Another Obama Apologist Against Right Wing “Hysteria”

Jay Bookman’s post yesterday at the AJC dismissed me -and hundreds of thousands of other Americans- as imbeciles and hysterics eager to be led by right-wing media puppet masters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and everybody at Fox News, and frankly, I resent it.

In Bookman’s world, Americans are supposed to sit idly by and while their Ambassadors are murdered, and are not allowed to ask “Couldn’t we have sent in some kind of rescue?” No, in Bookman’s world, the “…wave of mass hysteria about the decision by the Obama administration not to attempt a military rescue of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya” has been “ginned up” by Glenn Beck’s latest crazy theory.You might think there are other questions that need to be answered, but shut up, and behold, The Bookman! “If you Google the words “Benghazi” and “traitor,” you get some 518,000 hits, almost all of which cast President Obama as [a] traitor.” Of course you do. You know what you get when you Google “flat” and “earth?” About 59 million hits. How about “global” and “warming?” 366 million hits. Bookman’s conspiracy theory is chump change compared to the coverups about flat earth and global warming, but whether that makes it more believable or less believable, I can’t say. (Aside: You counted Google hits, Bookman? Really?)

Bookman also claims that since Mitt Romney hasn’t mentioned Benghazi since October 12th, Romney must either be “in on the conspiracy” or has been told that a rescue would have been impossible and Romney would “embarrass himself” by suggesting such folly. I have another theory: Foreign policy is the turf of any incumbent President, as Bookman and other knee-jerks and liberals are ever eager to remind him. The press likes to pounce on everything Mitt Romney says and then dissect timelines to make sure people know EXACTLY what the gaffe of the week was, and WHEN Romney apologized for it. Romney has learned that lesson twice now, once from Bookman himself in his own post on September 13, and more recently when Candy Crowley defended Obama during the foreign policy debate:

Wait, that’s not the foreign policy debate, that’s Candy Crowley saying Romney was basically right! And what’s that about a tape? Did the current administration get the Benghazi story wrong for two weeks, blame the attack on our embassy on some stupid videotape and arrest the guy who supposedly made it, or lie about it along basically the same lines? Wait, maybe Candy Crowley been co-opted by the same seething hive of insanity that animates conservatives! It’s epistemic closure on steroids! Somebody Google something! Eeeeek!

If only there was some organization, or maybe a bunch of organizations, who made it their mission to get to the bottom of these questions! Their job would be to provide the American people with facts, and they would be unafraid to ask incumbent Presidents things that incumbent Presidents don’t want to talk about it. Those groups could form a trusted and respected American institution. They could send the answers to these kinds of questions out over the airwaves, on television or the radio, or in paper formats on a daily or weekly basis. Such an institution would deserve protection in the Constitution. They could even be almost considered a “check” against governmental power, that would “balance” governmental overreach or deception. Some people might even consider these organization a “Fourth Estate.” Challengers to incumbent Presidents wouldn’t have to be the ones to raise issues about the competence of incumbent Presidents if those organizations did their jobs carefully and well.  The organizations could report the answers to questions about tragic debacles like Benghazi, so people wouldn’t work themselves into “hysterical frenzies” due to a lack of facts.

Wouldn’t that be great, Mr. Bookman?




  1. Baker says:

    Great post. Sometimes Mssr Bookman really nails something…and then other times he’s so dismissive and arrogant that chances are a lot of people are likely to miss those good times.

  2. mountainpass says:

    Yeah I quit reading that jackass when he posted this :

    “The working theory on the right — the thought process by which this botched law-enforcement operation turns into “the Reichstag fire of the Second Amendment” — is that Fast and Furious was concocted in the upper reaches of the Obama administration as a means to justify harsh gun-confiscation laws and the reimposition of the assault-weapons ban. ”

    Theory! As if it was a stretch! Let known criminal buy 2000 guns and walk back to Mexico with them, with no way to track them? What else could it have been?

  3. Charlie says:

    Thanks for writing this Mike. I remain equally concerned about this, and haven’t quite figured out how to articulate that for a column.

    Two additional whiffs by the national political press corps:

    On Meet the Press, Sunday’s roundtable’s only conservative was Carly Fiorina. She tried to bring up Benghazi/Libya in the first segment. David Gregory cut her off, finally insisting he wanted to get to it “later”. It was never mentioned during the entire rest of the program, though the last 15 minutes was dedicated to Todd Aiken’s “legitimate rape” comment, because, you know, that’s current this week.

    I did not see it, so perhaps someone can confirm, but a few folks in my twitter feed said Candy Crowley did essentially the same thing on her program Sunday.

    It appears those who frame the national news not only don’t want to ask the questions from this administration, but don’t even want to allow the questions to be asked.

    We have a President who blamed a terrorist attack on an American citizen who made a movie and put a trailer on YouTube. That man is now in jail.

    Meanwhile, we have a press corps that wants to ridicule anyone who dares try to do thier job and ask questions about it.


    • mountainpass says:

      Raise hand if you thought this had anything to do with a video following this event………….

    • Stefan says:

      Well, that guy violated the terms of his probation, so jail seems like a reasonable place for him to be.

      As far as the Benghazi back and forth, we can certainly have a discussion about what would have happened if the President had sent in a C-130 into Benghazi. I don’t think the outcome would have been very good.

    • Rick Day says:

      and I supposed you think it is a conspiracy because they didn’t talk about the Obama Birth Certificate too.

      Non sequiturs are non sequitur. Seriously, get over it.

  4. griftdrift says:

    ““Couldn’t we have sent in some kind of rescue?”

    Asked and answered. ( oh and it wasn’t the magic telepathic device that apparently delivers the “real news”, it was asked by the press)

    • griftdrift says:

      And since someone will inevitably ask.

      From the LA Times

      WASHINGTON — U.S. military commanders decided against sending a rescue mission to Benghazi during the attack against the American diplomatic mission last month because they didn’t have enough clear intelligence to justify the risk to the troops, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday.

      • Nonchalant says:


        I have a TacAir background. Unless they are saying they believed the attackers had tactical SAMs (i.e., not the hand-held kind), then nothing but unavailability of assets could have kept top cover overhead, providing air support.

        I have to ask if they were more concerned about “Desert One” this close to an election than anything else. Which is a real morale damper if you are a troop.

        Please spin away. I’m sure soneone will.

        • Rick Day says:

          I have to ask
          Your solution is to go in, gatlin guns blazing? And the difference between protesters and terrorists were…? Team Al Qaeda was wearing the red and white uniforms, of course! Magic bullets?

          Yeee haw, look theres a kid, KILL IT.

          Let God sort them out, etc….


        • Stefan says:

          Air support of what, exactly? There was a protest outside, it seems an Al Qaeda linked group used that as cover. Was the goal just to cluster bomb the entire neighborhood? What if the ambassador was not under threat, it just looked bad, and we killed 300 protesting kids? I think maybe the long run result of that would be pretty bad.

        • Nonchalant says:

          Go ask the operators on what they think could have done, friend. I have little doubt about the answer, because I used to be part of the “team”, and I’m guessing you never were.

          I don’t know about extraction forces, but close air support should have been trivial.

          Spin it away.

          • Nonchalant says:

            Just to shortcircuit this–among other things, my guess is this was a “lawfare” foulup. Someone needed to just cut the Gordian knot, instead of just staring at a computer screen.

          • Nonchalant says:

            And to further shortcircuit discussion–*if* no heavy firepower air assets were sent because of fears of possible tactical and strategic SAMs, then that meant a.) it should have been known ahead of time (these things are sorta tracked, you know), and the entire Commander- in-distress contingency plans were moot from the get-go–thus why was the ground security so minimal?

            This is a real foulup and it is going to be really addressed.

  5. Nonchalant says:

    Monopolies are inherently bad for both public and product. What is needed is a real competitor to the AJC, to be operated (in a fair fashion) at a loss if needs be.

  6. WesleyC says:

    PeachPundit is usually a great go-to for non-right-wingers interested in hearing the reasonable, intellectually coherent version of the conservative argument. I think the fact that this article made it through the filters is unfortunate.

    Bookman’s article is spot-on. Let’s call Benghazi what it was: a terrible tragedy that the military wasn’t capable of preventing and that could honestly happen at any embassy, anytime, given the minimal armed security that many of them have. What we should be doing is trying to figure out where things went wrong on the State Department side, as well as in the oval office to the extent that any orders/questions did in fact reach the President’s desk, and then ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

    What’s preventing that is twofold: 1) the GOP’s tactical decision to turn the tragedy into a political football in order to try and win the election, contrary to the national tradition of not politicizing national security, and 2) the decision of the right wing echo chamber (i.e. Fox, Brietbart, RedState, etc.) to warp it into a conspiracy theory on the same plane as birtherism and trutherism. The latter is what Bookman’s commenting on, and he’s absolutely right that whatever fantasies are being dreamed up will in the end be very far from what actually happened.

    • mountainpass says:

      Wesley from the beginning the administration lied to the american public, for over a week, that there was a protest over a video that turned bad and that there was no terrorist attack. So the scrutiny of how it was handled I feel is required. Why the cover story?

    • Nonchalant says:

      Sorry, no dice about the military not being able to make this happen.

      In a broader sense, this scenario is not a Kobayashi Maru. Otherwise 120 men would be all you would need to take over the world. We need to figure out where the foulups were, and the resources needed for contingency global response brigades to make sure it doesn’t hapen again.

    • Clone Of B. Plyler says:

      @ Wesley C : “Bookman’s article is spot-on. Let’s call Benghazi what it was: a terrible tragedy that the military wasn’t capable of preventing and that could honestly happen at any embassy, anytime, given the minimal armed security that many of them have. What we should be doing is trying to figure out where things went wrong on the State Department side, as well as in the oval office to the extent that any orders/questions did in fact reach the President’s desk, and then ensure that it doesn’t happen again.”

      Your & Bookman’s assessment is complete fantasy. Both of you have simply not paid attention to the facts or the reports.
      * Why didn’t the embassy have the proper armed security? It’s in Libya, not Australia.
      * Why did CIA agents a mile away have to disobey orders in order to try to save lives?
      * After knowing the facts, why did the adminstration for 2 weeks spin the facts otherwise?

      • Doug Deal says:


        It is funny. I have visited Paris on multiple occassions, and the Paris embassy is very well guarded. There are marines, as well as bollards, barracades and fences and a fortified structure.

        The embassy is also guarded by the French police and the sidewalk on that side of the street is closed and the sidewalk on the the other side is fenced in. I have also worked in several stateside facilities for the US Government. They also have peremeter fencing, armed guards, “man trap” entries and barracades.

        My father worked at the US embassy in Iraq and he was escorted by marines to and from his apartment.

        It is completely insane that there was apparently no security for the ambassador in Benghazi .

        • Stefan says:

          Well, the embassy isn’t in Benghazi. Because Benghazi isn’t the capital of the nation. Are you suggesting the ambassador should just stay in the embassy?

          • Doug Deal says:

            I am suggesting that he should have adequate security, much like members of our own government have when traveling around our own country around people that are overwelmingly friendly instead of mostly hostile.

            Yes, we know the embassy is in Tripoli, but it is pretty much the general misconception that it was an embassy and a tiresome conversation about the differences between an embassy and consulate is pointless. Much like discussing your misconception that there was a protest outside, when in fact there was none.

    • Sencillo says:

      Hear, hear, WesleyC. This is garbage you usually don’t see on the Pundit: “In Bookman’s world, Americans are supposed to sit idly by and while their Ambassadors are murdered.” C’mon, man. C’mon.

      Bookman’s piece wasn’t about exonerating anybody; it was about the unfortunate effectiveness of right-wing pundits at insinuating the most sinister motives about the President.

      P.S. I was also bummed out to see Charlie H. jumping right in.

  7. The SECDEF was either lying or is grossly incompetent is his explanation about sending forces to assist in Benghazi. How do I know, from my experience as a career infantry officer and as a young officer was part of a unit that had the mission to do forced withdrawals of diplomats in Central and South America.

    If there was any intention of providing help and lack of intel was a concern, aircraft like a AC130 and forces would have been airborne while additional intel was gathered. Keep in mind there was both direct comunications and live video feed going to Washington throughout the 7-8 hours of the attack. They had all the intel they needed.

    Someone made the decision not to help and if it was the SECDEF he needs to resign today or Obama should fire him asap. This is unforgivable.

  8. Trey A. says:

    This is what the “Fourth Estate” looks like:

    Most U.S. media outlets have long ago jettisoned their credibility–including the commentators Bookman decries and the AJC–in a race to the bottom to appeal to niche constituencies and cut costs. Bookman is right about one thing: spinning the tragedy to call the president “a traitor” is absurd at this stage in the investigation and doing so is overtly politicized AND it weakens legitimate criticism/asking of questions.

    The closest things we have to the BBC in the U.S. are the wire services (AP & Reuters) and PBS/NPR.

  9. terryk88a says:

    Does the Cox family still need to wonder why AJC circulation is in the (septic) tank? Here’s one good reason.

  10. Mike Hassinger, I agree with your Post. I like Jay Bookman, but for him to essentially question the honesty of those who are upset about Bengazi is inappropriate. It is very clear that there were serious problems and that the Administration has been evasive on simply telling the truth.

    Outrage over the series of events in Bengazi is clearly legitimate, as is outrage that the Administration knew that this was not a spontaneous protest, but instead an organized assassination — yet did nothing to dissuade the world of that untruth.

  11. Three Jack says:

    Good post Mike!

    If you want to see the father of Tyrone Woods speak about what happened —

    Either Panetta lied or the president is absolutely AWOL or both. No matter who is responsible, the bottom line is Americans died when it is highly possible they could have been saved with military intervention that was readily available on numerous fronts.

    It is also an absolute failure on the part of congress to wait until after the election to hold hearings on this matter. With the upcoming budget battle that will be front page news for the remainder of 2012 and beyond, this issue will continue to be back page material for most in the geriatric media.

  12. Baker says:

    I guess my biggest point is more about tone. Plenty of folks always blame talk radio for the incivility in today’s politics. I think liberal writers are just as guilty, if not more so because they’ve been doing it longer and in what once were sources of news for all groups of voters. Talk radio is still relatively new and certainly preaching to the choir.

    Lib writers have been telling conservative readers to their faces that they are idiot racist sexists for years and slowly they’ve driven away that segment of readership from many papers. Perhaps if the longtime AJC writer Cynthia Tucker and Jay, who both make great points occasionally, didn’t frequently slander conservatives, the AJC might not have lost a gozillion readers.

    • Stefan says:

      ooh, I don’t think that’s why the AJC has lost readers. Besides, didn’t they have Wingfield on a door-to-door apology tour in John’s Creek to fix that issue?

  13. Noway says:

    Just answer one simple question: Who instructed the surrogates to present the ‘video’ story as the cause of the attack? It is evident from the itel that was apparently available in real-time that it was a heavily armed attack and all who are responding say the video was a non cause. Who asked the folks to plead the video story?

  14. charliemann says:

    Circle the wagons – the IR’s are coming. (That’d be Investigative Reporters, not Indian Renegades) Fortunately (for the administration), they are only armed with quill pens and riding horses loaned by the Pony Express. No October surprise here. How about a January 21, 2013 buried story in the NY Times. I propose a new Afirmative Action mandate: The ratio of registered Democrats who receive federal aide to attend journalism school cannot exceed the national average. (Right now, liberal journalists have a 4 to 1 advantage over conservatives.)

  15. Noway says:

    Can I answer my own question? The campaign did it, for political reasons. So, those who are busting Romney’s chops for ‘politicizing’, take a gander in the Obama mirror.

  16. Rick Day says:

    What I find most disturbing is posters like you who continue to dig up this dead man’s body and parade it as an example of how ‘bad’ President Obama is, therefore he must be replaced.

    What body did you dig up before September 10th? And just what would you have had us done, Mr. President? Shut down all our foreign posts in fear? Because of ‘reports’?

    In order for terrorism to succeed, there has to be people like you who succumb to fear. Your collective reaction to fear does NOT make the Obama foreign policy the ‘problem’.

    • Harry says:

      As I said before, Obama should have already made a thorough investigation and reported the findings to the American people. Now he has to deal with a blowup of uncertainty not just in public opinion but also with uncertainty in the military chain of command and ranks.

    • Noway says:

      Rick, actually, Obama’s foreign policy wasn’t being questioned. As a consulate, the Bengazi post would not have been assigned the same level of protective assets as an embassy. And the State Dept has limited numbers of agents they could have assigned to any worldwide posts. And without the benefit of a crystal ball to tell us that a 9/11 anniversary attack was going to occur there, they had as much protection as they had. Another point is this, the protection of the diplomatic assets in any country is up to the host gov’t to provide, under the supervision of an American supervisor, the Regional Security Officer. Now, all RSOs that I have ever known have requested more protective personnel to safeguard American lives as well as sensitive diplomatic facilities. Sometimes their requests are judged to be warranted by the bureaucrats back in DC and more folks are sent out. Other times, as appears in this case, reinforcements are not deemed available. As an aside, I’m proud as hell of the CIA guy who disobeyed orders and went and helped anyway. He did the right thing, although he paid for that patriotism with his life.

  17. Noway says:

    Rick, all I did was ask who told the minions to spread the foolish ‘video’ explanation. What’s wrong with that? You denigrate a ‘poster like me’ for asking a legitimate question? No one is talking about closing any posts. Just characterize the action for what it was, Mr. President, an attack on a gov’t facility on the anniversary of 9/11. And how about an honest answer about how the first US ambassador in 30 years got to be dead in the first place. Better take your meds, Rick.

    • Rick Day says:

      Here is your honest answer. He got to be dead because he died.

      Presidents have NOT been telling us things, and have even lied about them for centuries. Yellowcake comes to mind for some reason.

      So why didn’t Obama ‘come clean’? as you demand? Well, it is because as soon as the day the event happened, Mittens jumped on the Administration about their initial ‘response’. THE SAME DAY, Dude!

      From goddamn day ONE Team GOP used the deaths of these Americans as a political football, attempting to set the tone of the issue as ‘all the president’s fault’. THEN you have the audacity to claim that Obama politicized the issue by ‘not telling IMMEDIATELY EVERY SINGLE detail?’ Hello National Security? Are you proud of supporting a candidate that will use tragedy to score a talking point? What does that say about you, soldier?

      You people are pathetic. I’m on my med’s because to me it is a matter of life and death. You can just continue to sippy cup your KoolAid.

      • Noway says:

        Rick, why blame a lame video for being the cause of the consulate attack? If that response were not for political purposes, why make such an asinine assertion? How is our national security enhanced by the video explanation? Of course I’m not surprised by such an explanation from the Blame America First party.

  18. Nonchalant says:

    This would be the “lawfare” portion I mentioned somewhere (as well as figuring damage zones), and I have no problems with this becoming a national discussion.

    To answer your question–at some point, my vote is we save the Americans, not those of the nation trying to kill Americans. War is cruelty, you cannot change it.

    • Nonchalant says:

      My apologies–this was supposed to be a response to the eloquent reply of Mr. Rick Day above. His question was one of trying to make it look like we who are questioning this lack of response are nothing but bloodthirsty Dr. Strangelove savages.

      Well, bloodthirsty savages are involved, but not in the way Rick thinks. I have no problems with having a national debate on the issue he raises.

      Assuming there were any real protesters.

      • Nonchalant says:

        And I would like to add–for Mr. Bookman’s benefit–that, *if* there were armed assets available overhead, did they not open fire so as to protect those of the nation whose fellow countrymen were trying to kill Americans? Should we expect this as the standard American doctrine now?

        Because if so, I, for one, object.

        This is a legitimate policy discussion the AJC could abet. It chooses not to.

        • Nonchalant says:

          And if the argument is “well, yes, it is legitimate, but that nasty Romney or those nasty Republicans made it a political issue”, then when did the mere issue of a matter becoming possibly politically damaging to one side remove it from inquiry? Is that how Republics stay long stable? Truly?

          It certainly does not seem a consistent standard, if I recall my Katrina coverage.

          The same argument–Katrina–goes for the argument of “well, it was just underlings.” Oh, agreed. Absolutely agreed. One man cannot know all, prepare for all, prevent all. Even if perhaps monitoring real time.

          But the matter of consistency comes to mind.

          Benghazi is a legitimate matter of inquiry. The AJC has failed, in my opinion, and is a poor servant of the citizenry of a self-governing state.

            • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

              But why? Conversations with oneself can be very enlightening as well as rewarding 🙂

              • Nonchalant says:

                No, no. Charlie is ever so right, and I one day hope to be able to reach such a height of wisdom and honor as a newspaper columnist from South Georgia; my life otherwise having been bereft of any achievement as great as that. My apologies once again.

                Hopefully this reply ends up in the right place–my computer has been having issues linking reply to post being replied to.

                • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

                  I wasn’t saying that Charlie is wrong, I was referring to an inside joke here on Peach Pundit about Charlie’s many admonishments about me repeatedly talking to myself during several of many heated anti-HOT Lanes and anti-TSPLOST rants and tirades within the past year.

        • DavidTC says:

          *if* there were armed assets available overhead, did they not open fire so as to protect those of the nation whose fellow countrymen were trying to kill Americans? Should we expect this as the standard American doctrine now?

          Yes, you idiot. The American military should not open fire on people just because their fellow countrymen are trying to kill Americans. That is, in fact, a war crime.

          That is how war works. You do not kill innocent people just because you are at war with a country. You certainly don’t do it when you _aren’t_ at war with them.

          I actually find this entire premise of ‘air support’ very odd. So we would have been bombing…our own embassy? Random Libyans in the street outside?

          • Rick Day says:

            Can you imagine if that were the GOP response and it was our bombs who actually killed the Americans?

            But then all the critics would be met with the standard “why do you hate our Troops?” question. Problem solved.

            • Harry says:

              You still haven’t responded to my concern.

              Obama should have already made a thorough investigation and reported the findings to the American people. Now he has to deal with a blowup of uncertainty not just in public opinion but also with uncertainty in the military chain of command and ranks.

          • You need to lnow the capability of the assets on the ground and the capability of an AC130. That aircraft has been used many times in densely populated areas with very little affect on innocent population.

            What would they shoot? The guys shooting at the americans. Simple qiestion, simple answer.

            • DavidTC says:

              The guys shooting at the Americans had _invaded our embassy_. I swear to God, you people don’t even appear to have the small amount of knowledge I have on this issue.

              You idjits are imagining the problem was people standing outside the walls shooting at us. That was not the damn situation. (And would not have killed any Americans.)

              The damn situation was that people _breached the compound_, attacked the buildings, and set fire to the buildings on the way out.

              Again, I ask: What would air support have been used against? Random people running around the embassy grounds, half of which would be our own people? The _buildings_ that the attackers were in?

              Now, perhaps I should be charitable and assume you mean that air support would have helped later, during the mortar attack on the CIA annex. The problem is, that attack was basically ‘Shoot RPGs and mortars at the annex, and then flee’, and it took less than 15 minutes, and it’s rather doubtful anyone would have been able to react to stop that, even if we had had bombers actually in the air at that exact moment. (And this would have, I must point out, required _bombing Libya_, which is a pretty serious decision to make.)

          • Nonchalant says:

            Obviously, you vote “no”. And I say you will not use human shields to kill non-combatants of my side during a firefight. Or, honestly, combatants of my side. I do not believe that is a “war crime”. I certainly was never briefed to that effect–but admit my over-the-beach time is very rusty now, very rusty indeed.

            Of course, I forgot seeing you guys at Air Wing Fallon . You are absolutely correct–there is absolutely no current way we deconflict targets right now. No way at all. None. The United States military has absolutely zero idea how to deliver ordnance around troops–or anything else. I apologize for my stupidity, and bow to your brilliance.

            Since you will have it no other way.

            • Not sure what your point is, my response was to DavidTC. I put my response in the wrong place. If you are saying today’s military can’t direct air assets from a firefight on the ground with a high degree of certainty of putting steel on target you are wrong and selling our military very short. Besides these were the best of the best, SEALs and covert officers. We are the best in the world doing that, so this lack of intel crap by the SECDEF is nonsense.

  19. Nonchalant says:

    Well, James Joyce did well with stream of consciousness, so I figured I could give it a go.

    If you don’t want the thoughts unless they happen in your way, fine. Won’t post them. Have a nice day.

      • Nonchalant says:

        And so it is clear–these previous two were supposed to be responses to posts above, but this website, which I have no control over, stuck them down here.

        Makes me seems disjointed, yes?

  20. Nonchalant says:

    That is precisely what I am saying. Doesn’t mean–*if* there were armed assets available for deployment–that there might not have been issues. If I bring a 2000 lb GBU or JDAM vice a SDB and it’s a crowded inhabited urban area, I might have problems with frag going farther than wanted.

    Those issues are ones that might be accepted if my people are at risk. At least that’s my starting argument. Others may vary. And that’s my point. It’s a legitimate line of inquiry, getting shouted down because of the need to protect the Great God Obama.

    Therefore, along those lines–if there were no armed assets overhead, why? Remember, something orbiting at 10-15k feet is *not* going to be worried too much about what they have on the ground.

    If there was no chance for armed assets overhead, what was the chain if events leading to the level of ground security? And when was it determined there could be no overhead support? Months before? Because it is pointless to have contingency plans and force level decisions if the planning is not based upon what can actually be done. This is an important point. There was security. There were contingency pans. They obviously did not work. Why? Because if you don’t figure out why, it will happen again.

    Finally, if there *were* armed assets overhead, why no support?

    These are all perfectly legitimate questions, and since Presidential elections are–by design of the Founders–supposed to be referendums by the citizenry on the character, behavior, and tenure of the Chief Executive, they are all perfectly legitimate to be asked now, on our time table, not the MSM’s or the President’s. And not all the answers are going to end up pointing to the President. Maybe not any of them.

    But they are legitimate questions, and the naysayers, the MSM, and Jay Bookman are a doing a disservice to the Republic because, conscious or subconscious, they do not want Barack Obama to take the political fallout. It is not a witch hunt, it is the citizen-owners of a nation saying “please explain this before I give you your performance review.”

Comments are closed.