In Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, the United States was attacked at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by terrorists. That attack was on U.S. soil — this should have been the first priority for any president.
Real-time information confirmed a terrorist attack. There is no doubt about this now and there was no doubt about it at the time.
Instead, the media and President Obama focused on an obscure video that nobody had seen. On Sept. 13, the president and secretary of state were on national television to explain their outrage. The problem was their comments were on Pakistani national TV and American taxpayers paid for it.
The president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke to the Pakistani people to apologize for the offending video and explain our “free speech.” Instead of speaking to the American people, they sent United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice to give bogus talking points to the American people on the weekend “news” shows.
This was followed by yet another apologetic address to the UN by President Obama. Should we feel good that the perpetrator of the video was locked up and the terrorists remain free?
So, is the president in denial about terrorism? Since he accused Mitt Romney of “Romnesia” before the election, I think that there are a few things that voters should have recalled:
® Recall that terrorists in Pakistan didn’t get his message about free speech — they shot a 14-year-old girl in the head for trying to advance education for girls.
® Recall that George Bush was bashed by the press for spending 15 minutes with a school class after being notified about 9/11. After the most recent 9/11 attack, the president said nothing and our press babbled about the video for two weeks. Do you think there might be media bias?
® Recall that demonstrators in Egypt chanted “We’re all Osama, Obama.” Perhaps al-Quaida is alive and well after Osama bin Laden’s death and the Arab Spring.
® Recall that the FBI was not immediately sent to Benghazi, unlike after other terrorist events. The FBI came weeks later — after CNN reporters recovered the ambassador’s diary in the consulate rubble.
The administration simply didn’t want the answer.
® Recall that during the Carter administration, our disarmed U.S. embassy in Iran was easily stormed after two attacks. It’s pure deja vu — economic malaise, high gas prices and enemies emboldened by appeasement.
Also recall that this changed with the election of Ronald Reagan. “Strength and resolve is often the path to real peace in a dangerous world.”
® Recall another terrorist attack on U.S. soil — 13 soldiers at Fort Hood were killed in November 2009. Maj. Hasan was in contact with a high-level al-Quaida leader and shouted “allahu akbar” while executing Americans.
President Obama will say that the Department of Defense determined that this was “work-place violence.” But as commander-in-chief, the president has overall control of military leadership and sets the tone. It was his decision to be in denial about this obvious terrorist attack. Maj. Hasan has not yet been tried and the victims were denied the Purple Heart because it was not “active combat.”
® Lastly, recall that President Obama stated that Iran was years away from a nuclear weapon. A president can’t be in denial about nuclear weapons; he can’t be wrong even once.
As Clint would say, “Do you feel lucky?”
So, why would President Obama be in denial about terrorism? I’ll rule out “stupid.” Arrogance is certainly evident, combined with a world view in which Americans should apologize for success and that our enemies will relent if we just understand them and send more money.
He clearly has a different world view and agenda. I believe in the doctrine of “predictable response” — a country is safest when it projects a predictable response to aggression, which is sufficient to deter the aggression.
We live in a dangerous world. It has become more dangerous under President Obama.
There were few reasons to re-elect this president. National Security was not among them … and Benghazi is important.
(Mr. Caya lives in Scio.)
