Obama’s Illegal War Led To Benghazi Terror Attack

Okay, this is the last straw on Benghazi for me.  Now the Coward in Chief is blaming the CIA for his own failures . . . or were they failures from his perspective? That, to me, is the real question here.

So let’s look back, shall we, to why we were even in Libya in the first place.  Remember the time that Obama went to Congress and got the Constitutionally-required approval to take military action in Libya?  Remember how Libya was a clear and direct threat to the United States?  Remember the required roll call votes from both houses of Congress before any such military action can take place? No? Well, that’s because none of that happened.  Obama decided, seemingly on a whim, to take America to war with the UN’s authorization, not that of the United States Congress.  Here’s what he said at the time:

“Today,” Obama said on March 19, “I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. That action has now begun. In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people.” (source link)

Yes, you read that right, Obama unilaterally decided to take America to war with Libya.  He did not, as President Bush did in Iraq, seek and obtain the approval and support of Congress.  Obama’s a “global citizen,” and his authority, he seems to imagine, comes from the world, not the American people.  He truly sees himself as above both the Constitution and Congress, and he started the war in Libya that was so mismanaged, so ill-conceived, so horribly executed that the direct result of his hubris and illegal, unconstitutional action was the horrific rape and slaughter of an American ambassador and the murders of two former SEALs and an embassy aid.

Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith died as the direct result not only of Obama’s immensely-misguided illegal war in Libya but also because the Obama administration was desperate not to draw attention to the war and made serious lapses in judgement to cover their tracks.  For months, the Libyan ambassador’s staff, including its security staff, requested more security.  And were denied.  Not only were they denied the additional security they requested, but they also had much of what security they once had removed, against the ambassador’s objections.  This was in August, after the UK saw which way the wind was blowing and withdrew their diplomats and staff from Benghazi in June.  Not Obama.  He insisted that they remain there, effectively unprotected, on the anniversary of 9/11 and in the midst of Islamic terrorists.

We now know that once the attack was launched, the WH and State Department knew within two (2) hours that the attack was a terrorist attack.  We also now know that not one, as originally thought, but two (2) “stand down” orders were issued to any and all nearby American forces that could intervene and protect the ambassador and his staff.  And we further know that only the president can issue “stand down” orders in these instances.  We also know, of course, that both Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, former Navy SEALs who were in a nearby CIA annex, ignored those direct orders and attempted a rescue.  All this talk about how a rescue was impossible, forces too far away, etc. are clearly lies.

After the attack, Obama noted that the deaths of an American ambassador and three other American citizens was “not optimal,” and he insisted that the terrorist attack that he knew full-well was just that was instead the result of a YouTube video.  Imagine!  Both he and Hillary said this with a straight face; indeed, Hillary looked the mothers of the fallen former SEALs in the eye and told them that she would ensure that the video’s creator would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  Let that sink in.  I’m sure the still-imprisoned film-maker thinks of little else than his being a “patsy” who was thrown in prison to protect Obama and Hillary.

[Edited to add] And let’s not get too caught up in the latest lies that Obama didn’t know what was going on in Benghazi.  Remember this photo that came out the next day, on 9/12/12:

Ambassador Stephens_BenghaziAnd remember how we all laughed in disbelief when Obama stated that same day that these people were actually dragging the ambassador to the hospital?  Well, it turns out that he was right, that he did know what he was talking about, because we found out during last week’s Benghazi hearing that Ambassador Stevens was taken–get this–to a hospital run by the very terrorist group that had attacked the embassy.  Gee, I wonder why he “disappeared” for several hours and what horrors he faced if he was still alive at that point.  So on day two, Obama not only knows that the attack was a terror attack but exactly where the missing ambassador’s body was. [end edit]

So what do we have here?  A president who unilaterally and illegally takes our military to war in Libya, removes security from diplomats when other nations are removing their diplomats, issues orders that any and all nearby responding forces to the terrorist attack “stand down,” and then tries to hide the fact it was a terrorist attack at all.  Remember, he knew within two hours that a terror attack took place but for weeks afterwards, including in an address to the UN, he blamed the video.  He even had the temerity to spend American taxpayer money to run ads in the Middle East apologizing for the flipping video!  I have no words.

And now, the Obama White House is so desperate to distract attention from Benghazi that it’s willing to admit that its IRS was targeting, intimidating, and silencing conservative, pro-life, and Christian organizations (I write “was,” but we don’t know that it’s stopped or that it won’t start again when the heat is off).  Remember, we wouldn’t even know about the IRS thuggery if the IRS itself hadn’t said something about it.  What on earth could be so explosive about Benghazi that the president is willing to show his true Chicago-style, thug-like use of the IRS to strong-arm his political opposition in direct violation of both laws and the Constitution?

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 4

So last week I (somewhat inadvertently) started a series of the Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives, and am picking up here with Number 4 (you can read last week’s installment here: 5.  Conservatives are fascists.).

4. Conservatives are anti-science neanderthals. I pretty much love this one because it’s based, most often, on two unproven scientific theories–lefties don’t understand that science is about theories, i.e. positing a hypothesis based on known qualities/quantities and developing a theory that is just that, a theory–and the way that they work (or actually, don’t work) together, most clearly demonstrate the fallacies of leftist “thought” when it comes to science. Scientific findings can be and are very often proved wrong (forget about Pythagoras and Galileo, think of Einstein’s theory of relativity being called into serious question just last year:  particles were found to travel faster than the speed of light, a thing Einstein claimed was impossible).  But hey, if Al Crazed Sex Poodle Gore says that there’s a scientific consensus, there must be . . . even if the UK won’t allow the showing of the Goracle’s “documentary” without qualification that there are at least nine proven fallacies in it.

The leftists’ two pet scientific theories are AGW and Darwinism; however, it seems pretty clear that you can’t have both (as I noted in my post Evolution or Global Warming: You Can Pick Only One); if humans are responsible for global warming or climate change (or whatever the accepted term is this week), then there should have been no marked climate change prior to the Industrial Revolution.  And if there was no climate change (though we know from the fossil record that there have been multiple Ice Ages followed by global thaws), then there can’t possibly have been evolution (even Darwin said that species adapted to environmental changes such as global warming and cooling).  Darwin was insistent in The Origin of Species that environmental adaptation was required for survival of the species: so why, if humans evolved from monkeys due to an unacceptable environment, are there still monkeys?  Species simply don’t evolve in a static environment, nor do the faulty species who did not adapt and evolve survive the inhospitable environment that first prompted evolution of that unfit species.  Or if they do, Darwin was wrong.  So you see the conundrum for addled lefties.

[aside:  The progressive/communist 100-year war on Judeo-Christian values is at the heart of forcing acceptance of evolution to the exclusion of creationism in our schools and society. Communism cannot work on a religious people, a people who have anything above the state; they know this, that’s why they use “science” to strip away parts of our religious foundation.]

This Catch-22 was compounded by the ClimateGate emails and the revelation that the earth is not only not warming but is now cooling and that we are again headed for another catastrophic Ice Age.  Uh huh.  (by the way, if you haven’t read Delingpole’s Watermelons, you really should.) These findings led to the die-hard climate hysteria nutters changing “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” (it’s just so much better to cover all your bases when you’re trying to stoke unfounded fear, create panic, and take over the global economy), but it hasn’t caught on fully, so we still see the schizophrenic posts and articles about “global warming” that talk about the coming Ice Age.  Why, yes, Virginia, the warming planet causes the formation of ice sheets.  Go figure.  But to leftists this makes perfect sense.  Somehow.

Anyway, my goal here is not to debunk their craziness, that’s been done repeatedly and by actual scientists.  My interest is in this lie and how it works for leftists and against conservatives, and how it, ironically and much like the “conservatives are fascists” meme, actually reveals more about them than it does about us. For example, one of their favorite pseudo-intellectual assertions is that conservatives are religious fundamentalists who reject science because it’s not “mystical” and “supernatural.”  They mock religious belief on the grounds of their own pseudo-religious fervency of belief in science, so if you don’t believe in their twin gods, Darwin and Gore, there is something wrong with you. You’re intellectually inferior because . . . well, their “bible” is better than yours.  Or something.

Leftists trot out the conservatives are anti-science neanderthals at every turn, be it in the debate about embryonic stem cell research or in the green boondoggling that is 0’s pet way to waste tax payer money.  He claimed only last week that conservatives would have been “flat earthers” back in the day because we don’t want to keep throwing billions away on unproven, unworkable “green” energy.  This is all backwards, of course.  He‘s the flat earther, buying into the accepted “norm” (as flat earthers did in their day) and ridiculing (or attempting to–today’s flat earthers are actually proponents of 0’s and leftists’ wrong-headed AGW alarmism)–anyone with whom he disagrees.

But this is what leftists do.  And it’s all they can do.  They can’t argue with you based on facts, they can’t argue with you based in science, they can’t argue with based in logic, so they resort to their fall-back position of supposed intellectual superiority and condescension.  You, poor dumb bitter clinger that you are, are simply too unintelligent and too backward to grasp the subtleties of their “science.”  It wasn’t “debunked,” it was “complicated.”  It wasn’t found to be false, it was “challenged by idiots.”  There’s a “consensus,” even though there clearly is not, not even in the scientific communities who study climate and evolution.

Leftists use science, including flawed and debunked science, to further their own ends, such as the UN’s Agenda 21 that President George H. W. Bush signed in 1992.  Using global warming/climate change hysteria and alarmism to scare and intimidate peoples and nations into giving up their sovereignty and destroying individual property rights.  Science isn’t just their god, it’s their means of controlling the population of the world, its resources, and its economy.

What Was That About Leading By Example?

Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example. — BO, to the U.N.

I didn’t catch BO’s U.N. speech, but I caught some of Fox’s coverage and punditry and a round table on CNN with James Carville.  From Fox, I got that BO had insulted Israel and aimed us on a course for disaster with his naivete, and from CNN, I got that BO had single-handedly established global peace and prosperity during the course of that speech.  Obviously, thought I, the truth had to be somewhere in the middle.  I also wondered why Carville, like so many libs, complains that nothing’s being accomplished in Afghanistan when it’s the dems who ensure that we can’t send the troops, support, and supplies needed to actually accomplish anything.  But that’s another rant for another day.

I decided to go ahead and read BO’s speech (linked above) because I’m pretty sick of listening to him speak these days.  The over-saturation campaign he’s been on has worn me down, and I just can’t bear to look at him or hear his voice at the moment.  Maybe if I can get some BO-free time, I’ll be able to watch and listen again.  No promises.

So I read it.  And I liked it.  A lot.  He wasn’t as vague and abstract as usual, which was a pleasant surprise, and he seemed to have a good plan outlined for the future of the world–which is odd, because part of his plan is that he won’t make a plan because he’s the American president and therefore shouldn’t take a leading role in the world.  But that’s typical of BO double-speak, he’s good at saying one thing and then saying (and doing) the exact opposite.  He’s actually making it quite the art form.  Remember how he chided the right for using “scare tactics” about the healthcare debate and then proceeded to tell us that we would all surely go bankrupt, lose our homes, and die if we didn’t jump on board with his plan?  Typical.

Anyway, so as he’s dictating the terms for the future of the world, he’s making some sense.  I mean peace is good, economic stability is also good. Preserving the planet . . . another check in the “good” column.  I’m not so crazy about the non-proliferation and disarmament thing, but only because I don’t think that it’s possible given the loons who are dabbling with nukes these days (ahem, North Korea and Iran).  And on this he was back to his usual vague abstractions, saying that America will not tolerate any country not jumping on board and tossing their nukes out the window and that “they must be held accountable.”

What exactly that means is anyone’s guess, but as he’s promised that we’ll not have nukes, I guess we’re going to combat their nukes with our famous “improvised armored” trucks.  You remember the ones, the richest country in the world provided our military with crappy, unarmored vehicles to go to war in, and our troops had to afix blankets, pillows, kevlar vests, and scrap metal to the sides of vehicles because Congress (who swear they “support our troops”) wouldn’t approve funds for proper armored vehicles.  Wonder why we’re not doing so well over there?

So I’m reading along, quite moved that BO sounds almost presidential for a change (there are touches of the campaign speech, of course, but that’s all he knows, so I’m getting used to it, even as I don’t think it’s presidential, and there is an awful lot of self-congratulatory nonsense about how he’s changed the world in a mere 9 months, but again, that’s not unusual).

Imagine my surprise, then, when I finally get to page 7 and find the following:

This Assembly’s Charter commits each of us — and I quote — “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women.” Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own people. (Applause.)

As an African American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country. And that guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose to side with justice. And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights — for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

Say what?  You’ve got to be kidding me.  He’s standing there preaching to the assembled world leaders that people deserve the freedom to speak their mind and express dissent.  Jaw-dropping.  Isn’t this the same guy who wanted American citizens turned in to the White House for speaking out against his government option?  The same guy who said that anyone who doesn’t want a government takeover of the healthcare system is “misinformed,” wants to retain the status quo, and/or isn’t offering any other solutions?  The same guy who fled Washington when the Tea Party Express arrived to protest “his plan” and the massive spending that he’s undertaken in such a short time?  The same guy who’s appointed a “diversity” czar to shut down right-wing radio (and possibly television and the internet)?  Un-friggin’-believable. 

He also told these assembled world leaders that citizens should have “a say in how they governed”?  Again, say what?  Isn’t this the same guy who is ignoring (when he’s not belittling and insulting) the huge outcry against his plan to take over our healthcare system?  Who seems to approve of Congress using the nuclear option to go against the wishes of the people?  (Though granted, this does remain to seen, but I can’t imagine him not signing it if it lands on his desk.)  And this is about 1/6 of our economy, and something that people feel very strongly about.  When’s he planning on listening to the citizens of his own country?  You know, we voters “who demand to be heard”?

Clean your own house, BO, before you start dictating to others.  You know, “lead by example.”