Blah, Blah, Blah Benghazi

Barack Obama, Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq

“On the atrocity scale,” I wrote on 11.19.12 “Bush’s badness dwarfed Benghazi-gate.” Any one with a moral compass and a cerebral cortex recognizes that, as scandalous as it is, Benghazi is small scale compared to the immoral, fraudulent invasion of Iraq, and the cost in blood and treasure George W. Bush wrought with that one.

It would be an entirely different matter if Republicans had the intellectual moxie to examine the human toll, for decades to come, of Obama’s “murder by multilateralism” in Libya. For that was what the invasion of Libya amounted to.

But they don’t. To the Republicans, Benghazi-gate amounts to no more that a “procedural mishap.” Namely, finding out “what happened? How did it happen? Who covered it up? And, above all, how do we return to doing what we did before IT happened. ‘IT’ being the Sept. 11 attack on the embassy in Libya that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and ‘three other,’ mostly faceless Americans dead.”

In any event, ABC homes in on the meat of the scandal, tracing it directly to the Obama administration:

…ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. …

The bare-bones of Benghazi is laid out by STEPHEN F. HAYES of the neoconservative Weekly Standard:

….Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.
Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy?—?al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.
The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”
In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA. …

MORE.

As the always outspoken and interesting Michael Scheuer put it, not so long ago, “Barack Obama is a despicable man.”

Indeed. On par with George Bush.

A Burning Dilemma Among America’s Dhimma

America, Ancient History, Barack Obama, Bush, Ethics, History, Islam

“A Burning Dilemma Among America’s Dhimma” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

… While dhimmis contemplate what to do with the decaying corpse of a Muslim mass murderer, consider what General Sir Charles James Napier counseled about the valiant defense of Western values. The general (on an admittedly imperial mission to India) was confronted with the local Hindu practice of Sati, “the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband.”

When “Hindu priests complained to him,” as Wikipedia tells it, “about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities,” Napier replied:

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

In the West, we do not dispose of the dead on open-air funeral pyres, as is still done in India, Bali, south of Indonesia, and Nepal. But we do cremate. Cremating Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s remains is commensurate with what ought to be American values: It conserves resources and leaves (almost) nothing behind.

Incinerate Tsarnaev’s corpse. It’s the moral thing to do.

It matters not that “Islam strictly forbids cremation.” True Christians and Jews forbid the murder of innocents. Those are the values that trump Islam.

Besides, Islam is a highly derivative (and distorted) belief system. Tamerlan believed that “the Bible was a cheap copy of the Koran.” However confused Muslims like him are about historical chronology, they do claim to accept the Ten Commandments, bequeathed in the Hebrew Bible’s Exodus and Deuteronomy, centuries before Muhammad. If so, the Sixth Commandment is unequivocally clear: “Thou shalt not kill.”

He who kills innocents has forfeited his right to religious burial rites—especially if these are to be administered by the killer’s victims. …”

The compete column is, “A Burning Dilemma Among America’s Dhimma.” Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND Comments Section, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason.”

UPDATE II: Cop Incompetence & The Cleveland Kidnapping (Community Policing)

Crime, Economy, Free Markets, Government, Law, Race

The left sees the world through the prism of faction; facts are expected to align themselves accordingly. Thus to Chris Hayes of MSNBC, the central issue in the kidnapping and accidental recovery of “Cleveland’s lost girls” is society’s endemic, institutionalized, violence against women. The state’s endemic, institutionalized, violence against and indifference to its citizens—that doesn’t feature.

True to type, CNN Erin Burnett didn’t push the bureaucrat she interviewed too hard, today, when he insisted conveniently that the perp, Ariel Castro, 52—who had kidnapped and raped Amanda Berry, 27, Gina DeJesus, 23 and Michelle Knight, 32, and imprisoned them for about a decade—ought to be the focus of ire, and not the police department.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

By the way, if Castro is on suicide watch for some strange reason, BBC News’ Tara McKelvey should be on loon watch. She is busy breaking down the amount of attention the victims got from authorities and media based on the color of their skin. (The truth: Michelle Knight, whom I believe is white—she vanished in 2002—got almost no attention.)

“Ignoring adult missing persons reports seems to have been a de facto departmental policy [in Cleveland] for many years,” reports Slate’s Justin Peters, who, like most liberals, blames budgetary cuts (no amount of taxpayer money is ever enough for these people), rather than the state’s inability to allocate resources efficiently, and with the aim of pleasing “clients,” as the private sector is forced to do.

Government outfits organize around the optimization of the political needs of union members and other sectional interests. It’s the nature of the bureaucratic beast. The needs of the communities they are supposed to serve come last.

Writes Mark Naymik, of The Plain Dealer:

…the hum of criticism on Seymour Avenue is about the subtle signs, such as the lowered shades or odd behavior of Castro and how he never entertained guests.
These are the kinds of signs that police officers who patrol a specific beat over time might notice or hear about from neighbors. But that kind of patrol disappeared when community policing ended.
On Tuesday, I talked with a couple of community activists with years of perspective on police response to the missing persons: Delores Walton and Ruth Standiford. They hound police and are frequent critics as members of the Task Force for Community Mobilization and Peace in the Hood.

UPDATED I: Michael Maier on Facebook: Yes. Community policing was the way it once was when I was a kid (you knew your local policeman). But as the communities cops must police have become more “diverse” and menacing, and less recognizable, police, understandably, prefer to stay way.

UPDATED II: On Police efforts Via PBS:

RAY SUAREZ: There was a steady drumbeat of stories coming out of that West Cleveland neighborhood talking about attempts to tell the police over the years, attempts to report Ariel Castro for various infractions.
Did the police handle that today in the press conference?
PETER KROUSE: I did not hear the entire press conference, but I believe they did say that they did everything they could.
In fact, yes, I know they did. They said that they investigated every lead that they knew of. And I know we have reported in The Plain Dealer a lot of the efforts that they went to, to try and find these girls. One of the officials said that, in hindsight, you know, they may discover that there was something that they missed, but that it would be hindsight. It was not — it wasn’t anything that they could pinpoint.
These cases — at least in the case of Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus, the two who were abducted as teenagers, those cases were pretty well publicized. And the efforts by the police to find some answers were pretty well publicized, too.

UPDATED: No Amanda-Knox Accolades For Jodi Arias (The Arias Appeal)

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, Reason

Fortunately for justice, the jurors sitting in judgement of Jodi Arias, a morally solipsistic and self-adoring sociopath (who sang, did tantric yoga, giggled and chanted to herself sotto voce, alone in the interrogation room), were not required to grapple with circumstantial evidence, which demands a level of abstraction in thinking that jurors in the Age of the Idiot are incapable of.

Because there was never any question about Arias’ culpability, she was found guilty of first degree murder. Hers is, moreover, a foolproof case for the death penalty.

Arias’ jurors stood out for the hundreds of wordy and worthless questions they had posed to this defendant. For a while I even worried that the woman who butchered boyfriend Travis Alexander in his home would get off lightly with second-degree murder.

Anything seemed possible after Casey Anthony.

It took 12 idiots 11 hours to decide to exonerate the (ALLEGEDLY) filicidal Casey Anthony, who was found “not guilty of first-degree murder and the other most serious charges against her in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter,” Caylee Marie Anthony. (CNN)

The evidence was overwhelming, if circumstantial (as in most murder cases). The prosecution presented the more intelligent, rational sequence of events, where motive, opportunity, and evidence all stacked-up against the sociopathic Casey Anthony.

In the Age of the Idiot, the average individual seldom reads; he knows only what he sees. If he can’t picture something, he certainly cannot think about it in the abstract. We all “know, “from watching, CSI, that if a crime doesn’t happen as depicted in such series—where ample samples of DNA and incriminating footage always materialize —you must acquit.

Even though there was no YouTube of Travis Alexander torture, it was impossible not to picture what the poor man endured before expiring in agony. RIP.

UPDATE (8/5): THE ARIAS APPEAL. You know me. Unlike the misleading Mouths you watch on TV, or listen to on radio, year-in; year-out—I am brutally honest. With myself too. Amanda Knox is of low moral character. She’s a histrionic phony, and it comes across clearly in her victory interviews. I know it in every fiber of my being.

Jodi Arias, on the other hand, has the absolute ability to fool me. She is a softly spoken, highly intelligent woman, who speaks grammatically—and most certainly not in the staccato, truncated tart tones of the average American woman. (Good use of adjectives too …) Arias thinks on her feet and comes across as a refined lady.

This is scary. When I listen to the interview she gave a Fox New affiliate, I can’t help … feeling for Jodi Arias.