(2Sa
11:15 KJV)
And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the
hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.
"If
you are killed in the line of duty, the leaders of the free world will lie to
your caskets." - article below
America's
leading lady holds our president's hand as presidential prevarication sets
egregious malfeasance record. [My caption.]
They Will Lie to Your Casket | By Ken Blackwell | American Thinker .com | 1/8/14 | http://bit.ly/1bRei8D
They Will Lie to Your Casket | By Ken Blackwell | American Thinker .com | 1/8/14 | http://bit.ly/1bRei8D
The New
York Times recently published a 7,500-word coverup to exculpate the Obama
administration in their atrocious dereliction of duty with respect to
killing of four Americans at Benghazi in 2012. Like a frightened octopus,
the left is exuding a vast cloud of ink, hoping to cover the failures of
President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Times
reporter goes to great length to show that al Qaeda was not part of the
murderous attack that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens.
He was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty in thirty years.
Their overlong piece also takes pains to try to extricate Hillary Clinton from
any blame in this catastrophe. National Review Online and the Weekly Standard
both do a most effective job of critiquing the David Kilpatrick
"novella." Analysts Andrew McCarthy and Steve Hayes do a most
persuasive job of correcting the record and debunking the Times' distorted view
of reality.
As
McCarthy and Hayes note, nowhere do we learn where President Obama was on that
fateful night. We know he would fly off that very evening for a mid-campaign fundraiser
in Las Vegas. But the White House has avoided any minute-by-minute accounting
of where Mr. Obama was during that fatal attack.
The
administration was quick to put out pictures of both the president and Hillary
at the time of the strike on the Osama bin Laden compound in Abbotabad,
Pakistan. This was entirely appropriate. But for some reason, no record of
the president or the secretary's whereabouts on September 11, 2012 has been
forthcoming.
We did
see them at Andrews Air Force Base, however, solemn-faced and stern in their
response to the killers. They will bring the terrorists to justice, we were
assured. But in the presence of the four flag-draped caskets, in the company
of the grieving relatives of the four dead Americans, they lied through their
teeth. They claimed that it was an anti-Muslim video produced here in the
U.S. that sparked the murderous rampage against the U.S. outpost in Benghazi,
Libya.
They
knew that was a cover story then. The lie has been well-exposed since. And yet
they persist in avoiding accountability for this massacre. As well, they
continue to make ludicrous distinctions between "core" al Qaeda, al
Qaeda in the Mahgreb (AQIM) and outfits like Ansar al-Sharia. This time, Madame
Secretary's infamous answer might serve: What difference does it make? If any
groups out there are jihadists (a forbidden word) or Muslim terrorists (two
forbidden words), they don't have to carry an al Qaeda union card. My purpose
here is not to "relitigate" the step-by-step actions taken or not
taken that fiery night.
Instead,
I think we should look at the broader picture. It is the duty of the President
of the United States to safeguard our bases and embassies abroad. When an
attack on our sovereign territory occurs, the president as commander-in-chief
has a duty to respond forcefully.
President
Reagan's administration suffered one of the worst disasters of his presidency
when Iranian-backed suicide bombers hit the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon,
in 1983. Two hundred forty-one Marines and Navy corpsmen were murdered as they
slept.
Reagan
responded with force. He ordered the USS New Jersey to shell the Iranian-backed
Hizb'allah training camps in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. Within days, Reagan
changed the scene of action to the Caribbean, where he liberated a 100,000
people of Grenada from the grip of Communism.
The
point here is not to offer the Reagan response to the Beirut bombing as the
ideal. It was one of the worst moments of the eight years under Ronald Reagan. But
in retaliating as he did in 1983, Reagan showed U.S. determination. He
continued his show of force in 1986 with a raid on the command-and-control
facilities in Tripoli. When Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi bombed an American
bar in West Berlin, Reagan brought down destruction around the flamboyant
colonel's ears.
We know
that we cannot always avoid attacks in a dangerous world. The key is to let
America's enemies know that they will pay a heavy price for any violence
against Americans.
That is
why President Obama and Hillary Clinton deserved kudos for the raid on Osama
bin Laden. [N.B. Author completely wrong about this regarding our president.
See *** below.] That is also why they should be sharply criticized for their
lack of preparedness in the dangerous circle of Libya and their weak response
in the wake of the Benghazi attack. Even if some Americans' action -- a video,
a burning of a Koran, some cartoons that may offend some Muslims -- had been
the precipitating event that led to attacks on our embassies, President Obama
and Secretary Clinton had a duty to anticipate and protect our military and diplomatic
outposts throughout the world. And had an attack succeeded, they had a duty
to exact retribution in a powerful and convincing way.
Most of
all, they had a duty not to lie. They may have deceived American voters in the
short term, but they are not deceiving our enemies. And they owed it to the
members of our military and our diplomatic corps to tell the truth.
No one
is served by Obama and Clinton lying to the caskets. Few Americans will
volunteer to serve in dangerous parts of the world armed only with this
assurance: "If you are killed in the line of duty, the leaders of the
free world will lie to your caskets." That's a mission impossible.
*** - The
killing of bin Laden was achieved by the adults in the administration, Clinton,
Gates, Panetta, Daily, working behind our president's back so that the de facto
president, Valerie Jarret, did not have the opportunity to call it off as she had previously done, twice.
The
operation followed the worst of three options. Capture and public trials in New
York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and federal courts with videos and photos of
bodies going squish on the sidewalks of Manhattan, etc., would have been best. (Capture
was obviously not an option in the actual, not necessarily written, orders.)
Use of a drone would have avoided risk and later diplomatic difficulties with
Pakistan. We like to believe that our president does something right now and
then. But the planning and the manner of the killing of bin Laden was
consistent with the other high crimes and misdemeanors of our undocumented
president..
