Heads on a Pike

Leon Panetta's, Gen Ham, and General Dempsey's for this statement alone:

"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

You have got to be kidding me. Let's ignore the fact that you, Leon, had a drone circling the Benghazi compound within an hour of the first shot being fired, and was receiving real time images of the whole thing. Since when do military forces wait until "they know what's going on?" Did they know what was "going on" during D Day? How 'bout Grenada? Pleiku? Iraq?

Leon, we're not afraid of ambushes, ambushes are afraid of us.

You are a disgrace. Resign. Now.

Ghost of the Gipper

This Romney guy. Dunno. Might have to change my opinion. He's starting to look more Reaganesque.

Like last night, during the debate. Romney completely neutralized the "Bin Ladin is dead" trope. By the end of the night, it was pretty clear that both of them could handle foreign policy. If you like Obama's, then you're not going to get a whole lot different with Romney. So the issue is, what do you think of the economy and, in that regard, Romney wins, hands down.

Now, I firmly believe that Obama has turned the US into a dithering muffin no longer taken seriously by our enemies, and that he has done so in a deliberate fashion. That's the kind of rhetoric I was expecting from Romney, and the kind I did not get. But it doesn't upset me because Romney was playing long ball. He avoided Obama's efforts to make him look like a raving war monger, and that pacified the two or three so-called "independent" voters still left in the country. That leaves only the economy as an issue, and it's pretty clear which of the two can fix it.

Advantage Romney.

Classic case here of losing the battle and winning the war. Quite masterful, Mr. Romney.

Almost Reaganesque.

Bumps in the Road

I don't know where to start on the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi and the subsequent cover-up. It's like watching the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. You just watch. You don't really say anything, just watch. The relative silence has probably convinced Baracula and the rest of his minions that all of us are seeing it that same way he is: oh well, things happen, just another bump in the road, sorry about that but, hey, Stevie knew the risks going in.

No.

Here's some things need addressing:

a. It's pretty clear that Ops Centers back in DC knew, early on, that a major attack was being mounted in Benghazi. Not only did they hear from the guys inside the compound, but they, apparently had a drone circling the area for the entire six to eight hours watching the whole thing. I don't know which Ops Center—DIA's, CIA's, FBI's, whichever—contacted the White House first, but, at some point, someone told Baracula. His reaction?

He went to bed.

No ordering of troops, no calling out of aircraft, not even a destroyer racing to the coast. I immediately flash back to that fatal moment during the Normandy invasion when von Rundstet was frantically calling Berlin to get the Panzers released to him. Sorry, Runny, Hitler can't be disturbed— he's sleeping. I know these two situations are not analogous, but the attitude is: whether Obama went off for some shuteye because that campaign stop in Vegas tomorrow morning is more important, or the bunch of lickspittles he's surrounded himself with think Him So Holy that His Sleep is Precious, I don't know, but, the point is, Baracula thought his eight hours rest warranted more attention than the murder of an ambassador.

After all, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

b. It is, also, very clear that US security teams were screaming for more help weeks before, at least screaming that the in-place security team remain in-place. Charlene Lamb said no. Now, I haven't actually read this anywhere, but the implications floating around are that Lamb believed the Libyan government (try saying that with a straight face) was sufficiently viable to provide the necessary protections; a gesture of faith, so to speak, in the Arab spring. But, IMHO, that's not why she refused:

She has nothing but utter contempt for security people. Even more for ex-military security people.

See, in Charlene Lamb's world, violence results from the mere existence of military and police forces. Because everyone in the military is a Neanderthal stroking his rifle in masturbatory glee, wars start. Evil and cruelty and murder and children crying is the result, so all you thugs out there just shut up and stop asking for more troops and money. You all got us into the Libya mess in the first place, in some non-specific and confusing manner, so we're going to show you how love and trust and holding hands and dancing around the Maypole will bring laughter and love and tears of joy. No security for you. The peace-loving free peoples of Libya will hug you and keep you warm.

This is what happens when the high school student council runs a country.

So, Barack, Mr. Bump in the Road, Mr. I Gotta Get Elected and a dead damn ambassador is just sooooo inconvenient, you should resign. Re. Sign. Or be impeached, you child, you baby, you incompetent, you fool, you traitor. That's right. Traitor. You, too, Hillary.

And, as for you, Charlene Lamb? Prison. In Libya.

 

Letter

Dear President Romney,

I'm going to go ahead and start calling you that because it's a foregone conclusion. Even if you lose the election, you're far more of a President than that sophomoric Marxist holding the office now.

That, of course, does not mean I have become an admirer. I haven't. You are still enamored of government-led solutions. Get rid of Obamacare, yes, definitely, but DON'T replace it with some OTHER god-rotted top-down everyone-will-be-happy stupid government program that will suck money out of our wallets and end up a non-functioning bureaucracy driving the cost of a hospital visit through the roof. Why you and the rest of the plutocrats haven't figured out that medical costs began skyrocketing the moment Medicare was enacted back in 1965 and that piling on more programs will only make things worse... Hello, McFly!

I know, I know, you have an election to win, and forty-something years of government largesse and Annanberg-challenge public education have reduced a good portion of the population into blithering idiots and, unfortunately, you  need the blithering idiot vote. I wouldn't mind that so much if I had an inkling that your programism was nothing more than placating the sheep and you will emerge Reagan Reborn, slaying the federal dragon. But you actually have to eschew government programs to slay them, and you don't eschew. You believe in them.

Yes, I heard you say Big Bird was gonna go, and I applaud. But that's a no-brainer. There's also the EPA, the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Commerce and many other tax-sucking wastes of time that need to be shut down. I know, I know, Reagan was unable to close those departments, either, so give it up, Schlub. But there is a difference between failing to do something and not wanting to do something.

And that is why you won't be the next Reagan.

Oh sure, you definitely look the part, and definitely have the right attitude. The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran and Putin will be a tad more circumspect during your four years, and the economy will explode and there will be a general sense of well-being. You will be Reaganesque.

But not Reagan.

 

Your friend,

 

Schlub