Posts Tagged ‘Benghazi’

What We Learned in the New Benghazi Report

Posted by Troy on 29th June 2016 in Current Events, Political

Per the media:  “Nothing new to see here,” or “No bombshell regarding Clinton.”

Here’s what we already knew:

She (either personally or those under her) did not give them the extra security they requested, even when every other country was pulling people out.

She knew it was a terrorist attack and continued to lie to us and to the families of those who died, claiming it was about a video.

What does this mean?  Well, it means that she has poor judgement and administrative skills.  It also means that she put her prestige over the safety of Americans.  It also means that she was more concerned about the presidential campaigns of 2012 and 2016 than telling us the truth.  It also means she thought she was smarter/slicker than Americans and would get away with it.  It also means that she believes the press has her back.  And they do, so yeah, I can see that.

Here’s the new things we learned:

The Secretary of Defense ordered the military to help.  And someone reversed that order.

The troops were ready to go, but the higher-ups were more concerned about how the troops would appear and had them change in and out of uniform 3 times as they were concerned that it would look too much like an invasion.

While our people were fighting for our lives, they were already looking to spin the attack and blame the video.

What does this mean?  Dear God, what does this mean?  That they are out of touch?  That they are cold and calculating?  No.  Originally, I thought that the reason they didn’t try to rescue them was because they were afraid of making the death toll higher.  Or that they might ruin our reputation in that part of the world.  But it’s worse than even that!  What it means is that they didn’t engage because they were too busy spinning it.  The story was more important than the reality.  They are more concerned about their personal reputation than American lives.

What don’t we know?

Who reversed the order to help?  They refuse to answer that question, and that is the most important question of all.

Of course, it had to be Obama.  Maybe, possibly, Clinton might have bullied her way, but Obama is my bet.

God help us if she’s elected…

Long Live the Constitution

Hillary’s Lying Ass

Posted by Troy on 22nd October 2015 in Current Events, Political

I don’t often go into that language, but she disgusts me.  In fact, the entire Left disgusts me today.  Remember when Bill gave the “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is,” answer?  Well, that was Hillary today–occasionally smirking with that “I’m getting away with it,” smirk.  That smirk that screams, “I think I’m better than everyone else.”  That smirk is also part of the reason she is so dreadfully unlikable and why Bernie Sanders is going to beat her out.  What’s even more disgusting is that the Left is so thrilled that she’s going to “get away with it.”  Here is one undeniable fact:

She lied.  They knew it was a terrorist attack, and for over a month, they blamed a video.  Why?  Was it a matter of national security?  No.  It was to save Obama’s campaign.  How would it have looked if a terrorist attack happened on his watch in his “success story” of Libya on 9/11 after hundreds of request for additional security?  It would have sunk him.  So they rounded the wagons, and the people in the media protected him.  They withheld military intervention to keep the scale of the event as small as possible, hoping the whole thing would just pass over and everyone wouldn’t question anything.  You can’t tell me the news would have treated McCain or Bush with such kid gloves.

If you still support Hillary, there can be only one interpretation for your stance, “Look, sometimes it’s important that our politicians lie to us.  They are smarter than us, and if they have to mislead us ‘for the greater good,’ then that’s okay.  Most people are too stupid to understand things, so they should just say whatever they need to say because the ends justify the means.”  I disagree.  The world that has to be saved on a lie isn’t worth saving.

Seriously, what other interpretation can there be?  They knowingly and openly lied.  If you do not demand justice and accountability, you are for tyranny.  You just want a tyrant you agree with.

How could ANYONE trust Hillary Clinton after watching her bend the truth to the point of making it into a pretzel?

Long Live the Constitution!

Benghazi Cover-up Fallout

Posted by Troy on 9th May 2013 in Political

There will be none.  As I predicted, here are the facts:

Terrorists attacked the embassy.  The administration knew it was terrorists and lied to say it was over a protest.  They lied to protect the administration’s narrative that we can nation build effectively using Obama’s methods and to protect Obama himself during the election.

If this event would have happened weeks before the election with Bush as President, the media would have gone crazy with conspiracy theories and 30 minutes specials and all kinds of things.  However, it was O-breezy, so they took it easy.

So, why did they do it?  I don’t believe for a second that the military couldn’t have responded in that time frame.  I also can’t believe that Obama was not informed about an embassy being attacked and given a list of options.  Here are the options that I believe were on the table:

1) Full military support.  This would have been an act of war.  Additional people would have died.  There would have been collateral damage on the Libyan side.  This would have been rejected for a few reasons:  It would have destroy the “footsteps in the sand” narrative that we can intervene, get out, and the world would be a better place.  It would have started a war which would have ticked off his base and cost him the election.  Finally, killing civilians while trying to save our civilians would have tainted US-Libyan relations for years to come.

2)  Armed drone strikes.  They were in the air with cameras, why not a couple of missiles?  Again, an act of war.  This would have tainted the relationship between the US government and Libyan government as it would have ignored their national sovereignty (odd how Obama only cares about honoring national sovereignty when it comes to backwater countries and not our own) and our agreement that our drones in their airspace would be unarmed.  It would have basically all the same problems of the first option excluding less civilians dead and possibly not seen as starting a war, but pert-near it.

3)  Do nothing.  A few Americans would die.  We could turn those into martyrs (true believers always love martyrs be it Communists or religious fanatics).  It could be used to shore up support internationally.  It would so that we have restraint.  It wouldn’t play well at home, but a few quick lies with a compliant media, and that would be negated.  All they had to do is just let the few Americans die quietly, and all would be alright.  As such, Obama went to bed.  He had a long day of campaigning, after all.

So, why do I think that nothing will happen?  After all, Nixon was impeached because a couple of his underlings broke into the Democratic headquarters.  He was impeached for tying to cover up a break in.  Why can’t Obama be impeached because his administration lied and failed to intervene on behalf of Americans killed by terrorists on US soil (remember, embassies are US soil)?  For two reasons.  The first reason is because the media is going to go all out to protect their child star.  In 2084, I argue that communists infiltrated the media to do just that, to color whatever story they have to suit that agenda.  This is no different.  They will say exactly what they are saying: “There’s no smoking gun here!  Why, it sounds like the military made the call!  etc etc”  They won’t focus on what is really the PROBLEM.  The problem is that the administration actively mislead the US people to help Obama get re-elected.  There was no other justification for lying.  By not focusing on the fact that this is the problem and WHY he lied, this will merely blow away.  The second reason he will never be impeached is because he’s black.  As soon as ANYONE moves to try to impeach him, they will say it is because he is black and the GOP hates blacks, and everyone is racist.  He could piss on the Constitution on live TV, and that’s still exactly how it will play out, and the Republicans are way too scared to stand up to him because of that.

My prediction?  Nothing will happen.  The media will protect him.  Without public outrage drummed up by the media, Republicans will lack the will do do anything to anyone in the administration including Hillary Clinton.

Long Live the Constitution!

Hillary testifies on Benghazi

Posted by Troy on 23rd January 2013 in Current Events, Political

Of course, timelines show that she isn’t telling the whole truth, but this thing’s a farce and the media has been content to let it die.  She strikes me like an ultra-defensive teenager.  ”What does it matter at this point!  Four Americans are dead!”  Yes, and that is WHY it matters, isn’t it?  After all, if everyone had lived, then there wouldn’t be a problem.  I like that Rand Paul said what was true: she should have been relieved of office.  In fact, the fact that she wasn’t is proof positive that there is a cover up.  When you see a scandal and no one gets fired, it’s a cover up.

My take on what really happened is this: The ambassador asked for help.  He was ignored because the election was going on and they didn’t want to either interrupt the campaigning to deal with something or give the impression that Obama’s crown jewel (Libya) was in trouble.  It happened, and the embassy called for help.  The armed forces were told to stand down because, in a ends justify the means thought, it was better for everyone in that embassy to die than for us to start another armed conflict which could cause the deaths of thousands.   There were then attempts at cover ups because the people are too stupid to understand.

Actually, they are too intellectual to understand.  This is where moral relativism falls apart.  The logical choice, the “smart” choice, is the wrong choice.  We should have fought like hell for those men.

Long Live the Constitution!

Hillary Takes Responsibility

Posted by Troy on 15th October 2012 in Current Events, Political

Hillary Clinton takes full responsibility for the lack of security in Libya.  Does this absolve Obama of any wrong doing?

Nope.

I do not expect the President to know what is going on throughout his entire administration.  That would be impossible.  However, as head of the Executive Branch, he would be ultimately responsible.  In order to alleviate that responsibility, he basically has to fire Hillary.  He, of course, would never do that because liberals LOVE anyone with the last name of Clinton.  Also, Hillary would turn on him faster than a rattlesnake if he did that.

Regardless, I don’t really care about the security in Libya.  That’s minor.  That’s a mistake.  It’s a stupid mistake.  It shows utter incompetence, but it’s largely unimportant.  What’s important to me is that Obama knew that it was a terrorist attack, and for nearly a month, he told us it was all about a video and degraded the Freedom of Speech, until the American people jumped all over his case.

If Hillary’s responsible for the security issues, fire her.  However, it will not absolve Obama for his lying to the American public just to try to save his chances at re-election.  That was the only reason to lie to us.

Long Live the Constitution!