A Question for Leftist Jews: Why Do Munich’s Failures Trouble You More Than Benghazi’s?
Make the connection: Like West Germany did, Obama and Hillary Clinton risk your lives for their fantasies.
September 23, 2012 - 10:02 pm
Perhaps the cruelty of an attack during what is otherwise an earnest event is why it still aches, and so much deeper than similar horrors. But the 1972 Munich Olympics slaughter, the planned, political murder of 11 members of the Israeli Olympic delegation, deserves mention as an apt parallel to the Benghazi embassy lynching. The two events were facilitated by the same incompetence unique to politically correct, Progressive motivations of this and last century, and intellectual honesty demands that the same derision you harbor for the West German organizers should be directed towards Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy and national security failure.
Recall that the West German organizers of Munich wanted to produce a “carefree” Games, intended to reinvent the country’s image following Hitler, with no visible security or military presence to give the world any notion of the former dictatorial military state. The degree to which they were committed to such an environment at the Games was stupefying: when a police psychologist hired to predict possible threat scenarios came back with 26 situations worth preparing for, he was asked to redo his report with less terrifying scenarios. Organizers simply did not want to have the type of security presence that his report would require. This stupidity proved to be deadly: his “Situation 21” predicted almost precisely what occurred on September 5.
The Israeli delegation complained about the placement of their quarters and requested additional security even before arriving in Munich; they were in turn told that extra precautions would be taken. There is no evidence that this happened. Further, just this year Der Spiegel reported that an informant tipped off the West Germans three weeks prior to the Games.
Imagine that: the lesson they took from Hitler, from the worst slaughter in human history, was to prevent recurrences by being less vigilant. For visualizing the idiocy of such logic:
Judge: “Prior to sentencing, is there any statement the defendant would like to make to the court regarding why he burglarized the property?”
Defendant: “Because they locked the door.”
If that example spurred a grin, then for the sake of intellectual consistency don’t you dare vote for Obama.
Acting like the Libyan lynching is a one-time error, an administrative lapse, or the result of a video is palliative. The truth is that Obama and Hillary Clinton have, just as the West Germans did, consistently left your life in danger for the sake of their utopian daydream. Your life: when traveling abroad, they certainly would never place themselves in the position Ambassador Stevens was in. Further, risking your life by hoping the devil died with Hitler appears to be the only unifying theme of their foreign policy and national security platform.
Hilary Clinton called Bashar Assad a “reformer.” Admiral James Clapper said the Muslim Brotherhood was “secular.” The massacre at Fort Hood was recorded as “workplace violence.” A ruthless KGB-trained dictator was trusted with a “reset.”
Candidate Obama wanted to chat with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with “no preconditions,” and Obama refused to side with the anti-Ahmadinejad protesters following a sham election. Obama and Clinton then put real reformers and moderates in danger by shepherding al-Qaeda operatives to power in Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt.
The Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack by a mob, but likely could have fallen to a mob of young boys. The State Department had days, perhaps weeks of warning about September 11, 2012, yet refused to institute new protocols. My company, PJ Media, published a warning that we found circulating in Arabic-language media on September 10 — how did we manage to be more vigilant regarding your safety than State?
So: why aren’t you boiling like you were after Munich? Perhaps you are satiated by statements such as this one, which appeared in a New York Times editorial on August 31, 2012 (moments after Mitt Romney concluded speaking at the RNC):
For decades, the Republicans were able to present themselves as the tougher party on foreign and military policy. Mr. Obama has robbed them of that by being aggressive on counterterrorism and by flexing military and diplomatic muscle repeatedly and effectively.
Do they think you’re stupid?