missiles, but they did that in just about every country, so [terrorists] couldn’t shoot down airliners. But for running AKs and stuff, I even went to the port with them and that never came up, and I was in a meeting there and they were just discussing the situation at the port. That’s all it was.

[Note: Another new book on Benghazi continues to assert that the State Department and Ambassador Stevens were involved in highly secret arms transfers, both within Libya (to keep large quantities of weapons out of the hands of the most radical militias) and from Libya to Turkey and then on to Syria.]

RK: Did this experience change how you think about government and bureaucracy?

MG: I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years. We don’t do the job that we do because of government or higher-ups in the chain of command. We do it because there’s a need to serve people and protect people. To me, it’s a calling. It’s just something I do. Like a firefighter who runs to the fire instead of away from it. We’re the same way.

RK: Does the government understand national security?

JT: This administration, I’d say no.

RK: I know what you’re going to say but I’m going to ask you anyway: What goes through your mind when someone calls you a hero?

JT: I’m no hero. I mean, this is something we’ve been trained to do. We all joined the military and we like doing it. We like protecting people, obviously.

MG: It seems to me that everybody should just be this way, be there to help people who can’t help themselves. If doing that… that’s just helping other people. That ain’t being a hero.

RK: How are you guys doing now? Are you happy? Do you miss that aspect of your life? Do you feel like that was just a chapter of your life and now you’re on to a new one, or do you feel as if you’re missing something fundamental?

JT: We’re always going to miss it. I mean, you’re working around people who think the same. The camaraderie that was there. I mean, God, I miss it every day. It was fun. I enjoyed it.

RK: So did you give it up mainly because you have kids?

JT: I’d probably say yes. That’s one of the main reasons. I mean, I went back. I did two trips. My twins are only two and a half. They weren’t even six months old when Benghazi happened. The first trip was kinda hard. The second trip was even harder. I just said, “That’s it.”

MG: I can’t work doing that anymore, at least not in that capacity, due to my injuries. It’s hard to say why… but I’d go back in a heartbeat. But I also am glad that I’m able to be home now because out of — I started contracting in 2004, so since 2004 I’ve probably been gone for two thirds of that time. So my two older kids, one who’s 18 and one who’s 13, I’ve missed a lot of their growing up. So it’s really nice to be home but there’s always that — like we said — camaraderie, being around people who think like you and can understand why you think the way you do and why you look at things the way you do. You, having grown up on a military base, probably understand that a little more than most. But the civilian population doesn’t think like we do.

JT: Plus it’s a job where you get to take out terrorists. I mean, you’re taking out the bad guy. It’s not as if you’re sitting around not accomplishing anything. It’s a very rewarding job even though the public doesn’t get to know about it.

RK: Last question for you: What question should you be asked that people are missing and not asking you?

MG: The thing that should be asked is, “Why did we write the book?” And the answer to that is because it’s the story that hasn’t been told. The media has talked about the beginning and what should have been done and they’ve talked about all the things that happened since and why people did what they did. But nobody’s asked the question of what happened during those 13 hours. Not because we care about some political thing — but because we want people to know what happened on the ground. And to honor Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and the sacrifices they made to try to save Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. And to honor them, too. Because they were serving their country, in a different way than we did, but they were serving their country and they died doing it. You know, no one has honored them the way they should be honored, all four of them who died.

Published today, 13 Hours may indeed set the record straight on what really happened during a night which has itself become a political RPG and could threaten the presidential aspirations of the next would-be President Clinton, whose infamous “what difference at this point does it make?” should be disqualifying, even if her failure to protect Ambassador Stevens were somehow overlooked.

More importantly, 13 Hours is also an incredible, harrowing, engrossing story of American warriors demonstrating heroism and bravery at a level that most of us can barely imagine — fighting against a much larger, well-armed radical militia force and saving the lives of many despite cowardice, cynicism, and incompetence all around them. (American Spectator)

If you see something that is not within the ideology, say nothing or lie, that’s the Democrat way.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


Benghazi: One Year Later

So what have we learned in the last year?

That Obama Lies. Hillary Lies. Susan Rice Lies. The State Department Lies.

Everyone in the Administration lies about it.

Then the Ministry of Truth buries it.

And you get scorn and ridicule if you even bring it up to The Left.

“What Difference Does it Make?”

It’s deliberate. It’s Calculated. And it’s 1000% political.

That’s what we’ve learned in the last year.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi “talking points” when Congress asked for them, and using the word “spontaneous” while avoiding the word “terrorism.”

And blaming a You Tube video that had been out there 3 months prior and had had no effect in the region. But the Administration arrested it’s maker. It’s the only arrest they’ve made to date.

And that  arrest wasn’t for making the video, which is a legal, constitutionally-protected exercise of free speech. It was for violating his probation in an earlier bank fraud case dating back to 2010.

Twelve months ago, the Christopher Stevens became the first US ambassador assassinated in the line of duty in more than three decades.  He was murdered along with three other Americans during a chaotic, hours-long terrorist raid on two US compounds in Benghazi, Libya.  Since that day, none of the terrorists responsible have been captured or killed, even though our intelligence services know where they are.  Not a single government official has been fired over the historic security failures.  And more than a dozen US diplomatic missions in “high risk” zones remain under-protected to this day.  Nine months ago, I posed twelve unanswered questions about the Benghazi massacre; as of this writing, ten of them have yet to be adequately answered.  The responses to the others reveal US incompetence and a politically-motivated cover up.  Chris Stephen, the left-wing UK Guardian’s Libya-based correspondent, has meticulously reviewed the record of what really happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12, and contrasted it with the Obama administration’s “official” story.  Here is the introduction from Stephen’s lengthy report:

The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was striking for a number of reasons: the date, 11 September, the toll – four diplomats killed, including an ambassador – and the knock-on effects on the careers of senior American politicians. But what is perhaps most striking is the inconsistencies: the US version of events compared with those of witnesses and the facts on the ground. The two do not tally. And so, a year later, there remain pressing questions about what happened that night – and what the Americans say happened

Read the whole thing ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge).  It’s a harrowing account of terror and confusion, an indictment of the administration’s reckless ineptitude in the weeks leading up to the bloodshed, and an expose of the government’s numerous attempts at revisionism.  Meanwhile, why haven’t any of the perpetrators been brought to justice?  Part of the equation is the Obama administration’s dangerous obsession with treating these terrorists as common criminals.  They want to build legal cases against the attackers, then try them in civilian court.  Madness. But another element of the delay is the Libyan government’s ongoing efforts at obstruction, and the White House’s lack of urgency (via the New York Times):

A year after the attacks in Benghazi that killed the United States ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, the Justice Department has indicted suspects. Intelligence officials have a general idea of where they are hiding. And the military has a contingency plan to snatch them if that becomes necessary.  But the fledgling Libyan government, which has little to no control over significant parts of the country, like Benghazi and eastern Libya, has rebuffed the Obama administration’s efforts to arrest the suspects…Some military and law enforcement officials have grown frustrated with what they believe is the White House’s unwillingness to pressure the Libyan government to make the arrests or allow American forces to do so, according to current and former senior government officials. Mr. Obama acknowledged last month at a news conference that the suspects had been charged but were still on the loose.  “Whether he likes it or not, he is going to have to deal with this issue,” said a former senior American official, referring to Mr. Comey. “There’s a huge frustration on the issue among the agents about why nothing has happened to these guys who have killed Americans.”

In fairness to the Libyan government, they can barely keep themselves safe, and wield virtually no sovereign control over much of their nation.  They live in constant fear of Islamist reprisals.  It’s also possible that the Libyans may still harbor a grudge over the public humiliation they suffered at the hands of the Obama administration in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.  You may recall that Susan Rice’s false talking points directly contradicted the assessment of Libya’s president, prompting the Libyans to delay the arrival of US investigative teams at the attack site.  Most gallingly, American officials on the ground are venting frustration over their assessment that regardless of the Libyans’ posture, The White House isn’t applying much pressure or leadership to resolve the situation.  365 days have passed since four Americans were murdered by a gang of radical Islamists, and that outrage has gone unanswered.  No arrests, no military strikes, few (if any) lessons learned, no accountability — even of the token variety — and no justice.  Appalling.  I’ll leave you with two video clips.  The first features Hillary Clinton standing next to the Benghazi victims’ flag-draped coffins and blaming the attacks on an “awful internet video,” followed by President Obama vowing justice for the fallen.  The second clip is of Amb. Susan Rice disseminating information that the administration knew to be false, days after the raid.  She has since been promoted.  Both spectacles speak for themselves: (townhall)

And it took almost a year to get Susan Rice her payback for her bold faced lies.

She the National Security Advisor.

Finally, someone who is nearly as good an example of the Peter Principle as Janet Napolitano.

The State Department, under the direction of Secretary of State John Kerry, is still refusing to provide requested Benghazi eyewitnesses to the House Oversight Committee for interviews about what happened one year ago today.

Yesterday, Chairman Darrell Issa sent a letter to Kerry stressing the only people who can provide a full picture of the 9/11 terror attack are witnesses who survived.

“The survivors of the attacks are the only people who can give testimony to the Committee about what happened on the ground in Benghazi,” Issa wrote in the letter. “Details provided by the survivors will not only help the Committee determine what took place during the attack, but will also help the Committee and other interested parties determine ways to prevent future tragedies.”

A request was made by the Oversight Committee on August 14, 2013 for transcribed interviews with Benghazi survivors. The State Department responded on August 23 by saying it was “not prepared to provide witnesses for those interviews.” The Accountability Review Board [ARB] has interviewed Benghazi witnesses Issa is requesting. 

“The ARB considered the surviving eyewitnesses to the attack to be part of a ‘core group’ of witnesses,” Issa said. “Furthermore, the ARB recommended that the Department establish a panel of outside independent experts to identify best practices and evaluate security issues at diplomatic posts around the world. That panel, chaired by former U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, enjoyed the Department’s full support, with unfettered access to documents and personnel. The panel met with over 200 people, including at least one individual whom the Department is now refusing to make available to the Committee.”

It is suspected the State Department has allowed witnesses to speak to the media for interviews. Issa’s letter cites a recent article in Vanity Fair in which great details are described regarding the Benghazi attack, including “details that only persons who survived the attack could possibly know.” Fox News has also been able to get in contact with some of the witnesses.

“The State Department has further restricted the Committee’s access to these witnesses, claiming that they must be insulated from congressional investigators as they ‘would very likely be witnesses in any criminal proceedings relating to the Benghazi attacks,'” Issa said. “The Department’s claims that it needs to ‘insulate’ witnesses ‘from any perception of political accountability in fulfilling their responsibilities’ actually creates the impression that the Department is exerting its own political influence to prevent survivors from speaking to Congress.”

President Obama pledged to cooperate with Congress after the attack as did Secretary Kerry.

“The State Department has not lived up to these unequivocal commitments to ‘provide answers.’ Instead, the Department has attempted to limit the Committee’s access to important documents and information, including witnesses such as the Benghazi survivors.”

Issa is demanding Kerry provide interviews with witnesses by September 24 or be issued subpoenas. (Katie Pavlich)

“We made mistakes, but without malice”–One Administration official was said to have decried.

The Justice Department says it’s “using every tool and resource available…to ensure that anyone who played any part in that attack will face justice, no matter how long it takes and no matter how far we must go to find them.” (Meanwhile, he’s suing Texas over Voter ID laws).

Well, that’s ok then, no problem…After all, “What Difference does it make?”

So the lesson to be learned here is , that if lie to cover up your bosses mistakes you will get a promotion and you get to ridicule and stonewall anyone who dares to challenge your lies.

Now, that’s Government you can trust. 🙂

 

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Never Forget

Never Forget!

Boston Herald: For those who lost their dearest loved ones on Sept. 11, 2001, the grief never really subsides — for some the pain never leaves their consciousness.

For most Americans, though, 12 years after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it isn’t until the anniversary comes around and official observances take place that they pause to remember the horror of that day.

Sadly, Americans now have another reason to pause on 9/11 — to remember that this nation’s security is never certain, that our enemies never cease plotting against us.

Today marks an even fresher anniversary — one year since the launch of a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and the murder of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens — as well as a native son of Massachusetts, a Winchester kid, former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty.

Amid the 9/11 observances and the swirl of events in Syria I suspect this anniversary will be overlooked by many Americans, and there are those in positions of authority who may be just fine with that. The Benghazi attack was both a tragedy and a security debacle — but the aftermath in Washington was a preventable, political disaster.

And Obama’s vow to find and punish who did it will be in line behind O.J. looking for “the real killer” on the golf course and in jail.

But we are secure in the knowledge that, at least in the Benghazi case, that the Political Left which has buried the story as best they could still want you to believe in their “internet video” lies.

Media Matters: In a desperate attempt to revive the manufactured Benghazi “scandal” in advance of its one-year anniversary on Wednesday….

Substitute “plans” for Benghazi investigation in this homage to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy:

“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”

“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

Boston Herald continued…

But as we mark this one-year anniversary of the beginning of that two-day assault not a single person has been prosecuted for the murder of those four Americans in Libya. Some criminal charges were announced in August, but it appears no one is going to great lengths to track down the accused.

But Eric Holder is going after Voter ID laws though! Yeehaw!! 🙂

One year after the attack a review panel has just now concluded that the State Department must draw clearer lines of authority and place a higher priority on oversight of security at U.S. diplomatic posts, according to a recent internal review reported by The New York Times.

And as recently as July, President Obama was scolding his Republican critics for trying to distract Americans by harping on “phony scandals” — one of which, his spokesman confirmed, was the controversy over the attack in Benghazi. It was a true low point for the president.

Today, as we pause to honor the memories of the victims of Sept. 11, 2001, we keep our promise to their families — and to ourselves as Americans — to “never forget.”

We owe nothing less to the victims of Sept. 11, 2012.

But we shall live up to that commitment because of politics, I know.

Or put in the vernacular of what to do with Vogan Poetry (Hitchhikers again):

They wouldn’t even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders – signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.

After all, “What Difference does it make?” 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Sowell of the Syria Question

Serious about Syria?

Serious about Syria?

By: Thomas Sowell
9/3/2013 01:23 PM

Why are we even talking about taking military action in Syria? What is that military action supposed to accomplish? And what is the probability that it will in fact accomplish whatever that unknown goal might be?

It can’t really be WMDs from British Intelligence reports because we all know that just leads to Bush league evil, right? 🙂

What is painfully clear from President Obama’s actions, inactions and delays is that he is more or less playing it by ear, as to what specifically he is going to do, and when. He is telling us more about what he is not going to do — that he will not put “boots on the ground,” for example — than about what he will do.

But, of course, if he has his Nintendo War and it is totally ineffective and then the Terrorist come across our “secure” border (or are already here) and strike in the U.S., then what Mr. Campaigner Speech?

All this is happening a year after issuing an ultimatum to the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria against the use of chemical or biological weapons. When the President of the United States issues an ultimatum to another sovereign nation, he should know in advance what he is going to do if that ultimatum is rejected.

You blame “the world” for setting the red-line that you set and try to shame them into doing your bidding because that’s how a Community Organizer does it. And it’s always worked before right? 🙂

But that is not the way Barack Obama operates. Like so many people who are masters of lofty words, he does not pay nearly as much attention to mundane realities. Campaigning is his strong suit. Governing is not.

With the mainstream media ready to ooh and aah over his rhetoric, and pass over in silence his policy disasters as President, Obama is home free as far as domestic politics is concerned. But, on the world stage, neither America’s enemies nor America’s allies are hypnotized by his words or his image.

Putin, as old style KGB, is laughing his ass of at the the little neophyte. He knows the bark is worse than the bite. And Assad has no fear of him.

Nations that have to decide whether to ally themselves with us or with our enemies understand that they are making life and death decisions. It is not about rhetoric, image or symbolism. It is about whether nations can count on the realism, wisdom and dependability of the American government.

And one thing Obama has proven is that he’ll pivot on a dime if it’s politically advantageous or throw anyone under a bus to save his own political hide.

He drew the line, and it’s YOUR fault. So YOU have to help him fix it! 😦

Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is a very clever man. But cleverness is not wisdom, or even common sense.

No it’s not.

When he was in the Senate, Obama — along with Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel and Hillary Clinton — was critical of the Bush administration for not being favorable to the Assad regime.

And were against “unilateral” actions. Even when Congress gave authorization to Bush for Iraq they almost immediately turned on him and have been bashing his “War for Oil” and “Bush Lied People Died” ever since.

But that’s just Politics. And that IS the problem. It’s just politics. It’s not a plan.

Hillary Clinton said that she and other lawmakers who visited Assad considered him a “reformer.” Back in 2007, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both Senator Biden and Senator Hagel chided her for not being more ready to negotiate with Assad.

Senator John Kerry in 2009 said, “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.”

Now he wants all the Chemical weapons (that he probably got from Saddam) turned over within a week, like some school principal talking down to a student.

I guess he was against attacking before he was for it. 🙂

Some people said that having Joe Biden as Vice President meant that President Obama had someone with many years of foreign policy experience. What they ignored was that Biden had decades of experience being wrong on foreign policy issues, time and time again.

Biden is just there to make getting rid of Obama, a worse case. 🙂

Biden opposed President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup that countered the Soviet Union’s buildup, and helped bring about both the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union. General David Petraeus’ “surge” strategy that greatly reduced the terrorist attacks in Iraq was opposed in 2007 by Senator Biden, who said, “We need to stop the surge and start to get our troops out.”

Senator Hillary Clinton not only opposed the surge from the outset, she was among those who refused to believe that it had succeeded, even after all the hard evidence had convinced most other people.

The grim reality is that key people in positions to shape our foreign policy during the Obama administration — the President, the Vice President, two Secretaries of State, and the current Secretary of Defense — all have a track record of grossly misconceiving the issues, our enemies and our national interest.

But are Political Tacticians. And the game of Politics is all they have in their sights.

This is the administration that is now asking for a blank check from Congress to take unspecified military action to achieve unspecified goals.

Just Like Bush in Iraq. But they say “it’s not Iraq”. Why? Because, they understand politically (not militarily) that they are hypocrites and they need someone (the media) to cover it up. Then rely on the blind Orwellian obedience of the mindless Left to carry them over the political threshold. Which is the only thing, really, in their sights.

“Military action” is a polite phrase for killing people. It would be nice to believe that this has some larger purpose than saving Barack Obama from political embarrassment, after having issued an ultimatum without having thought through what he would do if that ultimatum was ignored.

He’s the most arrogant man in the world. He’s the Supreme Community Organizer of the World. He can make you do anything he wants because he’s just THAT good at it.

Or So He thinks.

He has the authority to take military action if he wants to. The question is whether he can sucker the Republicans into giving him political cover by pre-approving his unknown actions and unknown goals. (Thomas Sowell)

Well, “Jar Jar” Boehner and the idiots are already lining up like lemmings to the slaughter.

They are only too happy to “appease” and to appear “reasonable” and not “racist” in opposing this President.

The consequences will not be pretty.

But at least we can all be secure in the knowledge that the one person who will not be at fault for those consequence is one Barack Hussein Obama!!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

 

November is Here

Next Tuesday decides the fate of this country.

Vote.

(for Democrats, they’d want to add Vote Often and and Illegally if you can)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Benghazi

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”

It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

And 2 More people have claimed responsibility for this film-related incident (Hillary was the first): (townhall)

Petraeus has made clear the CIA wasn’t responsible for the decision not to act. Panetta has tried to take the responsibility himself—and the White House has seemed to encourage this interpretation of events. But Panetta’s position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn’t get to unilaterally decide whether it’s too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country’s air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn’t raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it’s beyond inconceivable he didn’t then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon. So the question remains: What did President Obama do that evening (apart from spending an hour on the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu)? What did he know, and what did he decide, and what was the basis for his decisions? Petraeus has disclaimed responsibility for the decisions of September 11. Panetta has claimed responsibility for decisions that weren’t his to make. Both Petraeus and Panetta have raised more questions than they’ve answered. The only person who can provide the answers the American people deserve is President Obama. 

And he’s doing Sgt Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes, “I know nothing” and the Ministry of Truth is doing “I want you to know nothing”

So don’t worry, it was film’s fault and continuing to expose it is just a political ploy. 🙂
But the Obsession by The Ministry of Truth to ignore the story is not. 🙂

Clearly worried about a Romney victory next week, the mainstream press apparently thinks it’s found the “October surprise” — Romney’s alleged vulnerability on FEMA because of an answer he’d given to a debate question more than a year ago.

Here’s how a pool reporter described the scene in Ohio, where Romney organized a Sandy relief effort:

“TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA. He ignored the qs but they are audible on cam.

“‘Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?’ a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.

“Wire reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.

“Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

“‘Gov you’ve been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?'”

That led to headlines like: “Mitt Romney Refuses to Talk About FEMA After Hurricane Sandy Event” and “Romney Faces Scrutiny on Aid in Storm’s Wake.”

It’s a safe bet the press has never hit Obama with repeated, tough questioning on any subject when he was a candidate in 2008 or since he’s been in the White House.

But the bias becomes far more glaring when you consider how reporters have handled the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead.

Even liberal scribes admit that, almost two months later, “unanswered questions remain.”

Yet, rather than hurl unrelenting hardball questions at Obama whenever they get the chance and demand answers, they treat Obama to slow-pitched softballs like the one NBC News’ Brian Williams lobbed a few days ago: “Have you been happy with the intelligence, especially in our post 9/11 world?” And after Obama filibusters, they dutifully move on to other subjects.

Then again, who has time for trivialities like whether the White House denied help to Americans under attack and then covered it up, especially when there’s that all-important “what’s-Romney’s-view-on-FEMA” story to chase down? (IBD)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

The Leader or The Boss

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Obama, who prefers posturing and meaningless sanctions, has repeatedly snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who knows Obama has Israel’s back the way Brutus had Caesar’s.

On the 11th anniversary of 9/11, the Obama White House snubbed a requested meeting by Netanyahu, accepted an invitation from the more important David Letterman and apologized to Islamists upset over a film that mocks Islam and Mohammed — something “artists” in America do to Christianity with our tax dollars on a fairly regular basis.

Typically, the administration’s first response was not directed at the apology-spawned attacks that left one U.S. ambassador and two U.S. Marines dead. Rather, it took umbrage with the GOP presidential candidate’s justified condemnation of the embassy apology.

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” Romney said in a spot-on response. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Gov. Romney would choose to launch a political attack,” Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt said in a response as disgraceful as the initial apology.

Save your shock and disapproval for the murderers of American ambassadors and Marines.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt are more evidence that Obama’s foreign policy of appeasement and apology leaves us with friends that don’t trust or respect us and enemies that do not fear us. Obama has led from behind on Libya, Syria and Iran. Rather than an “Arab Spring,” we face a region dominated by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and governed by Shariah law — while Iran patiently builds its Islamic nuclear bomb. (IBD)

So what happened after the latest apology…they attacked other American Embassies in the Middle East. Gee, what a shock that was.

He not only shows weakness, he then attacks anyone who questions it. That’s the mark of a very immature person who doesn’t lead.

Chef Robert Irvine on last night’s “Restaurant Impossible” (yes, I am a foodie and find Food Network better TV than most things) read the usual riot act to a single mother who’s restaurant was failing because she was treating her employees like “her friends” so they were running over her like a freight train.

They took complete advantage of her. And when asked what was wrong with the Restaurant they said a lack of leadership! She WAS the problem and they just took advantage of the vacuum.

But what he said to her that I thought was the most damning was that she wanted to be the Boss not the Leader.

She just wanted to be the Head of “the family” and not a Leader. She wanted to rule, not lead. And that’s Obama. He wants to be your boss, rule over you, to tell you what to do. For you to fear him.

But Leadership. Nope, sorry, he checks out every time it comes up. Look at ObamaCare, his signature piece, he lead from the back and let Pelosi and Reid run amok and have a food fight in front of the customers (the american people) and then when it was going down pulled out every dirty trick and every Boss-laden trick he could to get his way or the highway.

This is why he is so poor at Foreign Policy because it requires leadership.

Let’s see, The Prime Minister of your only Middle Eastern Ally or David Letterman?

One is important for a Leader, the other is just important to Me, The Boss. :0

He chose Letterman.

“My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy,” Obama said at the Democratic convention last week. “But from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.”

Better an era in which we won the Cold War than one full of whining and whimpering, where our embassies are stormed and diplomats murdered with impunity.

A little more than four years ago, Hillary Clinton suggested then-Democratic primary opponent Barack Obama was so naive on the world stage he’d need a “foreign policy instruction manual” should he win.

She produced the now-famous “3 a.m. phone call ad” that questioned his expertise and readiness for the top job. History has proved her right.

At the convention, Obama and his supporters reminded us that “Osama is dead, and GM is alive.” Well, now Amb. J. Christopher Adams and two U.S. Marines are dead too, and that phone is still ringing. (IBD)

Oh, and there’s more to come.

AP: Chanting “death to America,” hundreds of protesters angered by an anti-Islam film stormed the U.S. Embassy compound in Yemen’s capital and burned the American flag on Thursday, the latest in a series of attacks on American diplomatic missions in the Middle East.

American missions have been attacked in three Arab nations – Yemen, Egypt and Libya – that have faced persistent unrest and are struggling to restore law and order after last year’s revolts deposed their authoritarian regimes.

Protesters smashed windows as they breached the embassy perimeter and reached the compound grounds, although they did not enter the main building housing the offices. Angry young men brought down the U.S. flag in the courtyard, burned it and replaced it with a black banner bearing Islam’s declaration of faith – “There is no God but Allah.”

Then  you have this: Foreign Policy Crisis Vs. Campaign Rally (where sycophants tell me how great I am)…

President Barack Obama’s Wednesday afternoon speech in Las Vegas is being delayed by about 45 minutes, according to the White House. Obama had been scheduled to speak at 5:25 p.m. at a campaign rally at the Cashman Center in downtown Las Vegas. He will now deliver his speech at 6:10 p.m., according to an updated schedule released Wednesday morning. The president was forced to alter his schedule to comment on a Tuesday attack on the American Embassy in Libya that killed four people, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the White House Press Office said. No other event details have changed, and doors will still open to the public at 3 p.m., according to an Obama campaign official. Wednesday’s visit will be Obama’s eighth trip to Nevada this year.

A 45 minute speech delay.  That’s it.  Carry on, Mr. President! a mINOR INCONVENIENCE!

Now that’s Leadership for you!

What’s the Boss going to do with Libyans who kill Americans? Talk to them sternly,discipline them (sanctions), fire them?

They aren’t his employees.

Then Acclaimed Restauranteur Willie Degle (“Restaurant Stakeout”)  was called into a Restaurant where the Leader had turned into a lazy Boss.
They had a food fight in the kitchen that spilled over into the dining room and one server actually served customers with chocolate sauce on her face!

Seriously!

But both of these Boss are shown the hard truth and they become Leaders again and business get better, more efficient, more profitable.

Marina (the owner of the restaurant in Michigan where Robert Irvine visited) is happy to report that since the transformation, sales at Paliani’s have increased. In June and July, the restaurant saw year-over-year growth of 46 percent and 32 percent, respectively.

But they had to recognize where they went wrong, admit it, and then do something about it. Obama is far too arrogant for that. Far too narcissistic.

Leadership is much harder than being a Boss.

The Chicago Way is being a Boss and a Thug. Leadership is something else entirely and Obama lacks that quality.

And still does. So expect more of this to come; the attacks by Muslims and him attacking Romney because of it- not that he wouldn’t attack anyhow because that’s all he knows.

Weak Leadership breeds it.

He took credit for the Arab Spring, now it’s sprung back in his face and the best he can do is blame the “old ways”. That’s it?! That’s all you got?

I’m certain the president is mortified by what happened — but I am holding a mirror up to the press.  If they’re experiencing fainting spells over Mitt Romney’s response to the first round of last night’s dreadful news, they might show some interest in the behavior, decisions, and policies of the person currently presiding over the United States government.  Just a thought. (Guy Benson).

Nah, the Press is too busy sucking up to the Boss or running around having their own food fights to care about doing their job in a professional and responsible manner.

Americans are murdered by Islamists, and sovereign American soil is violated, on the anniversary of September 11, and the first word from the administration to reach the world is an apology. So naturally, the mainstream media are focusing on what they in their considered wisdom have determined is Mitt Romney’s crass and ill-timed response to the crisis, even as the Obama campaign found itself in a foot race with the Obama administration to see whether the former could condemn Romney before the latter condemned the terrorists.

But Romney was right to call the Cairo embassy’s obsequiousness “disgraceful,” which is why the White House eventually followed Romney’s lead in disavowing it. Romney was also right to defend his statement against charges that he had “jumped the gun,” saying it is “never too early . . . to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.” Although the press acted as if Romney’s performance at the press conference was laughably unpresidential, what he said was appropriate and true: “It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives for the cause of freedom and justice and honor,” and “the attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place, and that American leadership is still sorely needed.” (NRO)

Leadership or Partisan Food Fight!

Your Choice.

NOVEMBER IS COMING!