D-Day to Benghazi: Obama, Reagan and ‘leadership’

June 6, 2013
By

On this, the 69th anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Fortress Europe on the beaches of Normandy, the Corner presents a contrast of character so stark, so profound, that it should not matter what political label you place upon yourself, if you have an ounce of “American” blood you will find tears of pride for the past and be crying out in anger at the present.

69 years ago, the term “ultimate sacrifice” was defined for the ages by a generation who didn’t know anything else but how to be “great”.  Less than 9 months ago, a President of a different generation gave new meaning to the term “contemptible behavior”.

The video is dated December 18, 2009, is from the official White House website and titled “Inside The White House Situation Room”.  The lead-in text describes the room as:

It’s staffed by men and women from the Department of Homeland Security, the intelligence community, and the military, all of whom are committed to ensuring that the President of the United States is provided all the information and intelligence he needs to do his job.

Remember that phrase:  “all the information and intelligence he needs to do his job”.

Now peruse below this post 5 official “photos of the day” from the same official White House website showing President Obama over 5 different years receiving that “information and intelligence…to do his job” on various issues of the day.

Notice how in each of them the President is at the head of the table, the strong and wise leader, absorbing the “information and intelligence” of the time that he will use to “do his job”.

Notice also how not one of those photos is dated September 11, 2012.  That’s because the White House Photo of the Day for September 11, 2012 isn’t even of the “official resident” of the White House, rather it’s a picture of Vice-President Biden at the Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville, Pa.

In fact, you can search the official White House website to the edge of infinity and you’ll not find one picture of Barack Hussein Obama in the situation room the night of September 11, 2012.

The night that the American consulate in Benghazi was under terrorist attack.

The night that American citizens half a world away found themselves trapped and helpless.

The night that Ambassador Christopher Stevens , Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods lost their lives.

And it is also the night that there is not one picture of their Commander in Chief in that situation room gathering the “information and intelligence”…….”to do his job”.

There’s no picture because there was no President.

Even though he was notified that the consulate was under attack in the late afternoon Washington time, for the rest of the day and the ensuing night, the Commander in Chief, United States Combined Armed Forces, one Barack Hussein Obama, was conspicuously absent from command and control.

He could have gone to the situation room, he could have heard all the “information and intelligence” as it came in, he could have directed response and rescue, as Presidents past had, but he chose instead to abandon his post.

Whether he was “temporarily incapacitated” as some rumors suggest or he just “went to bed” to rest up for the Nevada campaign swing the next day, it matters not at this point.

The ONLY point that matters, is that when it mattered most, when American lives were in danger, when those same Americans were begging for help and when others were begging to go, the President of the United States was A.W.O.L.

Now compare that behavior to the behavior of those who gave all those decades ago on the beaches of Normandy.

Compare the divisive rhetoric and demagoguery of Barack Obama to the words of then President Ronald Reagan as he stood above those Normandy beaches and delivered a 40th anniversary speech.  (Click here for video.)

So as you listen to the spin, as you hear all the “pushback”, as you are told that Benghazi just doesn’t matter at this point, take a moment to remember another time, another place, when leadership was more than a “photo of the day”.

A time when leadership actually meant leading and “bedtime” was for cowards.

The pics that say it all by showing nothing:

(President Barack Obama and his national security team meet Sept. 29, 2009, in the Situation Room at the White House with Undersecretary of State Bill Burns, right, as Burns departs for P5+1 talks with Iran in Geneva on Thursday. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is seated at center. Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden meet with the national security team on Iraq in the Situation Room of the White House, Aug. 11, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Seated, from left, are: Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb, Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Standing, from left, are: Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Chief of Staff Bill Daley; Tony Binken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President; Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama receives an update on the ongoing response to Hurricane Sandy, in the Situation Room of the White House, Oct. 29 2012. Participating via teleconference, clockwise from top left, are: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano; FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate; Rick Knabb, Director of the National Hurricane Center; Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood; and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. Pictured, from left, are: Clark Stevens, Assistant Press Secretary; Emmett Beliveau, Director of the Office of the Chief of Staff; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; Richard Reed, Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security; Chuck Donnell, Senior Director for Resilience; Asha Tribble, Senior Director for Response; Chief of Staff Jack Lew; Alyssa Mastromonaco, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations; Press Secretary Jay Carney; and David Agnew, Director for Intergovernmental Affairs. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama holds a meeting on hurricane preparedness, in the Situation Room of the White House, May 30, 2013. Seated at the table, clockwise from lower left, are: Chief of Staff Denis McDonough; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood; OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell; National Hurricane Center Director Rick Knabb; NOAA Acting Administrator Kathy Sullivan; Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes; FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate; Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz; and Alyssa Mastromonaco, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Tags: , , ,

19 Responses to D-Day to Benghazi: Obama, Reagan and ‘leadership’

  1. hlgaskins on June 6, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    “The greatest threat to liberty is a liberal in government”

    Geoff, I admire your determination however misguided and I applaud your ideas, however misguided.

    “Even though he was notified that the consulate was under attack in the
    late afternoon Washington time, for the rest of the day and the ensuing
    night, the Commander in Chief, United States Combined Armed Forces, one Barack Hussein Obama, was conspicuously absent from command and control.”

    So your expectation of a president is one where he is holding on to a game-pad or joystick ready to defeat the enemy at a moments notice? Presidents aren’t supposed to be present to command war intent 24/7, That’s the job of our military and why we have Generals. By every analysis done since Benghazi, the closest military presence would’ve still been more than two hours late to make a difference.

    Benghazi ceased to be relevant as a working anti-liberal right-wing conspiracy when the doctored emails were outed and proven to be fake. When the untouched emails were released by the Obama administration the so-called scandalous ones disappeared from the pubic eye.

    There’s a reason why Republicans could never gain ground on making this a scandalous issue, because the victims were liberals, who chose to go to Benghazi in spite of the danger. And consider that of the 30 Americans in Benghazi, 23 of them were CIA operatives. At the time General Petraeus who was considered a “political darling” during the Bush Administration was the head of the CIA at the time. Why was he avoiding cameras?

    Consider that when the bodies of Chris Stevens, and staff slain at Benghazi arrived home, Petraeus, although present, avoided being photographed or video taped near the coffins. Petraeus, a conservative, knew that his presence was counter productive to the public assessment of Benghazi, and to the operatives still on the ground in Libya. So why dodge cameras?

    All of this wouldn’t matter if we weren’t looking for scandals, and getting caught inserting politically doctored data to support our scandals just to make an invalid point true.

    Geoff, is this your lot in life?

    • Geoff Caldwell on June 6, 2013 at 8:55 pm

      “All of this wouldn’t matter if we weren’t looking for scandals, and
      getting caught inserting politically doctored data to support our
      scandals just to make an invalid point true.”
      Really HL? REALLY? I suppose you agree with Hillary, “what difference at this point does it matter”?

      Ever cross your mind that since Petraeus wouldn’t even sign off on the b.s. “talking points” so edited by White House and State staffers that perhaps he didn’t want to be photographed because he had more respect for the dead than to make them a “photo of the day”. (As in how the same shadow effect had already been used as another “photo of the day” even AGAINST

      • hlgaskins on June 7, 2013 at 8:07 am

        “Ever cross your mind that since Petraeus wouldn’t even
        sign off on the b.s. “talking points” so edited by White House and State staffers that perhaps he didn’t want to be photographed because he had more respect for the dead than to make them a “photo of the day”.

        Below are some slices taken from a Washington Post article, that is generally considered to be the most accurate and detailed account of what happened in Benghazi. The article also outlines and explains how and why the emails were edited. You will note that Republicans were present during the committee members discussion on what should or shouldn’t be included in the released emails without revealing information that could jeopardize the investigation.

        “”“We had some new members on the committee, and
        we knew the press would be very aggressive on this, so we didn’t want any of them to make mistakes,” Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.) said last week of his request in an account supported by Republican participants. “We didn’t want to jeopardize sources and methods, and we didn’t want to tip off the bad guys. That’s all.”

        “The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned
        to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.”

        I believe this resolves the White House of any wrong doing in regards to the emails since the White House was prepared to all Petraeus’ more detailed version to be released.

        “The only government entity that did not object to the
        detailed talking points produced with Petraeus’s input was the White House, which played the role of mediator in the bureaucratic fight that at various points included the CIA’s top lawyer and the agency’s deputy director expressing opposition to what the director wanted.”

        “Although Ansar al-Sharia had quickly backed off an
        initial assertion of responsibility for the Benghazi attack, the group did not deny that some of its members were involved.

        “But its likely involvement was a classified matter, senior
        administration officials said, and the FBI had objected to including the information in the talking points on the grounds that doing so would undermine its investigation of the attack.”

        “Near the diplomatic outpost was a CIA installation where about two dozen intelligence and security personnel were based. Their mission was to track weapons shipments out of the country and to identify the numerous militias operating in Benghazi.

        Security at this annex was the responsibility of the CIA, not the State Department. But because the annex operated under diplomatic cover, its existence as an intelligence facility was classified.

        The State Department and the White House became the primary focus of the public criticism.”

        http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-21/politics/39420257_1_petraeus-benghazi-attack-house-permanent-select-committee

        • Geoff Caldwell on June 7, 2013 at 10:01 am

          Funny, I thought my column was on how Obama was AWOL during the attack and the difference between real leadership and the lack of it shown by O. But feel free to keep supporting your Dear Leader as you see fit.

          • hlgaskins on June 7, 2013 at 11:25 am

            It’s irrelevant where Obama was during the attack because he had no way of knowing precisely when an attack would occur. I’m certain that his whereabouts was known and he was contacted as quickly as possible by his staff. You have got to turn FOX news off and stop listening to the rantings of Glenn Beck.

            Presidents aren’t elected to micro-manage the CIA, FBI, NSA, or any branch of the military for that matter, and neither is it the job of the Secretary of State, so the point of your post is moot.

            “But feel free to keep supporting your Dear Leader as you see fit.”

            I don’t need your permission to support Obama or anyone else for that matter

          • anson on June 10, 2013 at 9:36 am

            HL,
            As I have repeatedly tried to point out in many forums over the last 9 months, Benghazi was, in my view, a failure of the NCA to function properly in a national crisis. Why and what will be done to prevent such from happening again?
            That should not be a polticial debate. It should be one over how best to protect and defend, the ultimate responsibility of the NCA.
            What I ask was the fundamental difference between Benghazi and Iran in 1979? 400 hostages held for a year and 4 dead Americans and a destroyed facility is the fundamental difference, a diffence in scale if you will.
            The issue is really how to prevent EITHER from happening along with what was, in my view, a “near miss” in Cairo as well on 9/11/2012..
            My concerns are “security” concerns, not politics, until spin or cover up is used to make excuses for significant security failures.
            Anson

          • hlgaskins on June 10, 2013 at 3:29 pm

            anson

            I think your analysis is just about right on the money. I believe that with two dozen CIA agents hiding under diplomatic cover something doesn’t quite add up. Where were they when the attacks occurred, because they were the only American presence that was within reach of Chris Stevens a staff?

            I think your 400 hostages number is too high. If I remember correctly there were less than 100 hostages but then memory sometimes errs.

            Don’t forget the 1983 Beirut, Lebanon barracks bombing that killed 299 American and French servicemen. The Middle East is a dangerous place for Americans regardless of their roles, and if someone such as Chris Stevens accepts a post in the Middle East then they do it knowing that there’s a risk of being killed

          • Geoff Caldwell on June 10, 2013 at 12:19 pm

            Um, please turn off MSNBC and get some facts there HL. Obama WAS notified the consulate was attacked in the very beginning.
            It is in the AFTERMATH of being notified that he went AWOL.
            Hours passed and 4 Americans died yet not one shred as to the whereabouts of the Commander in Chief.
            If you can support that “leadership” behavior you can support anything.

          • hlgaskins on June 10, 2013 at 3:08 pm

            GC

            Um, please read your own replies because it was you that stated Obama was AWOL. I merely stated that his location was irrelevant, that his whereabouts were known, and that he was contacted as quickly as possible.

            “Funny, I thought my column was on how Obama was AWOL during the attack”

            I cancelled cable TV 13 years ago and I’ve never looked back, so the only MSNBC I’ve ever watched are from clips posted online. To satisfy my viewing needs I built two HTPC’s, including one I installed an HDTV tuner in. I then installed a double set of the strongest signal pulling UFH antenna’s I could find, wired them in phase, and then amplified the signal. One HTPC has one solid state hard disk and three 1.5 terabyte hard disks for video storage and the other has a 750 GB disk and a 1.5 terabyte disk. I installed Beyond TV’s DVR software which is perfect for recording shows, and everything else I get from HULU and Netflix.

            That being said:

            “Consider a survey done by ” Fairleigh Dickinson University’s Public Mind TM, NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative news outlets, while exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge.”

            I’m proud to say that those are the only televised news shows that watch.

            “According to a new study by Farleigh Dickinson University, Fox viewers are the least knowledgeable audience of any outlet(that includes Democrat who FOX as well), and they know even less about politics and current events than people who watch no news at all.”

            And you stand as a prototypical example of just how right the study was and is.

          • Geoff Caldwell on June 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm

            Funny isn’t it. I too watch the Sunday shows and listen to NPR and also Morning Joe starts off the day, yet just because I see through your Dear Leader and call him out for it you assume a Fox news bogeyman. Usual liberal tactic but it only works over on dwainbwain’s little circle jerk.

          • hlgaskins on June 10, 2013 at 6:35 pm

            “Morning Joe starts off the day”

            I see, I’m somehow uninformed because you assumed that I watched MSNBC however, it’s okay for you to watch it.

            “just because I see through your Dear Leader and call him out for it you assume a Fox news bogeyman.”

            I accept all presidents regardless of party as my “Dear Leader” even if I don’t like them, but that doesn’t mean that I always blindly agree with them. Among my favorite presidents of all time are Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower. Lincoln because he made the hard choice to end slavery, Theodore Roosevelt because he’s the father of conservation, and Eisenhower because he warned us about a growing military–industrial–congressional complex.

            All three of them were visionaries who left us warnings about what we could be, or what we would become as a nation. Richard Nixon gets a little bump as well. He accurately analyzed that if we don’t develop a comprehensive healthcare system, that it would eventually grow into a monster that would consume a sizable portion of our GDP. Well here we are in 2013 and it’s close to consuming one in every five dollars made in the U.S.

            “Usual liberal tactic but it only works over on Dwain’s little Usual liberal tactic but it only works over on dwainbwain’s little circle jerk. circle jerk.”

            I’m sorry to pop your anti-liberal-bias-tactic bullshit, because I haven’t posted on Duane’s blog in months. I’m not looking for a blog of reaffirmation to espouse my ideas, I’m looking to dismember the faulty ideas of others. Whether we are liberal or conservative makes no different to the facts.

            If you want to continue with your juvenile “dwainbwain’s little circle jerk.” argument then that’s your issue, otherwise grow up and deal with it. If you want your blog to be worthy of attention then you need to write to everyone, regardless of party affiliation, or it will remain an unappreciated right-wing cheerleader hangout to a small group of directionless right-wing groupies. If you’re only appealing to the minds of those who already agree with you, then you’re just pissing into wind, and changing nothing.

          • Geoff Caldwell on June 11, 2013 at 5:22 am

            And as usual, the Alinsky “change the subject” comes in. The ISSUE of the column was Obama going AWOL after he knew Americans were under attack and his lack of leadership that got them killed.
            And as for “small group of directionless right-wing groupies” I assure you, my readers are not groupies nor the group small.
            As for the “dwainbwain little circle jerk” it is and always will remain that as long as it is a site that censors posters and edits comments.
            This site will always stand by the First Amendment whether I agree with the comments or the commenter. As long as it meets basic newspaper guidelines as used by the Globe all are free to comment at will here. No editing, no censoring, no banning. (THAT dear HL is for the “circle jerk” over there.)
            While you’re free to keep pushing the Obama is good points here, unless it gets back on point to the topic of the column, leadership and his lack of it, you’ll be posting to yourself. (And of course that small group of right wing groupies.)
            As always, thanks for dropping by the Corner, the Brandeis sunshine is always good.

          • hlgaskins on June 11, 2013 at 11:45 am

            First let me just say that I’ve never read anything by Saul Alinsky.

            The notion that Obama was AWOL on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound is another example of just how misinformed FOX viewers are. The Obama “AWOL conspiracy” sic.., exists only in the polluted mind of FOX NEWS’ political hitman Sean Hannity, who’s more interested in ratings than he is the truth. But Hannity’s behavior is although reprehensible, understandable, since his viewers are more interested in hearing lies than they are the truth. To the point, Hannity essentially made the whole thing up by slicing out chunks pf Panetta’s responses to Ayotte’s questions. Hannity selectively kept only those lines of Panetta’s testimony that supported his pumped up allegations of Obama’s leadership failure.

            The Problem with the entire Obama AWOL and lack of leadership conspiracy claims are that it’s based on a false premise. The reality is that there was nothing that could have been done because there were no military assets within reach of Benghazi. The nearest military asset was a still deploying Marine Detachment in Tripoli, which is 630 miles away by road and about 450 miles by air or sea. The first alarm of an attack was raised at about 9:40 pm, and Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith killed within minutes thereafter.

            I wonder, do all sadly misinformed conspiracists figure that Obama could’ve just grabbed a gamepad and started killing bad guys? The fact is that things unfolded far too quickly to even consider deploying
            helicopters or jets. The only way that the Marine Attachment in Tripoli, could’ve deployed is if they commandeered a Libyan air transport which would’ve still arrived too late. Even if we had jets on the ground in Tripoli it wouldn’t have mattered because pilots don’t sleep in, jets and it takes time to not only prepare them buy to also assemble pilots to fly them.

            Here are some slices of the testimony that Hannity conveniently omitted.

            ” Ayotte: Did he ask you how long it would take to deploy assets, including armed?”

            ” Panetta: No He basically said do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there.”

            ” Panetta: At the time we were concerned about Cairo and demonstrations in Cairo, and then we had
            just picked up the information that—that something was happening, there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi. And I informed the president of that fact. And he at that point directed both myself and General Dempsey to do everything we needed to do to try to protect lives there.”

            Dempsey: We (Dempsey, Obama, and Panetta) were there in the office for probably 30 minutes.

            Chris Stevens was probably already dead by the time Obama walked out of the office 30 minutes later.

            ” How can anyone place blame for his death — these were circumstances beyond our government’s control,” Commaday, the mother of Chris Stevens told NBC Bay Area. “I am perfectly aware that there was danger. But he was a grown man, well-educated and careful. I knew he was out there doing good work.”

  2. hlgaskins on June 6, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    “The greatest threat to liberty is a liberal in government”

    Geoff, I admire your determination however misguided and I applaud your ideas, however misguided.

    “Even though he was notified that the consulate was under attack in the
    late afternoon Washington time, for the rest of the day and the ensuing
    night, the Commander in Chief, United States Combined Armed Forces, one Barack Hussein Obama, was conspicuously absent from command and control.”

    So your expectation of a president is one where he is holding on to a game-pad or joystick ready to defeat the enemy at a moments notice? Presidents aren’t supposed to be present to command war intent 24/7, That’s the job of our military and why we have Generals. By every analysis done since Benghazi, the closest military presence would’ve still been more than two hours late to make a difference.

    Benghazi ceased to be relevant as a working anti-liberal right-wing conspiracy when the doctored emails were outed and proven to be fake. When the untouched emails were released by the Obama administration the so-called scandalous ones disappeared from the pubic eye.

    There’s a reason why Republicans could never gain ground on making this a scandalous issue, because the victims were liberals, who chose to go to Benghazi in spite of the danger. And consider that of the 30 Americans in Benghazi, 23 of them were CIA operatives. At the time General Petraeus who was considered a “political darling” during the Bush Administration was the head of the CIA at the time. Why was he avoiding cameras?

    Consider that when the bodies of Chris Stevens, and staff slain at Benghazi arrived home, Petraeus, although present, avoided being photographed or video taped near the coffins. Petraeus, a conservative, knew that his presence was counter productive to the public assessment of Benghazi, and to the operatives still on the ground in Libya. So why dodge cameras?

    All of this wouldn’t matter if we weren’t looking for scandals, and getting caught inserting politically doctored data to support our scandals just to make an invalid point true.

    Geoff, is this your lot in life?

  3. A Nonny Moose on June 6, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    It’s always been true that leaders rarely enter politics, and politicians are never leaders.

    It used to be — back before the press decided to take a rooting interest in one side and ultimately skewed the whole thing — that our electoral system was designed to allow us to weed out the politicians who were in it for the glory and manage to find the one person in the long list of candidates who had at least some idea what leadership means. Almost every single presidential election, there was at least one candidate who understood that leadership doesn’t mean just sitting around accepting accolades, basking in the glory and trappings of the office. They understood that leadership means that when things turn ugly, as they inevitably will, a leader has to step up, to make the difficult — and yes (gasp) even unpopular — decisions. Further, they understand that leadership means that when things go badly, one is required to accept the responsibility for that result. We had been extraordinarily lucky in that regard.

    That luck ran out. Chock full of an unbeatable combination of charm, political wile, and a bevy of backers who were positively hellbent on getting their hands on other people’s money, this guy got elected. It’s a bit like the cool kid in class who got the top post in the student senate, not because he knew what he was doing, but because, well, LOOK at him! He’s just so awesome! I mean, those sunglasses… what are those, Gucci? What will he accomplish? Pffft, who cares? He’s just so cool!

    The man occupying the White House now has absolutely no concept of what leadership is. Oh, don’t get me wrong. He understands politics inside and out. But the leadership side of things? Not his bag, baybee! He’s all in on the accolades thing. When things go well, he’ll be there to stamp the word “I” all over it. I gave the order to get Bin Laden, I made that difficult decision, I flew the SEALs over there myself, I led the charge through the compound, I shot him, no, wait, I killed him just with the power of my awesomeness! ME! You hear me?!? ME! But when things aren’t quite so great? BUSH DID IT! He made me! He started it! Not me! I was in the bathroom! I have no idea what my administration is doing! What? IRS? Never heard of it. It was a video, because I said so! And if it appears things might get tough and require some actual decision making? Wait… this is going on right now? Uh… See ya! I have other things to do! Situation Room? Uh.. mom is calling me! I am indisposed! I have to read through all these call logs… man, do you people EVER get off the phone? Let someone else make those decisions! It’s okay, trust me! If it goes well, I’ll take credit, and if it falls apart, I had nothing to do with it! See?

    That’s really not that scary, though. Given our track record of picking people who have some idea how to lead in almost every single election since the first one (minus that little blip in 1976, but doggonit, he meant well!), we were due for a major slip up. Plus, this was actually pretty unsurprising. To paraphrase Dennis Green, he is who we thought he was. Anyone who doesn’t dream of scratching their nose with his super awesome presidential pubic hair saw this coming. No, what’s scary is that they have managed to create a dependent society, a built in perpetual constituency. We were leaning that way anyway, little leaks in the seams of the bucket o’ government dependency, but this administration has taken the entire bucket and dumped the damn thing all at once. And we all know that once you get someone completely dependent on the government for their existence (government checks every week, government health care, government provided cell phones, etc.), the odds are exactly zero that any of those people will ever vote for a party that will require them to work for what they want, ever again. (Hey! Voter place lady! Which one of them people on this ballot thingy will keep paying for my phone so I don’t have to? That one? He gonna keep writing my checks, too? Okay, I’ll vote for him!) Suckling pigs will bite and squeal when you pull them off a teat, and this administration has intentionally turned many citizens into little crony piglets. All they have to do in order to stay on the gravy train is go to the polls and keep pulling the lever next to that little (D). Combine that with the group of mouthbreathing idiots who still thinks the class president is just like totally awesome even though he screwed a few things up and who will write on their little blogs to defend every thing the guy does, and the hard core “we must destroy capitalism” types, and that will be nigh on to impossible to defeat.

    So yeah, that worries me. Gone are the days where we look for leadership capabilities in those who decide to run for office. Now, we sit and watch our fellow citizens mindlessly repeat the blather they’ve been fed on NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN and especially MSNBC, watch them stagger to the polls to do as their told, and vote for the guys who promise to give them more of everything others have earned. I fear we can only expect more of the useless, clueless “cool kid” candidates who are more than willing to leave the office when the real work comes in. After all, who gives a good goddam about dead ambassadors so long as my check isn’t late? It’s just a made up scandal, right? Right? My check still coming?

    • Geoff Caldwell on June 6, 2013 at 9:23 pm

      Nonny,
      I must warn you, as correct as you are, it is only a matter of time before you are labeled the most bigoted, racist this side of the Mississip by HL and crew.
      History, facts and common sense have no place in his and ilk “circle”. Only that which supports the agenda and its leader is to be allowed and all else will be attacked and demonized.

      BUT there IS hope. If HL’s starting to hang around, who knows, maybe it’s just a matter of time before the grand puba, ol DwainBwain himself drops by. Oh wait, I forgot about that history, facts, common sense and truth thing. No need waiting, be a cold day in hell before he debates over here.
      As always, thanks for putting in your “two cents” and if this Obama suffocating economy ever starts breathing fresh air again, I swear I’ll raise it to “four cents”.

      • A Nonny Moose on June 7, 2013 at 9:40 pm

        Oh, hell. At this point, I’ve been called everything anyone can imagine, most more than once. I’ve been called every name in the books, and a few semi-creative new ones that are still in moderation for inclusion in the liberal lexicon of insults toward conservatives (and you thought the Germans had some interesting compound words!). Water off a duck’s back and all that. I wear each as a badge of honor, because when you’re attacked by the party of tolerance, you know you’re on to something. When they come down of Mount Condescension to directly attack you, you know you’ve hit close to home. “Racist” is the least of my worries. I almost expect to be called “IRS”, since that idiot assh*le “Cranial Rectosis” patient Martin Bashir has said that “IRS is the new n****r”. (Or as a national blogger put it, “I object to the gratuitous use of the word “IRS” in Tarantino’s ‘Django Unchained'”)

        In fact, in this day and age, being called a racist by the party of tolerance is something of a backward compliment. After all, when the party – as it’s being led right now – calls you a racist, well… let’s put it this way. The party is known for lying, obfuscating, and generally avoiding the truth to the point where even the New York Times (!) is calling them out and stating the president has zero credibility. So if they call you a racist, that is conversely in effect proof that you’re the single most non-racist person who has ever lived. Odd how that works, huh? They Alinsky’d themselves. Poetic justice to the nth degree. Ah … I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where
        they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
        of their character
        .That still hasn’t happened for liberals. They still judge our president by the color of his skin, and use that as an excuse for his incompetence. It’s racist as hell, in fact, in that they’re in effect saying “hey, sure he sucks, but he’s black so we expect that”. But good luck ever, EVER telling them that. You’re the racist for pointing out how racist they are, in their “logic”. Me, I judge him by the content of his character, and he is sorely, sorely lacking, especially in the leadership area.

  4. anson on June 7, 2013 at 8:04 am

    Good to see HL engaging herein. These various blogs, locally, need diversity in opinions to really make them meaningful.

    So here is my own “two cents”. I base it on extensive experience, professionally, “manning” many different Emergency Operations Centers (EOC) when “bad” things were happening. The bridge of a warship (control room of a submarine) was the starting point. But I also “manned” such centers in many other locations for about 35 years. I even spent about three weeks observing the EOC at the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta during the Japanese “nuclear crisis” in 2011. What a “mess” that was!!! a Total mess.
    An EOC is operated to resolve a crisis, a problem. It is NOT a center for policial control, it is a center for EMERGENCY control, period. A staff, large or small is assembled to resolve a crisis for the EOC commander who is ultimately responsible for controlling or mitigating the emergency. Politics follows after the crisis is over, period.
    That did NOT happen DURING the Benghazi crisis. We really don’t yet know exactly who was “in charge”. SecState was NOT there. The President was NOT there. SecDef, maybe but who knows. So who really was “in charge” at the national level from about 4PM DC time until early the next morning, DC time while a facility was under attack, Frankly we do NOT know that answer, do we?
    Frankly, I don’t care who was actually there and “in charge”. All I want to know is who was ultimately “in charge”. Any question on that answer?
    As well does ANYONE think the crisis, the attack, was handled properly?
    As to the follow on politics, trying to unravel what really happened and why it happened, no spin please, just the “facts Mam”? We STILL don’t know for sure but so what, right. It is an “old issue” and nobody cares now, right?
    I DO (care) for sure and politics has NOTHING to do with my concern. It is a dysfunction National Command Authority that bothers me, A LOT.
    Had we had an attempted terrorist attack at Rocky Flats, a nuclear facility with 57 TONS of weapons grade nuclear material therein, how long would I have lasted had I NOT been in the EOC (I was after all the President of the company) to fight such an attack and afterwards, when I “woke up” I told all concerned a video caused the attack!!!!
    I would have been fired on the spot and maybe even prosecuted for derilection of duty and should have been so treated!!!
    Anson

    • Geoff Caldwell on June 7, 2013 at 10:17 am

      Point on. When it comes to Benghazi ‘dereliction of duty’ says it best.

Calendar

December 2020
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

Search