|
TheHeretic -> RE: Bengahzi (12/17/2012 10:15:22 PM)
|
There are a few things, SimplyMichael. Only one of them would really be specifically categorized as, "of the right." The others, I'll view as, "not of the Obamabots," (I use this term as it was presented by columnist Ted Rall - those so infatuated with our President that they will blindly follow and support him, even when their own opinion is different). These are things I think of as compromising values classical liberals should care about. Then there is stuff that pretty much seem to be just me. we'll start big.
For the right specifically (and I'm just discussing this one, not embracing it as my own), is the simple fact that it happened, and that the pre-existing conditions allowed it to happen. This was US soil. Where was the Marine detachment, before the shit ever hit the fan? Why weren't fighters scrambled from Italy, and a carrier in the Med? Where were the special forces, in fast jet, armed to the teeth, prepared to hijack a truck at the airport, and fight their way in? These things were all available (and if they weren't, that's an even bigger national security failing). This expands to the broader view of international affairs as a whole, and the classic stereotypical divide of right vs left - the right favor muscle and brawn, and kicking a little ass with the steel-toed boot when needed, while the left are a bunch of naive, toast-nibbling pussies, out to top Chamberlain in giving away the store, and then getting pistol whipped in the robbery that happens anyway. In this view, Bengazi is a problem because it said the United States was weak.
Next up is how we got to be in the position where this happened. The President could have very easily spoken to Congress, and gotten some high profile bipartisan support on doing exactly what we did in Libya. Instead, the lawyers figured out that there was a remote-control exception to that bit in the Constitution about "only Congress having the power to declare war" (the same sort of, "the Framers couldn't have imagined the technological advances," argument being leveled at the 2nd, now that I think about it). We didn't send a note, but I fail to see how publicly acknowledged military drone attacks on a head of state don't qualify as a formal declaration of war. That's a significant assumption of martial power by our President, and I suspect many on the left will develop a problem when it passes to a Republican again. There lie the Obamabots.
For reasons that have never made a lick of sense to me, President Obama chose to take personal ownership of our activities to publicly take down a sovereign power. And an ambassador wound up dead, with pictures of his body being dragged in the street. And it happened on a meaningful date, during the campaign. The blame had to be shifted, quickly and firmly, and the conversation needed to change. (Lucky thing that 47% video from the spring came to light when it did.)
Enter Susan Rice's talking points. When she did the rounds of 5 shows on Sunday morning, we knew better. The President even made a point of implying that we knew better, during the second debate. What she went out with, knowingly or not, was a purely politicaly motivated lie. And she got caught. Now I expect the Secretary of State of these United States to be able to sit down with a foreign head of state, lie through her toothy smile, while sliding a noose around his balls, and have him thinking he's getting the best hand-job of his life. I don't expect her to audition on the American public. Busted. Too bad.
Now if we wanted to talk about the video, why not talk about why exactly the story and video ran on Egyptian TV on September 9th? It had been on Youtube for months. Coincidence?
And if we want to talk further about the video, we get to the bit that is pretty much just me. I'm a free speech kind of guy. It bothers me that the US response was to lock a guy up, because he said something stupid and unpopular, and having our current Secretary of State brag on it around the world.
|
|
|
|
