Anti Gun proponents should take note on some of the recent terror attacks and mass murders. It doesn't take a gun to commit these horrific crimes. As the old saying goes, "where there is a will, there is a way!" The firearm is just a tool, not the cause. Taking away the tool does not solve the problem, another tool will be found! The so-called "assault rifle" and high capacity handgun magazines have been blamed for causing all the problems, so the anti gun lobby is adamant that removal of these "bad" things will solve all problems. Actually, the anti gun proponents would like to see all guns banned, outlawed in America. They are sure that banning or outlawing guns would stop violence, no more murders, etc. They always point to European countries and Japan as an example where strict gun laws supposedly keep crime rate low.
This hysteria directed against firearms actually started in modern times, with the assassination of Robert Kenney and Martin Luther King in 1968. The result of the anti gun uproar over these assassinations was the Gun Control Act of 1968. This act put many restrictions on gun purchases and gun importations. The irony of it all was that Bobby Kennedy was murdered with a .22 handgun, a revolver that did not have a high capacity magazine and a gun that was built not for killing anyone but for target shooting or "plinking" as informal target shooting is called. In short, it was a very common and perfectly legal handgun. Martin Luther King was killed with a normal hunting rifle, not an "assault rifle" or any other high capacity weapon! It was a very common rifle used for deer hunting! Earlier, in 1963, John F. Kennedy was killed with an inexpensive, surplus Italian military rifle (Carcano) purchased through mail order system. Therefore, the 1968 Gun Control Act made mail order purchase of firearms illegal. By the way, the Carcano is not an "assault rifle," it is a bolt action that is slow for repeat shots!
Now we come to some of the worst mass murders and terror attacks in modern times. The two worst terror acts in the history of the United States took place in 1995, 2001. In 1995, the Oklahoma City Bombing killed 168 and injured 680 people, mostly children. The bomb was made of fertilizer bags, no firearms were involved whatsoever! Everyone knows of the 9/11 and the horrific acts of the destruction of twin towers in New York and the crashing of aircrafts in Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. That was the worst terror attack in the history of the United States, more lives were lost in total than in the infamous Pearl Harbor attack by Japan that set off World War Two for America. But guess what? Not a single firearm was used in the 9/11 attack, no "assault rifles," no "high capacity" magazine handguns. Yet the first thing that happened after those two incidents was call for more gun control by the gun control proponents!
The month of July this year has been, thus far, a terrible month for France. There have been multiple terror attacks and many lives were lost. On Bastille Day, July 18, an ISIS sympathizer, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel drove a large truck through a crowd for several blocks, killing 84 innocent Bastille Day celebrants and injuring twice as many. Although he was armed, he did all the killing with the truck, not with firearms! A couple of days ago, in Sagamihara, Japan, Satoshi Uematsu, former healthcare worker, killed 19 and injured 26 disabled patients at a care center. His weapon? A kitchen knife! But the month of July wasn't finished yet, just yesterday in Paris, another ISIL sympathizer slashed the throat of a priest and injured two other hostages before he and his cohorts where killed. Once again, the weapon was a knife, not a firearm!
If we are to follow the reasoning of anti gun advocates who preach that guns are "bad," then by their reasoning motor vehicles are "bad" and knives are "bad," therefore, both motor vehicles and knives should be banned and outlawed! Actually if you were to take a census you would find that more people in America are killed as a result of motor vehicle (cars, trucks, and motorcycles)accidents than by firearms! World-wide, more people are killed through out the world with knives than with any other weapon. So, using the anti gun advocates reasoning, perhaps we should ban all motor vehicles and knives. Don't know exactly how we will handle kitchen chores without knives, but we will have to manage and use bicycles and horses for transportation. Actually, not a bad idea! By the way, in rural Africa, more people are killed yearly by Hippos and Crocodiles than motor vehicles or firearms. Perhaps Hippos and Crocs should be outlawed and eradicated!
I hope you see what I am getting at, I am not trying to make light or fun of the subject of people losing lives. But what I am saying is that the issue of gun control in America has become so politicized that in many instances, arguments for or against make no sense what so ever. Emotions seem to carry the day and our politicians simply respond to what they feel will get them the most votes!
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Future U.S. Policy: Take Action or Wait and See?
Now that both presidential candidates have selected their running mates, the stage is set for the national election in November. Whether it is one or the other party that will occupy the White House, it will obviously have a definite bearing on our foreign policy starting in 2017. Will it be the same "wait and see" policy that Obama has instituted for the past 8 years? Most pundits agree that if Hillary wins the election, it will be business as usual, since Obama's policies are what Hillary is used to. Keep in mind that even her husband Bill had a somewhat similar policy, although his foreign policy was not quite so "inactive" as Obama's. On the other hand, Trump is an unknown when it comes to foreign policy. Despite all his talk, we have not yet really seen his thoughts and ideas put into action, at least not on the world scene!
Having worked for Uncle Sam through four U.S. Presidents, I have seen a definite change from one to another as our foreign policies shifted according to who was in the office. During Jimmy Carter's administration, there was a lot of confusion, indecisiveness when it came to dealing with other countries. Everything, however, was overshadowed by the fact that Jimmy brokered the Camp David Accords and established peace between Egypt and Israel. All of the other mishaps and bad decisions were overlooked because of this one accomplishment, the worst of which was the Iran Hostage Crisis.
When Reagan came into office, it was quite apparent that our policies shifted and it was "America First" attitude literally blaring from the White House. Reagan's strong handed approach helped accomplish many things, including reestablishing America's preeminence in the world. Although it happened after he left office, and there were many factors involved in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union that followed, Reagan's no nonsense policies and strong America that he established did contribute to it! Reagan was much criticized for his "killing an ant with a sledge hammer" approach in Grenada, but he sent a very clear message to the world. U.S. will not tolerate someone playing funny games that may endanger American lives!
George H. W. Bush essentially resumed what Reagan had started and maintained. When Noriega started terrorizing Americans with street gangs (who were actually members of his National Guard) and arbitrarily jailed some Americans, Bush launched the Operation Just Cause. Again, the liberal press accused Bush of doing the same thing that Reagan had done in Grenada, "kill an ant with a sledge hammer." He was accused of unnecessarily flexing America's muscles against a small, weak, opponent. I suppose the liberal press felt that we should have "negotiated" with Noriega to stop bullying Americans in Panama. By the same token, the liberal press felt that Reagan could have "negotiated" with Cubans to stop endangering the lives of American students in Grenada and stop the take over of the island nation, which incidentally, requested our intervention! Then, of course, there was the first Gulf War, the Operation Desert Storm which was launched when Saddam Hussein got out of hand and invaded Kuwait. Again, Kuwait requested our assistance, and Bush formed a coalition and the rest is history. Of course, once again the liberal news media accused him of overreacting to something that could have been settled with "negotiations." He was even accused of having a personal vendetta against Saddam!
In 1992, in Bush's final year in the office, trouble erupted in Somalia. Things have been going from bad to worse for quite a while with the country being overrun by warlords. Famine was epidemic because for one thing, all of UN's food assistance was being hijacked by the warlord's armies for their use as well as for sale while the population starved. Once again Bush formed a UN coalition of forces, spearheaded by a reinforced regiment of 1,800 US Marines that landed in Mogadishu. The Marines seized control of the area, chased out the warlord's army and established peace. Food and medicine was brought in and distributed without any problems! The Marines should have stayed longer, but the outcry from our liberal press about "military occupation," etc., forced the withdrawal of the Marines after a while.
In 1993, when Clinton came into the White House, Somalia fell into chaos as before the Marines had been sent by Bush. Clinton, under advisement of his "experts," decided to keep the involvement in Somalia very small and somewhat surreptitious. He sent a contingent of Army Rangers, B Company of the 3rd Battalion of 75th Ranger Regiment, about 200 men in support of a very small unit of Army's Delta Force, Squadron C, less than a dozen men, to kidnap, arrest, and generally disrupt the activities of Somali warlords. There were also a small contingent of Navy SEALs and other Army and Air Force units. But it was not a large military force by any means! Then, rather than depending on a larger force of US military to back the Rangers and the Delta Force, he was advised to rely on UN forces to do the job! Well, we know what happened when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down! Luckily the Delta Operator and the small contingent of Rangers were able to extricate themselves from the area without UN help, which never came! What did Clinton do after that? He withdrew all US forces from Somalia, which fell into total chaos! We are still paying for having abandoned Somalia back in 1993, it has turned into a haven for terrorists and the birthplace of pirates that hijack ships!
George W. Bush may not have been the most popular president, nor the best that we have had, but he did not destroy our standing in the world. He did not give up our preeminent position as the world leader. He may have made some bad decisions (all Presidents have!) but he took a firm stand when it came to America and what he believed was its well being. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pay back to Al Qaida for the 9/11 bombing. The Second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been ill conceived and motivated by poor and inaccurate intelligence, but nevertheless, it was a message that was loud and clear - "step over the line and we will take action!"
Now we come to our current Obama's policies of "inaction," of "wait and see." The arbitrary pull out of our combat forces from Iraq has now brought about the Third Gulf War and the birth of ISIS/ISIL. Now we have to add more combat troops, at the same time, Iraq has now fallen under the sphere of Iranian control (with our help!). The reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has also brought that situation into a stalemate. Our complete inaction, even after the famous Obama threat for Syria not to cross the "red line" has brought about the current mess. The situation in Libya is also caused by our inaction. Rather than helping anti Gaddafi forces when the revolt took place, we sat by idly with a "wait and see" approach. Our lack a participation and support allowed for radical element to gain a strong support base, which ultimately led to the disaster in Benghazi. Of course we never did anything about that either. So, you can count on whatever happens in the intervening period before the new administration steps-in, our "wait and see" policy approach will continue.
What will happen next year, after the elections? If the Clintons move back into the White House, you can count on more or less the same "wait and see" policy to continue. If Trump wins the election, it is anybody's guess as to what kind of foreign policy he will practice. Whatever happens this election year, America and Americans are in for some ride!
Having worked for Uncle Sam through four U.S. Presidents, I have seen a definite change from one to another as our foreign policies shifted according to who was in the office. During Jimmy Carter's administration, there was a lot of confusion, indecisiveness when it came to dealing with other countries. Everything, however, was overshadowed by the fact that Jimmy brokered the Camp David Accords and established peace between Egypt and Israel. All of the other mishaps and bad decisions were overlooked because of this one accomplishment, the worst of which was the Iran Hostage Crisis.
When Reagan came into office, it was quite apparent that our policies shifted and it was "America First" attitude literally blaring from the White House. Reagan's strong handed approach helped accomplish many things, including reestablishing America's preeminence in the world. Although it happened after he left office, and there were many factors involved in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union that followed, Reagan's no nonsense policies and strong America that he established did contribute to it! Reagan was much criticized for his "killing an ant with a sledge hammer" approach in Grenada, but he sent a very clear message to the world. U.S. will not tolerate someone playing funny games that may endanger American lives!
George H. W. Bush essentially resumed what Reagan had started and maintained. When Noriega started terrorizing Americans with street gangs (who were actually members of his National Guard) and arbitrarily jailed some Americans, Bush launched the Operation Just Cause. Again, the liberal press accused Bush of doing the same thing that Reagan had done in Grenada, "kill an ant with a sledge hammer." He was accused of unnecessarily flexing America's muscles against a small, weak, opponent. I suppose the liberal press felt that we should have "negotiated" with Noriega to stop bullying Americans in Panama. By the same token, the liberal press felt that Reagan could have "negotiated" with Cubans to stop endangering the lives of American students in Grenada and stop the take over of the island nation, which incidentally, requested our intervention! Then, of course, there was the first Gulf War, the Operation Desert Storm which was launched when Saddam Hussein got out of hand and invaded Kuwait. Again, Kuwait requested our assistance, and Bush formed a coalition and the rest is history. Of course, once again the liberal news media accused him of overreacting to something that could have been settled with "negotiations." He was even accused of having a personal vendetta against Saddam!
In 1992, in Bush's final year in the office, trouble erupted in Somalia. Things have been going from bad to worse for quite a while with the country being overrun by warlords. Famine was epidemic because for one thing, all of UN's food assistance was being hijacked by the warlord's armies for their use as well as for sale while the population starved. Once again Bush formed a UN coalition of forces, spearheaded by a reinforced regiment of 1,800 US Marines that landed in Mogadishu. The Marines seized control of the area, chased out the warlord's army and established peace. Food and medicine was brought in and distributed without any problems! The Marines should have stayed longer, but the outcry from our liberal press about "military occupation," etc., forced the withdrawal of the Marines after a while.
In 1993, when Clinton came into the White House, Somalia fell into chaos as before the Marines had been sent by Bush. Clinton, under advisement of his "experts," decided to keep the involvement in Somalia very small and somewhat surreptitious. He sent a contingent of Army Rangers, B Company of the 3rd Battalion of 75th Ranger Regiment, about 200 men in support of a very small unit of Army's Delta Force, Squadron C, less than a dozen men, to kidnap, arrest, and generally disrupt the activities of Somali warlords. There were also a small contingent of Navy SEALs and other Army and Air Force units. But it was not a large military force by any means! Then, rather than depending on a larger force of US military to back the Rangers and the Delta Force, he was advised to rely on UN forces to do the job! Well, we know what happened when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down! Luckily the Delta Operator and the small contingent of Rangers were able to extricate themselves from the area without UN help, which never came! What did Clinton do after that? He withdrew all US forces from Somalia, which fell into total chaos! We are still paying for having abandoned Somalia back in 1993, it has turned into a haven for terrorists and the birthplace of pirates that hijack ships!
George W. Bush may not have been the most popular president, nor the best that we have had, but he did not destroy our standing in the world. He did not give up our preeminent position as the world leader. He may have made some bad decisions (all Presidents have!) but he took a firm stand when it came to America and what he believed was its well being. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pay back to Al Qaida for the 9/11 bombing. The Second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been ill conceived and motivated by poor and inaccurate intelligence, but nevertheless, it was a message that was loud and clear - "step over the line and we will take action!"
Now we come to our current Obama's policies of "inaction," of "wait and see." The arbitrary pull out of our combat forces from Iraq has now brought about the Third Gulf War and the birth of ISIS/ISIL. Now we have to add more combat troops, at the same time, Iraq has now fallen under the sphere of Iranian control (with our help!). The reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has also brought that situation into a stalemate. Our complete inaction, even after the famous Obama threat for Syria not to cross the "red line" has brought about the current mess. The situation in Libya is also caused by our inaction. Rather than helping anti Gaddafi forces when the revolt took place, we sat by idly with a "wait and see" approach. Our lack a participation and support allowed for radical element to gain a strong support base, which ultimately led to the disaster in Benghazi. Of course we never did anything about that either. So, you can count on whatever happens in the intervening period before the new administration steps-in, our "wait and see" policy approach will continue.
What will happen next year, after the elections? If the Clintons move back into the White House, you can count on more or less the same "wait and see" policy to continue. If Trump wins the election, it is anybody's guess as to what kind of foreign policy he will practice. Whatever happens this election year, America and Americans are in for some ride!
Future U.S. Policy: Take Action or Wait and See?
Now that both presidential candidates have selected their running mates, the stage is set for the national election in November. Whether it is one or the other party that will occupy the White House, it will obviously have a definite bearing on our foreign policy starting in 2017. Will it be the same "wait and see" policy that Obama has instituted for the past 8 years? Most pundits agree that if Hillary wins the election, it will be business as usual, since Obama's policies are what Hillary is used to. Keep in mind that even her husband Bill had a somewhat similar policy, although his foreign policy was not quite so "inactive" as Obama's. On the other hand, Trump is an unknown when it comes to foreign policy. Despite all his talk, we have not yet really seen his thoughts and ideas put into action, at least not on the world scene!
Having worked for Uncle Sam through four U.S. Presidents, I have seen a definite change from one to another as our foreign policies shifted according to who was in the office. During Jimmy Carter's administration, there was a lot of confusion, indecisiveness when it came to dealing with other countries. Everything, however, was overshadowed by the fact that Jimmy brokered the Camp David Accords and established peace between Egypt and Israel. All of the other mishaps and bad decisions were overlooked because of this one accomplishment, the worst of which was the Iran Hostage Crisis.
When Reagan came into office, it was quite apparent that our policies shifted and it was "America First" attitude literally blaring from the White House. Reagan's strong handed approach helped accomplish many things, including reestablishing America's preeminence in the world. Although it happened after he left office, and there were many factors involved in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union that followed, Reagan's no nonsense policies and strong America that he established did contribute to it! Reagan was much criticized for his "killing an ant with a sledge hammer" approach in Grenada, but he sent a very clear message to the world. U.S. will not tolerate someone playing funny games that may endanger American lives!
George H. W. Bush essentially resumed what Reagan had started and maintained. When Noriega started terrorizing Americans with street gangs (who were actually members of his National Guard) and arbitrarily jailed some Americans, Bush launched the Operation Just Cause. Again, the liberal press accused Bush of doing the same thing that Reagan had done in Grenada, "kill an ant with a sledge hammer." He was accused of unnecessarily flexing America's muscles against a small, weak, opponent. I suppose the liberal press felt that we should have "negotiated" with Noriega to stop bullying Americans in Panama. By the same token, the liberal press felt that Reagan could have "negotiated" with Cubans to stop endangering the lives of American students in Grenada and stop the take over of the island nation, which incidentally, requested our intervention! Then, of course, there was the first Gulf War, the Operation Desert Storm which was launched when Saddam Hussein got out of hand and invaded Kuwait. Again, Kuwait requested our assistance, and Bush formed a coalition and the rest is history. Of course, once again the liberal news media accused him of overreacting to something that could have been settled with "negotiations." He was even accused of having a personal vendetta against Saddam!
In 1992, in Bush's final year in the office, trouble erupted in Somalia. Things have been going from bad to worse for quite a while with the country being overrun by warlords. Famine was epidemic because for one thing, all of UN's food assistance was being hijacked by the warlord's armies for their use as well as for sale while the population starved. Once again Bush formed a UN coalition of forces, spearheaded by a reinforced regiment of 1,800 US Marines that landed in Mogadishu. The Marines seized control of the area, chased out the warlord's army and established peace. Food and medicine was brought in and distributed without any problems! The Marines should have stayed longer, but the outcry from our liberal press about "military occupation," etc., forced the withdrawal of the Marines after a while.
In 1993, when Clinton came into the White House, Somalia fell into chaos as before the Marines had been sent by Bush. Clinton, under advisement of his "experts," decided to keep the involvement in Somalia very small and somewhat surreptitious. He sent a contingent of Army Rangers, B Company of the 3rd Battalion of 75th Ranger Regiment, about 200 men in support of a very small unit of Army's Delta Force, Squadron C, less than a dozen men, to kidnap, arrest, and generally disrupt the activities of Somali warlords. There were also a small contingent of Navy SEALs and other Army and Air Force units. But it was not a large military force by any means! Then, rather than depending on a larger force of US military to back the Rangers and the Delta Force, he was advised to rely on UN forces to do the job! Well, we know what happened when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down! Luckily the Delta Operator and the small contingent of Rangers were able to extricate themselves from the area without UN help, which never came! What did Clinton do after that? He withdrew all US forces from Somalia, which fell into total chaos! We are still paying for having abandoned Somalia back in 1993, it has turned into a haven for terrorists and the birthplace of pirates that hijack ships!
George W. Bush may not have been the most popular president, nor the best that we have had, but he did not destroy our standing in the world. He did not give up our preeminent position as the world leader. He may have made some bad decisions (all Presidents have!) but he took a firm stand when it came to America and what he believed was its well being. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pay back to Al Qaida for the 9/11 bombing. The Second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been ill conceived and motivated by poor and inaccurate intelligence, but nevertheless, it was a message that was loud and clear - "step over the line and we will take action!"
Now we come to our current Obama's policies of "inaction," of "wait and see." The arbitrary pull out of our combat forces from Iraq has now brought about the Third Gulf War and the birth of ISIS/ISIL. Now we have to add more combat troops, at the same time, Iraq has now fallen under the sphere of Iranian control (with our help!). The reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has also brought that situation into a stalemate. Our complete inaction, even after the famous Obama threat for Syria not to cross the "red line" has brought about the current mess. The situation in Libya is also caused by our inaction. Rather than helping anti Gaddafi forces when the revolt took place, we sat by idly with a "wait and see" approach. Our lack a participation and support allowed for radical element to gain a strong support base, which ultimately led to the disaster in Benghazi. Of course we never did anything about that either. So, you can count on whatever happens in the intervening period before the new administration steps-in, our "wait and see" policy approach will continue.
What will happen next year, after the elections? If the Clintons move back into the White House, you can count on more or less the same "wait and see" policy to continue. If Trump wins the election, it is anybody's guess as to what kind of foreign policy he will practice. Whatever happens this election year, America and Americans are in for some ride!
Having worked for Uncle Sam through four U.S. Presidents, I have seen a definite change from one to another as our foreign policies shifted according to who was in the office. During Jimmy Carter's administration, there was a lot of confusion, indecisiveness when it came to dealing with other countries. Everything, however, was overshadowed by the fact that Jimmy brokered the Camp David Accords and established peace between Egypt and Israel. All of the other mishaps and bad decisions were overlooked because of this one accomplishment, the worst of which was the Iran Hostage Crisis.
When Reagan came into office, it was quite apparent that our policies shifted and it was "America First" attitude literally blaring from the White House. Reagan's strong handed approach helped accomplish many things, including reestablishing America's preeminence in the world. Although it happened after he left office, and there were many factors involved in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union that followed, Reagan's no nonsense policies and strong America that he established did contribute to it! Reagan was much criticized for his "killing an ant with a sledge hammer" approach in Grenada, but he sent a very clear message to the world. U.S. will not tolerate someone playing funny games that may endanger American lives!
George H. W. Bush essentially resumed what Reagan had started and maintained. When Noriega started terrorizing Americans with street gangs (who were actually members of his National Guard) and arbitrarily jailed some Americans, Bush launched the Operation Just Cause. Again, the liberal press accused Bush of doing the same thing that Reagan had done in Grenada, "kill an ant with a sledge hammer." He was accused of unnecessarily flexing America's muscles against a small, weak, opponent. I suppose the liberal press felt that we should have "negotiated" with Noriega to stop bullying Americans in Panama. By the same token, the liberal press felt that Reagan could have "negotiated" with Cubans to stop endangering the lives of American students in Grenada and stop the take over of the island nation, which incidentally, requested our intervention! Then, of course, there was the first Gulf War, the Operation Desert Storm which was launched when Saddam Hussein got out of hand and invaded Kuwait. Again, Kuwait requested our assistance, and Bush formed a coalition and the rest is history. Of course, once again the liberal news media accused him of overreacting to something that could have been settled with "negotiations." He was even accused of having a personal vendetta against Saddam!
In 1992, in Bush's final year in the office, trouble erupted in Somalia. Things have been going from bad to worse for quite a while with the country being overrun by warlords. Famine was epidemic because for one thing, all of UN's food assistance was being hijacked by the warlord's armies for their use as well as for sale while the population starved. Once again Bush formed a UN coalition of forces, spearheaded by a reinforced regiment of 1,800 US Marines that landed in Mogadishu. The Marines seized control of the area, chased out the warlord's army and established peace. Food and medicine was brought in and distributed without any problems! The Marines should have stayed longer, but the outcry from our liberal press about "military occupation," etc., forced the withdrawal of the Marines after a while.
In 1993, when Clinton came into the White House, Somalia fell into chaos as before the Marines had been sent by Bush. Clinton, under advisement of his "experts," decided to keep the involvement in Somalia very small and somewhat surreptitious. He sent a contingent of Army Rangers, B Company of the 3rd Battalion of 75th Ranger Regiment, about 200 men in support of a very small unit of Army's Delta Force, Squadron C, less than a dozen men, to kidnap, arrest, and generally disrupt the activities of Somali warlords. There were also a small contingent of Navy SEALs and other Army and Air Force units. But it was not a large military force by any means! Then, rather than depending on a larger force of US military to back the Rangers and the Delta Force, he was advised to rely on UN forces to do the job! Well, we know what happened when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down! Luckily the Delta Operator and the small contingent of Rangers were able to extricate themselves from the area without UN help, which never came! What did Clinton do after that? He withdrew all US forces from Somalia, which fell into total chaos! We are still paying for having abandoned Somalia back in 1993, it has turned into a haven for terrorists and the birthplace of pirates that hijack ships!
George W. Bush may not have been the most popular president, nor the best that we have had, but he did not destroy our standing in the world. He did not give up our preeminent position as the world leader. He may have made some bad decisions (all Presidents have!) but he took a firm stand when it came to America and what he believed was its well being. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pay back to Al Qaida for the 9/11 bombing. The Second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been ill conceived and motivated by poor and inaccurate intelligence, but nevertheless, it was a message that was loud and clear - "step over the line and we will take action!"
Now we come to our current Obama's policies of "inaction," of "wait and see." The arbitrary pull out of our combat forces from Iraq has now brought about the Third Gulf War and the birth of ISIS/ISIL. Now we have to add more combat troops, at the same time, Iraq has now fallen under the sphere of Iranian control (with our help!). The reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has also brought that situation into a stalemate. Our complete inaction, even after the famous Obama threat for Syria not to cross the "red line" has brought about the current mess. The situation in Libya is also caused by our inaction. Rather than helping anti Gaddafi forces when the revolt took place, we sat by idly with a "wait and see" approach. Our lack a participation and support allowed for radical element to gain a strong support base, which ultimately led to the disaster in Benghazi. Of course we never did anything about that either. So, you can count on whatever happens in the intervening period before the new administration steps-in, our "wait and see" policy approach will continue.
What will happen next year, after the elections? If the Clintons move back into the White House, you can count on more or less the same "wait and see" policy to continue. If Trump wins the election, it is anybody's guess as to what kind of foreign policy he will practice. Whatever happens this election year, America and Americans are in for some ride!
Future U.S. Policy: Take Action or Wait and See?
Now that both presidential candidates have selected their running mates, the stage is set for the national election in November. Whether it is one or the other party that will occupy the White House, it will obviously have a definite bearing on our foreign policy starting in 2017. Will it be the same "wait and see" policy that Obama has instituted for the past 8 years? Most pundits agree that if Hillary wins the election, it will be business as usual, since Obama's policies are what Hillary is used to. Keep in mind that even her husband Bill had a somewhat similar policy, although his foreign policy was not quite so "inactive" as Obama's. On the other hand, Trump is an unknown when it comes to foreign policy. Despite all his talk, we have not yet really seen his thoughts and ideas put into action, at least not on the world scene!
Having worked for Uncle Sam through four U.S. Presidents, I have seen a definite change from one to another as our foreign policies shifted according to who was in the office. During Jimmy Carter's administration, there was a lot of confusion, indecisiveness when it came to dealing with other countries. Everything, however, was overshadowed by the fact that Jimmy brokered the Camp David Accords and established peace between Egypt and Israel. All of the other mishaps and bad decisions were overlooked because of this one accomplishment, the worst of which was the Iran Hostage Crisis.
When Reagan came into office, it was quite apparent that our policies shifted and it was "America First" attitude literally blaring from the White House. Reagan's strong handed approach helped accomplish many things, including reestablishing America's preeminence in the world. Although it happened after he left office, and there were many factors involved in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union that followed, Reagan's no nonsense policies and strong America that he established did contribute to it! Reagan was much criticized for his "killing an ant with a sledge hammer" approach in Grenada, but he sent a very clear message to the world. U.S. will not tolerate someone playing funny games that may endanger American lives!
George H. W. Bush essentially resumed what Reagan had started and maintained. When Noriega started terrorizing Americans with street gangs (who were actually members of his National Guard) and arbitrarily jailed some Americans, Bush launched the Operation Just Cause. Again, the liberal press accused Bush of doing the same thing that Reagan had done in Grenada, "kill an ant with a sledge hammer." He was accused of unnecessarily flexing America's muscles against a small, weak, opponent. I suppose the liberal press felt that we should have "negotiated" with Noriega to stop bullying Americans in Panama. By the same token, the liberal press felt that Reagan could have "negotiated" with Cubans to stop endangering the lives of American students in Grenada and stop the take over of the island nation, which incidentally, requested our intervention! Then, of course, there was the first Gulf War, the Operation Desert Storm which was launched when Saddam Hussein got out of hand and invaded Kuwait. Again, Kuwait requested our assistance, and Bush formed a coalition and the rest is history. Of course, once again the liberal news media accused him of overreacting to something that could have been settled with "negotiations." He was even accused of having a personal vendetta against Saddam!
In 1992, in Bush's final year in the office, trouble erupted in Somalia. Things have been going from bad to worse for quite a while with the country being overrun by warlords. Famine was epidemic because for one thing, all of UN's food assistance was being hijacked by the warlord's armies for their use as well as for sale while the population starved. Once again Bush formed a UN coalition of forces, spearheaded by a reinforced regiment of 1,800 US Marines that landed in Mogadishu. The Marines seized control of the area, chased out the warlord's army and established peace. Food and medicine was brought in and distributed without any problems! The Marines should have stayed longer, but the outcry from our liberal press about "military occupation," etc., forced the withdrawal of the Marines after a while.
In 1993, when Clinton came into the White House, Somalia fell into chaos as before the Marines had been sent by Bush. Clinton, under advisement of his "experts," decided to keep the involvement in Somalia very small and somewhat surreptitious. He sent a contingent of Army Rangers, B Company of the 3rd Battalion of 75th Ranger Regiment, about 200 men in support of a very small unit of Army's Delta Force, Squadron C, less than a dozen men, to kidnap, arrest, and generally disrupt the activities of Somali warlords. There were also a small contingent of Navy SEALs and other Army and Air Force units. But it was not a large military force by any means! Then, rather than depending on a larger force of US military to back the Rangers and the Delta Force, he was advised to rely on UN forces to do the job! Well, we know what happened when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down! Luckily the Delta Operator and the small contingent of Rangers were able to extricate themselves from the area without UN help, which never came! What did Clinton do after that? He withdrew all US forces from Somalia, which fell into total chaos! We are still paying for having abandoned Somalia back in 1993, it has turned into a haven for terrorists and the birthplace of pirates that hijack ships!
George W. Bush may not have been the most popular president, nor the best that we have had, but he did not destroy our standing in the world. He did not give up our preeminent position as the world leader. He may have made some bad decisions (all Presidents have!) but he took a firm stand when it came to America and what he believed was its well being. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pay back to Al Qaida for the 9/11 bombing. The Second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been ill conceived and motivated by poor and inaccurate intelligence, but nevertheless, it was a message that was loud and clear - "step over the line and we will take action!"
Now we come to our current Obama's policies of "inaction," of "wait and see." The arbitrary pull out of our combat forces from Iraq has now brought about the Third Gulf War and the birth of ISIS/ISIL. Now we have to add more combat troops, at the same time, Iraq has now fallen under the sphere of Iranian control (with our help!). The reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has also brought that situation into a stalemate. Our complete inaction, even after the famous Obama threat for Syria not to cross the "red line" has brought about the current mess. The situation in Libya is also caused by our inaction. Rather than helping anti Gaddafi forces when the revolt took place, we sat by idly with a "wait and see" approach. Our lack a participation and support allowed for radical element to gain a strong support base, which ultimately led to the disaster in Benghazi. Of course we never did anything about that either. So, you can count on whatever happens in the intervening period before the new administration steps-in, our "wait and see" policy approach will continue.
What will happen next year, after the elections? If the Clintons move back into the White House, you can count on more or less the same "wait and see" policy to continue. If Trump wins the election, it is anybody's guess as to what kind of foreign policy he will practice. Whatever happens this election year, America and Americans are in for some ride!
Having worked for Uncle Sam through four U.S. Presidents, I have seen a definite change from one to another as our foreign policies shifted according to who was in the office. During Jimmy Carter's administration, there was a lot of confusion, indecisiveness when it came to dealing with other countries. Everything, however, was overshadowed by the fact that Jimmy brokered the Camp David Accords and established peace between Egypt and Israel. All of the other mishaps and bad decisions were overlooked because of this one accomplishment, the worst of which was the Iran Hostage Crisis.
When Reagan came into office, it was quite apparent that our policies shifted and it was "America First" attitude literally blaring from the White House. Reagan's strong handed approach helped accomplish many things, including reestablishing America's preeminence in the world. Although it happened after he left office, and there were many factors involved in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union that followed, Reagan's no nonsense policies and strong America that he established did contribute to it! Reagan was much criticized for his "killing an ant with a sledge hammer" approach in Grenada, but he sent a very clear message to the world. U.S. will not tolerate someone playing funny games that may endanger American lives!
George H. W. Bush essentially resumed what Reagan had started and maintained. When Noriega started terrorizing Americans with street gangs (who were actually members of his National Guard) and arbitrarily jailed some Americans, Bush launched the Operation Just Cause. Again, the liberal press accused Bush of doing the same thing that Reagan had done in Grenada, "kill an ant with a sledge hammer." He was accused of unnecessarily flexing America's muscles against a small, weak, opponent. I suppose the liberal press felt that we should have "negotiated" with Noriega to stop bullying Americans in Panama. By the same token, the liberal press felt that Reagan could have "negotiated" with Cubans to stop endangering the lives of American students in Grenada and stop the take over of the island nation, which incidentally, requested our intervention! Then, of course, there was the first Gulf War, the Operation Desert Storm which was launched when Saddam Hussein got out of hand and invaded Kuwait. Again, Kuwait requested our assistance, and Bush formed a coalition and the rest is history. Of course, once again the liberal news media accused him of overreacting to something that could have been settled with "negotiations." He was even accused of having a personal vendetta against Saddam!
In 1992, in Bush's final year in the office, trouble erupted in Somalia. Things have been going from bad to worse for quite a while with the country being overrun by warlords. Famine was epidemic because for one thing, all of UN's food assistance was being hijacked by the warlord's armies for their use as well as for sale while the population starved. Once again Bush formed a UN coalition of forces, spearheaded by a reinforced regiment of 1,800 US Marines that landed in Mogadishu. The Marines seized control of the area, chased out the warlord's army and established peace. Food and medicine was brought in and distributed without any problems! The Marines should have stayed longer, but the outcry from our liberal press about "military occupation," etc., forced the withdrawal of the Marines after a while.
In 1993, when Clinton came into the White House, Somalia fell into chaos as before the Marines had been sent by Bush. Clinton, under advisement of his "experts," decided to keep the involvement in Somalia very small and somewhat surreptitious. He sent a contingent of Army Rangers, B Company of the 3rd Battalion of 75th Ranger Regiment, about 200 men in support of a very small unit of Army's Delta Force, Squadron C, less than a dozen men, to kidnap, arrest, and generally disrupt the activities of Somali warlords. There were also a small contingent of Navy SEALs and other Army and Air Force units. But it was not a large military force by any means! Then, rather than depending on a larger force of US military to back the Rangers and the Delta Force, he was advised to rely on UN forces to do the job! Well, we know what happened when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down! Luckily the Delta Operator and the small contingent of Rangers were able to extricate themselves from the area without UN help, which never came! What did Clinton do after that? He withdrew all US forces from Somalia, which fell into total chaos! We are still paying for having abandoned Somalia back in 1993, it has turned into a haven for terrorists and the birthplace of pirates that hijack ships!
George W. Bush may not have been the most popular president, nor the best that we have had, but he did not destroy our standing in the world. He did not give up our preeminent position as the world leader. He may have made some bad decisions (all Presidents have!) but he took a firm stand when it came to America and what he believed was its well being. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pay back to Al Qaida for the 9/11 bombing. The Second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been ill conceived and motivated by poor and inaccurate intelligence, but nevertheless, it was a message that was loud and clear - "step over the line and we will take action!"
Now we come to our current Obama's policies of "inaction," of "wait and see." The arbitrary pull out of our combat forces from Iraq has now brought about the Third Gulf War and the birth of ISIS/ISIL. Now we have to add more combat troops, at the same time, Iraq has now fallen under the sphere of Iranian control (with our help!). The reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has also brought that situation into a stalemate. Our complete inaction, even after the famous Obama threat for Syria not to cross the "red line" has brought about the current mess. The situation in Libya is also caused by our inaction. Rather than helping anti Gaddafi forces when the revolt took place, we sat by idly with a "wait and see" approach. Our lack a participation and support allowed for radical element to gain a strong support base, which ultimately led to the disaster in Benghazi. Of course we never did anything about that either. So, you can count on whatever happens in the intervening period before the new administration steps-in, our "wait and see" policy approach will continue.
What will happen next year, after the elections? If the Clintons move back into the White House, you can count on more or less the same "wait and see" policy to continue. If Trump wins the election, it is anybody's guess as to what kind of foreign policy he will practice. Whatever happens this election year, America and Americans are in for some ride!
Monday, July 18, 2016
Benghazi - REDUX
I know it is a tired old story. It has been, like the proverbial horse, beaten to death. But the sad thing is that the truth was never revealed, and probably will never be revealed because there were so many people at fault, starting with the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The blame has to be placed at her feet, because ultimately she was the one responsible for withholding orders or not responding to request from Benghazi.
The amazing thing is that the truth was always there, in the wide open. Yet, somehow, it always got shunted aside and spin doctors went to work not only justifying Clinton's inaction, but also covering up confusion and lack of leadership, ability to make critical decisions at a crucial time at highest levels of State, Defense, and CIA!
During Senate Hearings, various players at the highest level all testified and of course washed their hands of responsibility for not making the right decisions. Hillary Clinton's response of, "What difference does it make now?" is well known and much bandied about. But there were equally puzzling and confusing, if not callous responses from other individuals. Joint Chief Dempsey's responses were confusing and inaccurate. He didn't even seem to know where the Special Operations special unit for rapid reaction was located. He said it was in Bosnia when in fact it was in Croatia. He also said that it would have taken four hours to reach Benghazi for the special unit when a commercial airliner could have made the trip in two hours! There were series of "bad" answers from those involved in decision making. But part of the problem was that as I have stated many times, our congressional representatives in either houses seem to always ask the wrong questions. They too seem to be clueless!
The bottom line is that we did have the military capability to reach Benghazi and save the four Americans who perished. That much information is openly available! Yet, the news media that actually uncovered this information (FOX News) never stressed this part, never questioned why no "go" signal was given to the waiting rescue force in Croatia! Recently Hollywood made a movie about the Benghazi disaster and in the movie it is clearly shown that we had the capability to save Ambassador Stevens and the three security personnel, but failed to do so for lack of a decision from the top! The movie, 13 Hours: the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, is remarkably accurate in depicting what actually happened behind the scenes. Don't get me wrong, I am not promoting the movie! This information is available in the form of an email that was sent to all parties involved, beginning with the Secretary of State. The email had multiple addressees, from State to Defense and CIA. The problem was that no one acted, everyone just waited. What they waited for is not clear. But, we must remember that everyone was simply following the administration's lead on Foreign Policy, which was and is, "wait and see." That's how the whole mess in Syria began and how we once again have become embroiled in Iraq. It is Obama's famous "wait and see" Foreign Policy.
For a number of years we have maintained a special unit for just such situations as the one that took place in Benghazi. The unit is known as C-110 and it is made up of specially trained soldiers from C Company of the 1st Battalion of 10th Special Forces Group. They were at the time in Croatia, having just completed a training exercise when they received word to get ready for the real thing. As the email explains, they were "spinning," that means they were all ready to go, literally spinning before taking off! There was no preparation necessary, the troops were on the tarmac and the planes were ready to take off. All they needed was a go signal and they would have been off and in Benghazi well within the time to rescue the doomed four Americans.
So, all of that talk, all of the testimony that we did not have time or did not have the military capability at the time to reach Benghazi is a bunch of crock! It was simply the indecisiveness of the top echelon of our government, beginning with Hillary Clinton, who didn't even respond to the email in question! I blame all of our top leadership at the time, but most of all, our Secretary of State Clinton! To claim that she never received proper information about the situation is just an outright lie! But then, she is a habitual liar!
Usually, Hollywood takes liberties with truth and sometimes invents things in the name of art. So, perhaps those who saw the movie did not believe its content, the fact that we could have saved the people in Benghazi but didn't for lack of response from the top. But in this case, as rare as it may be, Hollywood did not exaggerate the circumstances and amazingly placed the blame where it belonged! But even for those skeptics who may still think that Hollywood just made up the whole thing, the original email is available for anyone to read on internet. It is not classified, and you don't need the Freedom of Information Act to have access to it.
It is truly a sad state of affairs when such poor leadership runs our country, and we are in the process of possibly seeing one of the biggest offenders of Benghazi tragedy become our next president! What a travesty!
The amazing thing is that the truth was always there, in the wide open. Yet, somehow, it always got shunted aside and spin doctors went to work not only justifying Clinton's inaction, but also covering up confusion and lack of leadership, ability to make critical decisions at a crucial time at highest levels of State, Defense, and CIA!
During Senate Hearings, various players at the highest level all testified and of course washed their hands of responsibility for not making the right decisions. Hillary Clinton's response of, "What difference does it make now?" is well known and much bandied about. But there were equally puzzling and confusing, if not callous responses from other individuals. Joint Chief Dempsey's responses were confusing and inaccurate. He didn't even seem to know where the Special Operations special unit for rapid reaction was located. He said it was in Bosnia when in fact it was in Croatia. He also said that it would have taken four hours to reach Benghazi for the special unit when a commercial airliner could have made the trip in two hours! There were series of "bad" answers from those involved in decision making. But part of the problem was that as I have stated many times, our congressional representatives in either houses seem to always ask the wrong questions. They too seem to be clueless!
The bottom line is that we did have the military capability to reach Benghazi and save the four Americans who perished. That much information is openly available! Yet, the news media that actually uncovered this information (FOX News) never stressed this part, never questioned why no "go" signal was given to the waiting rescue force in Croatia! Recently Hollywood made a movie about the Benghazi disaster and in the movie it is clearly shown that we had the capability to save Ambassador Stevens and the three security personnel, but failed to do so for lack of a decision from the top! The movie, 13 Hours: the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, is remarkably accurate in depicting what actually happened behind the scenes. Don't get me wrong, I am not promoting the movie! This information is available in the form of an email that was sent to all parties involved, beginning with the Secretary of State. The email had multiple addressees, from State to Defense and CIA. The problem was that no one acted, everyone just waited. What they waited for is not clear. But, we must remember that everyone was simply following the administration's lead on Foreign Policy, which was and is, "wait and see." That's how the whole mess in Syria began and how we once again have become embroiled in Iraq. It is Obama's famous "wait and see" Foreign Policy.
For a number of years we have maintained a special unit for just such situations as the one that took place in Benghazi. The unit is known as C-110 and it is made up of specially trained soldiers from C Company of the 1st Battalion of 10th Special Forces Group. They were at the time in Croatia, having just completed a training exercise when they received word to get ready for the real thing. As the email explains, they were "spinning," that means they were all ready to go, literally spinning before taking off! There was no preparation necessary, the troops were on the tarmac and the planes were ready to take off. All they needed was a go signal and they would have been off and in Benghazi well within the time to rescue the doomed four Americans.
So, all of that talk, all of the testimony that we did not have time or did not have the military capability at the time to reach Benghazi is a bunch of crock! It was simply the indecisiveness of the top echelon of our government, beginning with Hillary Clinton, who didn't even respond to the email in question! I blame all of our top leadership at the time, but most of all, our Secretary of State Clinton! To claim that she never received proper information about the situation is just an outright lie! But then, she is a habitual liar!
Usually, Hollywood takes liberties with truth and sometimes invents things in the name of art. So, perhaps those who saw the movie did not believe its content, the fact that we could have saved the people in Benghazi but didn't for lack of response from the top. But in this case, as rare as it may be, Hollywood did not exaggerate the circumstances and amazingly placed the blame where it belonged! But even for those skeptics who may still think that Hollywood just made up the whole thing, the original email is available for anyone to read on internet. It is not classified, and you don't need the Freedom of Information Act to have access to it.
It is truly a sad state of affairs when such poor leadership runs our country, and we are in the process of possibly seeing one of the biggest offenders of Benghazi tragedy become our next president! What a travesty!
Benghazi - REDUX
I know it is a tired old story. It has been, like the proverbial horse, beaten to death. But the sad thing is that the truth was never revealed, and probably will never be revealed because there were so many people at fault, starting with the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The blame has to be placed at her feet, because ultimately she was the one responsible for withholding orders or not responding to request from Benghazi.
The amazing thing is that the truth was always there, in the wide open. Yet, somehow, it always got shunted aside and spin doctors went to work not only justifying Clinton's inaction, but also covering up confusion and lack of leadership, ability to make critical decisions at a crucial time at highest levels of State, Defense, and CIA!
During Senate Hearings, various players at the highest level all testified and of course washed their hands of responsibility for not making the right decisions. Hillary Clinton's response of, "What difference does it make now?" is well known and much bandied about. But there were equally puzzling and confusing, if not callous responses from other individuals. Joint Chief Dempsey's responses were confusing and inaccurate. He didn't even seem to know where the Special Operations special unit for rapid reaction was located. He said it was in Bosnia when in fact it was in Croatia. He also said that it would have taken four hours to reach Benghazi for the special unit when a commercial airliner could have made the trip in two hours! There were series of "bad" answers from those involved in decision making. But part of the problem was that as I have stated many times, our congressional representatives in either houses seem to always ask the wrong questions. They too seem to be clueless!
The bottom line is that we did have the military capability to reach Benghazi and save the four Americans who perished. That much information is openly available! Yet, the news media that actually uncovered this information (FOX News) never stressed this part, never questioned why no "go" signal was given to the waiting rescue force in Croatia! Recently Hollywood made a movie about the Benghazi disaster and in the movie it is clearly shown that we had the capability to save Ambassador Stevens and the three security personnel, but failed to do so for lack of a decision from the top! The movie, 13 Hours: the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, is remarkably accurate in depicting what actually happened behind the scenes. Don't get me wrong, I am not promoting the movie! This information is available in the form of an email that was sent to all parties involved, beginning with the Secretary of State. The email had multiple addressees, from State to Defense and CIA. The problem was that no one acted, everyone just waited. What they waited for is not clear. But, we must remember that everyone was simply following the administration's lead on Foreign Policy, which was and is, "wait and see." That's how the whole mess in Syria began and how we once again have become embroiled in Iraq. It is Obama's famous "wait and see" Foreign Policy.
For a number of years we have maintained a special unit for just such situations as the one that took place in Benghazi. The unit is known as C-110 and it is made up of specially trained soldiers from C Company of the 1st Battalion of 10th Special Forces Group. They were at the time in Croatia, having just completed a training exercise when they received word to get ready for the real thing. As the email explains, they were "spinning," that means they were all ready to go, literally spinning before taking off! There was no preparation necessary, the troops were on the tarmac and the planes were ready to take off. All they needed was a go signal and they would have been off and in Benghazi well within the time to rescue the doomed four Americans.
So, all of that talk, all of the testimony that we did not have time or did not have the military capability at the time to reach Benghazi is a bunch of crock! It was simply the indecisiveness of the top echelon of our government, beginning with Hillary Clinton, who didn't even respond to the email in question! I blame all of our top leadership at the time, but most of all, our Secretary of State Clinton! To claim that she never received proper information about the situation is just an outright lie! But then, she is a habitual liar!
Usually, Hollywood takes liberties with truth and sometimes invents things in the name of art. So, perhaps those who saw the movie did not believe its content, the fact that we could have saved the people in Benghazi but didn't for lack of response from the top. But in this case, as rare as it may be, Hollywood did not exaggerate the circumstances and amazingly placed the blame where it belonged! But even for those skeptics who may still think that Hollywood just made up the whole thing, the original email is available for anyone to read on internet. It is not classified, and you don't need the Freedom of Information Act to have access to it.
It is truly a sad state of affairs when such poor leadership runs our country, and we are in the process of possibly seeing one of the biggest offenders of Benghazi tragedy become our next president! What a travesty!
The amazing thing is that the truth was always there, in the wide open. Yet, somehow, it always got shunted aside and spin doctors went to work not only justifying Clinton's inaction, but also covering up confusion and lack of leadership, ability to make critical decisions at a crucial time at highest levels of State, Defense, and CIA!
During Senate Hearings, various players at the highest level all testified and of course washed their hands of responsibility for not making the right decisions. Hillary Clinton's response of, "What difference does it make now?" is well known and much bandied about. But there were equally puzzling and confusing, if not callous responses from other individuals. Joint Chief Dempsey's responses were confusing and inaccurate. He didn't even seem to know where the Special Operations special unit for rapid reaction was located. He said it was in Bosnia when in fact it was in Croatia. He also said that it would have taken four hours to reach Benghazi for the special unit when a commercial airliner could have made the trip in two hours! There were series of "bad" answers from those involved in decision making. But part of the problem was that as I have stated many times, our congressional representatives in either houses seem to always ask the wrong questions. They too seem to be clueless!
The bottom line is that we did have the military capability to reach Benghazi and save the four Americans who perished. That much information is openly available! Yet, the news media that actually uncovered this information (FOX News) never stressed this part, never questioned why no "go" signal was given to the waiting rescue force in Croatia! Recently Hollywood made a movie about the Benghazi disaster and in the movie it is clearly shown that we had the capability to save Ambassador Stevens and the three security personnel, but failed to do so for lack of a decision from the top! The movie, 13 Hours: the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, is remarkably accurate in depicting what actually happened behind the scenes. Don't get me wrong, I am not promoting the movie! This information is available in the form of an email that was sent to all parties involved, beginning with the Secretary of State. The email had multiple addressees, from State to Defense and CIA. The problem was that no one acted, everyone just waited. What they waited for is not clear. But, we must remember that everyone was simply following the administration's lead on Foreign Policy, which was and is, "wait and see." That's how the whole mess in Syria began and how we once again have become embroiled in Iraq. It is Obama's famous "wait and see" Foreign Policy.
For a number of years we have maintained a special unit for just such situations as the one that took place in Benghazi. The unit is known as C-110 and it is made up of specially trained soldiers from C Company of the 1st Battalion of 10th Special Forces Group. They were at the time in Croatia, having just completed a training exercise when they received word to get ready for the real thing. As the email explains, they were "spinning," that means they were all ready to go, literally spinning before taking off! There was no preparation necessary, the troops were on the tarmac and the planes were ready to take off. All they needed was a go signal and they would have been off and in Benghazi well within the time to rescue the doomed four Americans.
So, all of that talk, all of the testimony that we did not have time or did not have the military capability at the time to reach Benghazi is a bunch of crock! It was simply the indecisiveness of the top echelon of our government, beginning with Hillary Clinton, who didn't even respond to the email in question! I blame all of our top leadership at the time, but most of all, our Secretary of State Clinton! To claim that she never received proper information about the situation is just an outright lie! But then, she is a habitual liar!
Usually, Hollywood takes liberties with truth and sometimes invents things in the name of art. So, perhaps those who saw the movie did not believe its content, the fact that we could have saved the people in Benghazi but didn't for lack of response from the top. But in this case, as rare as it may be, Hollywood did not exaggerate the circumstances and amazingly placed the blame where it belonged! But even for those skeptics who may still think that Hollywood just made up the whole thing, the original email is available for anyone to read on internet. It is not classified, and you don't need the Freedom of Information Act to have access to it.
It is truly a sad state of affairs when such poor leadership runs our country, and we are in the process of possibly seeing one of the biggest offenders of Benghazi tragedy become our next president! What a travesty!
Benghazi - REDUX
I know it is a tired old story. It has been, like the proverbial horse, beaten to death. But the sad thing is that the truth was never revealed, and probably will never be revealed because there were so many people at fault, starting with the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The blame has to be placed at her feet, because ultimately she was the one responsible for withholding orders or not responding to request from Benghazi.
The amazing thing is that the truth was always there, in the wide open. Yet, somehow, it always got shunted aside and spin doctors went to work not only justifying Clinton's inaction, but also covering up confusion and lack of leadership, ability to make critical decisions at a crucial time at highest levels of State, Defense, and CIA!
During Senate Hearings, various players at the highest level all testified and of course washed their hands of responsibility for not making the right decisions. Hillary Clinton's response of, "What difference does it make now?" is well known and much bandied about. But there were equally puzzling and confusing, if not callous responses from other individuals. Joint Chief Dempsey's responses were confusing and inaccurate. He didn't even seem to know where the Special Operations special unit for rapid reaction was located. He said it was in Bosnia when in fact it was in Croatia. He also said that it would have taken four hours to reach Benghazi for the special unit when a commercial airliner could have made the trip in two hours! There were series of "bad" answers from those involved in decision making. But part of the problem was that as I have stated many times, our congressional representatives in either houses seem to always ask the wrong questions. They too seem to be clueless!
The bottom line is that we did have the military capability to reach Benghazi and save the four Americans who perished. That much information is openly available! Yet, the news media that actually uncovered this information (FOX News) never stressed this part, never questioned why no "go" signal was given to the waiting rescue force in Croatia! Recently Hollywood made a movie about the Benghazi disaster and in the movie it is clearly shown that we had the capability to save Ambassador Stevens and the three security personnel, but failed to do so for lack of a decision from the top! The movie, 13 Hours: the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, is remarkably accurate in depicting what actually happened behind the scenes. Don't get me wrong, I am not promoting the movie! This information is available in the form of an email that was sent to all parties involved, beginning with the Secretary of State. The email had multiple addressees, from State to Defense and CIA. The problem was that no one acted, everyone just waited. What they waited for is not clear. But, we must remember that everyone was simply following the administration's lead on Foreign Policy, which was and is, "wait and see." That's how the whole mess in Syria began and how we once again have become embroiled in Iraq. It is Obama's famous "wait and see" Foreign Policy.
For a number of years we have maintained a special unit for just such situations as the one that took place in Benghazi. The unit is known as C-110 and it is made up of specially trained soldiers from C Company of the 1st Battalion of 10th Special Forces Group. They were at the time in Croatia, having just completed a training exercise when they received word to get ready for the real thing. As the email explains, they were "spinning," that means they were all ready to go, literally spinning before taking off! There was no preparation necessary, the troops were on the tarmac and the planes were ready to take off. All they needed was a go signal and they would have been off and in Benghazi well within the time to rescue the doomed four Americans.
So, all of that talk, all of the testimony that we did not have time or did not have the military capability at the time to reach Benghazi is a bunch of crock! It was simply the indecisiveness of the top echelon of our government, beginning with Hillary Clinton, who didn't even respond to the email in question! I blame all of our top leadership at the time, but most of all, our Secretary of State Clinton! To claim that she never received proper information about the situation is just an outright lie! But then, she is a habitual liar!
Usually, Hollywood takes liberties with truth and sometimes invents things in the name of art. So, perhaps those who saw the movie did not believe its content, the fact that we could have saved the people in Benghazi but didn't for lack of response from the top. But in this case, as rare as it may be, Hollywood did not exaggerate the circumstances and amazingly placed the blame where it belonged! But even for those skeptics who may still think that Hollywood just made up the whole thing, the original email is available for anyone to read on internet. It is not classified, and you don't need the Freedom of Information Act to have access to it.
It is truly a sad state of affairs when such poor leadership runs our country, and we are in the process of possibly seeing one of the biggest offenders of Benghazi tragedy become our next president! What a travesty!
The amazing thing is that the truth was always there, in the wide open. Yet, somehow, it always got shunted aside and spin doctors went to work not only justifying Clinton's inaction, but also covering up confusion and lack of leadership, ability to make critical decisions at a crucial time at highest levels of State, Defense, and CIA!
During Senate Hearings, various players at the highest level all testified and of course washed their hands of responsibility for not making the right decisions. Hillary Clinton's response of, "What difference does it make now?" is well known and much bandied about. But there were equally puzzling and confusing, if not callous responses from other individuals. Joint Chief Dempsey's responses were confusing and inaccurate. He didn't even seem to know where the Special Operations special unit for rapid reaction was located. He said it was in Bosnia when in fact it was in Croatia. He also said that it would have taken four hours to reach Benghazi for the special unit when a commercial airliner could have made the trip in two hours! There were series of "bad" answers from those involved in decision making. But part of the problem was that as I have stated many times, our congressional representatives in either houses seem to always ask the wrong questions. They too seem to be clueless!
The bottom line is that we did have the military capability to reach Benghazi and save the four Americans who perished. That much information is openly available! Yet, the news media that actually uncovered this information (FOX News) never stressed this part, never questioned why no "go" signal was given to the waiting rescue force in Croatia! Recently Hollywood made a movie about the Benghazi disaster and in the movie it is clearly shown that we had the capability to save Ambassador Stevens and the three security personnel, but failed to do so for lack of a decision from the top! The movie, 13 Hours: the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, is remarkably accurate in depicting what actually happened behind the scenes. Don't get me wrong, I am not promoting the movie! This information is available in the form of an email that was sent to all parties involved, beginning with the Secretary of State. The email had multiple addressees, from State to Defense and CIA. The problem was that no one acted, everyone just waited. What they waited for is not clear. But, we must remember that everyone was simply following the administration's lead on Foreign Policy, which was and is, "wait and see." That's how the whole mess in Syria began and how we once again have become embroiled in Iraq. It is Obama's famous "wait and see" Foreign Policy.
For a number of years we have maintained a special unit for just such situations as the one that took place in Benghazi. The unit is known as C-110 and it is made up of specially trained soldiers from C Company of the 1st Battalion of 10th Special Forces Group. They were at the time in Croatia, having just completed a training exercise when they received word to get ready for the real thing. As the email explains, they were "spinning," that means they were all ready to go, literally spinning before taking off! There was no preparation necessary, the troops were on the tarmac and the planes were ready to take off. All they needed was a go signal and they would have been off and in Benghazi well within the time to rescue the doomed four Americans.
So, all of that talk, all of the testimony that we did not have time or did not have the military capability at the time to reach Benghazi is a bunch of crock! It was simply the indecisiveness of the top echelon of our government, beginning with Hillary Clinton, who didn't even respond to the email in question! I blame all of our top leadership at the time, but most of all, our Secretary of State Clinton! To claim that she never received proper information about the situation is just an outright lie! But then, she is a habitual liar!
Usually, Hollywood takes liberties with truth and sometimes invents things in the name of art. So, perhaps those who saw the movie did not believe its content, the fact that we could have saved the people in Benghazi but didn't for lack of response from the top. But in this case, as rare as it may be, Hollywood did not exaggerate the circumstances and amazingly placed the blame where it belonged! But even for those skeptics who may still think that Hollywood just made up the whole thing, the original email is available for anyone to read on internet. It is not classified, and you don't need the Freedom of Information Act to have access to it.
It is truly a sad state of affairs when such poor leadership runs our country, and we are in the process of possibly seeing one of the biggest offenders of Benghazi tragedy become our next president! What a travesty!
Thursday, July 7, 2016
The Latest Travesty - Justice?
The latest travesty involving our government took place when FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton, and the FBI Director James Comey's announcement afterwards. Comey recommended that no charges be filed on her misuse of private email for sensitive government business. He admitted that that she was negligent and careless in her use of her private server email and that there were hundreds of classified emails, ranging from "confidential" to "secret" to the highest category "top secret." He also stated that it was possible that "hostile actors" (those were his words!) had access to Clinton's classified emails owing to her careless use! That, my friends, is an admission that some hostile foreign group, be they countries China, Russia, and North Korea, all of whom have repeatedly tried to hack into our government computers, more than likely read her emails! This does not include smaller "actors" such as Al Qaeda or ISIS. You can bet they have been trying to hack into our sensitive computer systems. But in case of North Korea, they would not be above passing information to Al Qaeda or ISIS or some other terror group. Hell, they sell weapons to terror groups, why not enemy secrets! Hillary's private server must have been a snap to hack!
We all know that had it been anyone else, they would have not only been punished by dismissal, a fine, but possibly even gone to jail. I know of cases where someone who committed an infraction not anywhere as serious as Hillary and they were fired! A case in point was what happened to my friend who was the Consul General in Rome. He did not divulge any classified information, and he did not abuse the email system. He merely criticized (much deserved!) some congressmen who came on a boondoggle to Rome and wasted tax payers' money and Embassy Rome's critical personnel resources. He complained to a friend in a private, unclassified email. Somehow the email got into the hands of OPM (Office of Personnel and Management) and he was unceremoniously fired within a few days! He may have used bad judgement, but nothing he did was classified or contained any classified information! But then, his name was not Clinton.
Let's not forget the General who was disgraced and also dismissed (fired) when it was discovered that he had shared some classified information with his mistress. Now the mistress was not a foreign agent or an ISIS or Al Qaeda wannabee. The information that the General shared with his mistress had to do with the war in Iraq, since at the time he was the Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in Iraq. I doubt very seriously if any lives were lost or if our national security was seriously damaged. But, the very same people that were screaming for his head are now saying things like, "what's the big deal over some emails! It's over and done with, let's move on! It is a witch hunt!" Stuff like that. Funny, how Hillary's cavalier attitude about classified information, information that covered a whole range of topics (remember, she was the Secretary of State, not a General in Iraq!), was permissible, but the General's sharing of some information with his mistress was not. But then again, his name was not Clinton.
Ironically, just prior to Comey's announcement that FBI wasn't going to do anything, Bill Clinton had a little private chit-chat with the U.S. Attorney General, a person known to have expressed desire to stay in the office for more than one term! Now there were some alarms and complaints raised over the incident. But most Democrats "pooh-poohed" the whole thing claiming it was simply Republican paranoia. After all, Bill just had a friendly conversation with the Attorney General, nothing more! Lest people forget, FBI is part of the Justice Department. But because FBI is so big and has a reputation for doing things on their own, most people seem to think that it is an independent agency like the CIA. No such thing. FBI is part of Justice Department and FBI is subject to Justice Department's ruling! So, to say that the two incidents, Bill's meeting with AG and Comey's announcement that no charges will be filed against Hillary are not connected, would be like saying that former AG Holder knew absolutely nothing about the disastrous ATF "Operation Fast and Furious." Oh, wait a minute! Justice Department investigated that incident and announced that AG Holder knew absolutely nothing about the horribly conceived and mismanaged operation. Yep, Holder didn't know what was going on during his watch. By the way, ATF, like FBI, is answerable to the Attorney General and such large scale operations have to be approved by the AG. But never mind, Holder didn't know anything just as the current AG had nothing to do with FBI's refusal to file charges against Hillary.
Sadly, I am afraid that nothing will come of this latest travesty! Comey just faced a Congressional hearing and although there were some heated exchanges, nothing seems to have come from it as a result. The main problem that we have is that the elected representatives, the ones we send to Washington, really are not as bright and knowledgeable as the voters think. I was appalled at the result that came of the so-called Benghazi Investigation by Republican Congressmen. They asked the wrong questions and looked in the wrong places for answers! In a federal agency such as the State Department, nobody is going to come forward, risk their jobs and careers over something that is obviously being poorly handled. If you think the Congressmen went personally and interviewed and read files, perish the thought. All the foot work was done by a bunch of Congressional aids. The task was first assigned to the staffers who used their juniors, the aids, to do the work. Congressional staffers and aids are highly disliked by professional, career Federal employees, regardless of the agency! You can bet that cooperation was not at its highest level!
Frankly, to get an accurate picture and assessment of the situation, all they had to do was read the classified diplomatic traffic (called cables) from post, Embassy Tripoli and then read the responses from the State Department. They would have been able to determine who did what and when. However, it seems they relied more on interviews and god knows what else. Nobody asked the simple question of why were not requests for more security help ever fulfilled? There were some run around answers from State Department, like no funding etc., but nothing definite. I can assure you that since the bombing in Nairobi (the first Al Qaeda bombing), the State Department made it a priority to respond to security requests. So, I don't buy this stuff about various reasons given. To me, it seems simply that no one wanted to authorize, and such authorization usually comes directly from the Secretary's office. Oh well, I shouldn't be surprised. We are really turning into a Third World Nation with corruption and mismanagement taking over our government.
We all know that had it been anyone else, they would have not only been punished by dismissal, a fine, but possibly even gone to jail. I know of cases where someone who committed an infraction not anywhere as serious as Hillary and they were fired! A case in point was what happened to my friend who was the Consul General in Rome. He did not divulge any classified information, and he did not abuse the email system. He merely criticized (much deserved!) some congressmen who came on a boondoggle to Rome and wasted tax payers' money and Embassy Rome's critical personnel resources. He complained to a friend in a private, unclassified email. Somehow the email got into the hands of OPM (Office of Personnel and Management) and he was unceremoniously fired within a few days! He may have used bad judgement, but nothing he did was classified or contained any classified information! But then, his name was not Clinton.
Let's not forget the General who was disgraced and also dismissed (fired) when it was discovered that he had shared some classified information with his mistress. Now the mistress was not a foreign agent or an ISIS or Al Qaeda wannabee. The information that the General shared with his mistress had to do with the war in Iraq, since at the time he was the Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in Iraq. I doubt very seriously if any lives were lost or if our national security was seriously damaged. But, the very same people that were screaming for his head are now saying things like, "what's the big deal over some emails! It's over and done with, let's move on! It is a witch hunt!" Stuff like that. Funny, how Hillary's cavalier attitude about classified information, information that covered a whole range of topics (remember, she was the Secretary of State, not a General in Iraq!), was permissible, but the General's sharing of some information with his mistress was not. But then again, his name was not Clinton.
Ironically, just prior to Comey's announcement that FBI wasn't going to do anything, Bill Clinton had a little private chit-chat with the U.S. Attorney General, a person known to have expressed desire to stay in the office for more than one term! Now there were some alarms and complaints raised over the incident. But most Democrats "pooh-poohed" the whole thing claiming it was simply Republican paranoia. After all, Bill just had a friendly conversation with the Attorney General, nothing more! Lest people forget, FBI is part of the Justice Department. But because FBI is so big and has a reputation for doing things on their own, most people seem to think that it is an independent agency like the CIA. No such thing. FBI is part of Justice Department and FBI is subject to Justice Department's ruling! So, to say that the two incidents, Bill's meeting with AG and Comey's announcement that no charges will be filed against Hillary are not connected, would be like saying that former AG Holder knew absolutely nothing about the disastrous ATF "Operation Fast and Furious." Oh, wait a minute! Justice Department investigated that incident and announced that AG Holder knew absolutely nothing about the horribly conceived and mismanaged operation. Yep, Holder didn't know what was going on during his watch. By the way, ATF, like FBI, is answerable to the Attorney General and such large scale operations have to be approved by the AG. But never mind, Holder didn't know anything just as the current AG had nothing to do with FBI's refusal to file charges against Hillary.
Sadly, I am afraid that nothing will come of this latest travesty! Comey just faced a Congressional hearing and although there were some heated exchanges, nothing seems to have come from it as a result. The main problem that we have is that the elected representatives, the ones we send to Washington, really are not as bright and knowledgeable as the voters think. I was appalled at the result that came of the so-called Benghazi Investigation by Republican Congressmen. They asked the wrong questions and looked in the wrong places for answers! In a federal agency such as the State Department, nobody is going to come forward, risk their jobs and careers over something that is obviously being poorly handled. If you think the Congressmen went personally and interviewed and read files, perish the thought. All the foot work was done by a bunch of Congressional aids. The task was first assigned to the staffers who used their juniors, the aids, to do the work. Congressional staffers and aids are highly disliked by professional, career Federal employees, regardless of the agency! You can bet that cooperation was not at its highest level!
Frankly, to get an accurate picture and assessment of the situation, all they had to do was read the classified diplomatic traffic (called cables) from post, Embassy Tripoli and then read the responses from the State Department. They would have been able to determine who did what and when. However, it seems they relied more on interviews and god knows what else. Nobody asked the simple question of why were not requests for more security help ever fulfilled? There were some run around answers from State Department, like no funding etc., but nothing definite. I can assure you that since the bombing in Nairobi (the first Al Qaeda bombing), the State Department made it a priority to respond to security requests. So, I don't buy this stuff about various reasons given. To me, it seems simply that no one wanted to authorize, and such authorization usually comes directly from the Secretary's office. Oh well, I shouldn't be surprised. We are really turning into a Third World Nation with corruption and mismanagement taking over our government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)