Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The sham of personal responsibility

Earlier today three senators went on national TV to talk about how they want an investigation into the Libya investigation. Apparently they think that after two months President Obama should have acquired all the answers to everything.

But that's not what made me so angry that I thought about rewriting my column so I could make this point. For now I'm just going to make it here.

It started with this article in which Obama said the criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is uncalled for and the anger should be directed at him. Then Lindsey Graham, a senator from South Carolina, released a statement that included this:
“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during and after the attack. 
Um, what the hell?

The fact that this discussion has been going on for months makes me just irate. There's still a lot of discussion left to have on the attacks in Benghazi, and how much U.S. leaders knew beforehand, what they could have done prior to the attack and what was shared afterward, and I very much think we should have those conversations.

But the blame for the four deaths in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, belongs squarely on the shoulders of the men who pulled the trigger and lit off the bombs. Absolutely no question mark. That attack was not Obama's fault any more than the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were Bush's fault or a murder is the fault of a police department or the murderer's parents.

And I, frankly, am offended that the leaders of this country, motivated by partisanship, will get up and say that a terrorist attack is the responsibility of someone other than the terrorist. I am offended that people belonging to a party that claims it believes in personal responsibility — runs campaigns based almost entirely on personal responsibility — refuses to acknowledge the personal responsibility of the terrorists.

But I don't know why I would expect anything different about people who refuse to allow women personal responsibility over their bodies or teachers personal responsibility about how to factually answer questions or citizens personal responsibility on when to shop.


  1. This is Charles.

    I believe your anger is very much misdirected. While it is highly likely that the three Senators are acting in a partisan manner, that does not negate the fact that something is terribly wrong with the "investigation" of the events in Benghazi. We have the greatest military on earth, the best intelligence, the largest media, the best toys and technology, yet we don't have any information on what happened in Benghazi?

    The gov't has already admitted that there was a drone monitoring the fighting and giving a live video feed. It is also well-known that there are closed-circuit cameras in safe-houses and other buildings the gov't uses all over the world. The people on the ground had constant radio contact with those under fire, as evidenced by the evacuation of the CIA building. Yet, nobody knows what happened. Nobody knows why our military, whose airplanes could reach the area in about an hour, never arrived. Nobody knows who issued not one but four "stand-down" orders. Nobody knows why the man on the roof who fully expected air support, who held a laser, for more than an hour, sighted on the crew firing mortars at the buildings, but didn't receive any. Two ex-SEALs died, because they disobeyed the order to stand down.

    Obama said for two weeks, even in his speech to the UN, that the whole thing was simply a kerfuffle caused by a stupid YouTube video. He said this after the State Department announced it was a terrorist attack. Rice attributed the attack to the video for a week, you can see video from 5 different news outlets, yet she denied doing so. She called them liars, who questioned her. Obama called Romney a liar during one of the debates and Candi Crowley lied for Obama, when Romney called him out. Why shouldn't there be an investigation of the investigation?

    Today, Gen. Petraeus, who the Left affectionately called "Be-tray-us", until he was appointed head of the CIA, said in a Congressional hearing that they knew it was a terror attack and that the talking points given to Rice were not what the CIA had sent to her. Petraeus denies attributing the attack to a spontaneous protest where the protesters just happened to have RPGs and mortars, as well as machine guns. Rice denies ever believing or announcing it was a protest. Obama denies ever not calling it a terrorist attack. Yet, a reporter asked Obama yesterday if he ever sent a stand down order during the 7-hour ordeal and Obama refused to answer.

    Do you not find anything at all disturbing about the fact that the whole thing took place over the course of 7 hours, yet air support, readiness units, and 3 or 4 entire bases of marines, Special Forces, and other soldier who were less than 2 hours away, never made it until late the next morning? Does it not trouble you that after the initial investigation, which took place on site, CNN reporters found the Ambassador's journal and publicized some of the entries?

    Is there any reason to believe that the Left would call Obama out on any of this, given that they have not called him out on anything else for the past 5 years? The only way this can be is partisan, because the Left falls in step and dares not cross their supreme leader. Does that not bother you at all?

    Unless I misinterpret your exclamation, you don't believe Obama is personally responsible for not sending someone to save the four murdered Americans. He was told about the attack and apparently went to bed. He has changed his story so often that it is hard to tell what is true. At one time he said he ordered his Administration to do whatever was necessary to protect them, yet no one showed up, at all. For two weeks, he said they knew nothing, yet people have leaked information, including e-mails and other official documents to the contrary. How many lies will you allow Obama to pour out over you before you stop giving him the benefit of the doubt and see him for who he is?

  2. (cont'd)
    The fact that this discussion has gone on for months is due to the fact that the man you elected President is stone-walling in every possible way, hoping that some sex-scandal or some other piece of news will overshadow the entire event and make it go away. After all, he did say that the events in Benghazi "were a few bumps in the road." I suppose by a few, he meant four.

    The difference between Bush's 9/11 and Obama's is that the Ambassador had asked for help multiple times prior to the events. He asked for greater security, more forces, but was denied multiple times. Bush ordered all aircraft grounded and anything left in the air shot down. Obama went to bed. Somebody passed 4 orders to stand down. If it wasn't Obama, then that person should be found, which is easy to do, and tried for treason and/or murder. Could any of the four have been saved? Given how long it lasted and how long they lived, absolutely!

    What is Obama's responsibility in this? Did he enter Libya with our forces with Congressional approval? No. Did he supply guns to Libyan rebels? Yes. Were these the same rebels/terrorists who stormed the mission where the Ambassador resided? By all accounts, even their own admission, yes. Did Obama help destabilize Libya? Yes. Did he send Ambassador Stephens to broker all of this? Yes. Has Obama claimed any responsibility aside from saying he has taken responsibility? No. He has refused to answer questions. He has stone-walled the investigation. He has outright lied from the beginning. His promised transparency has never materialized...ever.

    Somehow he appointed a man who the FBI knew was having an affair to be head of the CIA. The FBI has known about the affair for a very long time. Isn't it convenient that Petraeus resigned after the election? Isn't it convenient that Hillary resigned after the election? Isn't it also convenient that no news was reported concerning the shot fired at our drone over international waters by Iran a few days before the election was kept quiet until after the election? Perhaps Obama will now fulfill his word to Putin when he said after the election he would be much more flexible.

    It is funny how you are offended at any partisanship in the leadership of this country, when you claim Republicans are stone-walling every good thing the Democrats are trying to do when Harry Reid won't let a single one of the 20+ budgets passed by the Republican-led House come to the floor for a vote. Have you been offended by that? It was done to show that Congress was impotent. Have you been offended by anything partisan that Obama has done? Or is your offense only directed at the opposing party?

    Obama didn't pull the trigger to fire bullets at our citizens, but he did give the ammunition, guns, and mortars to the terrorists. He also gave them the opportunity, essentially opening the door. Has he no culpability in this? Do you know what is even more interesting? Two commanders over that region (AFRICOM, CENTCOM) were relieved of duty just days after the event receiving the blame for a filed experiment in Libya. Where does Obama's personal responsibility play into any of this? Does this lack offend you at all?

    As for allowing women personal responsibility, if you want birth control you can go to Wal-Mart or any of the thousands of other places and buy it if you choose. It's hard to believe that you bought the "Republican war on women" line. I'm not sure how you can balme anything about teachers not being able to say what they want on the Right when it is their union that makes the rules, and that union is run by the Left. As for your last point, there are "blue laws" in many places and most were started by Democrats.

    I wonder if those who voted for Obama, especially those who voted for him twice, will take personal responsibility for the choices he makes because they gave him so much power, even after seeing what he has already done.