Is This What Obama Is Hiding?

The terrorists who killed our ambassador to Libya and three others were using weapons provided by the U.S.

I don't have the words...

No Demonstration at Benghazi Before the Attack?!?

The U.S. State Department is now denying that it ever thought there had been a demonstration about the anti-Islamic movie prior to the attack on our Benghazi consulate that killed four Americans.

What kind of game is being played here?

The first thing that came to my mind is that Hillary Clinton is yanking the rug out from under Obama – first he blames the Benghazi attacks on that stupid movie for weeks, then she says her department knew better all along.  Is this actually true?  If so, then some State Department folks never got the word, because they initially backed Obama's take.  Or is Hillary seeing the political problem, and distancing herself from it in order to better position herself for a 2016 run?  Or is she just being spiteful? 

I don't know any of these things, of course – just all random thoughts that came to mind after reading this extraordinary statement. 

Of course, another perfectly reasonable interpretation is that our government is run by a bunch of incompetent clowns.  But we know better than that, don't we?  Don't we???

The Libya Deception...

I'd like to think that this sort of behavior by the American leadership would be absolutely unthinkable.  Unfortunately, here in the real world, it is all too common.

I'm as outraged as anyone by the Obama administration's behavior with respect to the attack on the embassy in Benghazi – but I won't pretend that this is a particularly egregious example of the abuse of power by a President of either party.  It's more like a continuation of a pattern of such behavior that roughly keeps pace with the size, wealth, and power of the Federal government.

In other words, the more that's at stake for those with their greasy paws on the levers of power, the more it gets abused.  Naturally ... as that is how a significant subset of our fellow humans behave when we let them get away with it.  Listen, and weep for your country.  And remember all this when you vote in November...

Libya Deception: the Timeline...

Glenn Kessler, writing at The Washington Post, has done a fine job of assembling a timeline of the administration's statements about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi and the murder of four of our citizens (including our Ambassador to Libya).

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the administration's statements – most especially those in the first few days after the attack – are outright lies.  We can't know for certain what motivated them, but Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely, to wit: Obama (aka “Killer of Bin Laden”) didn't want to admit to a terrorist attack on his watch, as that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of his Middle East policy in a way that even the most addled citizen would recognize.

As more details emerge, the Obama administration's conduct in Libya looks less and less defensible, and more and more like a bunch of starry-eyed naifs wandering around amidst men with weapons and deadly intent.  It reminds me a bit of the hippies who traveled to North Vietnam in the early '70s, believing that if only they could smoke a joint with Ho Chi Minh the war could be ended immediately.

We need an adult in the White House.

Remember that when you vote in November...

You Mormons Need to Get With the Program!

One small excerpt from the inimitable Mark Steyn, writing on the Obama administration's response to the attacks in Libya:

What other entertainments have senior U.S. officials reviewed lately? Last year Hillary Clinton went to see the Broadway musical "Book of Mormon." "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others"? The Book of Mormon's big showstopper is "Hasa Diga Eebowai," which apparently translates as "F*** You, God." The U.S. Secretary of State stood and cheered.

Why does Secretary Clinton regard "F*** You, God" as a fun toe-tapper for all the family but "F***, You Allah" as "disgusting and reprehensible"? The obvious answer is that, if you sing the latter, you'll find a far more motivated crowd waiting for you at the stage door. So the "Leader of the Free World" and "the most powerful man in the world" (to revive two cobwebbed phrases nobody seems to apply anymore to the president of the United States) is telling the planet that the way to ensure your beliefs command his "respect" is to be willing to burn and bomb and kill. You Mormons need to get with the program.

I long for the day when I can be proud of my president again, instead of disgusted.  But in the interval, I'm very glad to have Mark Steyn around to make me laugh...

Quote of the Day...

Spoken by Dorothy Woods.  She's the widow of Ty Woods, one of the ex-SEALs killed in Libya last week along with Chris Stevens, our Ambassador to Libya.  She said this during her eulogy to her husband, as reported by Froggy on Blackfive:

RID THE WORLD OF THOSE SAVAGES!

We sleep safely only because of the Ty Woods who place themselves in harm's way on our behalf. I am grateful every day for their existence. And I am greatly moved to see the evidence of the strong support Ty received from his proud wife...

Libyan Revolutionary War of 2011...

Austin Bay summarizes the Libyan War of 2011:

Libya...

Things are looking very grim for Gaddafi right now.  The news stories are short on details and confirmation, but it sure looks like Gaddafi's fall (and possibly his demise) is imminent.

But then what?  I've read everything I can find on the rebels, and I've found precious little that gives me confidence that post-Gaddafi Libya will be stable, peaceful, or free of radical Islamists.  It is completely within the realm of possibility that Libya could end up even worse than it was under Gaddafi.  That's still possible in Egypt, too – and in fact, recent events seem to indicate we're headed that way.

I'm hoping for the best, but wondering what our “smart power” administration will do if the worst happens.  At least 2012 isn't all that far away...

Libyan Rebels and Their Weapons...

The Libyan rebels aren't (at least to my knowledge) being supplied by anyone with a regular supply of weaponry and ammunition.  They're up against a relatively well-equipped regular Libyan Army and Air Force.  What do you do in such a situation?  You improvise, and improvise they have – like the homemade armored car at right...

Noonan on Libya...

An interesting morning read...

On Libya...

No time for a serious blog this morning, but here are a couple of interesting articles on Libya.  First, Niall Ferguson (one of my favorite writers on history and economics), and then TigerHawk with an article from StratFor and lots of linky goodness...

Libya...

For a civilian observer, the fog of war is firmly in place.  I don't really have much of an idea what's actually going on over there.  Some number of U.S. Navy ships are involved, and at least on British submarine.  Similarly, there are French, British, and U.S. aircraft involved, and possibly some from other nations as well.  The official press releases are mainly going out of their way to stress the multinational nature of this attack, but one credible report has the operation as being comprised nearly entirely of U.S. forces, and U.S. led.  I'm pretty sure we launched a whole bunch of cruise missiles (100 to 114, depending on the report) and apparently (two reports) we have stealth bombers over Tripoli.  The French aircraft are visible and active over Benghazi.  That's about all the actual news content I've seen.

Ghadaffi is, of course, ranting like the madman he is.  He claims to have armed men, women, and children with heavy automatic weapons, grenades, mortars, rockets, etc.  He says that he will push the invaders (who are either after his oil or exterminating Islam, he says) off the earth.  Good luck with that, pal.

Now that we're engaged in Libya, I wonder mainly what our criteria for success are.  Are we going to limit our involvement to the literal wording of U.N. Resolution 1973 – to protect Libyan civilians?  Or are we committed to “regime change”?  And who are these rebels, anyway?  It's hard to conceive of a replacement for Ghadaffi that would actually be worse than him, I admit – but what does come after?  I have no idea.  In Tunisia and Egypt, the rebels were clearly asking for democracy.  In Libya, I simply don't know what they were asking for.

Another big question mark for me: our intervention in Libya represents an enormous shift in Middle Eastern strategy.  We have not intervened in a Middle Eastern country's internal affairs for a long time.  Are we now saying to the Middle Eastern thugocracies “Look at Libya!  Ghadaffi crossed a line that we will not let you cross.  Pay attention, or you could be next!”  And if we're not saying that, then what's so special about Libya that caused us to decide to intervene?

What I'm really afraid of – the subtext of the preceding paragraph – is that the Obama administration has no overarching strategy for Middle Eastern policy at all.  Instead, I fear, they're simply being reactive – and mainly to polling data.  I fear that the Obama acolytes saw this as an opportunity for Obama to become a “war president” in his own right (instead of a reluctant caretaker to inherited wars), and to earn support for the 2012 elections that way.  That's not a Middle Eastern strategy, and down that road leads disaster.  That's my fear.  I hope I'm wrong.

There is one thing we can know for sure, even without news reports:

Brave soldiers in all three parties to the conflict are in harm's way.  Most of these soldiers are apolitical, and are just doing their duty as they see it.  Some of them will be injured and killed in the next few days.  On all sides, families will be grieving.  All because of one nutcase thug.  It isn't fair, it isn't just ... but it's the way this crazy world works.  Despite the best intentions of the progressives, who think diplomacy and negotiation can settle any conflict – sometimes that just isn't so.  Sometimes it comes down to brutally applied force of arms...

The UN Takes Action?!?

I confess myself totally amazed by this.  How is it possible that the UN could dawdle for nearly 20 years on the much more dangerous and cruel Saddam Hussein, and then act so quickly with respect to Ghaddafi?  There's something going on here that I just don't understand. 

The French leadership in the UN was notable, both for its difference from French anti-leadership with respect to Iraq, and for its clarity and principled basis compared to what the U.S. had on offer.  The French had huge financial entanglements with Saddam's Iraq, and that may explain much of the former.  The latter is simply shameful.

Now I wonder, like the rest of the world, what we are actually going to collectively do about Ghaddafi...

Libyan Rebels Making Progress?

It's hard to know what's really going on with all the conflicing reports flying about.  Here's the clearest summary of the current state of Libyan affairs I've found...

Libyan Rebels Having Some Success...

I don't know much about the factions in Libya, but it's hard to imagine a group I'd not prefer to Mohamar Gahdaffi.  So I was happy to read that the rebels there are having some success against Gahdaffi's forces...

A Private Plane for al-Megrahi?

Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi (at right) is the Libyan terrorist bomber convicted of bringing down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. He's been serving a life sentence in a Scottish prison ever since his conviction in 2001. Recently he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, and under Scottish law this entitles him to compassionate early release. A decision about his release is expected today, and all signs are that it will be granted.

That's bad enough. The whole idea of compassionate anything for someone like him is disgusting.

But what's even worse is this: Mohammar Ghadafi, Libya's despotic leader, is sending his private $130m jet to pick up al-Megrahi and take him home to Libya.

Ugh.

The world really needs to be rid of some people, don't you think?