PERHAPS NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE LAND and of losses in battle or attacks by the enemy has the ratio of words per casualty achieved the levels of the saga of Benghazi.
Ten, 20 years from now one can picture an old tea party couple sitting on a park bench, looking into each others’ eyes and sighing in fond memory, “But we’ll always have Benghazi.”
As one plumbs the depths of GOP anguish over the Obama administration’s “unconcern” for the safety of the men and women who serve as our representatives in foreign lands, it might be helpful to gauge the willingness of conservatives to invest in that safety. What, for example, was the fate of the most recent administration requests for funds to protect our consulates and embassies?
Rather than lay out an answer to that question in dry literal prose, I thought a richer approach might be to quote from the News Makeup piece, “GOP Furious State Department Cut Embassy Security After GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding,” by David Neilsen, May 13, 2013:
“After a day of emotional hearings on the Benghazi Embassy attacks of 2012, Republican legislators yesterday decried the Obama State Department for following through with the budget cuts to embassy security mandated by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
“‘This is negligence of the highest order,’ said House Oversight and Government Reform member Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who voted with his fellow Republicans to cut $128 million from the Obama administration’s request for embassy security in 2011, as well as an additional $331 million from the administration’s request in 2012. ‘Embassy duty is dangerous work, and our nation’s diplomats need to know that America has their back. To cut over $450 million from their security in two years simply because we, the Republicans, have forced through those cuts borders on high treason.’
“… When Democrats tried to turn the tables by pointing out that it was the GOP, not the Obama administration, that slashed embassy security funding, Chaffetz stood firm, saying, ‘Absolutely (we cut funding). Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country.’
“‘When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things,’ Chaffetz added. ‘But for Christ’s sake, we’re the GOP. To listen to our advice or enact the legislation we pass is ludicrous. It’s as if Obama wants the terrorists to win.’
“Quin Monson, head of BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, believed that Clinton’s State Department may have seriously dropped a ball that was not handed to them. ‘When they received over $450 million less than they needed, Clinton should have cut security at bases that were not going to be attacked within the next few years,’ he said. ‘Why she chose instead to cut funding in Benghazi, an embassy that would soon be the site of a terrorist attack, is a question only she can answer.’”
Hopefully you will excuse me for the use of News Makeup, which tends to reshape its subjects quotations to make its own (ironic) points.
I want to be clear that we have absolutely no assurance that the GOP cuts were responsible for what took place in that specific location, or that Clinton cut relevant funding. The reality does, however, suggest a certain caution with regard to the notion that the flood tide of wailing and moaning from the right about Benghazi was not partisan but represents some overriding commitment to the safety of our foreign service personnel.
During my World War II period, I had experience with night fighting. My division did considerable training for night attack and engaged in a number of them. While it sometimes worked out well, there were other occasions when it was pretty confused, with mixed results — and once when it all went to hell. (An assumption in planning must be that while you will not get it exactly right when the firing begins, your confusions will be considerably less than the defenders’.) But it is vital to understand that even “quite well” and “successful” in night attack or night defense inevitably includes confusions, some of them very significant and even deadly. What will be absolutely certain is that the final resolution of differences will include errors, and what exactly happened can very seldom if ever be precisely pinned down.
Further, anyone who reports on Benghazi and suggests that in real time the situation was very clear and that there were simple alternatives available to resolve it successfully is blowing smoke big time.
During an interview that aired on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican who was appointed to the position by George W. Bush, defended the Obama administration’s reaction to the attacks in Libya.
“Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” Gates said. “We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible.”
The suggestion posed by some critics of the administration to, as Gates said, “send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous. …
“It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he added. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”
For anyone interested in facts and realities, I strongly urge reading “Follies, Media Coverage, And ‘Cover-Up’ Charges,” May 19, in which writer Joe Conason interviews Thomas Pickering, the distinguished American diplomat who oversaw the State Department’s Benghazi review board.
Pickering deals with many of the questions being raised. I particularly note the following with respect to claims that the military “could have relieved or in fact changed the situation by sending men or equipment or both the night of the event” — and specifically assertions by Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, that four Special Forces soldiers should have been dispatched to Benghazi from Tripoli. Pickering says those four officers would have arrived in Benghazi too late to help.
As to what the White House knew or should have known, we have a this uncontradicted account from The Atlantic: “The Real Libya Story: There is No Story,” by Michael Hirsch, Oct. 24, 2012:
“It was, from the start, about as hard an intelligence problem as you can find. The date was September 11, and the CIA was stretched thin, monitoring anti-American protests in no fewer than 54 countries that day, according to Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper. Post-Gaddafi Libya itself was still chaotic, caught up in the fog of war, and indeed Ambassador Chris Stevens, at great personal risk, had journeyed to his old Arab Spring-era stomping ground in Benghazi to assess the situation himself.”
The hysterical claims from the right suggest by implication (and sometimes by explication) that Benghazi is the most serious consulate attack and loss of embassy personnel ever experienced by the United States! To this point and in the service of reality, I quote the following on consulate attacks: “This would include the seven attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates that took place between 2002 and 2008 and incorporating a considerably larger toll in human lives. Additionally, there have been many attacks on U.S. diplomatic targets — including embassies — for decades, and far more have occurred during previous administrations than under President Obama.” (“The Truth About Attacks on Our Diplomats,” Adam Serwer, Mother Jones, Oct. 3, 2012.)
Let me close with a quote from Carl von Clausewitz on a central issue related to this entire discussion. “War is an area of uncertainty; three quarters of the things on which all action in war is based are lying in a fog of uncertainty to a greater or lesser extent.”
A bit like the fog of GOP-engendered confusion over Benghazi.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Who ordered the stand down order. We are told there were forces ready to go in and they were told to stand down. Who gave that order. And who gave the order to go to the media with that bogus story about the video and why did they persist with it for several days after the event. We all know that was BS and they have admitted it so why the cover up. There is much more at play here and we WILL get to the bottom of it before it is over.
Hahahahaha! Yes, in exactly the same way you “got to the bottom” of Whitewater: with a report millions of taxpayer dollars later saying there’s no substance to the GOP claims. Wake up man, you’re being had!
RA: Yes, in exactly the same way you “got to the bottom” of Whitewater: with a report millions of taxpayer dollars later saying there’s no substance to the GOP claims.
“Ultimately the Clintons were never charged , but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton’s successor as Governor, who was removed from office”
Wake up man woman, you’re being had!
Yes, witch hunts always have victims, even if not their intended targets. I’ll refrain from calling you a man bear pig, one of your epithets of choice, or urging you to wake up, as you seem to be slumbering so peacefully.
HTML did not take I inserted; ‘strike through’ coding for the word “man”.
man bear pig, one of your epithets of choice
Actually, I used that term once and it is reserved exclusively for legendary global warming alarmist; Al Gore.
JLB is right! Who gave that order to stand down??? Obama was to busy getting his beauty sleep for his Vegas trip… so I think Hillary has some explaining to do.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/29/Blame-the-President-for-Benghazi
Breitbart? I don’t EVER want to see another critique of Media Matters from those who stay silent on this one.
Word.
I should have prefaced my comment with:
Breitbart?
So a Col. Hunt’s distinguished military career as an officer in special operations, counter terrorism and intelligence operations, as well as a security adviser for the FBI and state and local police officials, is to be ignored?
Mind you, Col Hunt also is a graduate of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and holds a Master’s degree in English from Norwich University.
But all of that is to be ignored because Breitbart posted his piece?
Does a distinguished career in the military become irrelevant when he takes a position one is opposed to?
Gee I don’t know. Do facts published by Media Matters cease to become facts because you don’t like the website? Or because you don’t like the facts themselves? Because that may not be your way of thinking (no comment) but it certainly holds true for many (most) on the right. Hence all this talk about a “bubble.”
And do you discount the very valuable war experience of Benicia’s own Jerry Page, who once again graces us with his knowledge in this excellent piece?
I still say Jerry needs to have his mouth washed out.
After 8 credit-card paying warring years by the Bush and Cheney administration, no catching of Osama, a collapsed economy, a lame Palin-McCain ticket, and then Moneybags and SchwinnBoy losing as their candidates in 2012 with no real Republican platform, add Norquist and McConnel freezing any kind of progress in Congress, what do the Repubs have to show as a political party for the past 13 years? Add in a “No-Science” mentality/viewpoint and you have cerebral and cultural stagnation. So they need to find faut somewhere…Certainly it couldn’t be with them…Sorry, but Reagan napping during the Contra Affair and Condoleeza Rice denying anyone forewarned them of airplane strikes in the US plus Colin Powell arguing with “renderings” before the UN as to what a “mobile WMD lab” looked like makes sad Hopskotch a real potential game for the Repubs to consider for their next move. Throw in the Tea Party stagnation and you have full blown paralysis. When you’re frozen to the floor with inactivity, try to find someone besides yourselves to blame…Good luck, America. I’d rather watch Border Collies herding…their IQ to weight ratio exceeds ours I’m sure.–pb
Interesting commentary Peter but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the article. Can you find some place else to troll?
Once again Jerry Page eviscerates the lying, ignorant, cowardly right! Well done sir.
Benghazi is BS. The IRS “scandal” is BS. (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/story-you-knew-was-bullshit-yeah-it-was-bullshit) Fox’s Rosen probably deserved the scrutiny. I don’t like the AP thing but it was probably perfectly legal — and backed by numerous Republicans, who used to pretend to care about national security — so where’s the scandal there? (This is a good take: http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/ap-and-rosen-leak-cases-both-sides-have-made-mistakes)
Yeah, tempest in a teapot, soon to be forgotten, Just like that obscure and no longer remembered Teapot Dome Scandal.
How comforting to know that the usual suspects are still swimming in the pool and that the GOP is the only group peeing in it. Be mindful not to swallow the water!
The truth about Benghazi
Often times the best perspectives are from outside the US. This is from the Sydney Herald, dated May 19 and raises several relevant points. It is a bit long, but seems a far more fair assessment:
**Benghazi and its aftermath are a measure of the mess that is American politics and governance these days – dysfunction, obsessive distrust and deep, partisan hatred.
**Most news consumers assume that the first building to come under attack, curiously described by the administration as a ”diplomatic post”, actually was a consulate. But these reports (The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) confirm that it was a shell, merely a front for a sophisticated CIA operation, which was so secret that Washington had not informed its new best friends in the new Libyan government.
The classified nature of the CIA operation means that it cannot be mentioned publicly, which inevitably tortures a debate, in which key questions include:
(following are edited from the original)
**before the November presidential election, did the Obama team hype claims Benghazi was just more of the region-wide unrest prompted by the YouTube video, instead of admitting to a terrorist attack
**Who was doctoring the speaking notes provided to Susan Rice, which resulted in Obama dropping Rice as his preferred secretary of state?
** Why such relentless questioning of … Clinton’s handling of the case, but absolutely no criticism of then CIA director David Petraeus’ handling of it?
** If State Department security experts had declared that the Benghazi post failed to meet security standards … what was the ambassador doing there in the first place?
Ah, yes, the covert/overt shell game…Maybe the CIA oughta step into the limelight and show us their real colors for a change? All lobbyists stand forward. All offshore CEOs stand forward. All stockholders in Monsanto step forward. Anybody left? Who runs the FDA, USDA, EPA, and World Bank? Why haven’t the top US financial houses been prosecuted? Because they’d all go to jail and the counter appeals by flaky lawyers would bring total collapse to the US economy. Lets drum up another WMD fiasco and invade some country, grab their oil resources in the name of “Democracy and World Freedom” and then import flaky oil reserves from Canada too, not for US consumption, but to export for sale from Texas. Will the last liar please turn off the lights? I’m just trolling to see if anybody believes all this back page hyperbole. Quick, under the card table and flat blankets, let’s pretend we’re a sophisticated Slumber Party so no one will notice or care…pb
From the piece: I want to be clear that we have absolutely no assurance that the GOP cuts were responsible for what took place in that specific location, or that Clinton cut relevant funding.
Yet over a third of the piece is dedicated to the presumption that it was the GOP cuts that were a major factor in what occurred.
Will the first moron please stand up and take a bow? Then the rest in sequence…Nobody was there except the ambassador and of all places, nobody expected it to be Easter Bunny Land, did we?… And if you cut back on funding, well, DUH! That doesn’t just cover brandy and cigars does it? If all armchair quarterbacks would like to run for elective office, maybe the chatter would die down a bit—So easy it is to criticize when you don’t have to raise election funds be be a contender, just yarp from the suburban hills like well-fed house cats pretending to be feral—Watch that second step, in the dark, it’s a doozer!–pb
Will the first moron please stand up and take a bow? Then the rest in sequence…
Will the first person to start paying attention please stand up and take a bow? Then the rest in sequence…
Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans “cut” the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years.
“The Department of State’s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period,” said the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report on the Benghazi attack.
Excellent info Dennis. Most of us have just let that info pass. Glad you brought it back to our attention. It does present a different picture than what the folks are trying to say and transfer the blame.
And how much has our imperialistic growth grown since 2007? When your previous administration scuttles the economy and then you bellyache about “deficits and spending,” you can’t have it both ways…Obama is not driving every US bus on every corner on the planet, some of these old derelicts are still the GOP-appointees…You guys just need something to carp about since Moneybags and SchwinnBoy failed in 2012 and Palin and Johnny McCain weren’t up to the grade in 2008—How much have you advanced the wellbeing of the planet with Boehner, McConnel, and Norquist? What a posse of doughnutholes…Pardon me, dysfunctionals, that’s a more politically-correct term…What’s their real dayjobs to justify their occupying O2 and space on the planet?–pb
Flag draped coffins and Hillary says it was a video. Tells the mother of one of our military who died in Benghazi it was a video. To continue to blame the Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Party for something they had nothing to do with is a big mistake by the current regime. Last time I heard Obama was still being called President Obama and at that time we all know what job Hillary had. The responsibility lies at the Presidents feet and his regime. Time for him to step up and take charge and quit blaming others for everything that does not go well. Bengahzi was a terrorist attack and our fine Americans paid for it with their lives. This is not going away.
“Flag draped coffins and Hillary says it was a video. Tells the mother of one of our military who died in Benghazi it was a video.”
So? Where’s the scandal? That the initial assessment was wrong? Weak sauce. The whole Arab world was in an uproar over that video, Bob. What is being covered up here?
Four years and nothing the GOP threw at Obama stuck. Of course this isn’t going away — they’re desperate to tarnish him any way they can. It will come to nothing but we’ll have to hear about it for the next four years anyway.
So why did the GOP have to falsify the emails if they had anything — ANYTHING — on this made up scandal?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.html
Bob it’s already gone. You just try to keep it alive and no one else cares.
It does appear the regime is keeping it alive not Bob Livesay. All the President and his regime have to do is answer the questions and it could very well be over and then we can all move on. I do not think anyone except the regime thinks the video was the cause. President Obama and his regime must answer some very simple questions without all their denials on this very important scandal. That is when it will end. I have no problem with a loyal American Patriot like Mr. Page writing about this scandal. But at the same time there are two sides to this scandal.
We all know who is keeping it alive.
With all do respect to Mr. Page. When this scandal is still being talked/written/broadcast all the time it will not go away. It is being kept alive by the press and I do not think they are very friendly to Republicans. Again I will say this: Just answer the questions and present the timeline facts. It may will could go very well for President Obama and his regime. Until that is done it is a very dark cloud hanging over the head of President Obama and his regime. Just present the answers and facts and lets get this over. Let the chips fall where they may. Should not be any fear on the regimes part at all. After all they say it is just a made up scandal and issue. Well prove it.
We all see through this faux scandal. “Just answer the questions”? They will never be answered to the GOP ‘s satisfaction. At some point you just have to smack the hound on the snout and say “no more!”
It’s McCain’s fault!!!
“Rep. Louie Gohmert(R) Blames Sen. John McCain For Benghazi Attack”:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/foreign-policy/war-terror/rep-louie-gohmert-blames-sen-john-mccain-benghazi-attack-audio
Hillary is running in ’16.
Republicans got their as*es handed to them in ’12.
Anyone want to take a wild guess at why as to the GOP is trying their level best to hype a small (albeit unfortunate) event into a much larger one?
Anyone?
I believe Mr. Pages article is about Benghazi. But now that you mention it Hillary has taken a big hit. Her points are down close to 20. President Obama will not suffer from this. His approval rating will drop a few points and possible more just like most second term Presidents. It is the Democratic party that is beng hurt by all of this. Again I will say to the President and his regime: Just come forth with the facts and timeline to all the questions that have been asked. All this stone walling on this terrorist attack is not helping the Democrats in any way. If they come forward with very strong answers to the questions it could give the Democratic party a big lift. That is all that this scandal is about, Answers.
When you can’t win coat hanger space even in the coatroom, look under the bed for dust bunnies…and make a moose sound from a mouse squeak…A mediocre press funded by gluttonous corporations’ ad revenue will keep any mouse squeak in the eyes of “consumers” if it keeps sales up…Mediocrity loves itself, it’s so easy to sustain—I no longer take you guys as a serious threat to anything, except your own small town entertainment…after a while it’s like old radio noise—pb
She’ll be fine. Who will care about Benghazi in three years, besides the self-marginalizing wingnuts?
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/31/18654759-first-thoughts-hillarys-2016-numbers-come-back-down-to-earth?lite
PS Not 20 points, and she still kicks the asses if the GOP’s brightest bulbs. So yes, this “scandal” will continue.
And how many ambassadors were lost during the Cheney/Bush years? And how many Repubs gave a bright or dull fig? When you’re outa office with no shining stars in your ceiling, it’s dark to see anything but dust bunnies under the bed, and Hillary’s a genuine female threat to sour old white men who don’t believe in science either…So go beat up on Barack and his “regime”, he drives every bus on every corner of the planet, and he’s also a crossing guard on every street in Washington, DC too—Repubs have no accomplishments and nothing to be proud of, but carping on back alley fences…How frinking sad, but self-imposed also, they don’t believe in government, just un-regulated, predatory “free enterprise” to exploit the masses—pb
Peter asked: And how many ambassadors were lost during the Cheney/Bush years?
The answer would be none, Peter. The last ambassador to be killed was in 1988, a plane crash.
Now tell us how many lives were lost in embassy attacks in the Bush years, and how many witch hunt Congressional investigations those spawned.
Lives are lost in War, often times, too often, those of innocent people. That is one of the tragedies of war.
Thank you, RA, my terminology was off–It’s all over the Internet, I’ll try to find it—pb
Keep up the good fight my friend.
The article is about Bengazi , lack of funding and a very partisan take on the scandal. It is not about Hillary or 2014, 2016. But if that is what you want to talk about that is ok with me. When your top candidate Hillary is only up by eight points over an un-named Republican candidate that is not good. Do you think VP Biden and Kerry are just going to stand back and give the nomination to Hillary. I think not. Back to the scandal, just give the Americans voters the answers they deserve and it could be over and spell doom the Democratic party.
“Back to the scandal, just give the Americans voters the answers they deserve and it could be over and spell doom the Democratic party.” The fog of wishful thinking.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/obama-may-be-embroiled-in-scandals-but-hes-definitely-no-tricky-dicky-29279675.html
Nice article. I noticed the use of the word scandal many times.
Selective reading demonstrated.
I like that when groping for a historical comparison to the terrible, awful, no good Obama, the absolute worst person Republicans can find is one of the most successful Republican politicians of all time.
Per Merriam Webster –
scan·dal (noun) :malicious or defamatory gossip
I did not notice President Lincolns name mentioned in the article. Off topic but important to discuss all parts of the scandals. Good read.
The fog. Period.
Anyone who thinks “Bengazi fever” is about anything other than Hillary Clinton’s rising star has blinders on. Most of us who actually read – and I mean BOTH sides of issues carefully – can see this for what it really is. The fact that she wiped the floor with her “accusers” is even more of an indicator of how scared some folks are of her potential as a candidate. It’s going to be fun to watch the next few years. As a recent comedian said, Clinton eats this stuff for breakfast and comes out twice as strong. Which makes her scary, too!
The other side of the story on Hillary Clinton for the community to ponder…with an apology to Mr. Page and his fine article.
From the article below:
” Clinton’s unabashedly pro war. She’s a war goddess.”
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2013/02/hillary-clinton-profile-of-imperial.html
She is in trouble yes/no. Let the foks answer that question.
Bob I don’t think Benghazi will bother her supporters many of whom do not care about it or will have never heard of it or think Ben Ghazi is the name of an actor or rap singer
She will need more than Dems and some independents to win. She first will have to take on Biden and Kerry. That primary will be very damaging to her. But then again we are a few years away from all of that. This Benghazi scandal is not going away. I do agree that her supporters will not tune into any of this or just pay no attention. Her core supporters will remain solid but the fence sitting supporters are already jumping over the fence. As long as articles like the aboce continue to appear all over the country it does hurt Hillary and her popularity.
Well, since the people who support the more liberal politicians have, according to several surveys, a higher level of knowledge about world events and are less likely to take anyone’s word for something, I’d guess that most of her supporters are fully aware of what Ben Ghazi is and many of whom care a great deal about the safety of ALL our personnel overseas, including the thousands of troops killed, maimed, etc. in Iraq and Afganistan…as are any thinking Americans.
Survey says…, please! many Americans on both sides of the isle couldn’t even tell you where Benghazi is. Try your own survey instead of taking someone else’s word for it. Talk to people on the street
Well, since her approval ratings are off the charts, I’d have to say “no,” at least for now! Wasn’t she the most admired woman in a recent survey? I think she has great potential and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the next couple of years. I don’t think she would ever put up with the nonsense we have watched in Congress for the past few years, for one thing. She would have wiped the floor with them, too!
This article should be titled, The Fog of Jerome Page. I appreciate your service to this country Jerome but your clearly confused. The fact you believe that there was not enough time to save the Benghazi victims is ridiculous. Ask any of the survivors of that night. Oh wait you can’t….there all being silenced. Our soldiers are trained for this kind of attack. I understand Jerome that you did a little night fighting in WWII but night fighting has changed, my leftist friend. If i’m not mistaken… most battles are fought at night. This is a horrible article with NO FACTS. I’m not blaming you for your low information. Just another victim of the liberal media.
Spot on, Prospector!