Showing posts with label Chris Stevens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Stevens. Show all posts

Monday, December 30, 2013

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.


H/T:  Memeorandum

Sunday, October 28, 2012

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.)

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

"My Number One Priority is to Always Keep our Diplomats Safe..."


The fact that Obama went to Vegas the night news was breaking in America about the murder of American ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens is insane.

Even crazier than that?  Everyone involved knew that Benghazi (and Stevens) was a target and nobody did anything about it.  Oh wait, actually, what they did was stand down:

The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.


For some strange reason, despite the obvious jihadist presence in eastern Libya and multiple warnings from different sources that they needed better protection, State seems to have resisted calls for a more robust security presence at every turn.  

The State Department basically says nothing was amiss, that no extra support was requested, and that there was no net loss of personnel after the initial team left in August.

Read more here and here.

Pundette asks the relevant question:

It's incredible to me that no one has been fired over this; Americans, including the US ambassador, were killed. Why the decreased security? Someone has to answer that. Was it just bureaucratic stupidity and negligence, or part of the administration's effort to minimize the threat of terrorism? 


Do we even need to ask what the media would be saying had this happened under George W. Bush's administration?

At least this debacle is distracting us from talking about the last debacle.  The just keep coming.

Let's put it in pictures: