The Clothes Have No Emperor

Friday, February 8, AD 2013

18 Responses to The Clothes Have No Emperor

  • Agreed.

    To quote the second worst Secy of State, recently, “What difference does it make?”

    It’s now every man for himself.

    America is kaput.

  • Obama is not merely the worst President in our history.

    Give it until 2061 to make definitive statements like that. In any case, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Hebert Hoover, and Lyndon Johnson are stiff competition for that award.

    I am remembering in 1981 the Reagan Administration was taken to task in the press because there was a dogfight (over in minutes, IIRC) between U.S. Navy pilots and LIbyan Air Force planes and the President was not informed until he awakened the next morning. I see that in 2012 our courtesan news media is on top of things.

  • He is additionally completely disconnected from the office that he holds.

    Cut the guy some slack. He needed to rest up for that fundraiser in Vegas the next day.

  • Art

    What about Jimmy Carter? It would a sin against justice for any discussion about the worst U.S. president to not include his name.

  • The Palace Guard Media: Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these courtiers from the swift completion of their leftist jock-sniffing.

  • What about Jimmy Carter? It would a sin against justice for any discussion about the worst U.S. president to not include his name.

    Mr. Carter’s principal offenses include

    1. Bad monetary policy leading to more rapid currency erosion.

    2. Loss of prestige (a fungible quality) due to dithering nincompoopery vis a vis Ayatollah Khomeini, Anastasio Somoza, the Sandinista National Directorate, Ahmadou Mahtar M’Bow, and sundry others. He did eventually realize that putting Cyrus Vance in charge of the Foreign Service and Andrew Young in charge of public diplomacy were bad moves. Took about two-and-a-half years of embarrassment as well as substantive policy failure (e.g. arms control treaties you could cheat, the Law of the Sea swindle, &c).

    3. A comprehensive failure to build relationships with members of Congress other than Edmund Muskie. (To be sure, Congress was and is an awful institution).

    4. An attempt at civil service reform that ended up (after the Democratic Congressional caucus was done with it) as a bag of bon bons for the public employee unions and assorted micro-constituency groups (e.g. blacks who do poorly on civil service examinations).

    He had some successes too (airline and trucking deregulation, the Camp David accords).

    Mr. McClarey will have to correct me if I have misunderstood, but I believe that Andrew Johnson was perfectly content to let the Southern states re-institute bondage through the black codes, Woodrow Wilson was willing to accommodate destructive and futile French revanchism to get his dippy and unworkable collective security scheme, Herbert Hoover presided in the most otiose manner over 29 months worth of rapid deflation and waves of bank failures; and Lyndon Johnson marched American troops into Indo-China armed with a strategy so wretched we came out the back end with an unmitigated political loss and 58,000 dead soldiers, inveigled and manipulated Congress into enacting a public medical insurance scheme so dysfunctional that the political economy of medical care has never been right since, ruined the autonomy of state and local government with wretched ‘co-operative federalism’, promoted one thing after another which made for the ruin of the inner city: ‘urban renewal’, public housing, mortgage insurance for people who had no business taking out loans; and so forth. I think you have to wait another dozen years to make a definitive statement on Carter, but I think he’s a piker compared to these others. YMMV.

  • The naked truth concerning Barrack Hussein Obama is that had we the media and Supreme Court of the 1940’s today he would have long since been impeached.

  • Two other things about Johnson:

    1. Currency erosion. The inflation Mr. Carter exacerbated appeared in 1966 after Johnson successfully bullied the Federal Reserve under Wm. Martin into co-operating with his economic stimulus program. Martin had resisted for about a year and then caved.

    2. Habituation to fiscal deficits.

    During the period running from 1929 to 1961, the federal government ran deficits as a matter of course. However, there was tremendous slack in the macroeconomy during the period running from 1929 to 1941 (and even so, we balanced the budget twice), the country was under a comprehensive national mobilization from 1941 to 1945, was at war and under a partial mobilization from 1950 to 1953, was winding down a war effort during 1945-47 and 1953-54, and was facing business recessions in 1945-47, 1954, 1957-58, and 1960-61. Just about every year there was not some politico-military or economic justification for running a deficit, the budget was balanced. The adults left the room in 1961 and you can see the results. We live in Johnsonland, and it is not a nice neighborhood.

  • For a long time I counted Obama as our second worst President behind Buchanan who did so much to hasten on the Civil War through his inaction and appeasement of Southern fireeaters. However, after his re-election I decided that Obama in two terms would do enough harm to the country to surpass even Buchanan.

  • I forgot that Carter, Vance, Sol Linowitz, and Ellsworth Bunker were successfully played by Omar Torrijos and Gabriel Lewis. Returning the Canal Zone to Panama was a magnanimous act. Turning over unqualified control of the canal and paying the Panamanians to take it off our hands was incomprehensible.

  • Forgot about Carter undermining Abel Muzorewa’s government in Rhodesia. Carter being Carter, he likely still thinks he did the right thing.

  • The main problem with Johnson (Andrew, that is) was his stubborn inability to work with the Republicans in Congress to make Reconstruction work. Admittedly many of the Republicans were in revenge mode, so they desired a policy that was far too stern, while Johnson went too far in the other direction. Now perhaps this is less a condemnation of Johnson than a sign of what a talented politician Lincoln was, but Abe was able to work with the Radical Republicans throughout the Civil War. I have no doubt that had he lived Reconstruction would have been more successful as the policy would not have been as spiteful yet it would have perhaps granted longer-lasting protections to the freed slaves. Honestly, we’ll never know, and it’s quite possible that no president would have steered precisely the right course.


    Somehow, I suspect that ‘making Reconstruction work’ would have required generations-long trusteeships over most of the Southern states. One could argue that stiffing Confederate veterans of their Army bonuses was bad policy and stripping much of the adult population (including veterans and Confederate politicians) of civic privileges was also. Please note that the code linked to above was enacted in Mississippi three years prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

  • I think that Lincoln might have hit upon the partial solution of creating “black” states out in the West and in Alaska. The United States Colored Troops, all 180,000 of them, could have been used to help establish the infrastructure of such new states. The Federal government could have picked up the tab to transport black families to new lives in the West. This would have had to have been done on a voluntary basis of course. With Southern states bleeding blacks to these newly created states, I think there would have been an attempt on part of some of the states to treat the freedmen better in order to retain this source of cheap labor. The new black states would have ensured continued black representation in the House and the Senate. Not an ideal solution certainly, but far better than what historically occurred.

  • I always thought that Andrew Johnson was a politically deaf person in an awful situation. We usually remember that war is hell, but we always seem to forget how ugly the aftermath of war is.

    Lincoln had the same good fortune as Churchill, not having to serve through the rebuilding years. Lincoln maybe could have pulled it off, as he was a great man with a great reputation. Johnson’s reputation was less stellar, and he didn’t make any friends with anyone in states that had the vote. I think of him as the wrong man for a tough job, but not as one of the worst presidents of all time. I could be wrong though.

  • ….the biggest problem that night senator was that nobody knew what was going on…..

    S H A M E F U L !

  • Shameful!
    US citizens must be wondering how this is affecting the way other countries view their foreign policy. Knee jerk is that the US can no longer be trusted.
    Saner heads realise that this will pass with the passing of Obama – the sooner the better.
    I’m not suggesting that some redneck should make it happen sooner than his elected term comes to its close. 😉

  • Since Fox and the Weekly Standard have been covering this in the immediate aftermath in September, I have been waiting for someone to label this the famous three AM call and demanding to know where the president and Hilary were during he crucial 7-8 hours and where are the state department employees who were on site and have not been allowed to be questioned as well as who concocted the lame video story that he parroted for weeks. Just like his overriding his advisors on Syria, he didn’t act. I believe he went to bed relying on the fact that his staff and the media would cover for him which people have been doing all his life I hope the parents and other relatives of the slain men come forward and demand answers. Better late than never.
    I believe he is the worst because of his duplicity (see Obamacare), disengagement, trashing of the Constitution and enormous debt and government expansion and intrusion in every facet of citizens’ lives and his unwillingness to confront terror (The handling of Fort Hood shooter who killed 31 Americans is a disgrace). Add to that his handling of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt etc. and his constant campaigning on selected issues and playing constatly to his base, make him the hands-down winner.

Compare and Contrast

Thursday, February 7, AD 2013

7 Responses to Compare and Contrast

  • A:“Help! Help! We are under attack, and running out of ammo!”
    B: “I’m sorry, can you fill out your request in triplicate and put it through the chain of command correctly? We’re not authorized to respond to verbal reports.”

  • Ha! It is basically the Obama administration telling Americans abroad, whether or not they work for the government: In case of trouble you are on your own Jack!

  • Raising money for re-election takes priority over matters of State, international or domestic. Clinton was asleep. Sweep it under the mat via bogus video scapegoating, and now General Dempsey does dodgeball.
    My stomach aches for the poor surviving families that see this pathetic administration at its BEST! Best, because ignorance and deceit is all they have.

    Lord have Mercy.

  • “Ha! It is basically the Obama administration telling Americans abroad, whether or not they work for the government: In case of trouble you are on your own Jack!”
    Ahem! Unless some official–acting alone–decides to send a drone over to “get them?”

  • GOD is really mad at the USA!

    this administration and all his little giants make my stomach turn!

    this can’t be the best the USA has to offer!

    our country looks way off course with these two pos and then the incompetent, arrogant prez and hillary off to who knows where!

    how do these pos sleep at night, knowingly letting these men die?

    their future afterlife doesn’t look to bright!

  • Incompetence must be contagious.

Benghazi: The Truth Finally Begins to Come Out

Friday, November 16, AD 2012

35 Responses to Benghazi: The Truth Finally Begins to Come Out

  • I hope and pray that this whole mess comes crashing down around Obama’s head.

  • I hope you are right, Don, that the truth will come out and that the response to it will be appropriate; but if the truth is truly embarrassing for the Administration, I’m afraid the MSM will greet it with a giant shoulder shrug. Most Americans are not that caught up in “current events,” and without relentless news coverage (see Watergate), the matter will prove to be of little moment except for those who died. I hope I’m wrong and comforted by the knowledge that I often am.

    I still don’t have any reasonable understanding of why exactly we did not support our fellow Americans when they were begging for support.

  • I did a little reading. The following article states:

    “‘The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,’ said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. ‘He completely debunked that idea.'”–politics.html

  • “I still don’t have any reasonable understanding of why exactly we did not support our fellow Americans when they were begging for support.”

    The key question Mike.

  • In the short term, I don’t think it will matter much in terms of hurting Obama. At this point nothing short of impeachment and removal from office will derail Obama’s agenda.

  • The title of the post should have been, Petraeus starts to admit what everybody already knew. The truth has been from the beginning despite administration and media efforts to suppress it.

  • 1. Paul, it is being filtered through Adam Schiff.

    2. “No politicization” could mean that the White House did not lean on the CIA to alter their assessments. Rather, they were taken and then altered by parties elsewhere. Evidently Petraeus admits he does not know the identity of the agency which removed the line.

    3. What could the justification for removing that line be? That it conflicts with the assessments of other intelligence agencies? Which agencies?

  • Yes, Art D., You are correct: Schiff being a Democrat would slant statements to be favorable to the Administration. It would be nice to know exactly what was said at testimony.

  • From Petraeus’ testimony, we now know that the CIA told the WH that al Qaeda terrorists staged an organized, well planned attack on the Benghazi consulate long before Rice did her song and dance on five, count ’em 5, Sunday news shows.

    The WH, to sustain the, “we have al Qaeda on the run” myth until the election was over, told Rice the official lie. Oops, Freudian slip, I meant “line”. The WH told Rice exactly what to say, and she went on five (5) Sunday news shows and told the same bold-faced lie each time. That’s a woman with balls.

    But the real reason for the cover-up was not to perpetuate Obama’s, (I’m great at foreign policy” whopper, it was much deeper.

    You see, Amb Stevens was supplying weapons to al Qaeda, (arm of Muslim Brotherhood) that’re fighting in Syria to overthrow Assad, so the MB can takeover the govt just like they have in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya.

    Obama has been using U.S. resources, influence, money, and in some cases, our military to support the MB’s goal of seizing control of the Middle East and implementing Sharia law.

    You know how Obama and the media was touting the Arab Spring as a spirited revolt of people wanting freedom and democracy? Well, that was a big fat lie.

    The Arab Spring, which is still going on by the way, is actually a plan cooked up between the MB and Obama to 1) destabilize the govts of ME countries, 2) topple the leaders of their govts, and 3) MB takover of their govts, and implement Sharia law.

    Key to the success of the plot was Obama convincing Mobarak to resign as Egypt’s president, so that Obama’s MB buddy, Mohammed Morsi could succeed him as the new Egyptian president. See, Morsi also moonlights as the leader of the MB.

    Now, as the Egyptian president, Obama could authorize billions of our tax dollars in “aid” to Egypt, which, was placed right in the hands of new prez Morsi… Money which he, Morsi, as MB leader, put to immediate use to support MB’s Middle East takeover goal.

    The Benghazi consulate actually wasn’t as much a consulate as it was a front for the CIA gun running operation headed up by Stevens, to get the captured Libyan weapons into the hands of al Qaeda.

    The orders for an operation of this type, supplying a known American and Israeli enemy that’s killed 1000s of Americans, with weapons that they will certainly use to, again, kill Americans and Israelis… orders for this operation had to originate from the highest levels of our govt, which would be the POTUS.

    Obviously, aiding and abetting a known enemy of the state is a treasonous act. Even more so if perpetrated by the POTUS.

    So naturally, if a POTUS was involved in such a heinous scheme, he wouldn’t want anyone to find out about it.

    Which may be the “real” reason why additional security was denied the Benghazi U.S. consulate repeatedly in the months leading up the the 9/11 attack. And the POTUS refused to authorize back-up forces to Bhenghazi at any time during the almost 8 hour long massacre leaving 4 Americans dead.

    If the Benghazi investigation is allowed to continue, which the WH’s pit bull Reid is already fighting, the truth will come out.

    If the fact that the Ambassador Stevens was pointman for running guns to al Qaeda, does not come out… then America is already a dictatorship

  • This is such a devastating event.. In a way, I’m shocked at the end result, and in another way I’m not at all. I believe O’bama would do ANYTHING he could to keep this under the radar until after the election. My question would be,, and I hope people do not take this as a racist question, just hope to get an honest answer from everyone: If, at the time, the Commander in Chief was white, and the 4 Americans left there to be slaughtered had been African American, would there be a different outcry from the American public for truthful answers? Do not support or oppose a leader simply for the color of their skin. I don’t care if our President is black, white, or both.. don’t “not support them” because they are black, and don’t “do support them”because they are.That has nothing to do with being the better person to run this coutry. Educatate yourself on issues, foreign polocies and relations, and track records. I believe we are in for a rough 4 years, and whom ever has to clean up this mess in the 5th year will have the hands very full.

  • The whole matter will be drawn out until no one cares anymore. What i don’t understand is how, as a nation, a great majority don’t care that four fellow americans were murdered while begging for help? Why do those in the military keep silent knowing that at least two of their own died while those in command just SAT THERE and watched it unfold? Their silence is a conundrum.

  • R.Framer,

    The corrupt, gutless brass-hats are silent because it is what they are.

    Four died in Benghazi. And, hundreds of young American troops are murdered by Afghan taliban infiltrators. No one cares.

    Of course, we have a Dem president. These murders are less more news-worthy than Abu Graibh.

    The troops were expendable to the Obama Campaign that editted the CIA talking points.

  • Raymond,

    Where does this information come from, that Stevens was supplying arms to al Qaeda?

    Then why would al Qaeda take him out?

  • The first important news item was discussed on a Glen Beck radio show before the anniversary of 9-11.

    The discussion by Mr. Beck and his co-hosts related the questions about the State Department of the Obama administration having talks about releasing the Blind Sheik in jail for bombing the World Trade Center. Subsequent to this topic coming up, the White House released a statement from the Department of Justice which totally ruled out any activity where the prison term of the Blind Sheik would be terminated. He would remain in jail serving his full term.

    Beck and his co-hosts decided that this sounded good. However, they didn’t understand why it was Justice that made the declaration, when it was the State Department that was asserted to be participating in the discussions. They also commented that this item may bare further scrutiny in the future.

    On the anniversary of 9-11, the next play in the game, the murder of the ambassador and three other victims dumped a pile of pieces of the puzzle on the airways. Over the following month there was much confusion as to what happened. Much of the information caused confusion. This was because the news was fragmented and some of it was red herrings designed to throw the concerned public off on the wrong trails.

    After much questioning and leaks from many sources, there has emerged a picture of what happened.

    Armed men attacked the American Embassy and a safe house also used by both embassy staff and American intelligence personnel. It took very aggressive investigative journalism by mainly Fox News, but also by many radio talk shows to sort out what happened.

    The well-armed invaders executed a well-planned attacked which resulted in the trapping of the ambassador in an interior safe room. While this occurred, the embassy compound was blown up and set on fire. The attack lasted for several hours and went from the embassy grounds to the safe house annex located some distance away.

    The embassy security was overwhelmed and no help arrived to resist the invaders. Investigative evidence surfaced that for many weeks prior to 9-11, requests for increased security by the embassy went unheeded or was simply refused. There was even a story that the marine guards were deprived of ammunition for their weapons by the order of the Department of State.

    The ambassador and three brave men (two former navy seals among them) were murdered.

    In the weeks that followed this, the White House from the President and down the chain of command all declared that the attack was a spontaneous action that grew out of a protest about a movie purported to be an insult to Mohammed. This was shown to be untrue, and thus a subterfuge (red herring). The story was changing on a daily basis, because it lacked cohesiveness. It didn’t stand up under questioning. Eventually, all kinds of evidence was gathered and made it appear to be a planned act of terrorism whose success was enhanced by an appalling lack of security.

    After more than forty days, Fox News sorting through the information, presented a step-by-step timeline of the events. A bogus story line asserted by the White House Administration became apparent. The picture cleared-up to show what had really happened.

    Fox News even was able to present to the public how the ambassador died.

    Inside the burning facility, inside the safe room, the ambassador ended up crumpled on the floor. The invaders upon finding him thought he was dead. One of them checked and excitedly reported, “He is not dead! He is breathing!”

    At this announcement, according to Fox News’s special report, the gathered invaders became cheerful and in their language started shouting something like, “God is great, God is great!”

    They scooped up the body and raced him to the closest hospital in an attempt to save his life. Unfortunately he had too much lung damage from smoke inhalation and doctors were not able to save him.

    Now I know that this account of the high points leaves out a lot of the story. And I apologize for skipping over great investigative journalism. There are questions that haven’t been addressed as far as I know.

    Why did this event happen?

    The government administration falsely claimed that it was a spontaneous action to a bogus film. Why?

    People began calling this a scandal and that the government was doing a cover-up. Covering up what?

    I, Columbus Bob, see a picture here that I think answers these questions.

    I believe the key to understanding what this event was all about is to look again at the curious reaction the invaders had when they thought the ambassador was dead and discovered that he was alive. They were happy and cheered about his being alive.

    This caught my attention and struck me as a paradox. Weren’t they trying to kill him? If yes, why did the discovery he was still breathing make them so happy? Why did they do what they could to save his life?

    I believe they were not trying to kill him, but trying to capture him. This raid looks like a botched kidnapping. They wanted him for some reason.

    I believe they intended to trade him for the Blind Sheik, and that the administration of the United States prepared the scene for a kidnapping that would allow the release of the Blind Sheik.

    The steps leading up to 9-11 would follow the pattern by the State Department’s lack of “concern” about security, and subsequent standing down during the event failing to rescue the victims. The post events looking like a cover-up that would fit exactly what the U.S. Government would need to conceal from the citizens in a foiled kidnapping scam.

  • There has been info out today that the military are getting very angry about this as a coverup; they’re talking about how quickly they could have gotten to Libya, but they didn’t know – that they never got an order. Some military retirees said that only the President can order troops into a foreign country, so being they didn’t get an order to respond, it is all obama’s responsibility.
    In addition alot of retired military and CIA “brass” / leaders, shared today they believe Petreaus was blackmailed about this…. , and after resigning he’s trying to get the info out. That if there was info that even mentioned a top CIA name aligned with the investigation that Holder as AG would have been notified within hours. That means that Holder got the info within weeks after investigation started (at the latest) – and that if Holder got the info it would have been shared with the President within hours (even if he was out of the country). And if Obama wasn’t aware, it would have been to allow him to say he didn’t have meaningful knowledge of it, and allow him to deny it.

  • Taking out Gaddafi was not Obama’s idea. It was the two European thugs, Cameron and Sarkozy out for Libya’s assets that were driving it. On the American side, cackling Lady Macbeth at State who thought she could chalk it up to her resume was doing the heavy lifting. Obama seems detached from all this as apparently he was never full on for Gaddafi’s removal.

  • Clinton, Holder and Obama: first they run hundreds of assault weapons to drug terrorists to get “incidents” to justify rescinding the Second Amendment.

    Now, they set up an ambassador kidnapping to smoke-screen the release of a terrorist superstar.

    All you useful idiots that vote for these filthy animals . . .

  • That is the first time I’ve seen the hapless Sarkozy referred to as a “thug”.

    The conspiracy theories listed above are fascinating but spinning far in advance of the facts.

    For my part, I continue to believe that this is the least professional Whithouse in two decades and that there is no further thought than “yeah, that might work” to their plans.

    Benghazi is a tragedy, all the more so because it was 1) predictable and 2) unprepared for.

    State had lots of warnings but took no steps to address the concerns. The “why” relates to misguided political calculations with the Administration itself. We shallsee how it played out that day but I suspect that we will find that lethargy, sloth, and indecision controlled the President’s staff. They spent their time discussing the political ramifications and lost the moment to to their duty.

    You give the Administration far too much credit my friends.

    The French as “thugs”… Putin, maybe, but the limp wristed French, only in their defense of their language.

  • “For my part, I continue to believe that this is the least professional Whithouse in two decades and that there is no further thought than “yeah, that might work” to their plans.”

    Agreed. A nice two word shorthand to explain anything this administration does is “political expidency”. The only thing good about Obama still being in the White House for the next four years is that he will be there to reap many of the disasters his fecklessness has sown.

  • So Petreaus has obtained counsel:

    Now THAT isan interesting development. I read that to mean that he is going it on his own and has concluded that he has no friends. Everything he knows, classified or not, is now known to someone outside of the decision-making circle, someone with an ethical duty to protect Petreaus’ interest.

    This is about to get very interesting.

  • President Shaggy breaks his silence, “It wasn’t me!”

  • I can see that there are many uncharitable minds on this forum and amongst many Americans! Phew! Why are some people already praying that the Benghazi issue should crash on Obama’s head with a view to impeaching him? You may not like President Obama for one reason or the other but it is quite uncharitable to pray for his misfortune just because your preferred candidate lost in the presidential election! I just cannot understand some Americans. You preach democracy to the rest of the world and virtually arm-twist other countries to uphold democratic tenets! And here are most of you not practicing what you preach when it comes to American situations. Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots? This is where I respect Paul Riyan, Mitt Romney’s running mate who said that Obama ran a better election and won ‘fair and square’! That should be the spirit. It was laughable to read the calls for secession by some States in the US, all because they did not have it their way! Tell me tomorrow how other nation would behold America when it came to preach to them about democratic tenets, people are now beginning to see as hackneyed and mere hypocrisy. The next we shall see is for these disgruntled Americans to use any subterranean means, fair or foul, to unseat the nation’s president and so achieving what they could not achieve through the ballot box! That’s a shame! Americans, grow up! It is now time for even developing countries like Myanmar and Zimbabwe to preach to you on the need to imbibe the principles of democracy! What a shame!

  • “Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots?”

    Well now that you mention it, many of them, yes. Considering the results of his first term I can think only an idiot, a leftist ideologue or someone who wishes for government “freebies” would want more of the same.

    “Tell me tomorrow how other nation would behold America when it came to preach to them about democratic tenets, people are now beginning to see as hackneyed and mere hypocrisy”

    Rubbish. Elections are a method to determine who holds office. The outcome of an election does not eliminate criticism of the side that won. If it did, that would be a betrayal of democracy.

  • I know the 50.1% that gave the worst liar a second term are both moronic and evil.

  • Chi, You entirely miss the point of oppositions and, so, don’t understand what makes democratic systems work.

    All parties have their share of wise and foolish, well-intentioned and ill, well meaning and mlicious tyrants, etc. A system that presumes good intent and right action and that has no one watching those in charge is doomed. The “opposition” i s absolutely essential to democracy, even if the party you favor is in power.

    Benghazi matters because four Americans died because of what appears to be gross negligence. It matters because it appears that the Administration lied to Congress – a very serious matter indeed. It matters because it appears that our enemies directly assaulted our government and paid no consequence, potentially emboldening them.

    Withou an opposition, the party in power need not correct its defects. If you don’t understand that you are no friend to democracy.

  • Do you think the Americans that gave Obama a second term are idiots?

    About 3/4 of the populace are willing to tell the pollster they do not follow public affairs and many of those who do lack a mental filing system which helps them make sense of things. They consume news reports but remember little. It is not that they are ‘idiots’. They know what they need to to earn a living and keep their kids out of jail. They often can make sense of little that is not palpable in their daily life. Their votes are distributed across the political spectrum.

    The difficulty we appear to be facing is that voting is now quite insensitive to conditions and results and people cast ballots as expressions of identity, filtering what they read and hear according to their prejudices about particular politicians. This is not a novel phenomenon and has long been common, but it appears that such voters are a large enough mass that the connection between conditions and balloting is broken. The capacity of the collectivity to aright itself (already frayed) is thus diminished. This occurs at a time when the calibre of our political elite has declined dramatically. Also, discourse about politics has grown utterly meretricious. (See, for example, the witless and gratuitous flaying of Sarah Palin).

  • And THAT, my friends, is why I keep coming back to TAC.

    I’ve been trying to articulate what we are seeing but I couldn’t make sense of it. Art Deco’s statement seems to me to be spot on.

  • Chi: Please bare in mind that although though the President Obama is The President of the U.S., he is not above the US law. And there is a real possibility he may have broken it, or failed to uphold his oath of office to protect the Constitution and the U.S.

  • G-Veg, if you were to check the timeline of the ouster of Gaddafi you’ll see that it was largely driven by Cameron and Sarkozy. Pretty unfortunate for him that he took the benign George Bush as representative of the West.

  • True enough Ivan. That gets to a major flaw in the Democrat Party’s base’s logic.

    To the Democrat Party’s core constituencies, Bush’s Iraq War was a war for oil and not in defense of freedom but Obama’s Libya War (we should be honest, there is small war and big war but the distinction between “war”, “police action”, and other euphamisms are distinctions without a difference) was a blow against tyranny. This views is ignorant and myopic. Libya’s oil was the point of the Libya’n war and US Allies, such as they are, were the primary benifactors.

    Either securing access to energy is a legitimate State interest, lawfully protected by force of arms or it is not. The Democrat Party wants it both ways: protecting oil interests under their president while being able to upbraid Republicans for the same impulses. We should call them on it.

    As for Sarkozy et al being “thugs”, it is the characterization of the French as “thuggish” that I find terribly funny.

    My grandmother’s favorite uncle died at Dunkirk and she never forgave the French for folding and leaving Brits to die. I suppose hiding in the celler due to air raids on Bristol didn’t raise the French in her estimation either. She used to tell this joke:

    She would ask “why are the French the only people in the world with tanned palms?” then shewould throw her hands up over her head in surrender.

    It was terribly funny to see her act it out and her views of the French as cowardly linger in my consciousness. Now that I’m older and better grasp how disastrous WWI was to the French I’m able to be more charitable to their folding to the Germans in WWII. France had the fighting spirit beaten out of them and they never recovered.

    Of course, the absurd French nationalism, that Gaulist knee-jerk reaction to anything that smells of American Imperialism is all the more intolerable. I haven’t forgotten the France wouldn’t let the US overfly France to bomb Ghadaffi under Reagan but thought it entirely proper to actually invade this time.

    The word “thug” makes me think of Zimbabwe’s regime, not of France. For a laugh on this subject, type “Black Adder French” as a YouTube search.

  • Speaking of France, a good movie is “Joyeux Noel” (Happy Christmas) which is about World War I, even if it is sort of a peacenik movie but not excessively so, it’s cinematography and relative authenticity is grand. Holiday movie. For those who don’t know, yes, it is about the opposing sides getting together and celebrating on Christmas eve, the first year of that war, a historic fact.

    Worth perusing is how it seems French casualties in World War I are quite a bit higher than any allied power. So, perhaps some of the problem with World War II was that first World War was its preface. Poisoned gas and trench warfare, that must have been hard.

    That movie by the way, starts with the speeches by the Children which are taken from real statements made at that time I believe. If one watches the movie, those statements seem to imply England stirred up (not saying began or created) that war and sentiment. This I do not know and can not say however those statements by a French, English and German child may be read here:

    “English poem

    To rid? the map of every trace

    Of Germany and of the Hun,

    We must exterminate that race.

    We must not leave a single one.

    Heed not their children’s cries.

    Best slay all now, the women, too

    Or else, someday again they’ll rise

    Which, if they’re dead, they cannot do.”

    Those are very serious words.

    The movie’s contingent of British are in fact, Scottish so one feels a bit detached from the British Empire part.

    England and France have a long history of wars prior to these modern times. There’s a lot here.

  • There are supposed to be many reasons why the French suffered a great defeat in WW11.


    But the ‘cowardice’ of the French is not one of them, I’ve read an account that the Germans
    rated the average French soldier the highest of all the Allied soldiers.

  • You would have to be brave indeed to take up arms against the Nazis after France surrendered.

    I generalize and tar unfairly. France was a shattered hulk when Germany invaded. She had left her marshall spirit in the trenches, had too few men to defend her long borders and failed to take Hitler’s threat seriously until it was too late.

    I diverted the discussion to make a nationality joke. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Benghazi: Petraeus Thought He Could Keep His Job

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

5 Responses to Benghazi: Petraeus Thought He Could Keep His Job

  • Sex, lies and Benghazi . . .

    Maybe the Officers Clubs restaurants need to mix saltpeter in the mashed potatoes.

    “I will not lie, cheat, or steal.”

    Anybody remember “Kent State”?

    Tin soldiers and Barry’s coming.

    We’re finally on our own.

    This Winter I hear the drumming.

    Four dead in Benghazi.

    Four dead in Benghazi.

  • The motto of West Point is Duty, Honor, Country. While betraying his marriage vows, Petraeus managed to betray all three in his desperation to keep his career. Completely contemptible

    Can we please reserve judgment until this is all sorted out. Why he did what he did is murky.

  • Wherein, it seems that four dead Americans in Benghazi are likely far worse than the idiotic (insults to a moronic nation’s intelligence) attempts at cover-up.

    Four more years of: “It wasn’t me!”


  • the POTUS and DEMOS. favor Adam and Steve, and Eve and Eddie, so with their loguc why not Petraus and two women and another man. POTUS is the worse betrayer here, he knew darned well but it only came out after the election. DE about the scandal of BENGAZI and Gen PETRAEUS.
    Denier in Chief and his OBAMEDIA puppies.

  • The “honeypot” trap is a mainstay of spy thrillers and of intelligence services going back to Queen Esther. How does a sitting CIA director allow himself to be compromised in this manner?

Benghazi: A Turn to the Truly Bizarre

Tuesday, November 13, AD 2012


As scandals go, the Benghazi-Petraeus-Broadwell-Kelley matter is scaling the heights of the truly bizarre.  Here are the latest developments worthy of the pen of Flaubert.

1.  Jill and the G-Man-Allegedly the FBI agent in charge of the initial investigation of the anonymous e-mails purportedly sent by Paula Broadwell to Jill Kelley warning her to stay away from Petraeus, became infatuated with Kelley and sent her a photo of himself shirtless.  He was removed from the case supposedly when his higher-ups determined that his objectivity had been compromised.  (Do you think?)  He supposedly was the FBI whistleblower who contacted Republican Congressman David Reichert and Eric Cantor with  allegations that the government was dragging its feet on the case out of political considerations so that it would not surface before the election.

2. Jill and the Lawyers-Kelley has supposedly engaged the services of a high-priced lawyer and a PR flack.

The PR flack formerly represented Monica Lewinsky.  Now why should she need them?  Read on.

3.  Jill and the Marine-Marine Corp four star General John Allen is apparently under investigation for 20 to 30 thousand pages of e-mails and correspondence between him and Jill Kelley, the “unpaid social liaison” at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.  Allen is currently the commander of the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan, effectively the commander in chief of American and Nato forces in that country.  Both Allen and Petraeus served at the base, home of Central Command for the Middle East, prior to Petraeus being put in command in Afghanistan in 2010.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Benghazi: A Turn to the Truly Bizarre

  • In the meantime, is anyone in the news media talking about how our consulate people got murdered? Or is the story to be covered just sex and more sex? Sorry- rhetorical questions only.

  • The media has to cover Benghazi now Paul because a juicy sex scandal is something even they can’t ignore. Petraeus is now a destroyed man. I think anything he knows about Benghazi he will reveal as he obviously has no reason to feel loyalty to the administration. Wheels within wheels. The funny thing about this type of scandal is that once it gets really rolling it is amazing what can come to light. Stay tuned.

  • I agree with Paul. This is all a distraction to get us talking about sex and Generals instead of death and Presidents.

  • It this is an attempted distration Jay then I think it is very poor tactics. I can think of few things the media relishes more than covering a sex scandal. Additionally I imagine there are quite a few high ranking officers suspecting that the Administration is using Petraeus and Allen as sacrificial lambs and I can imagine them now leaking material damgaging to the administration on Benghazi in retaliation. We are still in Act I of this play.

  • Patreaus’ book will be out in Jan…..I’m finding great difficulty in maintaining a Christian attitude…only by the grace of God.

  • What is most absurd is the apologists for Petraeus who have the temerity to call him “a genuine American hero” and a great general in the same high ranks of MacArthur, Patton and Ike. Comparing the Iraq “war” to World War II is like comparing a game of tiddlywinks to the Super Bowl.

  • I think Petraeus exercised generalship of a high order in regard to the Surge in Iraq and his military service should be honored. His theories on fighting insurgencies are innovative and proved successful in Iraq. However, these in no way diminish the dishonor of his affair, or the way in which it compromised national security.

  • Comparing the Iraq “war” to World War II is like comparing a game of tiddlywinks to the Super Bowl.

    I take it from your remarks that the only military officers meriting much respect were commanding generals during national mobilizations.

  • Look on the bright side.

    Now, we get to live through a second Carter administration.

    from Hot air: “One piece of information that got lost the last few days of sex scandals is the news that David Petraeus personally traveled to Libya after the Benghazi attack — and apparently filed a “trip report” covering his own findings. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee probing the Benghazi terrorist attack, wants either the report or Petraeus to testify to its contents. So far, though, the CIA and the White House have refused to provide it — and yesterday, Feinstein threatened that subpoenas may be forthcoming if the stonewalling continues:”

    A modest proposal: If Petraeus refuses to testify and/or lies (they all lie), some Congress critter ought to add a rider to a bill that rescinds his six-figure pension.

    Dulce lifers inexpertis.

  • “Now, we get to live through a second Carter administration.”

    Except I believe this administration is far more malevolent in its intentions, the press is far more complicit in those intentions and the public is more willing to accept what is coming.

  • Will any of this really damage Obama? Probably not.

  • I do not believe there were 25,000 pages of correspondence between him and any single individual.

  • “Will any of this really damage Obama? Probably not.”

    Agreed. Especially since this is likely orchestrated to protect him.

  • Not agreed. How this will play out we shall see when it plays out. The media (other than the National Enquirer and Kausfiles) had to be dragged to acknowledge John Edwards’ grossness. It happened, nevertheless.

  • I apologize in advance.

    And now, you know the reason “they” once referred to the USMC as the “Crotch.”

    I am so sorry.

  • “The media (other than the National Enquirer and Kausfiles) had to be dragged to acknowledge John Edwards’ grossness. It happened, nevertheless.”

    That was Edwards, not THE ONE.

  • Benghazi was low hanging fruit for Romney to exploit. I would go so far as to say as Obama’s opponent, he had a duty to exploit it. But he punted. In addition to the scandal that is the Obama presidency, we also have what I think is the scandal of the weak, feckless, and irresponsible republican non-opposition.

  • Whatever success the Americans with Petraeus enjoyed in Iraq was due in large measure to the “cavalry of St George” and the inter-tribal conflicts of the Arabs . Hugh Fitzgerald covered this some time ago, See: .

  • Benghazi was low hanging fruit for Romney to exploit…

    The inability of the Romney-Ryan duo to land any punches for all their shuffling must count as the main reason why they were unable to rouse any enthusiasm given the preexisting electoral divide. How did this pair manage to do worse than McCain/Palin who had to content with the Bush legacy?

    For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
    1 Corinthians 14:8

  • read “contend” in place of “content”

  • THe idea that President Obama didn’t know about the Patreaus affair until the day after the eclectiom is obvious BS. Since the affair occured when the General was still on active duty and prior to his nomination as CIA Director, Obama had to know about it before he was even nominated as the country’s #1 Spook. Think about it, you don’t nominate someone as CIA Director without a thorough vetting process. Somehting like had to have surely come up. Even a cursory vetting would have revealed this affair. Oh, and don’t think for a minute Obama’s Thugocracy doesn’t vett their people. They do. They know who they are dealing with and what to hold against them.

  • If you’re confused by the whole Petraeus affair, click here for a handy graphic:

  • Since the affair occured when the General was still on active duty and prior to his nomination as CIA Director,

    Some news reports contradict that.

Benghazi: Drip, Drip, Drip

Monday, November 12, AD 2012

The truth about the Benghazi debacle keeps coming out drip by drip:

1.  Paula Knows-At the beginning of the post we see the alleged mistress of David Petraeus telling an audience at a symposium in late October this bombshell:

 “A group of Delta Force operators are very…the most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and CIA annex that were under attack,” said Ms. Broadwell. “Now I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to get these prisoners back. It’s still being vetted.”

This is the first I have heard about this.  Was Petraeus sharing highly classified information with his paramour?

2.  Video Schmideo-The above detail from the mouth of Broadwell makes nonsense of the administration claim that the Mohammed video caused this.  That was a lie and the Administration knew it was a lie.

3.  Libyan Prisoners-Libyan prisoners?  What sort of involvement is the administration getting us into in Libya?  The CIA has denied this, but right now I will take the word of the alleged mistress of the former CIA Director over that of the CIA flack who issued the denial.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Benghazi: Drip, Drip, Drip

  • The scandal deepens. And we have no Cicero.

  • The timing of all this is beyond clumsy. Three days after the election, and a week before Petraeus is to testify? Please. And what did Holder know? The stench is repulsive.

  • 1. Likely pillow-talk obtained classifed information.

    2. This is distraction from the dastardly roles Obama, Clinton, et al played in refusing to save the ambassador and the others.

    3. They Were Expendable.

    4. “I will not lie, cheat or steal; nor tolerate those that do.” BARF

    5. Four more years of apologies, appeasements, lies (“sworn to” by the academy and the media), and surrenders.

    6. It don’t mean nothing.

  • I’ll give you that the Administration orchestrated a delay in his resignation for purely political ends. However, I don’t see the benefit to the Administration, with regards to Benghazi, by his resignation. Doesn’t he still have to testify before Congress?

    The Benghazi story is far from being told and I’m sure it will not reflect well on the Administration (they haven’t crowed about it so there is something disqueting that they’d rather not have revealed). However, I’m not willing to read into Petreaus’ resignation at this point. It looks like a conjunction of unrelated events.

  • The problem G-Veg is that we still do not have a lot of the pieces of the puzzle in regard to Benghazi to judge how this Petraeus resignation plays out, and we do not know, yet, what other factors may be in play as to all of this. Benghazi may be a distraction for other things that Petraeus knows that he may reveal under questioning. The other thing I can’t fathom is why keep him on as CIA Director for several months. Surely the political risk of having Petraeus resign in the summer for example would have been minimal.

  • I think the answer lies in the exclusive focus on polls and campaigning throught his first term.

    Perhaps none of this makes sense because we are looking at it through the lens of governance rather than campaigning. Without a pesky media presence, there was no risk that keeping corrupt figures would blow up before the election and that made Holder, Napolitano, and Petreaus known quantities and their mistakes fairly harmless… Unless they weren’t under thumb that is.

  • Do you think the Roman citizen on the dole cared about the shenanigans of the emperor and his cronies in far off places? The deaths of the four may be criminally negligent and grotesque but Obama voters don’t care in any meaningful way. They care about the dole or about bureaucratic jobs dispensing the dole.

    In other words, this is not going to be a political game changer although Obama’s poll numbers may briefly go down a few points (46% vs 49%).

  • Poor analogy Rozin. Only a small minority of the Roman people were ever on the Dole, almost entirely located in the City of Rome, and by the Empire the mob in Rome had lost any political significance in any case.

    Oh, Benghazi alone won’t cause Obama that much of a problem, although his attempted cover up might. However, if Obama’s second term follows the usual pattern it will be the first of many scandals. Tie that in with a bad economy, and ever increasing, and clearly unsustainable deficits, and I think the draining of Obama’s support will continue apace.

  • I hope that the revelation of scandals continues to the point where even a Democratic Senate cannot ignore the need for impeachment.

  • I forgot too add: “drip – drip – drip”. It there are enough drips, then the bucket will fill.

  • A lot of hand wringing leading to naught except maybe the loss of an underling job or two. The general public doesn’t care. The GOP doesn’t have the courage or fortitude to take it where it needs to go.

    Net result: Noise and flashing lights to entertain conservatives.

  • I believe that was what was said about the Congressional post office scandal before 1994. Large events often have small beginnings.

  • I agree that the GOP lacks the intestinal fortitude for a fight and I’d add that even where thay have gone to battle, it feels inept…

    Why is that? I wonder if part of the problem isn’t that the GOP doesn’t want to take really significant shots at this Imperial Presidency because they want to preserve those unconstitutional powers wrested from Congress for when they re-take the Executive Branch.

    Let me state it differently:

    The Constitution places the Legislative Branch in the steongest position, resting the most significant powers of government in its hands. The Executive Branch is made equal to the Legislative Branch through its power to appoint judges and Justices.

    Over the last 20 years or so, we have seen Congress diminish and the Executive assume greater authority. Boehner said the pther day “we (meaning Congress) need to be led. And Congress after Congress has sat back and let the Executive direct them. In essence, Congress has turned the Balance of Powers on its head, treating the president like he is a Prime Minister and our system as though it was designed to be parliamentarian.

    Why? I fear that the answer is because both parties have concluded that this is as it should be and that striking back and taking back Legislative authority would cut them off from those same unlawful tools when they assume the power of President. Thus, their concern between presidential elections is solely to set the groundwork for their party’s attempt to win the Presidential election, not to govern themselves.

  • I wish it was 1994.

    Whatever become of the constitutional scandal, the Obama recess appointments? I see the GOP is right on top of it.

    Go get’em GOP!

    Meanwhile, the top dog, Obama, and his mutts press on with ruining a people and a nation.

  • It is hard to claim the high ground with dirty hands. We need to get our house straight and reclaim a solid, constitutional basis for governance before we can articulate a constitutionally sound plan for reclaiming America.

    As long as we are willing to say or do anything o get power, our party will lack the legitimacy and Providence to win. God does not empower the bad unless it is to correct the reclaimable. He will not restore His providence to us until we are behaving rightly.

  • “He will not restore His providence to us until we are behaving rightly.”

    It is always good to act rightly in the eyes of God. I would not take that as either a necessary factor, or a dispositive factor, for political success, as the ways of God are often inscrutable when it comes to secular matters. As Lincoln said, “The Almighty has His own purposes.”

  • Mr McClarey,

    I didn’t want to clutter up a post with the factoids you added. You are making the point not disputing it. The Roman citizens in Rome on the dole played little part in the Roman empire. It was the provincials not on the dole who took over both militarily as emperors and bureaucratically as with the rapid expansion of the equestrian class in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

    However, the dole is national in the US and Europe and rapidly growing. It started out in the inner cities but the Left realized that was a loser particularly after Reagan. So now we have the (unmentionable) percentage either on the dole or bureaucratically dispensing it. NV and CA have very high unemployment yet happily voted for Obama. CA even got rid of the few Repubs left in the state because they are so happy with the job the Dems are doing. Europe has had chronically high unemployment for decades but is staunchly socialist. (And why is it you salute the House post office scandal rather than Hillarycare and tax hikes as the reason for Repub majorities? Absent the post office scandal what difference would it have made?)

  • Here is an aspect of the e-mail investigation that I don’t understand: Why did the FBI continue looking into it at all?

    Donald linked (in #5 above) to a Slate article, which had linked to a Washington Post article. The Washington Post article says, law enforcement officials interviewed “said the e-mails were ‘threatening and harassing’ but not specific enough to warrant criminal charges.”

    So, the initial anonymous emails (from Broadwell to Kelley) that were brought to the attention of the FBI were not enough to warrant criminal charges. Why, then, was an investigation carried out, using FBI resources to dig through the anonymous account, tracing it back to Broadwell?

    Did a judge sign off on a warrant allowing that? Which judge? Based on what evidence?

    And, once it was traced back to Broadwell – still assuming that there was nothing warranting criminal charges – why go through all of Broadwell’s personal, private email that exposed the Petraeus link?

    If the original anonymous emails weren’t threatening enough for criminal charges, how did this investigation continue from the get-go?

    I’m not trying to claim that there is a hidden agenda behind the email investigation … yet. I really don’t understand how it went from “not enough to warrant criminal charges” to “let’s go through Broadwell’s personal, private email account”.

    Maybe someone with a good understanding of how investigations of cyberstalking work can explain it to me?

  • “So, the initial anonymous emails (from Broadwell to Kelley) that were brought to the attention of the FBI were not enough to warrant criminal charges. Why, then, was an investigation carried out, using FBI resources to dig through the anonymous account, tracing it back to Broadwell?

    Did a judge sign off on a warrant allowing that? Which judge? Based on what evidence?”

    The standard is fairly low for a warrant requiring a low threshold of probable cause.

  • “The Roman citizens in Rome on the dole played little part in the Roman empire.”
    That is because Italy under the Empire as a whole contributed few men to the Roman legions. The greatest role played by the mob of Rome in Roman affairs coincided with the advent of the dole in the late second century and the first century before Christ when the Roman poor formed the “head-count” armies of Marius, prior to that time they had been considered to be too poor to be enlisted, and took boisterous, and often murderous, part in elections in Rome. After the military dictatorship of Augustus was firmly established the elections still took place but they were meaningless since Augustus controlled the legions and thus the state. None of this history fits very well with the jeremiads launched against “bread and circuses” by modern day conservatives since the fall of the Republic had virtually nothing to do with the dole and everything thing to do with the competition of aristocrats which led to endless civil wars and the breakdown of the old Republican order.

    Our modern welfare states are a different matter altogether and we live in a time when they are manifestly breaking down for lack of funds. Rather than marking the beginning of a new order, Obama and his expansion of the welfare state is the last gasp of a reactionary societal model that is nearing its end.

  • The standard is fairly low for a warrant requiring a low threshold of probable cause.

    Thanks, Donald. That answers a question I had. So, even though it was clear that the harassment and threats were not criminal, some judge decided to allow the FBI to search a private email account.

    If the threshold is that low, then what’s to stop the FBI/local law enforcement searching someone’s email account for a “harassing” comment in a blog comment? Nothing criminal, mind you; just “harassing”.

  • “So, even though it was clear that the harassment and threats were not criminal,”

    No it was not clear to the Judge or a warrant would not have been issued. Here we have an anonymous individual making threats to an innocent third party. It would not take much for a judge under these circumstances to agree that the FBI should be allowed to investigate futher to determine the identity of the anonymous person and whether they posed a danger to the third party. If charges were pressed the Defendant could attempt to challenge the warrant on any number of grounds including lack of probable cause.

  • Well, I understand what you’re saying, but I think there’s more to the story than that.

    The Washington Post story says that “three senior law enforcement officials with knowledge of the episode” determined the threats weren’t specific enough for criminal charges. So, why ask for a warrant?

    As your update indicates, we’re at the tip of the iceberg.

    Thanks for indulging my questions, and for a very informative (and entertaining) blog.

  • With respect Don, I do not agree with your assessment if by your statement you mean that God does not extend or withhold his favor from peoples in accordance with His Plan.

    Perhaps I misread you though.

    Certainly Washington believed that Providence was visited upon the nation at her inception. Given the extraordinary turns of events, it is not difficult to see the hand of God in the twists of history that brought our Republic into being.

    If you mean that we can’t see whoch events are providential and which are not, I entirely agree. But, that we can’t see His actions hardly indicates that they are not present.

    Again, the Old Testament repeats he tale of God showering Grace on a people while the acknowledge Him and then withdrawing His blessings when they set Him aside. I see the same pattern over the last 2000 years in the West.

  • I tend to take a rather Job-like view of the purposes and actions of God G-Veg:

    “42 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,

    2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

    3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

    4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

    5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

    6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”

    That God has His purposes I am sure. That in studying History I find these purposes often obscure to me, I am also sure. When it comes to God faith is always my guide when my discernment fails me.

  • Donald is right again. However, in spite of all its inaccuracy, I like how The Message translation renders this section of Sacred Scripture:

    42 1-6 Job answered God:

    “I’m convinced: You can do anything and everything.
        Nothing and no one can upset your plans.
    You asked, ‘Who is this muddying the water,
        ignorantly confusing the issue, second-guessing my purposes?’
    I admit it. I was the one. I babbled on about things far beyond me,
        made small talk about wonders way over my head.
    You told me, ‘Listen, and let me do the talking.
        Let me ask the questions. You give the answers.’
    I admit I once lived by rumors of you;
        now I have it all firsthand—from my own eyes and ears!
    I’m sorry—forgive me. I’ll never do that again, I promise!
        I’ll never again live on crusts of hearsay, crumbs of rumor.”

  • However, the dole is national in the US and Europe and rapidly growing.

    Federal welfare expenditure can be categorized as follows (approximately):

    44% cash pensions for the elderly and disabled
    24% medical benefits for the elderly and disabled
    9% medical benefits for the generally impecunious
    5% financing of nursing home care
    5% temporary unemployment compensation
    13% various

    The burgeoning of this sort of expenditure is driven by demographic factors and some of the unfortunate effects of poorly structured programs on the way the medical sector does business. These problems can be addressed, but first someone has to be willing to tell the public that first-dollar coverage of medical expenses is not economically sustainable.

    It is really the last category above which is socially problematic, and, no, it was not ‘growing rapidly’ until the advent of the current administration. The most problematic programs (public housing and cash doles for women with bastard children) are a good deal less consequential than was the case a generation ago (enrollment in TANF was at one point one-third in number enrolled in its predecessor program 15 years ago, in spite of the increase in population in the interim).

  • G.K. Chesterton said ”once abolish the God and the government becomes god.” I am not the first to note that many in the West have replaced God with government. Certainly putting one’s faith in government is as much a violation of the First Commandment as putting faith in wealth or intellect or strength is. I am suggesting that the Bible contains ample evidence that a people is as beholden to God as any individual and that individually or collectively, we rebel against God at our own peril.

    The Psalms affirm the idea that there is a relationship between a people’s faithfulness and God’s Providence. (E.g. see Ps. 5, 33, and 67) This was true in the beginning for we see in Genesis, God making covenants with Abraham to give him a blessed people – not only to bless him individually if he followed God’s commands but that his progeny would benefit from his faithfulness. In Gen. 39, we see this promise continued in Joseph. God blesses the people because of Joseph’s faithfulness.

    It isn’t just a tangential concept either. It is an idea at the center of the salvation story. God is explicit in the connection between a people’s faithfulness and His blessings in Deuteronomy 7:13 and in Deut. 8 the consequences of forgetting Him. In the New Testament we see Providence bestowed in abundance on the fledgling church because of their faithfulness.

    In Acts 2: 46-47 we are told that “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” because of the behavior of the Church. This fits Christ’s promise in Matthew 6:33 that if we seek “first the kingdom of God” he will provide everything we need, echoing Zechariah 3:7-9. Again and again in the Bible we are told that, if a people follows God’s laws they will be blessed. (Jeremiah 7:5-7) We are even told that we can reclaim His favor by turning from sin – as a people mind ye – for “if then my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and heal their land.” (2 Chron. 7-14) The whole point of Jonah is precisely this and Ninevah avoids Sodom’s fate by turning from evil as a community.

    All I’m saying is that we cannot, as a people, directly push God away and still expect everything to be OK. It doesn’t work that way.

An Admiral and Two Generals

Saturday, November 10, AD 2012



Well, I have to hand it to the Obama administration.  Obama reelected on Tuesday, they are already getting a start on the scandals that tend to plague most second term Presidents.  The resignation of CIA Director, retired General David Petraeus, over an alleged affair, a week before he was to testify before a Senate committee on Benghazi, brings to three the number of high-ranking officers connected with Benghazi, or its aftermath, who have seen their careers abruptly cut short.

Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group in the Mediterranean in late October.  Such a removal is unprecedented.  The Navy denies that the removal was in regard to Benghazi, and indeed the Stennis was in the Pacific on 9/11/12.   However the Navy has issued a fairly cryptic statement that the removal was for “inappropriate leadership judgment” during the deployment of the Stennis to the Middle East and has stressed that this does not involve any improper personal conduct by the Admiral.  All very mysterious.

The Combatant Commander of Africa Command  on 9/11/12, General Carter F. Ham abruptly retired on October 18.  Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz reported that in an interview he had with General Ham in Libya that the General told him that in regard to the Benghazi attach he had never been asked to provide military assistance.  The internet is ablaze with rumors that General Ham attempted to send assistance to Benghazi during the attack and was told to stand down.  Thus far the General has remained mum.

In regard to General Petraeus there are many questions.  Allegedly the  affair came to light months ago when the FBI caught his alleged paramour attempting to access his e-mails.  One might be curious as to why the FBI was involved in this and the answer is quite simple.  The FBI and the CIA have been at war with each other since the creation of the CIA’s predecessor the OSS in World War II and routinely keep track of the higher-ups in each organization.  (Yeah, I know:  our tax dollars at work.)  Apparently the affair has been known for at least several months, and I find it hard to believe that both the CIA and the FBI did not know of the affair before Petraeus was onfirmed as CIA Director, the background checks for such a position being extremely comprehensive.  This all raises the question as to why the affair triggers a resignation now.  His wife Holly works for the White House and unless she was in the dark on the affair, and considering how gossipy the military community tends to be I find that hard to believe, presumably the affair was known at the White House.

Petraeus is up to his arm pits in Benghazi, having denied that it was the CIA that failed to provide military assistance to the two brave Seals, Ty Woods and Greg Doherty, who died heroically leading the defense at Benghazi.  Now that he is retired, his deputy Mike Morell will testify next week.  Eventually I assume Petraeus will also testify, he has indicated post resignation that he is eager to testify, but now the story in much of the Mainstream Media will be pertaining to his affair rather than to his testimony.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to An Admiral and Two Generals

  • Maybe enough of this will come to light that not even the Democrats in the Senate will be able to ignore it. One may hope.

  • I think it will eventually. Too many people know pieces of the story regarding Benghazi for a coverup to succeed longterm, although it did get Obama through election day with the help of the lapdog Mainstream Media.

  • Oh, all of it will come out, but nothing will harm Obumbler. Nothing Clinton did ever hurt him. Democrats have a license to lie, cheat and steal.

    There are other rumors and reports around saying that Obumbler wants to sign on to a UN treaty that effectively bans private ownership of guns. Any treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 Senate vote. Let him try it.

  • Morning’s copy book is all over the ‘extra-marital’ affair for its good readers. Gen. Ham was inside small print. I don’t actually read it, and would cancel if my mother didn’t, so I missed the Admiral story.

    Transparency has a new dimension. It is obvious that these men are not convenient for the Benghazi hearing on the terrorist attack of 9/11/12 so out with them, no – wait, I mean, ‘how can this immorality be allowed in such a moral government’ and ‘we need people who work the way we work for the … country’. Transparency is in the eye of the beholder now.

    The words ‘affair’ and ‘extra-marital’ are good to deflect those who may wonder, with the added bonus of good posture for those who cheat, lie, and steal.

    Imagine the laughing that goes along with this plan or someone saying, that’s the ticket – an affair!. The copy book writers seem more mindless than ever.

  • Penguins Fan,

    Snopes provides information which disagrees with what you wrote about the UN Small Arms Treaty, resolutions on which you can find here:

    Snopes specifically states:

    The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by “tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons” in order to “close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.” The text of the proposed treaty specifically “reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,” so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
    No such treaty could “bypass the normal legislative process in Congress,” as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
    The President of the United States cannot enact a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.” The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

    Please read more at 

    I myself own a mini-14 rifle. I bought it after Obama’s first election. I had never wanted to own a firearm, but with the rise of “National Democracy”, I thought I should take advantage of my Second Amendment right. I have used the rifle only once or twice at a firing range. Perhaps when my left leg heals from my recent quadriceps detachment accident I will be able to use it in hunting deer, but that won’t be till next year. Outside of the shooting range and hunting, I hope for no use of the rifle (well, I will teach my children how to care for, handle and shoot the rifle, but that will be at the firing range). I truly do not see how the UN can outlaw such ownership and peaceful use of firearms. Private ownership of fully automatic weapons and sensible regulation of revolvers and other small handguns are a different matter. Let’s keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of honest citizens.

  • i never used to think of myself as suspicious, but I changing I guess. I have read that an Illinois politician who Obama needed out of the way was suddenly discovered to have had an illicit affair and O then won that election handily.. that this kind of thing has occurred more than once.

  • That was two politicians Anzlyne: Blair Hull in the Democrat primary for the Senate nomination in 2004, who was expected to win, was effectively knocked out of the race by the Chicago Tribune, at the behest of the Obama campaign, getting his divorce records unsealed. The same exact slimy tactic was then used against his Republican opponent Jack Ryan, who had been married to Jeri Ryan, the Borg Babe on Star Trek Voyager. Ryan dropped out as a result and was replaced by Allan Keyes, who I voted for, and who even I was convinced was crazy by the end of the Senate race. Keyes got 30%.

  • Don, there is nothing “alleged” about it, the general admitted to it. My theory is Petraeus quit to avoid falling on his sword for the so-called intelligence failures of the spooks. Same thing happened with Dubya when he blamed “faulty” intelligence by the CIA on Iraq nukes, which gave him cover when no WMD’s were found. Remember, the CIA has always been the President’s “private army.” Whenever something goes wrong, as it did in Benghazi, it’s not the general who gets the blame but the grunts.

  • There is much that remains “alleged” about it including the identity of the person he had the affair with. Until she confirms it I will keep the “alleged” firmly in place.

  • I look forward to other administration officials who have been involved in affairs to be resigning soon.

  • good one Phillip

  • “I look forward to other administration officials who have been involved in affairs to be resigning soon.”

    The man who saved Obama’s hide in the last election, Bill Clinton, could probably direct the President to some of the female officials who have had affairs.

  • I doubt BIll Clinton will incriminate himself in revealing those women who had heterosexual affairs lest he be so implicated. 😉

    As for the rest who may not be heterosexually inclined and who engaged in affairs, such disclosure would be met with all approval and accolade for a “coming out of the closet” by both Administration and News Media alike. 😉

    Sexual promiscuity is accepted – even welcomed – except when it is a tool to be used to smear an otherwise impeccable record of honesty and attention to duty, hence the situation in which General Petraeus finds himself. Even if the confession of an extra-marital affair is correct, why is it not as forgiveable as the adultery that William Jefferson Clinton committed in the public light with Monica Lewinsky, and his subsequent lying about it to the entire nation? That is a rhetorical question and requires no answer.

  • Thought provoking isn’t it? this kind of thing would provide no leverage at all for O against the C’s should he want to get them out of play.

    Paul FirstTruth is right– nothing is really scandalous anymore unless the persons involved are Believers. For those whose lives are a scoff– it doesn’t matter.

  • “nothing is really scandalous anymore unless the persons involved are Believers. For those whose lives are a scoff”

    It’s only significant to the Left because they feel believers are conservative or at least Republicans and they can make political hay. I have heard several Dems brag about it quite openly with me. They said “our guys have no standards to meet unlike your guys. That’s a big advantage. It doesn’t matter what they do or how they lie.” I asked one, “If they are willing to lie to the public why wouldn’t they lie to you as well” Silence.

  • Anzlyne, you are correct. If a 30 year old priest is accused of a sexual relation with an 18 year old boy, it’s all over the News Media as priestly sex abuse and pedophilia. if a 30 year old actor actually does have a sexual relation with an 18 year old boy, it’s called consensual sex that we have to approve of in order to demonstrate our tolerance and kindness and Christian charity. I for one am disgusted and depressed and angry. Did General Petraeus screw up? Possibly, but unlike William Jefferson Clinton, he did the manly thing and confessed in contrition, something no godless depraved Democrat is capable of doing. Ok, no more ranting. Let’s pray for General Petraeus:

    Hail Mary, full of grace
    The Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou among women
    And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God,
    Pray for us sinners
    Now and at the hour of our death.

    Lord Jesus,
    Please remember General Petraeus
    And be with him in his hour of need.
    Please be merciful and forgive the contrite heart,
    And bring to justice the real evil doers.

  • Strangely, at this time there are more details out there about Petreus and his alleged mistress than there were about Benghazi at a similar point.

  • “Strangely, at this time there are more details out there about Petreus and his alleged mistress than there were about Benghazi at a similar point.”

  • The MSM is unlikely to present a coherent pcture until it doesn’t matter or at least until after others have forced their hand. We saw this in the aftermath of Vietnam and the Cold War. Fellows who for all practical purposes were either on the other side or indifferent developed all manner of scruples that led them to denounce Communism, and proclaim the virtues of the free market with religious freedom for all. When in the name of these same values Messrs Regnery, Encounter and the Hoover Institute among others published accounts of life under communism and drew attention to the actvities of their supporters and fellow-travellersin the West , they were dismissed according the prevailing fashion as CIA think-tanks, antisemites or imperialists. It appears that we are now in a repeat of the Pravda years, where those would like to be informed have to flter and piece together factoids from RT, AlJazeera and the fringe press.

  • Maybe enough of this will come to light that not even the Democrats in the Senate will be able to ignore it. One may hope.
    Paul W. Primavera

    Hope really hard. Senate Democrats enjoy tremendous powers of ignorance.

Kipling on Benghazi

Sunday, November 4, AD 2012

The fifteenth in my ongoing series examining the poetry of Rudyard Kipling. The other posts in the series may be read here, here , here , herehere , here, here, here, here , here, here, here , here and here.


At National Review Online they had the superb idea of taking Kipling’s poem Mesopotamia and applying it to the Benghazi debacle.  The Mesopotamian, modern day Iraq, Campaign had been a disaster for the British in 1916 with a British army surrendering to the Turks at Kut.  British public opinion was outraged at the incompetence that led to the defeat.  When a report by the government on Kut was published in 1917, Kipling responded with his devastating poem.  (Ironically the British in 1917, under the able General Frederick Maude, had succeeded in capturing Baghdad by the time the poem appeared.)  The lines of the Kipling poem do seem to apply word for word to the Benghazi shame:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Kipling on Benghazi

  • …but the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died…shall they thrust for high employments as of old? Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour….

    Donald. All of it fits unfortunately. Angry for an hour? So absurd that O uses ( revenge ) in his rousing the libs, yet washes his hands with video rubbish. I pray a tsunami of votes sweeps away the destructor.
    Thanks for this Kipling poem which parallels the disgrace in Benghazi.

  • Wow! Powerful then and still today.

  • From ‘Epitaphs of the War 1914 – 1918’
    R. Kipling


    “If any question why we died,
    Tell them, because our fathers lied.


    “I could not dig: I dared not rob:
    Therefore I lied to please the mob.
    Now all my lies are proved untrue
    And I must face the men I slew.
    What tale shall serve me here among
    Mine angry and defrauded young?”

    My main “issue” with the latter is the good statesman is not where the heroes’ souls repose.

  • T Shaw….that’s powerful!
    Life for all, born & unborn.


Friday, November 2, AD 2012

The Las Vegas Review Journal, the largest paper in Nevada, in its endorsement of Mitt Romney for President minces no words:

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday’s election.

Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty – not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize – held off the enemy for seven hours.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Ditto

  • U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

    Because it’s a really, really, REALLY bad idea to try to blame the CIA when you screw up.

  • I expect better of American Catholic than linking to an opinion piece with no sources and few quotes as somehow a reference on what really happened.

  • I have written on this site extensively about the Benghazi attack Jeff, and I see absolutely nothing in this editorial that is not in accord with the facts as they have painfully been coming out, with zero help from a stonewalling White House.

  • Jeff’s failed obfuscation aside, what else can be said about this scandal except that it’s treason? Sacrificing the lives of Americans, denying them help, and for what? Because you’re afraid a rescue will fail and hurt your election chances? Beyond pathetic… Obama is a coward and possibly the worst president of all time. Spin that NY media.

  • “Obama is a coward and possibly the worst president of all time.”

    Possibly? Do you have a contender in mind? Who could it be? I rack my brains and I cannot guess who might have been worse.

  • Woodrow Wilson was no prize as a President or a human being given his devious segregationist policies, autocratic behavior and megalomania. He did do a few reforms here and there so that leftist historians could ooh and aah about him.

  • “I cannot guess who might have been worse.”

    A lot of historians consider James Buchanan, Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, the worst president of all time because he did nothing to stop the nation’s slide toward civil war in the late 1850s. His predecessors, Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce, weren’t much better.

  • Elaine and Rozin,

    What I see as the difference between Buchanan(/Fillmore/Pierce) and Obama is like the difference between a sin of omission and one of commission.

    Buchanan’s presidency led to a transformed United States because he failed to do what was necessary. Obama has laid the groundwork for a transformed United States by positive design.

    His motivation for the purposeful transformation is due, unlike with Wilson, to a dislike of the idea of the United States of America. (I admit I’m speculating, but his policies suggest it to me strongly.) Wilson, as far as I know, did believe in a certain American exceptionalism, derived from the exceptionalism of the Anglo-Saxon race.

    Furthermore, Buchanan and Wilson were undoubtedly Men of Their Times. They were following the general mood of the nation. Obama, on the other hand, is governing counter to the general mood of the nation. He is trying to impose his will, which would not be accepted except for the complicit, duplicitous aid of the mainstream media.

    For these reasons, I think that Obama is not only the worst president we’ve had, but the most dangerous.

  • Nicholas,

    There is no right answer we should all agree. Your response is thoughtful but would only be valid IMO if Obama were to lose in a popular vote landslide. I was thinking of worst President in both political and personal terms also. I don’t think Buchanan was the worst or even second worst President. He suffers by comparison with Lincoln. Fillmore, Pierce and Andrew Johnson had even less going for them. It’s fair to say that a below average series of presidents did nothing to stop the slide towards secession. Wilson was in many ways a duplicitous and detestable person and his betrayal of his own African American supporters illustrates that. Obama’s betrayal of his African American supporters is by neglect rather than malice

    Obama is simply a mouthpiece for the general views of many Democrats today. I have heard nothing from him that I haven’t heard from them previously. That’s why his defeat would not stop his viewpoint. The Democrat nominees in 2016 and 2020 will think no differently than he does.

  • Rozin,

    Let us pray that Tuesday’s results, building on the 2010 midterm elections, and continuing in the 2014 midterms, force a change in the leadership of the Democrat party.

    If Tuesday’s election can become a national repudiation of the current Democrat viewpiont – the way that we saw in 2010 Congressional and state elections – then moderate Democrats (indeed, maybe moderate pro-life Democrats) might be able to take on leadership roles heading into the 2020 election cycle.

    We can pray.

  • Yes Nicholas that’s what I was doing. Even if it takes until 2024 for the Democrats to return to Life I will still be overjoyed.

Libyan Revelations: Gross Incompetence or Worse

Friday, November 2, AD 2012

7 Responses to Libyan Revelations: Gross Incompetence or Worse

  • Much of the country won’t ever get the truth about Benghazi because ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and PBS won’t report it. Even though Fox News does report it, it has been so discredited (unfairly) that most people won’t believe what it does report. The only ones who will believe are those already convinced that Obama has got to go.

  • Opps, forgot CNN in my litany. Doubt they’ll report it either. Hope I am wrong.

  • According to most polls Paul, Obama no longer has an advantage on foreign policy. The news is getting out. In the age of the new media and Fox, the Mainstream Media can no longer spike a story although they still certainly attempt to do so.

  • The media that refuses to air the emerging information is downright pitiful.
    The advertisers should boycott the station.
    Allow the giants to strangle themselves with the noose they are fashioning.
    A pathetic lot.

  • I recently got my power back on (I live on Long Island, New York) because of hurricane Sandy, and because I had no computer or TV for a couple of days, I was forced to listen to the “Palace Guard” media, in this case, CBS radio, to know what was happening in the region and the world. Well, all I heard was about the hurricane and how “Presidential” Obama was, and Governor Christie sucking up to him, and of course, Mayor Bloomberg endorsing the guy for re-election. Also, the “news” reported was about how great the economy was doing and how more jobs were being created. In other words, non-stop propaganda for Obama – not one word about Benghazi. It was so discouraging, and now today Rasmussen has the race tied. Are people really this shallow and frivolous? The momentum was clearly with Romney, and now they’re changing their minds because of a hurricane? If that’s the case, then these people have no business being inside a voting booth and deciding the fate of our country. Lord help us!

  • @ Siobhan – I think Revelation 9:20-21 speaks about what you wrote:

    20 And the rest of mankind, who were not killed with these plagues, repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold, and of silver, and of brass, and of stone, and of wood; which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk: 21 and they repented not of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

A Matter of Honor

Tuesday, October 30, AD 2012


You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

I have always enjoyed the speech of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men because it contains quite a bit of truth in it, and I have regretted that the words are placed in the mouth of the villainous Colonel Jessup.  In regard to fallen American heroes Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty it is completely, and righteously, applicable.

The higher-ups in the Obama administration who turned their backs on Woods and Doherty could never understand such men.  It was no part of their mission to supply embassy security.  Instead, after the Benghazi attack began, Tyrone Woods asked for permission to go and risk his life to rescue the embassy personnel.  He was denied permission two times, and he went anyway.  He was unarmed initially, picking up his weapons from what he found on the ground, the cast away arms of the Libyan mercenaries who were supposed to provide security at the consulate and who ran when the attack began.  He rescued 20 embassy personnel and got them to the CIA annex, where they were evacuated while Woods, joined by Doherty who arrived in Benghazi after the attack began, engaged in a lop sided fight against some 150 to 200 attackers.  During this time they gave live intelligence to their CIA higher-ups and requested military aid.  The CIA has denied that it was anyone from the CIA who vetoed the aid.  So, Doherty and Woods fought their own personal Alamo alone, slaying some 60 of their foes, until they were killed at their machine gun by a mortar round some six hours and twenty minutes from the time the attack began.

Doherty and Woods had their lives taken from them, fighting for their country and to save others.  They epitomize what the term honor means.  To the White House higher-ups who denied them aid, perhaps Doherty and Woods seemed to be fools:  “Didn’t they realize that personal survival is the be all and end all?  They were idiots for sticking their necks out!  Now we have this political mess to clean up!”  Yeah, it is easy to visualize both curses and laughter being aimed at the spirits of these men.  The Seal Code these men lived and died by would be literally incomprehensible to the people who made the decision not to send them aid:   1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate, 2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield, 3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit, 4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates, 5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation, 6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation’s Enemies, and 7) Earn your Trident every day.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to A Matter of Honor

Pat Caddell: These People Have No Honor

Sunday, October 28, AD 2012

Pat Caddell, Jimmy Carter’s pollster and a long time Democrat political operative, said it all last night on the Jeanine Pirro show on Fox  about the Benghazi coverup and the unwillingness of much of the Mainstream Media to cover it for fear that it will devastate the re-election prospects of Obama:

“been in the tank on this in a way I’ve never seen… I am appalled right now. This White House, this President, this Vice President, this Secretary of State, all of them, are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected…willing to cover up and lie. The worst thing is the very people who are supposed to protect the American people with the truth – the leading mainstream media…they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people… these people have no honor… coverup is too nice of a word…”

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Pat Caddell: These People Have No Honor

  • Politics, The Golden Calf, Obama agenda for what … the UN?
    No honor among thieves.

    or Moses, The Law and the Land of milk and honey for His people.

  • It’s time to re-read Exodus chapter 32 as PM intimated.

  • Finally, someone who understands the press and how it operates has called the liberal press out for what they are Bias, untruthful and totally behind the election of Obama

    It is truly sickening that Americans gave up their lives to secure the freedom we enjoy, one being freedom of speech, and this mass of reporters continue to hide the truth from the American people. their freedom is to act responsively, transparent but also honestly and this has not been the case for a long time

    I salute Pat Caddell and ask that his voice become louder and that through his efforts the truth will come out and tell the American people what a bogus group of politicians, in this administration,and news corp we have and can call them out for what they actually are dishonest

  • Many of the leading people in the MSM have direct relations with the DNC either through marriage or work background (e.g Dem staffer etc.). In addition their livelihood or at least their high incomes are based on Dem support as is the case with the public sector unions. They are there precisely because they are political operatives. Their lack of honor is not so much in bias, but not stating forthrightly they are tied to the DNC and only present news from that perspective. I give Mika Brzezinski some credit in admitting they get memos from the WH on how to present the news. In addition Daily Caller showed the direct connection between the leftist blog sites and the DNC. I also seem to remember several years ago it was discovered that TV execs had regular conference calls with DNC operatives.

  • Pingback: WOW: Pat Caddell on Obama Admin’s handling of Libya: “These People Have No Honor!” | The Thinking Americanist
  • Has everyone forgotten ANOTHER horrific cover up? FAST & FURIOUS? This administration has been the height of deceit, dishonor, lack of ethics, and willingness to do anything for continued power, fame and money. It is disgusting!

  • God Bless Pat Caddell and his willingness to open his mind to truth.
    Also, today on Chris Wallace I heard two Democratic governors say Libya should not be politicized, questions will be answered later…. They posited that asking questions about Libya is politicizing the issue— so dishonest. Stalling, obscuring the people’s view of this issue so that no harm is done to Hizonor – that is the real politicization of the deaths of those 4 men.

    And speaking of positing– the out front woman on CNN posited an understood close-mindedness in her question to Ryan– ‘’given this information do you think you could become open-minded?

  • excuse me, the obfuscators were Senators–not governors

  • The godless liberals never hesitated to politicize George Bush being in a school with small children when 9-11 happened.

  • Yes, this is apalling. The info that has emerged over the past week or so is very damaging to Obama; but I simply cannot understand how his desire to be re-elected is numbing his judgement. His lack of action and decision while, on real time live video, he could see the events unfolding just stuns me. But for the media to be silent also – what has America come to?
    After Obama gets trumped, the citizens of the USA will have to deal to their media somehow, and ensure this type of subterfuge and cover-up is not repeated. Otherwise, goodbye free world. (except for isolated outposts 😉 )

  • I think that the media believe that this administration can still pull off a
    re-election, and that’s why they’re willing to risk a public spectacle of
    their sellout. If the whores in the media felt that their darling president
    had no chance of taking this election, it would behoove them to make a show
    of being impartial truth-seekers, if only to save their own reputations from
    the wreckage.

    I hope, for the good of this country, that Mr. Romney not only wins, but wins
    in such a landslide that Obama and his court eunuchs in the media cannot
    spin any post-election confusion into chaos.

  • This man has no integrity. He lies everytime his lips are moving. He is the one we need to be concerned about voter fraud. This man has become the president of the USA, to bring in a socialist nation. With the FEMA re-education camps and the loss of freedom of speech, this sounds more and more like Nazi Germany. He has people in high places who helped him to win so the one world government would come.

  • Don the Kiwi-
    How do we do it? The left will say we are trying to censor the press. We know that the msm is criminal in its disregard to be non-biased. So what is the solution to this problem in our era?

  • Philip says “We know that the msm is criminal in its disregard to be non-biased. So what is the solution to this problem in our era?”

    A spotlight and persistence will reduce the problem. This requires an attitude totally at variance with Repub SOP which is to wring hands and hope it goes away without saying anything. I think even they are beginning to see the media will not go easy on them however much the Repubs fawn and placate.

    Historically the press was always partisan but it didn’t pretend otherwise. Just going back to that would be better. The public seems to be gradually wising up but the indolence of the Repubs has slowed the rate of change.

  • RM Nixon must be having a good laugh.

  • Once reality comes a-calling, only the most zombie-like partisans will have any more use for the Lamestream. Simple free-market economics will take care of the rest. Network news viewership has fallen dramatically over the past 10-15 years and will positively plummet once the lies and distortions are brought to light. No more will need be done. I wouldn’t be surprised to see one or another branch of ABCNNBCBS abandon its evening news broadcast format and go to a web-based service where it can preach propaganda to its faithful, sometime in the next 3-5 years.

  • The main stream media in this country very seldom reports the whole story anymore. We get the revised edition, after it’s been flavored with their political bias. I digest their dogma just like that of the politicians…with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism.

  • WK Aiken-
    ….free market economics…

    Your right. The demand for snake oil will fall away. Good answer. Thanks.

Who Left American Heroes Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty to Die?

Saturday, October 27, AD 2012

Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty were authentic American heroes.  Both former Navy Seals, they fought to the last in defense of the Benghazi consulate, manning a machine gun at the CIA annex.  Despite three separate orders telling them not to do so, Woods and Doherty went to the consulate after the attack began, and saved the lives of 20 embassy personnel, bringing them to the CIA annex.  They  defended the CIA annex, holding it while the 20 people they rescued were evacuated.   They were in constant contact with higher-ups at the CIA, requesting military aid.  They fought heroically for six hours and twenty minutes against an estimated 200 heavily armed attackers from the time of the beginning of the attack on the consulate, killing an estimated sixty of their foes.

They were both killed by a mortar round at the six-hour and twenty-minute mark.  General David Petraeus, head of the CIA, has denied that it was the CIA that vetoed an attempted military rescue of Woods and Doherty.


CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

Investors Business Daily, in a blistering editorial asks the question:  who was responsible?

More than six hours after terrorists attacked our consulate, former Navy  SEALs manned a blood-soaked machine gun to defend U.S. territory. Meanwhile  Apache helicopters sat on the ground in Italy.

At 4 a.m. local time on Sept. 11 — six hours and 20 minutes after the initial  attack began — former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed at  the CIA annex not far from the consulate by a mortar shell. The machine gun they  were firing was encrusted with blood, an indication they continued to fight  after being wounded.

During that eternity, Woods and Doherty might have wondered between gunfire  and explosions where the military, with bases strewn across Europe, was. U.S.  forces were indeed being moved like chess pieces as the attack unfolded, but  none came to their aid because no one gave the order.

President Obama, perhaps preoccupied with his upcoming Las Vegas fundraiser,  met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval  Office at 5 p.m. ET, a little more than an hour after the onset of the  attack.

He could have given the order but did not, even after an email, in which the  al-Qaida-tied group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility, arrived at 6:07 p.m.  ET to a distribution list that included the White House Situation Room.

A Special Operations force went from central Europe to Naval Air Station  Sigonella in southern Italy, just 480 miles from Benghazi. F-16s and Apache  helicopters remained parked and unused at Aviano Air Base in northern Italy. Two  Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean Sea were moved off the coast of  Libya on the day of the attack but were never used.

The question is: Why not?

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Who Left American Heroes Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty to Die?

  • Yesterday, Instapundit posted that, reportedly, an AC-130U gunship was on station and had its computerized aim system locked one each jihadi mortar (a gift of the United States of America?). USAF and Navy fast movers could have “brought the goods” in less than an hour.

    In short, Obama bin Laden could have punished the perpetrators that day.

    No one gave the order to shoot . . .


    Then, Barry flew off to Vegas.

    Who had the authority to giver the order and why was it not given?

    Where does the “buck stop”?


    Lying, Obama-worshiping media: crickets chirping.

  • Addendum: Since Obama bin Laden took over in early 2009, more than 100 US marines and soldiers have been murdered by Afghan jihadis infiltrated in the Army/National Police.


    Four more years of this and we are toast. You can “take that to the bank.”

  • There may be a good reason ‘why not’, but Gen. Petraeus is the only one of them who could credibly articulate it to a general audience and he has been stone silent for six weeks.

  • What will happen to General Petraeus now that he has spoken? Can the traitor in the Oval Office stand being called what he is?

    These are dangerous times. Obama does not have the fortitude of character necessary to accept either criticism or losing. I think that he will do – or try to do – something very bad.

  • Thanks Donald! I saw that statement last night at the Weekly Standard from William Kristol. (Paraphrasing) No one could have made that decision (to stand down) except the President. If the CIA didn’t do it, then the Secretary of Defense wouldn’t be able to make such a decision on his own. It would have been a presidential decision.

    And they had a meeting…

    Some have suggested that maybe the President didn’t do anything nefarious, but that maybe it was just incompetence. Perhaps. But both are criminal.

  • Gross incompetence Stacy or criminal neglect. Either one should be a clear indication that Obama has no business being commander in chief.

  • “I think that he will do – or try to do – something very bad.”

    I do not expect that Paul. However, if he were foolish enough to do so, the consequences would be very bad indeed for him.

  • The truth meter dial has moved to treasonous terrorist from (media-induced guise of) careless incompetent. Team of insidious functionaries stirring events, while intimidating voters with diversions of base and basic concerns in the morality morass, it seems.

  • Isn’t it revealing who was in that room allegedly at 5 PM? All three. Obama, Biden, Panetta are partisan hacks. Not one has any operational experience. (It may turn out others were consulted but time was short so they probably had no more than a basic report to look at.)

    I also think Mr McCleary should include Amb. Stevens and Smith in the article. Stevens had made repeated ignored calls for help in securing the embassy facilities in the weeks prior to the attack. Weren’t they proactively left to die too? What went through Stevens’ and Smith’s minds as they were being attacked?

  • Obama, Biden, Panetta are partisan hacks. Not one has any operational experience.

    Obama and Biden are fairly useless. Panetta is a curious choice for Secretary of Defense, but he is a policy wonk and a reasonable occupant of some sort of senior position.

  • Recall what we learned after the Osama bin Laden raid. It wasn’t going to happen because Obama was indecisive and Rasputin, I mean Valerie Jarrett, had counseled him to not do it. Apparently Panetta is the one who set it in motion.

    I can imagine a similar scenario here. Obama, lacking character and the stuff of an informed and strong executive, was incapable of making a decision or even knowing what sort of decision should be made. The only advice he can make sense of is that from his political campaign handlers, which doesn’t make for appropriate directives.

  • What the Obama administration did to those men is disgraceful. Those men put themselves in harms way for our country, and the administration threw them to the wolves so they could hang on to the political fiction that there was no terrorist attack on Obama’s watch. In effect, they were a human sacrifice to the idol of political deception. I was a soldier, and now I have a son who is a soldier. Would that rat bastard in the White House throw my son’s life away if he thought it might get a few votes?

  • “Would that rat bastard in the White House throw my son’s life away if he thought it might get a few votes?”

    I so want to make a snarky comment about respect for human life, other than your own.

    It’s not that I’m single issue, it’s that it all ties together in principle. I keep thinking, “These people are pro-choice.” We all know what that means.

  • Adding to the outrage: Obama, Rodham, and Pannetta; and their media lackeys used the return of the heroes’ (whom they deserted to doom) earthly remains for a photo op.

    Then, Obama bin Laden went to the media and apologized that the jihadis had to get blood on their hands over a YouTube video that 16 people saw.

    And, the producer of the video is still in jail awaiting a court date.

  • When folks hector me to give Obama “due credit” for the OSB take-out, this is pretty much what I had in mind when I said “He didn’t screw up the biggest no-brainier possible as badly as he could have.”

  • Obama is all about obama.
    Proof positive.
    The appropriate thing for Barry to do is apologize for his inability to carry out his duties as commander and chief and resign his post.

  • Pingback: Who Left American Heroes Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty to Die? - Military News | Military News
  • Oh my gosh! They may have relieved a general who issued orders that would have resulted in forces being deployed to protect the people in Benghazi before those orders could be carried out.

    It just keeps getting worse and worse.

  • Pingback: Pat Cadell: These People Have No Honor | The American Catholic
  • >Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty were authentic American heroes. Both former Navy Seals, they fought to the last in defense of the Benghazi consulate…

    Too bad the mainstream news doesn’t have the time for these heroes:

    Obama’s Benghazi Gate and the Blood Encrusted Gun

2 Responses to Libya Lies

Defeat in Afghanistan and Against Al Qaeda

Thursday, October 11, AD 2012

Lara Logan of CBS News gave an incredible speech earlier this week in the video above detailing the lies of the Obama administration regarding defeat in Afghanistan and the resurgence of Al Qaeda throughout the Middle East.  One of the more mindless mantras of the Obama re-election team was Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.  That is why the Obama administration was in fraudulent denial for so long that the Benghazi attack was a result of terrorism and instead attempted to blame the Mohammed video.  Rather than destroying Al Qaeda the Obama administration has presided over a debacle in the Middle East where the jihadists are rising in strength with Benghazi being a symbol of their renewed power.  Bravo to Lara Logan for putting Journalism first and leaving politics aside.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Defeat in Afghanistan and Against Al Qaeda

  • I listened to 14 minutes. Does Logan ever…ever… give her quantity figure for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in light of her rejecting the CIA’s number of fifty or does she stay switched into anecdotal mode forever?
    One requirement of a just war is that there is the possibility of success. Al Qaeda is mobile. Drone them. Logan has some other agenda that requires whole army prescence. She wants to perhaps save the women of Afghanistan. Understandable…but what has that to do with U.S. tax dollars and lives. Revamping a corrupt culture is not listed as a reason of the just war. Afghanistan is not crucial to Al Qaeda. They are mobile. Logan wants to save Afghanistani
    women underneath it all. Understandable but I don’t see how just war theory encompasses it without tremendous stretching of its concepts.

  • A “just” war is not based on its probable outcome but instead on the concept of umm Justice. Obviously an earthly government has to consider its limitations of people and resources in undertaking any effort, military or otherwise. But now we are talking wisdom or practicality.

    However I wonder why I have the vague feeling that you are off chasing digressions and trivial questions. The issue is whether Al Qaeda is linking itself with or infiltrating the governments that the Obama Administration has welcomed in the “Arab Spring” and whether the Obama Afghan war prosecution is feckless or adroit. The Afghanistan war had the more or less explicit goal of preventing the return of the Taliban. Ms Logan noted that there has been a deterioration in that front as well, not an improvement from the surge. So the stated timeframe of withdrawal seems to be ensuring defeat. That may be the best policy but Obama has certainly not presented any of this accurately to the public. Ergo Ms Logan’s pronouncements.

  • Rozin,
         You contradicted the Catholic catechism with your: ” A “just” war is not based on its probable outcome”.   Look up the Catholic requirements for a just war prior to giving us a private revelation from behind a cirrus cloud.  Ah heck…here’s the catechism:

    2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
     – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
     – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
     – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
    These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

         Lara Logan is married to a US Federal Gov. Defense contractor….Joseph Burkett with whom she committed adultery in Iraq.  He later divorced his wife and married her.  Her household’s ( 5 people…million and a half$ house) income probably unless she goes transparent… goes up with Romney’s Defense budget and down with Obama’s…up with full army prescence in the mideast…down with smart war Panetta.  She may or may not be motivated by this but should recuse herself from the topic entirely.  Muslim women saved her from a molesting mob which means she could be motivated well ( by them) or ill ( hubby’s income under Romney).  Scripture says “avoid the very appearance of evil”.  She should recuse herself.

  • “She may or may not be motivated by this ”

    Bill, I would greatly appreciate it if you would never bring tripe like this again into my comboxes unless you have evidence to support your allegation.

  • Deleted your last comment Bill since you chose to ignore my admonition. You are banned from this site and may now propound any tripe you wish at other venues.

  • Off topic, but I am continually amazed by people who somehow think the first amendment covers their right to spew tripe in an internet comment box. Congrats, Donald, you are now Congress.

  • Donald shall make no law abridging freedom of speech on blogs! 🙂

  • Oddly, I’ve seen folks outraged that a month later CNN let the mother come on and demand answers, claiming it was manipulating her for ratings.

    Yes, it got ratings. It also gave her a platform to demand answers.

Libyan Questions

Thursday, September 13, AD 2012

13 Responses to Libyan Questions

  • Another questions:

    1) Have the extremists in Libya access to US weapons ou Kadafi weapons? They used against US embassy?
    2) Why Obama is refusing to listen Israel?
    2) Does Obama administration think that Egypt is ally or not? How so?

  • Why did Obama miss the daily intelligence briefing for the week before the attacks?

  • Is a majority of the voting population of the US aware of these issues (in spite of the disinformation from the main steam news media) so that it can finallly see through the smoke and mirrors of this President and his supporters?

  • This fits into the Demoralization category.

    There are answers, but these would cost tickets to partying at the parties of infamy and, probably their press agent jobs.

    No one will give answers to a journalist because our violence conductors are covered by power now and want to expand that power.
    And security forces protect them from the people who are the instruments of violence.
    And there is no ‘court’ on temporal earth to sort it out.
    Accountability and transparency not this time either.

    It is another attempt for wrong to defeat right into oblivion with unanswered questions.
    And, also, to obliterate that line between both good and evil, and truth from lies.
    And, to tire and defeat the questioners.

    They can try, meanwhile the press agents and people who are tools should check out the holder of the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence for a better perspective.

    Just who is waging war on peace with hate, lies, and violence? It’s a big story to write for both the uninformed and for vindication.

  • The president missed his daily intel briefing because he’s too busy doing what he does best- campaigning. This guy has done NOTHING but campaign since he entered the U.S Senate. Unfortunately, the American people are too focused on the likes of Jersey Shore and Keeping up with the Kardashians and the politics of envy to care what happens to this country.

    Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

  • For #4– It’s 9/11 and you’re in the middle east. Seriously, how much of a “credible warning” do you NEED?!

  • “For #4– It’s 9/11 and you’re in the middle east. Seriously, how much of a “credible warning” do you NEED?!”
    Bravo, Foxfier!

  • Turner Classic Movies is airing “55 Day at Peking.” How appropriate!

  • One of my favorite films T. Shaw! Note the prayer and artillery sequence at the beginning of this clip:

  • Phillip asks “Why did the President miss his daily intelligence briefing the day after the attacks?”

    Because the attack had already happened. Nothing to worry about at that point. And Axelrod and the media had the scoop on the culprits who caused it all – the filmmaker and Romney.

  • Thanks, Mac.

    I missed much of the movie, but saw that scene. Mr. Heston taking the orphan on his horse was (to me) a fitting end.

    What struck me was that the make-shift mortar was about a million times more dangerous to Heston and the padre than to the Boxers.

    Of interest, Sgt. Maj. (then Pvt.) Daniel Daly, USMC won his first (he had two, the other 1915 for Haiti) MoH for extraordinary action in that campaign.

    “for service as set forth in the following


    “For extraordinary heroism while serving with the Captain Newt Hall’s Marine Detachment, 1st Regiment (Marines), in action in the presence of the enemy during the battle of Peking, China, 14 August 1900, Daly distinguished himself by meritorious conduct.”

    re: “meritorious conduct”: From “Unto the Breach” blog:

    “During the 56-day seige of the international compound, Capt. Hall went to bring reinforcements to reestablish their defensive line when the German outpost was pushed back. Pvt. Daly remained behind, singlehandedly defending a bastion on the Tartar Wall against hundreds of Chinese forces – armed only with a bolt-action rifle and bayonet. Daly held his position overnight, and Marine Corps legend states that the bodies of 200 dead Boxers littered the ground when reinforcements arrived.”

    “Born: 11 Nov. 1873, Glen Cove, N.Y…. One of only 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice… Of the 19 double recipients, is one of only two men to receive the Medal for two separate engagements… Offered a commission on several occasions but refused… Also saw action at Hayti and fought during World War I… Also awarded the Navy Cross and Distinguished Service Cross… Retired as Sergeant Major in 1929… Namesake of USS Daly (DD-519)… Departed: 27 Apr. 1939.”

    Legend has it that at Chateau Thierry (I think) he motivated his troops, who were held up by machine gun fire, by shouting, “Get up, you s.o.b.’s! Do you want to live forever?” I imagine Achilles and Hector used similar motivational oratory.

  • Pingback: Libyan Lie | The American Catholic