This editorial originally appeared in the The Daily News, Bowling Green, Ky.:
Just how damn stupid does the Obama Administration believe the American people are?
The answer is pretty damn stupid based on the highly implausible and absurd fairy tale spouted for days by administration officials that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was the spontaneous reaction to an obscure video.
White House spokesman Jay Carney and United Nations Ambassadors Susan Rice were among the high administration officials who were parroting this party line regarding a violent attack that took the life of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three more Americans.
Americans, however, are a lot sharper than this administration gives them credit for. Many citizens were not buying the Obama narrative from day one. It seemed more than passing strange that this attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 and that the spontaneous mob was conveniently armed with automatic weapons and grenade launchers and from all accounts were well organized.
These facts strongly suggested a coordinated terrorist attack to the man on the street who was also hearing media reports that the president of Libya was very adamant that this was not a spontaneous event related to the video.
Now we learn that our State Department has broken with the administration and says it never believed the Benghazi attack was a film protest.
Good for the State Department. We commend it for not falling on its sword to provide cover for the utter stupidity demonstrated by its administration. ...
Americans over a certain age remember the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Iran during the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
That brings to mind a bumper sticker we saw that suggests that Obama’s presidency represents Carter’s second term.
It certainly appears in the aftermath of Benghazi that the sticker is on target.
Comments (50)
Add commentVote
Vote for Romney-Ryan...No more Lyan!
monday mornings
and all the experts can tell you how the games should have been played. That has become the problem in America these days. It is the same experts who knew the WMD in IRAQ were there and that invading was the only option.
100 years ago the were sure the USS Main sinking was due to an attack. Now 100 latter they are still trying to determine is it was an attack or just an explosion caused by conditions on the ship. .
Instant news flash and the experts have the answers before the questions in almost every case. Except in so many case the information spewed on day one is determined to be wrong as the information unfolds.
History seems to have taught us little when it comes to jumping to those answers. We are sure are they know right answers before those same answers prove to be wrong. I will not be surprised to hear the investigation into this attack ends up with a series of things that are all tied to this sad day. And regardless of who has their talking points it will still be mostly talking points with little actual proof of the claims: just like the magic bullets in the Kennedy assassination.
The experts can not even agree today as to the existence of the video in question. How then can we believe their claims on the rest of the issues surrounding the attack.
Benghazi attacks
are obviously a black eye for the administration as well as others involved. The UN ambassador, Susan Rice looks a little foolish. However, the attacks occurred simultaneously with multiple demonstrations specifically geared towards the anti-muslim video. How is it so off-the-wall to assume these attacks were not related? I'm not defending the mistakes made or brushing them off. I just can't believe a spoof piece like this from a Kentucky newspaper is not overly biased... because it most definitely is.
Suggesting the administration believes the American people are incredibly stupid really just suggests this article is a political spoof. That's fine. Just don't forget that if you make a big stink about everything most people begin to tune out. As in Romney's debate blunder, trying to nail Obama down on this one instance, and of course he got burned... by the moderator even.
Romney, and others like this article's foolish author, are wasting time dwelling on this. The Benghazi Consulate had a good standing relationship with the people in Benghazi. The security forces represented that relationship. The request for expanded security during the uproar over the anti-muslim video would not have prevented these grave attacks. More people would have been killed.
This issue reminds me of Fast and Furious, or the birth certificate. Anything to get the tea party riled up. How'd fast and furious turn out? What happened to the witch hunt? Jump on the administration for specific failures and argue reasonably. Trying to paint the administration as a conspiring, evil dictatorship only makes the accusor look foolish... take the birthers for instance. Pick your battles, comes to mind.
bottom line - are we stupid?
The voters on November 6, 2012, will answer this question...
bottom line - are we stupid?
The voters on November 6, 2012, will answer this question..
sorry, I clicked "Save Comment" twice and do not know how to delete my comment.
Is it possible to delete a comment once it has been submitted?
In the age of satellites,
In the age of satellites, cell phones, and instant communications it is completely unbelievable that the intelligence community would not be aware of a riot going on outside a US embassy. The report about a utube video and a riot was clearly a political move, either to protect the Libyans from a label of terrorism or to make the current administration foreign policy appear more successful than it is. Either way the American people were told a bold face lie. (Those Clintons sure are good at that)
"Bold face lie"
I hear the technique was perfected by a previous president (& vice president) who invaded an entire country due to fabricated claims, which resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions in lost treasure.
Trying to remember the outrage from the usual suspects here on the Empire forum...must have missed it.
@lat
1. we've been thru the "Bush lied" diatribe. Wrong, remember?
2. this was an orchestrated and clumsy lie to salvage a failed policy of islamic appeasement during a tight campaign season. They either look like bungling idiots or they try to divert. It's too late to say they were wrong, or that intel dropped the ball, or that Amb. Rice was off on her own. And there is no way they are going to get saddled with a lie.
3. the "all flubs lead to Bush" is getting old and cold.
@grendel
1) Demonstrably wrong, to the point of absurdity.
2) Probably true. Whatever. Small fish.
3) Never. But I understand how you would wish so.
bakatcha
2. 4 dead Americans. Not small fish;
3. then it's your issue, and makes for shallow discussion.
My shallow issue?
Bush's hand was on the tiller when he drove our economy on the rocks. He also plunged us into two regrettable wars. Oh, and don't forget his vigilance as CINC when terrorists plunged two airliners into the Twin Towers, and crashed another headed toward our capital.
What, do you think you can sweep such momentous incompetence under the rug after a few years? Hardly. You'll be flogging Obama for his misdeeds a decade after he's out of office, but none of his blunders (so far) even remotely approach those of GWB. We're still very much living with the consequences of them, and will be for many years to come.
But your defense of him is heartwarming, in a weird sort of way.
Lattie
Your defense of Obama is indeed heartwarming, in a weird sort of way.
denny
And precisely where did I defend Obama?
Give me a break
Give me a break. Where was all this criticism and demand for immediate reconciliation/justice in regard to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz connections with Enron, Haliburton, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, India, Dabhol, the Taliban, 9/11, and the natural gas pipeline that connected them all? What I observed was a Republican effort to intentionally sweep it all under the rug and keep those connections hidden from the American people. Now all of a sudden, those very same voices who remained silent or obtuse for so many years in Central Asia demand clarification for 14 days of vagueness in Libya? I smell fallacious politicking and deceitful rhetoric.
The Benghazi attack would have happened under McCain
(or even, God help us, under Palin if McCain hadn't survived this long).
There was nothing the U.S. could do to have prevented the upheaval that ran throughout the Middle East.
We can't do an Iraq-style invasion in EVERY Arab/Muslim country. Nor can we do a long-term Afghan occupation everywhere.
Beware of what Romney is calling for.
He wants a perpetual U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
He won't rule out sending U.S. combat troops BACK into Iraq.
And it appears that he is open to a total U.S. war against the entire Arab/Muslim world(a war that would have to be unwinnable and would cost tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent lives).
Despite what Mitt Romney(a man who never got anywhere near a war in his life, even though he was morally obligated to volunteer for combat duty in Vietnam as a passionate supporter of that war)may think, wars in real life are not Sylvester Stallone movies. They don't end in 90 minutes just because that's when you run out of film stock.
They are real. They are bloody. And they are no longer justifiable.
If you vote for Romney, you are voting to soak the Middle East(and probably the U.S.)in the blood of the innocent. Nothing can possibly be worth that.
In life, there is hope. In war, there is never hope.
Lattie
You defend him every time that you blame Bush. In case you didn't know Bush's term ended almost 4 years ago.
@Kenb41
Very sweeping statements, but let's not get carried away here.
1. Afghanistan: Gov Romney opposed the idea of setting a timeline for obvious reasons. It is one thing to agree with the proposition, but like you alluded to, it is not a football game over in 60 minutes. What is the mission and has it been met? (rhetorical) IF it cannot be met, then why wait till 2014?
2. US troops back to Iraq? POTUS pulled us out of there without Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqis. That reads like a "L" in the W/L scheme of things.
3. What would make you think he is open to a war against the entire arab/muslim world? That doesnt smell right. It's counter to economic objectives, and that's the urgent priority.
4. I'm guessing you mean that a vote for Obama is a vote for life? I'm not connecting the dots there...We've experienced 4 steady yrs of decline & deterioration, which to me indicates weakening. Our enemies (we do have enemies) will not flinch when the time is ripe to exploit it. 4 more yrs of this and they can pick the time.
The obvious implication of Romney's position
Is a continued U.S. presence in the Middle East...and an expanded one. Romney's campaign is based on the "exceptionalist" notion of this country, which implies that whenever we act like imperialists, it's ok, because we're different because...we're different(assuming we actually ARE different...which is delusional, because a country can't exempt itself from history simply through force of will). And he reflects the now-totally discredited PNAC notion that the U.S. has the RIGHT to dominate the Middle East(as well as the entire world).
You don't really believe that just putting U.S. troops back in to Iraq would change the overall situation, do you? And putting them back can't lead to a Status of Forces agreement anyway...assuming such an agreement would matter.
And yes, a New Crusade(which is what Romney is pretty much calling for)is against the economic interests of the people, but so was going into Iraq, a country we KNEW was not to blame for 9/11.
We aren't declining as a nation. The steps that have been taken to make healthcare more available to all(steps Romney would reverse, leaving nothing useful in their place)and the efforts to protect Americans born gay or lesbian from discrimination make us a BETTER country. The unemployment rate is falling(it's only been high because the rich have deliberately kept it artificially high to force people to put the GOP back in the White House, something the rich had no right to do to this country btw)and things are getting better for the many, rather than the few. It's not Utopia, but it's improvement.
No good would come from electing Romney and restoring the "some are 'Real Americans' and some aren't" mindset. Romney started as a school bully and he still acts like a bully(his son, with his threat to punch the president in the face, is following in his footsteps and should have been reported to the Secret Service for that by his dad).
A vote for Romney is a vote for ugliness. We're a better country than that. We have nothing to gain by lowering ourselves to the past.
And as to Afghanistan
I wasn't defending the "get out in 2014" thing...we SHOULD just leave now. It's not strength to stay in a war just because you don't want to admit that the war is a dead loss.
And we all know for certain now that the war in Afghanistan IS a dead loss.
Our wars have accomplished nothing in the Middle East...they CAN accomplish nothing...and the peoples of the region don't want us there-how many more reasons do we need to get out?
This "guest editorial" is a disgrace...it reads like something Hearst would have run to justify getting us into Cuba and the Philippines in 1898.
#1
We have some fundamental agreement, but you're not going to like this...
We should exercise the option to go back into Iraq. The situation is deteriorating, Iran is overflying to ferry materiel into Syria, and it would not take much to jeopardize the flow of oil in the region. If we go back in it will HAVE to be the obvious pretense to secure the flow of oil.
Not crusaders, not liberators, Guardians of Oil. The circumstances we left under -- with no Status of Forces -- means that we have no mutually agreed terms to re-engage in theatre. Incidentally, re-engagement has economic motivation, not ideological or altruistic. Dont get me wrong - Americans dont want to make Iraqi or arab orphans -- that's not us. But if we've learned anything, it's that we get nowhere feeding stray cats.
#2
I dont think we have a coherent mission in AF anymore. If it's to disrupt, destroy & deny AQ, well, we can pretty much extend that mission to SW & Central Asia, M-E, East Africa, and North Africa. This nation-building policy could go on forever. We just happen to have 50K+ combat forces in AF, so they are having no shortage of targets.
The muslim culture respects fear, conquest, and retribution. Those are the tools of meaningful dialog. We dont deal in retribution (at least not as a policy), and we are not crusaders, but we have huge potential to invoke fear, which is not the same as terrorism. Terror targets the population, where fear targets the honchos who want to stay in power.
What we need is the will to use our capacity to persuade, and not let something meaningless like winning of hearts & minds get in the way, because it gets in the way of respect.
thank you grendel
You've finally admitted it. We weren't in Iraq because of terrorism or national security. We were there to secure our oil supply. Money and oil. Simple as that. Your words.
So our violent intervention in a nation far, far from here is patriotic, eh? A shining beacon of morality; an example for the rest of the world to follow? Or just plain old greedy and simple-minded?
So again, one more time, please explain how proven renewable energy industries are somehow anti-American? How killing thousands of civilians in the name of protecting our oil supply is morally righteous? How those advocating for energy security independent from nightmares like this are somehow socialistic or radical?
While we're on the topic,
While we're on the topic, Grendel, let's look at Afghanistan. In the 70's, 80's, and 90's, we bankrolled the Taliban to the tune of billions per year and supplied them with weapons and guerilla warfare training. What was the reason? Sure, a Cold War proxy with the USSR to start. But the more sinister reason, the more ECONOMIC reason was: Dabhol, India. Do some research. I'll give you a few keywords to search with: Unocal. Enron. Haliburton. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rove. Karzai.
When the Taliban decided they no longer wanted to play ball with our zealous overseas profiteering, we changed our foreign policy toward them. Why the immediate change in positions? Could it have been the reasons you stated above? Gas and money?
This whole violent greed-disguised-as-patriotism would be unbelievable if it weren't so fricking perpetual.
to southeast food
you are commenting on our last venture into Iraq. That was national security and I've never contradicted that, because it was. Energy is a component of our national security strategy, so if we went back in, I am saying that would be the proper justification. Humanitarian missions do not work out in muslim cultures.
Dont read too much into it and ask for explanations to things I did not state.
AF - there was a Soviet Union in the 70s & 80s and AF was a proxy affair. It sounds like you are suggesting the Taliban rejected Haliburton & Enron, as if Hal. & Enron were instrumental in soviet withdrawal from AF. I missed a beat there.
Iraq wasn't national security
because Iraq wasn't attacking the U.S. and wouldn't have started doing so.
And I'm still trying to get my head around your "we need a Status of Forces" thing...you're basically saying that we have to send combat troops back in to Iraq, to kill and die for oil, in order to get something that lets us...send combat troops back in to Iraq, to kill and die for oil. In other words...we have to go back...so that we can go back.
Please think about that.
to Kenb41
it's not simple as "Iraq wasn't attacking us." For good or ill, we stepped up to the plate in '03 to give Saddam the ultimatum. We had intel suggesting that Saddam had a WMD program, and he had a history of pursuing it (Israeli airstrike in '81) and gassing the Kurds. He didnt deny it, but wouldnt allow inspecters in. Saddam had his reasons, and now he's gone. That was a matter of national security.
Status of Forces (if there was such an agreement in place) basically should have called for arrangement to either (1) have US forces remain in Iraq (since we had so much invested since invasion) or (2) "triggers" that would allow US forces to enter Iraq. We have nothing because Obama thought it was more expedient to pull out at end of 2011 than broker an agreement. That was amateurish, and now the region is fomenting and we have no established presence to deter or respond. It's like starting over, and that means acquiescing to UN approval - at least under current administration.
If we go back without UN approval (more likely than not), I'm saying drop the pretense of peace-keeping and tell it like it is: we dont care about them, it's the oil under their feet we want safeguarded.
Say what, Grendel?
"I'm saying drop the pretense of peace-keeping and tell it like it is: we dont care about them, it's the oil under their feet we want safeguarded."
Why do we need to 'safeguard' their oil? Iraq oil represents just 2.6% of our oil imports. We import more from Colombia than we do from Iraq. We import 10 times as much from Canada - perhaps we need to invade Canada to 'safeguard their (our) oil.
I don't see vital national interests there. Never did. More likely, some multinational oil companies have vital interests that they'd like to see us protect. And you're advocating that American servicemen should risk their blood and lives on behalf of those companies' interests. You, sir, are a tool.
find the Strait of Hormuz on a map
and ditch the attitude. It makes you sound like a twit, Lat58.
Get your story straight
A few hours ago it was the oil under the Iraqi's feet. Now it's the Strait of Hormuz. What'll it be tomorrow? Iran? Al Qaeda? Defend Israel?
Ditch the dishonesty. It makes you sound like a tool, Grendel.
southeastfood, The US did not
southeastfood,
The US did not bankroll the Taliban in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. like you claim. The Taliban did not even exist until after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Your ignorance on this issue shows that your well-intentioned opinion has zero credibility.