 |
| (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
|
November 1, 2012
|
Here is what we know for a
fact about the attack on the U.S. Consulate on 11 September 2012:
1. There was no
demonstration beforehand.
2. There was a live
internet feed to the White House situation room, showing the attack from
beginning to end.
3. The consular officials
sent repeated emails and other communications asking for help; the State
Department, the CIA, and the White House had full knowledge of the nature and
progress of the attack from beginning to end.
4. The attack lasted for
seven hours.
5. There were military
forces in Italy and elsewhere that could have put boots on the ground within
two hours.
6. There were jets that
could have provided pinpoint air support to suppress enemy fire within twenty
minutes' flying time.
7. There were trained U.S.
Navy Seals and other combat-capable persons within walking distance of the U.S.
Consulate, who were issued direct orders to stand down and not aid
the Americans who were under attack.
8. Two of those Seals
disobeyed that order, and died defending the consulate: Tyrone S. Woods and
Glen A. Doherty.
9. U.S. Ambassador Chris
Stevens and Foreign Service information officer Sean Smith were killed in the
attack.
10. American consuls and
embassies are, by international law and treaties, American soil, and we do not
need permission from the local government or the cooperation of allies to have
the right to defend them with all necessary force.
11. Only one person has the
authority to authorize sending additional military forces in such a situation:
the President of the United States.
The Three Lies of Obama
1. The attack on the
consulate grew out of a spontaneous demonstration provoked by an American-made
anti-Muslim video.
2. Obama's administration
is conducting a thorough investigation of the incident, and will report on it
fully ... after the election.
3. Obama is providing
Congress and the American people with all the information that he now has.
The truth about those lies:
The White House, the State
Department, the CIA, and the Defense Department all knew, very early in the
fighting, that it was a well-planned, well-armed terrorist attack, and that it
was probably being carried out by a group that is linked to or part of
Al-Qaeda.
There was never a single
moment when anyone in the administration believed that the Libya attack had any
link with the video.
Whatever the investigators
are investigating, there is no need for them to ask who is responsible for the
decision notto send military support to the Americans who were
trying to defend themselves from an unprovoked attack by declared enemies of
the United States.
Here are the only possible
scenarios for that decision, in descending order of likelihood:
President Obama was kept
fully informed, and issued the order for American military forces to do nothing
-- including the former Navy Seals who were within minutes of the scene.
President Obama was not
informed, or could not be reached for a decision, or simply did not make a
decision during the hours of the attack, and therefore the orders to stand down
came from underlings who dared not let any military action proceed in the
absence of a decision from the President.
The Obama administration
does not expect to inform him of such events, does not wait for his decision,
and instead someone else made the decisions that led to the Obama
administration's failure to defend Americans who were under attack, and issued
those orders in Obama's name.
One of these scenarios is
true, or close to the truth. In every case, complete responsibility for the
decision still rests with President Barack Obama.
President Obama, Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta are now, and
were at the time of the attack, in possession of all 11 facts listed above.
They could have released all the information at the time of the attack and any
time thereafter.
When Obama says that he is
giving and has given the American people and the Congress all the information
he has, as soon as he gets it, he is not "mistaken" or
"misspeaking" or "spinning." He is lying.
Why Isn't This Story on
ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC?
The official excuse is that
because there's an ongoing investigation, it's inappropriate to comment. After
all, until there's evidence it's not a story. Especially in the last week
before an election, it is wrong to run with a story that would damage one of
the candidates, unless you're absolutely sure of the facts.
This excuse is an obvious
lie.
Every one of these news
outlets gave heavy coverage to Harry Reid's accusation of Mitt Romney on 2
August 2012, in which he claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that Romney had
manipulated his tax returns so as to pay no taxes at all for the previous ten
years.
This claim turned out to be
completely false, but it was known even at the time that Reid had no
evidence for his claim.
It was also obvious that
this claim would damage a presidential candidate.
Yet every one of these news
organizations gave wide coverage to Reid's accusation, because the
accusation itself was an important story.
So any claim that these
news organizations refuse to rush to judgment on a story because of lack of
evidence, or because it would unduly influence an election, is obviously false.
They have no such standard; it was invented solely to protect President Obama.
From this moment on, these
television programs have forfeited any right to be called "news
organizations," or that they protect "the public's right to
know." They clearly believe that the public only has the right to know
things that will lead them to vote for the candidate that these organizations
prefer, and that any information that would lead them to oppose that candidate
should be suppressed.
The nicest word for what
this proves them to be is "publicists for the administration."
Now they are hoping that
the big storm hitting the east coast will provide a smokescreen behind which
they can hide while continuing to suppress information about Obama's
dishonorable actions and his subsequent lies.
The only television network
that is giving these facts the kind of coverage they deserve is Fox News;
therefore Fox News has emerged as the only remaining news
organization on television.
I urge you to go on the
Internet and view the following sequences:
Here
is Jeanine Pirro's opening on her show Justice with Judge
Jeanine of 27 October.
The words that matter most
in the following sequence on the same show are "culpable
negligence".
In
this clip, ignore Ann Coulter; what matters are the words of pollster Pat
Caddell, one of the few remaining Democrats who still believes, as I
do, in honor, and in the responsibility of the media to tell the truth.
Why Did Obama Behave So
Dishonorably?
The motive for the lying is
obvious: If Obama's dishonorable and disgusting decisions were openly admitted,
even with an apology, it would be almost impossible for any person who takes
the Presidency seriously to vote for Obama to continue to retain that office.
As to why Obama gave the
order to abandon American citizens to the tender mercies of terrorist
attackers, when help was within easy reach, we can only guess.
Some speculate that Obama
feared that engaging our military would be an open admission that Bush was
right all along, and we are at war with Islamic terrorists, not just with Osama
bin Laden. It would make it obvious that Obama's authorization of the
assassination of bin Laden accomplished very little, while Obama's withdrawal
from Afghanistan and his "leading from behind" in Libya have
strengthened our enemies and damaged our friends.
Other speculate that Obama
really believes that he can placate our enemies by showing
"restraint." This is the kind of delusion that led appeasers to keep
giving Hitler everything he wanted in the 1930s, despite the obvious fact that
Hitler was preparing for war and all the appeasement merely weakened the
democracies when the war came.
Appeasement of Islamic
terrorists is exactly as ineffective as appeasement of Hitler. In fact, Obama's
policy of appeasement has made America even less popular in the
Muslim world.
"In June, Pew surveyed
public opinion in six majority-Muslim nations: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia,
Turkey, and Pakistan. In four of these nations--Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and
Pakistan--favorable feelings toward the United States (already incredibly low)
have slipped even further. For instance, whereas 19 percent of Pakistanis
expressed favorable views of America at the end of the Bush administration,
only 12 percent do so now. On the whole, Pew found a 10 percent decrease in
U.S. favorability among citizens in Muslim countries over the course of the
Obama administration." (From James Kirchick, "The Global Popularity
Fetish," Commentary, Oct. 2012.)
So even if Obama had not
lied to cover up his decision not to support American diplomatic personnel in
the terrorist attack in Benghazi, he would still be a dangerous man to leave in
command of America's defense.
The single most important
task of the American President is not health care. It is not economic
"fairness."
The single most important
task of the American President is protecting America from its enemies, and Obama
is a complete failure -- by his own choice, and as a matter of policy.
What Can You Do?
1. Make sure all your
friends know what Obama did, since most of the major "news" media
aren't telling them. (For instance, in Sunday's News & Record,
there was not one mention of the new information that had come out about the
Benghazi attack.)
Forward this essay to them.
Go to the websites I linked to and forward those links to your friends.
2. Stop watching the
"news" programs that protect Obama's lies instead of protecting your
right to know.
3. Cancel your subscription
to newspapers that protect Obama's lies and ignore your right to have the news
even when it might hurt their pet candidate.
4. Write to or call your
Congressman and Senators, asking them to introduce a joint resolution
requesting that the President of the United States posthumously award the Medal
of Honor to Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty. It is the only action Congress
can take at this time, but every Congressman and Senator should go on record,
and they should do it now.
Obama's decisions during
the Benghazi attack, and his lies afterward, are the most disgraceful actions
of any American President. Compared to those actions, the Watergate and Monica
Lewinski coverups were nothing.
Other presidents have made
mistakes, but this is the first president to make the deliberate decision to
abandon American public servants who were under attack in the line of duty,
when there were ample forces easily capable of intervening to protect them.
Remember that President
Carter at least tried to rescue the hostages in Iran. His
attempt failed, in part because of his own decision to weaken our military
capability -- but he understood the responsibility of the President to defend
American diplomats.
Obama has abrogated that
responsibility; his administration has joined him in trying to conceal his
dishonorable choices; we cannot afford to leave them in control of our national
defense any longer.
Obama dithered, Americans
died, And then Obama lied and lied.
*
Footnote: In case
you wonder whether the Congressional Medal of Honor can be
given to persons not currently serving in the U.S. military, and who were
acting against direct orders, here is the text of the applicable regulation
from page 38 of AR 600-8-22, item 3-7. Medal of Honor, paragraph b:
"The Medal of Honor is
awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who, while a
member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry
and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of
duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while
engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign
force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed
conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a
belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or
self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above
his comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the
performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the
award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary
merit." (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_22.pdf )
Note that the "while a
member of the Army" restriction seems to apply only to the first of three
cases. The medal has been given to persons not in the Army, so
it obviously can be extended to include other situations. In Benghazi, Woods
and Doherty, both retired Navy Seals, distinguished themselves conspicuously by
gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their lives above and beyond the call
of duty "... while engaged in military operations involving conflict with
an opposing foreign force."
The fact that they were
disobeying dishonorable orders makes it all the clearer that their actions were
"above and beyond the call of duty."
No comments:
Post a Comment