Your premise is flawed. It supposes that this administration cares.
It---does---not.
Breaking News: Five Months After Benghazi Murders: Killers Frolic Untouched There
February 19th, 2013 - 9:16 am
Perhaps it isn’t trying because it knows the Libyan government is not eager or not able to confront the terrorists. And because the U.S. government does not want to take direct action, since that would presumably be “bullying” and “unilateral”:
“The [Libyan] government lost a very good opportunity after our ‘Rescue Benghazi’ event to control these militias, break them apart and absorb them into legitimate bodies,” Younes Najim, an organizer of the campaign to push Ansar al-Sharia out.
“It will take time, but the longer the government takes to organize its security here, the stronger some groups will make themselves to become parallel forces to the government.”
Right. But why didn’t the U.S. government follow up on the momentum built by the Rescue Benghazi (that is, the “force the terrorists to leave”) movement? As for the Libyan government, it cannot and will not control them for a very good reason. The government is relatively weak — especially in Benghazi — and its “regular” military forces are made up of ex-militiamen who might be very sympathetic to Ansar al-Sharia.
In other words, the U.S. government has given weapons and money and diplomatic support to create and sustain a regime which may be made up of relatively decent people, but cannot lift a finger to catch, punish, or outlaw al-Qaeda supporters and those who have murdered Americans in cold blood.
Again, remember this is not a hostile country which provides a safe haven to anti-American terrorists, like Iran or Lebanon do, but a U.S. client state established largely with U.S. military aid and direct assistance.
The killers are not hiding out in caves, but are strolling the streets of a supposed U.S. ally.
Today, Libya; tomorrow, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, not necessarily in terms of al-Qaeda itself (except in Syria) but in terms of anti-American Islamist groups that are quite willing to attack U.S. targets in the Middle East.
Here’s what Obama said in his State of the Union message (which didn’t mention his alleged pursuit of the Benghazi terrorists):
Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al-Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged — from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving.
In other words, al-Qaeda is weakened to the point of collapse. It isn’t.
But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security. … And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.
That is a perfect model of what should be done: cooperation with American allies when possible; direct action when necessary.
But that hasn’t happened.
The allies are too weak or are even in bed with the terrorists themselves. The “ally” that the U.S. government is depending on to take care of the terrorists for it is … the Muslim Brotherhood. Incidentally, the Libyan government is also the biggest single financial donor — presumably with behind-the-scenes U.S. encouragement, or even pressure — to the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated group in Syria.
That’s why Obama didn’t mention Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, or Syria in his speech about counterterrorism. CIA director John Brennan is directing such a policy, but it isn’t good to say that publicly, and especially not in front of a joint session of Congress.
And elsewhere — here’s where Yemen, Libya, and Somalia come in — regimes cannot provide for their own security. To reframe the issue: what if they can only provide for their own security by ignoring or even undermining U.S. interests?
Yes, it’s much easier to throw some California filmmaker into prison.
The night of September 11, 2012, was the perfect time to “continue to take direct action against those terrorists.” Instead, Obama went to sleep; he has yet to wake up. There is graphic proof for that assertion in the streets of Benghazi today.
PS: A very angry reader wrote me to ask why didn’t I denounce President Ronald Reagan for not getting those responsible for the 1982 attack on the Marine barracks. As I tried to make clear, it is different to get terrorists hiding in a hostile to America area under the protection of governments (Syria and Iran) with tens of thousands of hostile, heavily armed soldiers which in turn were under the protection of the Soviet Union and going after terrorists sitting openly in a place whose government is a U.S. client, installed by the United States, and open to its penetration. I also have met U.S. soldiers involved in covert operations who went into those areas on missions to get those responsible, albeit without ultimate success, and heard the obstacles they faced, starting with locating the terrorists. No, it isn’t the same situation.
Your “scoreboard” at the end of the article is simply the list of the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Barak Hussein Obama.
In the next four years he will do more for the defeat of America, of Israel, and of the West.
He has a whole team of supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in place now.
I can only imagine the Clinton screech: “What difference does it make!!?” And the so what? (followed by Obama yawning). If the murderers of Americans romp about and brag about it — it makes zero difference to those in the White House.
Someone needs to put together “the definitive guide to muzzi headwear.” Is there something significant about the fez angle that I’m missing. Is it a sign of victory or moral superiority? Is there a practical aspect to wearing a fez? Do the chics dig ‘em??
You forgot to add Iran to the scorecard: still defying the US by working intensively to build nuclear weapons (likely together w/N. Korea) and supporting terrorists around the world.
Killers frolic in the open while a filmmaker languishes in an American jail.
Par for the course.
This is a key part of the Benghazi narrative. We need to remember this. If he’s been locked up for several months undeservedly now (not sure what the facts are; don’t hear much about him; out of sight out of mind) then maybe someone can integrate his part in this with everything else?
That would be cool if they had him in an advertisement shouting “It does matter!”
I think we have be subjected to an alien abduction. Why? The 30 or so survivors of the Benghazi raid have disappeared.
“Dead men tell no tales”. They probably aren’t actually literally dead, but don’t want to be either.
Family members and loved ones have been threatened. count on it. Chicago way.
David Gregory to John McCain: “What is being covered up?”
says a mouthful.
He say nothing, he heard nothing, he knows nothing. He was not there. He hasn’t even gotten up any morning for the last several months.
This President is not the “leader” who was showing us the way to national abdication. He is the therapist who makes us feel comfortable and justified for our personal abdication from our duty to defend freedom. Political opportunists must have correctly sensed that portraying G. W. Bush as a senseless jingoist was going to give them plenty of mileage. Is this not how Democracy is supposed to work? The citizens lose heart first, then the nation loses heart!
G. W. Bush’s axis of Evil has not vanished. Instead, it has become fashionable and socially safe to pretend that it has! The wake-up call of 9-11 motivated a response that eventually proved to be abortive. The giant is only a recidivist in slumber. What will it take to kick it out of it? Where will our right to be surprised come from when the reinvigorated jihadi score their next big point?
“So: these things can be found in the American mass media — congratulations to those I so often criticize — but do not find their way into the policy debate.” Are congratulations really in order? In neither do I find a real demand for reasons for the inaction! No questions of what are you doing? You commend them for reporting what is already common knowledge, without follow up or support for the truth!
True, Robert, but since I often complain that facts are not covered in the American mass media I thought it would not be right of me to use this reporting and not acknowledge that it had appeared. What we, or the editorial writers, make of it–as I pointed out–is something else.
“Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al-Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged — from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving.”
I will bet you anything that Obama considered the loss of four people in Benghazi as a “small bump in the road” on the way to pulling out of the Middle East. Obama has now drifted into the land of “acceptable losses.” How much can we lose and ignore before actually having to DO something about it? Obviously, when you lose 3,000 Americans in one day you have to do something about it. But if you lose four people in the sands of Benghazi, is it really worth the trouble of risking another war?
But the real question is, where do you draw the line on losses? What is “acceptable” according to Obama? Is it the deaths of 4 Americans, or 40 Americans, or even 400 Americans? My guess is that anything under 100 will be seen as “regretable” by Obama, but hardly worth doing much about it.
And with even more money about to be taken away from the military, our ability to retaliate against just about anybody will be reduced even further. Which works out well for Obama, don’t ch’ya know. Because if Americans have learned anything about our current president over the past four years it’s that: A) Obama has absolutely no desire for America to be a world power; he sees America as being no different than Britain or France; and B) Every dollar taken away from the military can then be flushed down the social-welfare toilet in the form of more benefits and entitlements, just like in Europe. The European military is a mere shadow of its former self and is almost laughable. Heck, the French even needed American cargo jets to get to Mali to intervene there. So if Europe is the model Obama is following, then don’t expect to see us being able to strike back against people who attack us anytime soon.
Elections do have consequences. And military impotence and empty rhetoric coming from the White House these days is the biggest consequence of the last elections. Hope the Americans who voted for Obama are happy with it.
“But the real question is, where do you draw the line on losses? What is “acceptable” according to Obama? Is it the deaths of 4 Americans, or 40 Americans, or even 400 Americans? My guess is that anything under 100 will be seen as “regretable” by Obama, but hardly worth doing much about it.”
I think you’re being wildly optimistic about where Obama’s threshold would be.
I seem to remember reading an article four or five years ago – I’m not sure if Obama was President already or just a candidate – in which he speculated about the response to a nuclear attack on the US via terrorists deploying a small tactical nuke or a dirty bomb. An event like that could kill hundreds of thousands or more. As I recall, Obama’s basic stance was that “America could take it”. In other words, it would be regrettable but it wouldn’t demand a response. I think he was hiding behind the idea that the origins of the terrorists couldn’t be determined with certainty and since they weren’t acting at the behest of a national government, it would be wrong to simply attack the Gaza Strip or Lebanon or wherever the terrorists had originated.
If I’m remembering the gist of his comments correctly, it seems that he would not respond to the deaths of even thousands of Americans in an act of terrorism unless perhaps he had ironclad proof that the terrorists were actually working for the government of a country like Pakistan. And knowing that he is a lawyer and how lawyers love their loopholes, I feel sure he would set an almost impossible burden of proof on anyone trying to make such a case. In other words, he would give the foreign power the benefit of the doubt unless there was a LOT of proof and none of it could be disputed. (When did you ever hear of proof that couldn’t be disputed?)
In short, I think Obama would just take the hit and sit back, waiting for more.
Just heard on the radio that Gen. Allen will be stepping down after being cleared of wrongdoing in the Petraues scandal. President O said he would be taking care of “family problems.” Wonder what size “vice grips” were used on the General. Perhaps he was unwilling to kill “Americans” at home and abroad. Who knows? The big O knows.
Allen was willing to get a lot of Americans killed in Afcrapistan with his “Partners in Peace” program.
One of them, the ring leader, is even frolicking on the golf course.
And the President plays golf! Nothing to see here in Lybia. Just 4 murdered Americans on American soil. Obama will go down in history as a do nothing playboy.
Don’t forget the most openly criminal, openly corrupt, and openly evil administration too….
as Hillary said, What does it matter. Will catching them and putting them in permanent legal limbo at Gitmo, bring back the MURDERED CITIZENS. and isn’t the lib response that we shouldn’t judge others, so there really weren’t terrorists, but just freedom fighters. And What difference will it make,
And that is the problem with libs/dems/obozoids/low information voters and lame stream media, it doesn’t make any difference to them except if the person has an “r” after his name. Then he is EVIL and must be destroyed.
Well, Obama can’t be seen punishing gay rapist muslims.. just think of the LGBT backlash!!!
Very energetic blog, I loved that bit. Will there be a part 2?
Also visit my web-site: strony internetowe cennik
Why wouldn’t they be?
The Obama administrations servile weakness is disgusting and breeds contempt not just amongst our enemies but our allies as well.
The United States WILL reap the whirlwind for giving Obama another 4 more years.
All the criminals are still frolicking here, too.
Can we send the Libyan criminals money like we do our criminals ?
The assassins have returned to Benghazi- the very same ones Obama adm. is so vigilently serching for and bringing them to justice. They also arrested 4 ‘missionaries’ one being an American- Swede/Swedish-American (funny Sweden is aware- is Obama?). Go to US State dept. different ‘sweet treats’ for Libya (http://www.state.gov/s/d/net/releases/198354.htm and “Diplomacy in Action’. ) Obama should ask his advisor PM Erdogan -Turkey- why wasn’t US notified when Turkey arrested the two Tunisians who came from Egypt with fake passports on their way to Syria? PM Erdogan not only arrested more Turkish officers for conspiracy -but now they went after Trade Unions and their lawyers arresting them for suspicion of belonging to DHKP/C- altogether 167. An old saying- when the cat is away the rats are dancing on the streets.
This becomes even more depressing when you consider that Barry will drone-assassinate anybody at the drop of a prayer-cap … *except* these guys.