It's Time to Face the Music

I can hardly bring myself to blog about Donald Trump, as you may have noticed.  I agree with practically everything Kevin Williamson wrote about him last week:

He is unfit for any office, morally and intellectually.  

A man who could suggest, simply because it is convenient, that his opponent’s father had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy is unfit for any position of public responsibility.  

His long litany of lies — which include fabrications about everything from his wealth to self-funding his campaign — is disqualifying.  

His low character is disqualifying.  

His personal history is disqualifying.  

His complete, utter, total, and lifelong lack of honor is disqualifying.  

The fact that he is going to have to take time out of the convention to appear in court to hear a pretty convincing fraud case against him is disqualifying.

There's more.

Truth is, there are quite a lot of things about Hillary Clinton that should disqualify her as well, but they don't.

I loathe Trump.  He's boorish and crude.  He's as far from the Ronald Reagan archetype as any candidate can be.

That being said, he is going to be the Republican nominee and any attempt to derail that through a third-party run or a brokered convention will be doomed to failure and will only ensure to elect Hillary, in my opinion.

Despite George Will's conviction that Trump can't possibly win, and Josh Gelernter's third-party scenarios, I think that at this point, Republicans must unify behind Trump. Certainly nobody wants to, but reality bites.

All the talk about Mitt Romney coming in to save the day is simply garbage. He ran and didn't win, he didn't want to run this time, and he's not going to save you now. And he's the only one with a ghost of a shot.

If America wanted a successful businessman to save the day, we should have elected Romney when we had the chance, but we didn't, and we aren't going to do it now.

I had dinner with friends recently who tried to make the case that as offensive and boorish as Trump is, as president Trump will likely surround himself with people smart enough to do the job that Trump himself can't do.  Trump may be ignorant of the responsibilities of presidential office, but maybe they're right.  Maybe he'll appoint the right people.  It's the only hope we've got.

We are in for a long, miserable campaign and God only knows what after that.  I long for the days when we had class and grace in the White House but those are so far behind us now I don't think we can redeem ourselves.

Perhaps I will unplug from the internet for a few more months...

Distinguished Service Cross Awarded to Delta Force Operator Who Saved Numerous Lives in Benghazi

I'm a little slow to this story but I feel that it's noteworthy enough to post anyway, especially since I'm not seeing much about it in legacy media.  The Washington Times reports that Master Sgt. David Halbruner was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross recently, likely for his role in saving lives in Benghazi on Sept 11-12, 2012.  The citation reads:

“Without regard for his own safety, Master Sergeant Halbruner’s valorous actions, dedication to duty and willingness to place himself in harm’s way for the protection of others was critical to the success of saving numerous United States civilian lives. Throughout the operation, Master Sergeant Halbruner continually exposed himself to fire as he shepherded unarmed civilians to safety and treated the critically wounded. His calm demeanor, professionalism and courage was an inspiration to all and contributed directly to the success of the mission. Master Sergeant Halbruner’s distinctive accomplishments are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his Command and the United States Army.”

Is the White House still sticking with that silly video story?

I think this is probably closer to what really happened, as opposed to a "spontaneous attack" over a video.

Has the mainstream media reported on Master Sgt. Halbruner's medal?  Or are they just hoping Benghazi will go away so it won't be a stone in Hillary's path back to Pennsylvania Avenue?

Brace Yourself For Hillary

Via Drudge:

Sure.  Bring it on, Hillary.

Let's talk about Benghazi for starters. Then we can move on to Fast and Furious.

Drudge is, of course, stirring the pot a bit with his "She Makes it Official?" headline.  She has done no such thing although there is little doubt in anyone's mind that she will run.

The fundraising email to which Drudge refers is from Gen. Wesley Clark and directs recipients to a website where for just a simple trade of all your information (for future fundraising emails, of course) you too can have a free I'm Ready For Hillary bumper sticker.

If you want four years of Fast and Furious and Benghazi ineptitude, sign yourself right up.  If you think putting Hillary, a woman, in the White House (again) will be hip, cool, and progressive, sign yourself right up.  I think I'll pass, but "First Mate" Bill Clinton will be thrilled.

Added:  On a related note:  was it al Qaeda or wasn't it?

Still More Questions Than Answers in Benghazi

Now that The New York Times has stirred up the Benghazi debate once again (and for that, I'm glad), Allen West has a few questions:

• Why was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on 9-11? It should be standard practice that high value targets do not move around in hostile terrorist territory, which Benghazi was on that day. 

  When the message came that the consulate was under attack, why were all immediate resources not allocated? As a former career Soldier who sat on the House Armed Services Committee, I am well aware of security protocols. Why weren’t they followed? 

  Where was President Obama the evening of the attack? We were treated to all the White House situation room pictures of the raid on Osama bin Laden — but where are the photos from that night? 

  According to the president, he ordered Secretary of Defense Panetta and CJCS General Dempsey to get the Americans in Benghazi the support they needed. If true, then who disobeyed the president’s order, and why did Obama never follow up with Panetta and Dempsey? 

  Who came up with the video scapegoat excuse, and why was the U.N. ambassador called out for the Sunday shows and not the person responsible, the secretary of state? 

  Ambassador Stevens had met with a Turkish representative in Benghazi, but why were his requests for additional security denied, and by whom?

Ed Morrissey has a few questions as well:

1. The State Department was repeatedly warned about the chaos in Benghazi and the increasing aggressiveness of the Islamist militias and terror networks in the area after the US-prompted NATO mission decapitated the Qaddafi regime — including escalating demands for security from the US mission in Libya. Why did State ignore these demands?
2. Other Western nations bailed out of Benghazi because of increasing terrorism. Why did the US stay put when even the UK pulled out? Especially without increasing security?
3. The attack took place on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 in an area with active al-Qaeda affiliates, as well as terrorist networks with murkier alliances. Why wasn’t the US prepared to respond to an attack on its most vulnerable diplomatic outpost?
4. Where was Barack Obama and what was he doing after his 5 pm meeting with Leon Panetta at the beginning of the attack?
5. If the YouTube video was such an issue, why didn’t anyone in Benghazi or Tripoli know it, and why did the White House end up retracting that claim after a couple of weeks?
6. Who told the Accountability Review Board to ignore the actions of higher-ranking State Department officials such as Patrick Kennedy, who ignored the pleas for more security, and focus blame on lower-ranking career officials for the unpreparedness of State for the attack?
7. What was the CIA doing in Benghazi, and how did they miss the rise of Ansar al-Shariah? Kirkpatrick notes that no one seemed aware of its danger until after the attack.

All valid points.

Maybe we can get Hillary Clinton to answer those once she hits the presidential campaign circuit.



Don't hold your breath.



More at Memeorandum.

Dear Gallup: For WHAT is Obama Most Admired, Exactly?

Gallup has issued the results of its annual poll of Most Admired men and women.

I find the results quite depressing and ominous for the future of the country.

My initial response after reading the list was "who in the hell answered this poll?  Where did they get these people?"  Apparently Gallup says that the respondents are equal parts cell phone users and land lines;  they are supposedly from all 50 states, and are all over age 18.  In short, it seems like a fair poll on the surface.  A total of 1031 adults were polled.

And the best we can do is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?  Seriously?

What, exactly, are we admiring Barack Obama for?  I'd be interested in a follow-up question to the Gallup respondents to see if they can cite one thing that these people did that are truly worth admiration.  Or do they just say "Barack Obama" because he's president?  Or Hillary because she's famous (infamous?).  Are these respondents political at all?  Informed on the issues?  Educated? Just breathing?

What is it that we admire about Barack Obama?

His efforts to get to the truth about the massacre in Benghazi?  Ooops, no.  Not so much.  His attempts to protect his Ambassador to Libya while stationed in Benghazi?  Nah.  Can't be that.

How about his program to sell weapons to drug cartels in Mexico?  Was that admirable?  I don't think the family of Brian Terry would think so.

Do we admire him for his absolutely relentless push to pass Obamacare, a law that is still being deciphered, its faults and foibles still revealing themselves, and the inoperable, poorly written website that accompanies it?  Do we admire him for the amateur roll out of this unworkable, giant new entitlement program?

His commitment to keep education at the state level and keep the federal government out of your child's classroom?  Not even close.

Maybe its his ability to relate to the common man, the little guy, the average Joe on the street.  Hmmm, no, it's probably not that either.

I guess it could be that people admire Obama for his commitment to the privacy of American citizens and his adherence to the Fourth Amendment.  Wait, no..., that can't be it.

His protection of the Second Amendment?  Nope, not that either.

Immigration.  That's it - protecting America's borders and saying no to amnesty.  The idea that immigrants need to follow the laws in place and follow the path to citizenship that millions have followed before.  The protection of American values and culture, the belief in American exceptionalism!  Dang it, no.  That's not it either.  Obama has just vowed to fight for amnesty (probably trying to protect the Democratic politicians on the chopping block this cycle.)

His refusal to bow to foreign leaders?  Nah.  He's done that at least eight times, not to mention chumming it up with dictators.

I don't get it.  Maybe we admire him for his golf game, his lavish vacations and White House parties, his general ineptitude and his arrogance.

As far as Hillary Clinton goes, I see nothing admirable there either.  It was on her watch as Secretary of State that four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, a situation that should never have happened given that the consulate there asked repeatedly for increased security and was denied.

On the Gallup poll Barack Obama gets 16% of the vote; runner-up to him is George W. Bush with 4%.  Hillary is at 15% with Oprah Winfrey behind her at 6%.

I just don't get it.  At best it's a dismal sign of things to come.  If we are to assume that the poll respondents are informed, educated Americans (and there's certainly no evidence of that) then all hope for conservative values in this country is lost.

At best these are people that vote.

Scary.

H/T:  Memeorandum

If Benghazi is a "Side Show" Harry Reid and Jay Carney are the Clowns

Bing West at National Review has a very compelling piece on Benghazi in response to former secretary of defense Bob Gates who on Sunday launched a defense of the Obama administration's lack of response to Benghazi.

The administration is sticking with its "Benghazi is just a circus put on by the Republicans" line, right down to Sen. Harry Reid who today continued to claim that the Republicans are only interested in giving Obama a black eye and taking shots at Hillary Clinton which is why they are trying to find out why four Americans were killed and nobody has been brought to justice.  Reid also continued to blame the Republicans for refusing to fund embassy security, a lie which has been totally debunked by Charlotte Lamb and also here in this Heritage Foundation report.

If Benghaz is a side show, Harry Reid and Jay Carney are the clowns.

On Sunday, Mr. Gates claimed that sending the military in "without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground would have been very dangerous."

From Mr. West's post:

Let’s do a quick review: The CIA did send in seven fighters; four special-forces soldiers in Tripoli were ordered not to pitch in; the Marines on Sigonella wanted to help; and there was nothing more to face than a mob inspired by a video (accoridng [sic] to the administration). But for the Pentagon, the risk was just too great. 

Message to those who were already fighting on the ground in Benghazi: You are on your own. SecDef believes it’s “very dangerous” to go into combat.

I'm not sure what more intelligence was necessary besides the real-time video they had at the Defense Department combined with Greg Hicks on the phone with Hillary Clinton at 2:00 reporting that Ambassador Stevens said they were "under attack."

Are we to assume that our military is no more flexible than that?

What signal does that send to the world?  Go ahead and attack wherever you like because the military needs time to prepare a response, so you can attack freely, or as Jay Carney might say, in an "unfettered" manner.

Any military veterans out there care to respond?

Pathetic.

Read the whole thing.

Pelosi Begins to Parrot Hillary Clinton

I've never been a fan of far-left winger Nancy Pelosi, but this just makes my skin crawl:  after accusing Republicans of having an "obsession" with Benghazi, then criticizing Republicans for trying to dig through all the cover-up and subterfuge on Benghazi to get to the truth, she said:

"We certainly have to give the full attention Benghazi deserves, but we cannot let it soak up all of the congressional attention," Pelosi said. "What would be the purpose of that?"

It sounds ridiculously close to "What difference, at this point, does it make?"




(H/T:  Memeorandum)

The Benghazi Dam is About to Break

I watched the Benghazi whistle-blowers testimony this week.  Greg Hicks testified that when he heard Susan Rice blame the terrorist attack on a YouTube video his "jaw dropped."  He couldn't believe it.  My jaw dropped when I listened to Mr. Hicks recount, minute by minute, what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi.  I couldn't believe it.

It was emotional and moving testimony.  He fought back tears and emotion several times.  Reading the transcript of his words doesn't seem to convey the raw wounds Mr. Hicks still carries:



When I heard this testimony, what I heard was a career diplomat deliver an honest account of what he saw and heard that night.  I didn't hear a "bitter" man trying to even a score.  He was there.  

Between the whistle-blower's testimony, and ABC News finally following Stephen Hayes's lead in exposing the revision process of the talking points, Jay Carney was spinning like a top at today's press briefing.

In typical Carney fashion, he blames Mitt Romney for "politicizing" Benghazi while at the same time taking a swipe at George Bush.  Laughable.

What has always interested me, more than the cover-up of a terrorist attack two months before the presidential election, has been the lack of security at the post in Benghazi in the first place.  Why would you entrust security to forces associated with the opposition?  Why was security reduced and why was Stevens's request for more security denied?

Perhaps Mark Steyn sums it up best, his outrage palpable, in talking about Ambassador Stevens:

 I cannot conceive of how empty and dead you have to be inside to put Ambassador Stevens through that, then leave him to die, and all the nonsense we heard about oh, they couldn’t have got there in time? Oh, really? You had, it’s like a football match, is it? It’s like a football game, you’ve got an end time, you know they’re all going to pack up and go home at 5:00 in the morning or whatever? They didn’t know how long it was going to last. They left him to die. 

How empty and dead indeed.  The value of human life doesn't seem to mean much to them.

In all the political spin it is important to remember the human cost.

Word is that more whistle-blowers may be coming forward.  It seems like this story is about to blow wide open.   Let's hope the answers are revealed and the truth comes out in this tragic, shameful event.

"The You Tube Video Was a Non-Event in Libya"

Joe Klein is soooo missing the point.

Via Memeorandum, Klein's latest piece of drek totally politicizes the Benghazi affair and blames Republicans for a) caring about four dead Americans and b) being responsible for the absence of security:

Could it have been the Republicans who consistently voted against funds for increased embassy security? Hmmm…that makes their current carping seem awfully political, doesn’t it? Again, sins of politics are not mortal. But one does wonder why the Republicans tend to fix on issues like this, which are defined by their absence of substance. (I haven’t noticed the Republicans clamoring to spend more on embassy security–which would be a matter of substance, happily embraced by the Administration.But that would require a budget deal, which would give the President a win.)

It's astonishing, really.

In August, after the attempting car-jacking outside of the compound, security staff was drawn down from fourteen to four.

Why?  Funding?  Really?

But that's beside the point, really.  We're talking about four Americans who were left to die, who were basically told, "You're on your own."

If you boil it all down to the basic facts, help was requested and denied.  The cover-up could not be more clear, even to a low-information voter.

As I listened to the testimony today, I was struck by the honest emotion and the solid story of each of the men before the committee.  I was also struck by the very obvious attempt by the Democrats to protect Hillary at all costs.  They were writing Joe Klein's column for him.

Back to Klein:  look at that last statement in the quote above:  the Republicans won't agree to a budget because that would give Obama a win.  Really?  That's the only reason there's no budget deal?  It couldn't have anything to do with runaway spending, Obamacare, and an out of control national debt?  It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the entitlement state has expanded to cradle to grave care for more people in this country than ever before at any point in history?

People like Joe Klein nauseate me.

Four dead Americans.  Left to die.

That's the point, Joe.  Do you even have a soul?

For analysis on today's testimony, see:

Newsbusters:  Time's Joe Klein Still Bitterly Clinging to Discredited Obama Script on Benghazi
Jake Tapper:  State Department Failed to Understand Dangerous Situation in Benghazi
Washington Times:  Blow by Blow 
Charles Krauthammer:  Cover-up
Wall Street Journal:  Emotional Testimony

And of course, follow Memeorandum for more updates.

Just Say No

I dislike the implications in this post via The Corner:

North Texas will host what could be the first showdown of the 2016 presidential campaign. 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are scheduled to speak at separate events in the Dallas area on April 24, the day before the potential presidential contenders are expected to attend the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center.

No more Bushes.

A Shameful Mess

It seems as if everyone is talking about Benghazi.

Yesterday afternoon I was sitting at the kitchen table writing checks and paying bills when my brother breezed through the front door ranting and raving about Obama's seeming dereliction of duty in Benghazi.  He's not one to usually pay attention to such things.

The Benghazi story doesn't feel like Fast and Furious did; I kept thinking Fast and Furious was going to get more traction than it did.  I mean, a murdered border agent, our government walking guns into Mexico, hundreds of dead Mexicans, drug lords, the who mess.  Well, there was a little investigation, a deeply researched book, a fair amount of outrage, but it never caught on with the general public or the "low information voter" like it seems Benghazi has.

One of the most succinct summations of this mess came from Mark Steyn's weekend column:

We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and special forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy — or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hellhole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. “Within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’s father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”

The pain of this father is unbearable.  His son signed up to serve his country, not to be abandoned by it.

Smitty, over at The Other McCain, makes a valid point, too:

This notion of “never leaving a buddy” is pounded into every military head at every rank. Should you hold the privilege of commanding a unit, I perceive it counts double: you neither want to see a buddy left dangling in the breeze, and you really don’t want the anguish of explaining to the world why there was a death within you command.
Which brings us to our current Commander-in-Chief, #OccupyResoluteDesk. I don’t believe the principle of “never leaving a buddy” eluded George W. Bush, say whatever else you will of his policies. In contrast, you have the Obama White House needing to dispute a storythat it sends form letters to families of the fallen. Wow.

This is clearly a concept Obama can't relate to; he's more accustomed to throwing people under the bus.

Then there are those who believe that the whole Benghazi fiasco was a conspiracy theory: that Obama planned for Stevens et al, to be taken hostage whereby he would negotiate some terrific hostage deal (right about the time of the foreign policy debate), the hostages would be freed, and he would waltz into re-election in November.  That might explain the lowered security, but is there enough evidence to support this theory?  I don't know.

Senator John McCain says that it's either incompetence or a cover-up, both unacceptable:

"This is either a massive cover-up or an incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation." 

McCain said that information that has surfaced since the attacks, which claimed the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, indicates the narrative provided by the White House in the days following was "patently false."

Either way, whatever it is, the responsibility of four dead Americans is Obama's.  The administration clearly does not want this uncovered before the election which is also an indication of culpability.

And what of Hillary Clinton's role?  Did she, in fact, try to get extra security for Stevens and his team?

Even so.  The buck stops with Obama.

It is a shameful mess.  And one that Obama will eventually have to answer for.



(See Doug Ross for some unraveling of this mess.)

Why Would I Think That?

Just walked into the room and caught a FOX News Alert coming up - a statement on the NATO agreement on action in Libya.  I thought, "Finally!  Obama is going to speak to the American people, while actually IN America, about Libya!"

Silly me.  Why would I think that?

More Speculation on an Obama/Clinton Ticket

Fueling longtime speculation about Hillary Clinton's future in the Obama administration, Bob Woodward is hinting now that a job switch is "on the table" between Hillary and VP Joe Biden.

Dig this line from Larry King via Politico:

A lot of people think if the president's a little weak going into 2012, he'll have to do a switch there and run with Hillary Clinton as his running mate,” King said, repeating gossip that’s swirled for several months and appeared from time to time on blogs.

IF?  IF the president's a little weak...???  I'd say he is.  

This one has been tossed about ever since the campaign when she wasn't the selection in the first place;  I'm not sure she actually wanted it then, though.  I'm don't think she had ruled out a second run for President at that time.  I'm not sure she wants it now or has ruled out a presidential run in 2016 (or 2012 for that matter), but I've long thought she has been unhappy in the Secretary of State spot.  She has often contradicted Obama policy and has seemed overshadowed by the aura of Obama - at least initially.  

In fact, I often wondered why she even took the spot and wondered if she had been offered something else in the long term - like VP?   I often wondered about Joe Biden as well; I get the whole power-trip thing, but I never felt like his heart was in being VP either.  He's always seen it as a second-fiddle job.

Nothing in Washington is ever as it seems.

At any rate, Woodward has provided more blog fodder for the left and the right.  Woodward is out there to sell his book and I suppose all this fuels that fire, too.  

Would an Obama/Clinton ticket bring back all those disenchanted Independents?  Would it re-energize the disillusioned Obama base?  Who knows...

...but, it does make for interesting speculation!


(Follow the discussion today at Memeorandum.)

What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?

Since Day One the Obama administration has done its dead level best to alienate our great ally Great Britain. It seems to be working. The Daily Mail is reporting that Team Obama was informed "every step of the way" about the negotiations and the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.’

At home, of course, we heard Obama say Megrahi's release was "a mistake," Eric Holder called it "regrettable," and Hillary Clinton called it "absolutely wrong."

The fine point is did he sign off on it? Obama defenders will say that maybe Obama did in fact know about the negotiations and release, but that doesn't mean he signed off on it. So as David Frum asked last week, how vocally did Team Obama protest?

"Exactly how vigorously did the Obama administration protest? Why did those protests produce so little result? Do British/Scots feel so little regard for the new Obama administration that they ignore its strong complaints? Or were complaints possibly less than strong? After all, a complaint in the form, “We don’t want you to do X, but if you must do X, we prefer that you do it in the following way…” does not constitute a very resounding warning."

No matter what the answer it is yet another sign that Obama is soft of terrorists. At least, terrorists will see it that way. And that's what really matters.

(H/T: Memeorandum and Hot Air)

Verbal Irony

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has selected the Clintons to "drop the ball."

There's a certain irony in that.