"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.

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.)

Live-Blogging the Ryan/Biden Debate - UPDATED

The VP debate begins in a couple of hours.

While we're waiting, anyone want to explain to me HOW Team Obama can blame the events in Benghazi on Romney/Ryan?

Allapundit:

"...a cornered flack falls back on her most basic impulse in a desperate situation: She blames the other party for making a big deal out of nothing. And by “nothing,” I mean the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three American consulate personnel."

Go here for the video.

You think Libya will come up tonight?

Are we not allowed to ask questions about national security anymore?

Added:  Krauthammer:  "Nobody died in Watergate." 

Wall Street Journal calls the debate for Biden and we're still thirty minutes from the start. 

Ace is lowering expectations; it's a good point.  Getting cocky is always bad. 

7:45:  I'm watching pre-game on CSPAN.  Frank Fahrenkoph is asking people in the audience not to Tweet for 90 minutes.  Fat chance. 

Hey, did you see Paul Ryan's TIME photo shoot? 

8:00:  Here we go.

8:05:   Libya right out of the gate - AND Raddatz calls it a pre-planned assault and a terrorist attack.  Biden vows to "get to the bottom of it" yet pivots to Afghanistan.  She asked about Libya.  First Osama bin Laden reference.  Let's count them!

8:10:  Ryan's first response to the question hammers on the YouTube video blame game.   "Now they're trying to blame the Romney/Ryan ticket for making this an issue!"  He's incredulous.  Biden is squinting.  

Good one:  Ryan points out that we should have spoken out sooner on the Iran Green Revolution as he defends Romney's speaking out on Libya.

"That's a bunch of malarkey," says Biden.    "Be specific," says Raddatz.   

Biden says "These guys bet against America all the time!"  WTH is he talking about?

He falls back to the "bad intelligence" excuse.

8:15:   Ryan is steady, in command of his facts and Biden is over there laughing at Ryan and smirking.  That ought to backfire on Biden.

8:20: "Bibi's been my friend for 39 years!" says Biden.  Condescending.  Biden swears Obama/Biden "will not allow" Iran to get a nuclear weapon; "Iran is more isolated today than they were when we took office!"  Talk about malarkey!

Biden's smirking, eye rolling, and outright laughing at Paul Ryan is bad form.  "Facts matter!"  Biden says.  Well yes, Joe, they do.

Switching to the economy now.

8:25:   Biden opens the economy segment by talking about the mess Bush left.  And there's the 47% comment.  Ryan ought to be on solid ground on this topic.

Biden wants to "level the playing field."  Translate:  socialism.

As Ryan points out the high unemployment rate Biden outright laughs at him. 

Biden says Republicans just need "to get out of the way."  Ryan rebounds with the reminder that they came in with one party control and passed a stimulus.

Biden continues to laugh, smirk and call Paul Ryan his "friend."

Ryan:  "Was it a good idea to borrow all this money from China?"

Ryan:  "Where are the five million green jobs?"

Moving on to Medicare.

8:40:   Ryan:  Obamacare takes $716 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare.  Obamacare's board will lead to denied care for current seniors.  Biden:  "Gawd I heard that death panel debate from Sarah Palin."

Biden talks right to the camera now, to seniors:  Do you have more benefits today than you used to?

As Ryan tries to make his case Biden interrupts him then laughs at him.  Ryan needs to get aggressive here.

8:45:   Why does Raddatz keep letting Biden interrupt Ryan and step on his time?  (Rhetorical question).

Biden's strategy seems to be interrupt everything Ryan says so that Ryan can't make a point and Raddatz lets him.  Again, Ryan needs to be more aggressive.

Moving on to taxes.  Biden gets his two minute opening.  Note:  Ryan does not interrupt.

Ryan's turn:  thirty seconds in, Biden shaking his head and smirking.  Ryan is in command of his facts and statistics as he points out the faults of taxing small businesses.  Ryan takes his turn to look into the camera:  "Look out middle class!  The tax bill is coming to YOU!"

Ryan does, however, get through his two minutes without an interruption this time.  Lots of smirking and outright laughing by Biden though.  Obnoxious.

8:50:   Raddatz is doing nothing to reign Biden in and Biden is making an ass out of himself.  As Ryan touts bipartisanship and Jack Kennedy, Biden says, "Oh NOW you're Jack Kennedy!?"

Between Raddatz and Biden, Ryan has a hard time completing a thought; that said, he's doing well just staying on his feet.

Pivoting to defense now.  Raddatz and Biden are now double teaming Ryan.  Ryan points out that a small defense invites weakness.  Biden denies cuts to defense and asserts that sequestration is what the Republicans wanted.  Ryan is getting his sea legs and getting a little more aggressive.

Raddatz cuts Ryan off yet again to move on to Afghanistan.

9:00:  Ooops - another bin Laden reference from Biden.  #DRINK

In case al Qaeda didn't know when we were pulling out of Afghanistan?  2014.  Says Joe.

Thanks Paul Ryan:  We don't want to put our draw down date on our enemies calendar.

Biden:  That's a bizarre statement.

Good grief.

Raddatz:  Do you think the Taliban is taking advantage of this timeline?  Duh!!!

Now Raddatz is schooling Biden on how the military follows orders.  Is Ryan still here?

9:05:   Ryan makes the case that our soldiers in Afghanistan are less safe because they're doing the same mission with less people; Biden says that the Afghans should step up.  Now we're arguing about fighting seasons.  "The calendar works the same every year," says Ryan.

Biden's philosophy:  It's Afghanistan's problem now.

To Syria:  Biden profoundly pronounces Syria "a different country."

9:10:   Bless his heart, Paul Ryan is trying to stay steady on on track but Biden misrepresents everything and interrupts constantly.  I think Ryan isn't aggressive enough or a big enough blow hard to keep up with Joe.  Plus, in general, Americans are tired of our presence in Afghanistan, I think, so Biden is probably winning on this one.  I think Ryan is winning on argument but Biden's personality is overshadowing the facts.

9:15:  Abortion.  And Raddatz notes they are both Catholic.  "Please talk personally about this, if you could," she says.

Ryan is pro-life but not just because of his Catholic faith.  Because of reason and science, too, he says.  "I believe life begins at conception."  Ryan tells a personal story about his first child's ultrasound where she looked like a "bean."  And then saw the heartbeat.

You can hear Biden laughing in the background.

Ryan:  Now the Democratic party supports abortion without restriction and WITH taxpayer funding.

Biden's turn:  "My religion defines who I am."  Biden says he accepts that life begins at conception but refuses to impose his faith on other people.

Ryan says the Romney administration will oppose abortion "with exceptions."

9:25:  Biden reminds us that the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominations.  Thanks for that reminder.

Raddatz is closing with a question about the negativity and tone of the campaign.  Biden is wandering in the weeds somewhere about Romney/Ryan stepping on the middle class.  Romney has made "slipshod comments" Biden says.  He would know one.

Ryan:  Obama ran on Hope and Change and is now running on blame and defame.  Points to all the broken promises (health care:  You can keep your insurance!)  Ryan points to 21 tax increases in Obamacare, 12 of which hit the middle class.  No credible budget from Obama in four years.  We speeches from this administration, not leadership. 

Biden interrupts, of course, and asks for equal time even though his time came first.

And Raddatz gives it to him.  I'd be interested to see the talk time numbers on this one.

Raddatz attempts to cut Ryan off as he tries to defend himself.  Of course.

Closing:  Ryan point to their five point plan, proven pro growth policies, etc.  Biden gets testy with Raddatz as she tells him he has fifteen seconds.  "He gets 40 and I get 15."  Cry baby.

Biden gets first closing statement. 
Inherited.
47%.
Scranton.
Level the playing field.
Even shot.

Ryan's turn.
Big choice.
Not a real recovery.
Reforms.
Recovery.
Responsibility.

Hmm.  Who won?  I think Ryan held his own and Biden made points, too.  I'd actually call it a draw.  Not the steamrolling that conservatives anticipated at any rate.

Biden was obnoxious and if anything, that could play against him, but I think people just expect that from him by now.  I don't think this debate will change the current Romney momentum.

We get to do this again in less than a week with the next presidential debate coming on Tuesday.
Job creator.

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

#FAIL

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.

Criminal.

Allahpundit

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? 

Indeed.

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:

Debate Night Distractions

There is much to blog about in the political realm this week; I hardly know where to begin.

I'm stunned by this report from The Hill:

Had the Navy SEALs captured Osama bin Laden, the United States would have tried him in federal court, President Obama said in an interview published by Vanity Fair.

“We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III,” Obama said, referring to the federal courts.

“I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr,” he said.

Holy crap, Batman!  I'm just speechless by that.  Federal court?  Seriously? 

Allahpundit isn't buying it for one second:

 Self-serving nonsense, presumably being pushed by O as a bit of election-season candy for the Gitmo critics in his base. See, he still believes in due process, the drone strikes and “kill list” and indefinite detentions notwithstanding.

And on a related note, congressional approval be damned, Obama has ordered the Justice Dept. to move ahead with the acquisition of Thomson son prison in Illinois.  We've been through this.  Andrew McCarthy:

The move is drawing irate responses from key members of Congress, such as Representatives Frank Wolf and Hal Rogers of the House Appropriations Committee, and Pete King, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee. But the question, of course, is whether they will do anything about it. Congress is not without remedies here; it can start slashing money from the Justice Department’s budget and other areas where the administration will feel it. To this point, though, despite serial provocations, they’ve shown no indication of a willingness to do that.

More on that at Memeorandum.

And then, of course, there is the now infamous "race video" which is just disgusting.  Has there ever been a more divisive, race-baiting, class-warfare mongering, pandering president EVER?  Can't think of one.

Oh, and let's not forget about the stonewalling this administration is doing on the Libya investigation.

That's a lot of bad mojo coming out of this administration.  As I said, much to blog about. 

But wait!  There's a debate tonight. 

Yes, I'll be blogging, as will Legal Insurrection (and probably countless others).  I'm not sure why I'm going to subject myself to it, but I intend to try.  Time to dust off my political blogging hat.

Mainstream Media Fiddles,the Middle East Burns, and Obama Does Vegas

I'm dumbfounded.

Just when I thought the world couldn't get any more sprayed-roach crazy than it is, the American Ambassador to Libya is murdered (along with three other Americans), and all the mainstream media can do is criticize Romney for speaking out against it?

This makes me furious.

I don't know if I'm more angry at the media for being such lapdogs or at Obama for letting this happen.

And don't for one single minute think that Obama isn't on the hook here.

The media was, and still is, quick to blame George W. Bush for 9/11, saying he "ignored many al-Qaida warnings" prior to the attack.  But where are they on this?  Where are they on Obama's failure to attend intelligence briefings in the week leading up to the 9/11 anniversary?

I'll tell you where they are - they're in the press room figuring out how to gang up on Mitt Romney and make him look "unpresidential."  Are you kidding me?!  Ben Smith has a bunch of supposedly Republican, anonymous (of course) sources blasting Romney's statement:

A third Republican, a former Bush State Department official, told BuzzFeed, "It wasn't presidential of Romney to go political immediately — a tragedy of this magnitude should be something the nation collectively grieves before politics enters the conversation." 

Really?

George Bush was relentlessly pounded for being slow to react to the news that America was under attack on 9/11/2001.

He was also widely criticized for his slow response to Hurricane Katrina (even though he could NOT go in without authorization from local officials).

But Mitt Romney, in a presidential moment, responds swiftly in a statement decrying the murder of an American in a terrorist attack and it's too soon!  The nation hasn't grieved yet!

It's just crazy.

Professor Jacobson:

Beginning early this morning, when news was just breaking, the left-blogosphere and mainstream media, led by MSNBC, has attempted to shift the focus from the Obama administration’s failure to protect our embassies and for its apologies (both before and after the attack on the Cairo Embassy) to whether Mitt Romney was wrong to criticize Obama last night. 

No, I’m not kidding.

A very good post from Victor Davis Hanson explains how this happened in the first place:

Egypt is currently a beneficiary of more than $1 billion in annual American aid, and its new Muslim Brotherhood–led government is negotiating to have much of its sizable U.S. debt forgiven. Libya, remember, was the recipient of the Obama administration’s “lead from behind” intervention that led to the removal of Moammar Qaddafi — and apparently gave the present demonstrators the freedom to kill Americans. This is all called “smart” diplomacy. 

Be sure to read the whole thing.

And of course, the press can't be bothered with putting the blame where it lies.  They're more interested in removing the threat to their candidate than exposing the truth.

Allahpundit has the right questions:

 The signs were there; one of the Marines at the consulate apparently even saw Libyan “security” taking photos of the compound beforehand. What did the State Department do to prepare? Why are Marines only being sent now, after the fact, to beef up security? Why was there no evacuation plan in place? Why, apparently, didn’t Obama attend any of his daily intel briefings this week with the anniversary of 9/11 bearing down? Why did his campaign move more quickly to condemn Romney for his statement than the White House did to condemn the mob activity in Cairo and Benghazi? Why do these questions only seem to get asked of presidents from the party disfavored by the concern trolls we call reporters? 

If there was ever any doubt that the press is in bed with Obama, it's gone now.

I pray to God that people will do their own research on the candidates this fall and not listen to the mainstream media.  They are as culpable in this debacle as narcissist that inhabits the Oval Office is.

What if George W. Bush had jetted off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser on the night of 9/11?  Why, the press would be apoplectic!  Not the same thing, you say?  Three thousand lives lost to four?  Not the same thing?  Tell that to the families of the victims.  Tell that to the victims that are sure to come.

This is not the end.  There will be more attacks as long as this bungling Jimmy Carter redux is in office.

Brace yourself.

Much more at Memeorandum.

Warm, Fuzzy Missiles

Victor Davis Hanson makes the case today for Obama's insularity and explains how out of touch Obama is:

In the world of Barack Obama, inflating tires and “tuning up” modern car engines precludes off-shore drilling. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas prices can be ameliorated by having the average consumer trade in his 8-mpg clunker. Medical bills soar because doctors unnecessarily rip out tonsils and lop off limbs. “Skyrocketing” power bills and bankrupt coal companies are abstractions, and do not involve personal tragedies. One third of the border fenced means that the fence is “basically” completed. Nine percent unemployment is due in part to automation like ATMs, which apparently first came on the scene during the Obama administration to eliminate jobs. Shovel-ready jobs were not so shovel-ready. Criticism is dismissed as “enemies” deserving “punishment” or opponents relegated to the “back seat” or adversaries caricatured with “moats and alligators.” And so on.

Add to that list the notion that firing missiles from unmanned drones in Libya is not considered "hostile" by this administration:

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well. 

Well, that and the fact that this administration does not think our troops are in much danger because they aren't on the ground.

Apparently the War Powers Resolution has some sort of measure of risk to troops built into it of which I was previously unaware.

Added:  Stanley Kurtz responds.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

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?

Are You More Worried About Obama's NCAA Brackets Than You Are Japan?

It's been a while since I posted one of these but somehow it just fits right now:

Obama's detachment while "Rome burns" is beyond belief.  Long ago I concluded that nothing this putz did would shock me and he consistently proves me wrong.

As yet another CR is passed with no real resolution to the budget issues, (you'll remember, it was the Dems that kicked that can down the road last year...), as Libya continues to disintegrate, as the news from Japan gets worse and worse with each passing hour, what is Fearless Leader doing?  Well, his NCAA brackets, of course!  Not only that, he's taping a spot with ESPN about his picks.  Does anybody really CARE? 

I'm rather worried about the kind of person who cares more about who Obama has picked in his brackets that what happens to Japan, Libya or the United States. 

And lest we sound repetitious at SIGIS, I must ask once again, can you just imagine if GWB had diddled like this? 

We watched helplessly as Obama golfed his way through the Iranian protests last year.  In fact, during those protests for freedom, Obama planned a luau, grilled with Bobby Flay, and invited the Iranian ambassadors over for hot dogs.  We sat by as he made little or no comment on Egypt.  He's ignored one world crisis after another while concentrating primarily on his golf game under the pretense of not wanting to interfere with the business of other nations.  And it a "let them eat cake" moment, he jokes about this at the Gridiron Dinner. 

Yet now, with Japan, when Obama has an opportunity in his Saturday address to plea for funds, for donations, for aid, what does he do?  He votes "present."  He runs a pre-taped spot on Women's History Month.  Hunh?  It's as if he didn't even know the world was in a meltdown.  With Libya, he has now, now, directed his staff "to fully engage in the discussions" with NATO and the UN.  Were we not "fully engaged" before?

I'm sorry, but I have less respect for this jerk as each day goes by.  I don't respect him as a leader, much less as a man.  My goldfish has bigger gonads than this putz.

Please.

A Mystery

What in the world is wrong with this picture? 

Here we are, in America, literally sitting on vast oil reserves in just ANWR and in the Gulf alone and all it takes to make the price of gasoline skyrocket overnight is one crazier-than-a-run-over-dog dictator in Libya shooting his own people and threatening to burn his own oil fields.

Yet the liberals won't let us drill in ANWR and Obama won't let us drill in the Gulf. 

What is wrong with this picture?