Either through mindnumbing incompetence or purblind ideology, the Obama administration left Americans vulnerable to the very danger which led to the murder of Americans and now invokes that danger to excuse its incompetence.
Posted on 05/12/2013 12:54:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Obama administration got some backing Sunday for the way in which it responded as terrorists attacked the US diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, last September – a night of violence and confusion during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said if he had been at the Pentagon at that time, "Frankly … I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were.”
Republican critics have said a Special Forces team or overflights by fighter aircraft based in Italy might have prevented the US losses or at least frightened off the attackers. Mr. Gates disagrees.
Such actions, he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, “without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on the ground, would have been very dangerous."
"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," Gates said, referring to morning-after analysis. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Nixon was a hater but he was given good grounds to hate. What he did in office was to consolidate what his predecessors had done. Roosevelt had acted extra-constitutionally in so many places it is difficult to catalog them all. Kennedy had actually bought his election, clearly a more heinous offense and a more constitutionally impeachable offense than Nixon's slush fund and his dirty tricks. "Landslide Lyndon", had participated in the theft of the 1960 presidential election along the Texas-Mexican border just as he had his own prior Senatorial victory. In fact, he was put on the ticket to deliver Texas by such means as well as to influence the rest of the South. Johnson lied to the American public about Vietnam and surreptitiously tape-recorded White House conversations, as had Roosevelt.
But the ground had been carefully plowed for at least 25 years prior to the run-up to the resignation of "tricky Dick" Nixon. There has been no similar preparation of the public for the impeachment of Barack Obama. There cannot be because of his race.
But there is another consideration. Republican senators who went to the White House and told Nixon he must resign acted out of conscience as well as out of a sense of political self-preservation. I mean to say that Republicans are at least amenable to appeals to observe the mandate of the Constitution and to comply with the rule of law because at root they believed in the system. Democrats on the other hand despise the system, despise the Constitution, and consider the rule of law to be an impediment to the good they intend to do. So they are not really amenable to appeals to conscience, they are only amenable to appeals to their ideology. One of the first elements of their ideology is the question of race in America. They will never depart from their fixed idea that Republicans/conservatives are racists and their crusade is to undo that moral failing in America. A second element is their idea that the American free-market system is inherently incapable of producing fairness and must be replaced and, while the struggle to replace it is ongoing, it is immoral to respect it and fully moral to despise it. Anything that supports that system, such as the Constitution and the rule of law, must equally be despised.
When we FReepers scratch our heads and ask ourselves how can Democrats depart from the Constitution or from common sense we are bootlessly trying to make logic in our universe of that which occurs in a different universe. Until we understand the Democrats see themselves as holy moral but think in entirely different fundamental terms, we will always be vulnerable to their deceits.
Barak Obama is immune from impeachment because a majority in the Senate is comprised of Democrats who regard impeachment not as a solution for high crimes and misdemeanors but as a political ploy. That which advances their ideological worldview is good regardless of its inherent morality or reasonableness and that which retards the advancement of their ideology is evil.
When some one remarked, "goodness what a beautiful ring!" Mae West replied, "Goodness had nothing to do with it."
Either through mindnumbing incompetence or purblind ideology, the Obama administration left Americans vulnerable to the very danger which led to the murder of Americans and now invokes that danger to excuse its incompetence.
THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON: "TERRORIST HAVEN IN LIBYA Islamist militia linked to Sept. 11 Benghazi attack operates freely in city" by Bill Gertz (SNIPPET: "The Ansar al Sharia Brigade") (May 7, 2012) (Read More...)
Thanks for the ping, Piasa.
If this article is correct in post no. 1, Gates statement is outrageous and that is an understatement.
Thanks for the reminder on Iran.
#
A Look at Iran
http://www.truthusa.com/IRAN.html
A bigger crock of shit I've never heard.
"Without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is"?
Psst! It's the Amish, you moron!
And, if the above assertion is accurate, then what are we doing throwing our diplomats into such a hazardous and unpredictable environment without adequate security in the first place?
Gates' one sentence also, just for good measure, includes a blatant lie ("without having any intelligence...")
Gates also makes the brilliant observation "Such actions... would have been very dangerous."
Yes? And? Isn't protecting the lives of American citizens and diplomats at our foreign outposts a primary reason for our military to undertake such "very dangerous" actions?
With one sentence, Gates exposes himself to be an utter fool. His attempted spin is totally laughable. The emperor has no clothes. What G-- damn cowards!
That's another four American lives which have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and Islamic extremist appeasement.
The comment above about our leaders being castrated rings true under this abominable administration.
So if it was the president that was missing and not the ambassador would he still order a stand down? Of course not, so there you have it folks. If you are not a high ranking government official and you find yourself under attack you are on your own.
If no action was taken by the CIC for personal political reasons then the charge would be dereliction of duty.
"Dereliction of duty is a specific offense under United States Code Title 10,892. Article 92 and applies to all branches of the US military. A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties"
One of Ronald Reagan's greatest mistakes was to take up the custom of receiving and returning salutes from officers and enlisted men.
He should have followed the example of General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower, who declined to be saluted or to return salutes, since by being elected to the Presidency he had (temporarily) become a civilian.
I've been making the same point. The idea that all of NATO or our ally Israel, could not get a jet aircraft over Benghazi is absurd.
He got reelected didn't he? And a big part of his campaign was he got ben alden (sp), al kida (sp) was defeated and the war on terror was won. So Benghazi was simply a protest gone bad. You do not send the military into another nation over a protest gone bad.
I’m sure that there is a civilian equivalent, particularly for a sitting president. But I think it is very unwise to even talk impeachment at this time. Let’s get all the facts on Benghazi, IRS, fast and furious, etc. Then maybe.
Flushing his career down the toilet for the likes of Obama. Sad.
It would be interesting to hear from Hamm.
Got it.
Well put but I find it hard to believe that it was merely incompetence.
I think it is essential that we hear from Gen. Ham.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.