"Calamity" Clinton to Blame for Benghazi Massacre

The Republicans are once again investigating how al Qaeda won a major victory by destroying the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and killing American Ambassador Chris Stevens. 
Hopefully, this time they will abandon conspiracy theories and consider the possibility that American stupidity allowed the massacre to occur. 

Most people familiar with al Qaeda realized that the organization would likely attempt to attack American interests on or near the anniversary of their successful attack on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.    The CIA shouldn't have needed to use torture to recognize that the extremely unstable situation in Libya made it a likely target,  particularly with the American Ambassador isolated in Benghazi.

Benghazi wasn't the first successful attack on an American diplomatic facility so the attack shouldn't have come as a surprise to members of the Obama administration, especially Secretary of State Hillary  Clinton.  The Johnson administration couldn't have been expected to anticipate the attack on the American embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive because the military underestimated the capabilities of the Viet Cong.   The Carter administration couldn't have anticipated the the mob attack and takeover of the American embassy in Tehran because the CIA underestimated the negative attitudes the Iranian  people had toward the deposed Shah of Iran and the toward the United States for supporting him.   Hillary's husband President Bill Clinton couldn't have been expected to anticipate the bombing of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya that introduced Americans to al Qaeda.

In early September, 2012, Secretary of State Clinton should have known that al Qaeda was likely to do something on 9/11.  She knew that al Qaeda had previously attacked American embassies and that a Muslim anti-American demonstration in Iran had been used to take over the embassy in Tehran.   She should have recognized that al Qaeda would be likely to want to kill a high American official as revenge for the killing of Osama bin Laden.     

She should have been able to figure out that the best way to protect American diplomats in Libya would have been to have them travel to Europe for some type of conference, such as had been done before.   Such an action wouldn't have prevented an attack on American facilities in Libya, but it would have made an attack nearly meaningless.   She should have at least gotten the Ambassador out of the country to deny al Qaeda the opportunity for a revenge killing.

Republicans who blame  the size of the security force for the fall  of the Benghazi consulate fail to consider that a successful defense might have required at least a military company sized unit [about 100] and that a successful defense would have produced sufficient casualties to cause a backlash against the American presence. 

The Obama administration had been claiming a significant victory each time it killed a high al Qaeda official.  Al Qaeda's killing of the American Ambassador to Libya gave it a major victory and demonstrated that violence could be used successfully against the United States.  

The British had enough sense to leave Benghazi before the fateful attack.  The stupid Americans failed to recognize that the foolish decision to overthrow the former Libyan government without setting up a replacement had given al Qaeda a green light to attack American interests in Libya.

Clinton and President Barack Obama were so clueless about what happened that months after the attack they still acted like they thought the video al Qaeda distributed to incite the riot had just magically appeared. 

Hillary Clinton has been an ongoing calamity  for the Democratic Party.  Her involvement with a corrupt savings and loan nearly cost her husband Bill the 1992 presidential election.  The health care program she designed with the health care industry helped Republicans take control of Congress.   The fall of Benghazi could have helped Mitt Romney win the 2012 presidential election if he had known how to use it. 

I realize that Clinton's apparent memory problem in the earlier hearings could indicate she is in the early stages of Alzheimer's or some other degenerative condition.  However, her continued involvement in politics means she does not deserve special treatment based on such a condition.

Reminding Americans of 9/11

I suspect that many Americans will ignore the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks unless they are reminded in a way they cannot ignore.

When people know they are in a war they often use sirens to warn when the enemy is attacking. No sirens were sounded to warn of 9/11 because Americans didn't realize they were under attack until the attacks were over. The only plane for which a warning was given was brought down by its heroic passengers before it could reach its target.

The anniversary of the 9/11 attacks provides an opportunity to remind Americans that the fact 9/11 happened means not only that such an attack can happen, but it could happen again if we become as complacent as we were ten years ago.

No sirens sounded on 9/11/2001, but we could sound sirens this year to remind Americans that we are still in danger of a potential attack.

For those in the Eastern time zone, storm sirens would sound at the exact time of each plane crash. In the Central time zone, cities might do like they do with television and sound the sirens while they are sounding in the Eastern time zone. Due to the early hour of the first attacks, sirens in the Mountain time zone and farther west, particularly in Alaska and Hawaii, might sound at the same time of day as the attacks. The Central time zone might want to consider a similar approach.

In communities without storm sirens, emergency vehicle sirens might be used. Truck air horns could be used in place in rural areas where there aren't any emergency vehicles. Church bells were often used to warn of danger in the past and could be used along with sirens or instead of sirens. This action would be particularly appropriate considering the anniversary will be on Sunday.

In addition to, or instead of, the sirens, the emergency alert system for radio and television might transmit a reminder at the time of each attack. There were four crashes and we have four living former presidents. Perhaps each of them could remind people of one of the attacks.

I've been watching 9/11 documentaries the last week. Some of them have mentioned the failure to recognize the significance of information indicating the attack threat even among those whose profession was to watch for such threats. A national feeling that the continental U.S. was some how immune from any significant foreign attack may have prevented people at the FBI and CIA from recognizing the threat.

These professionals had forgotten that a similar failure to recognize a potential threat had allowed the Japanese to pull off a highly successful surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. There is a theory that President Franklin Roosevelt withheld intelligence information from Pearl Harbor commanders. Commanders at Pearl Harbor should have recognized there was a threat of attack without inside information because there was a war on.

Terrorist attacks had occurred in other parts of the world before 9/11. People at the FBI and CIA should have been watching for any signs that someone might attack America itself.

The fact that no major attack has happened since 2001 may be causing some to feel the problem of terrorist attacks has been solved. Those who feel this way are ignoring the fact that the terrorists most likely to get away with such an attack have been busy fighting our military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those attempting terrorist acts in the U.S. have been individuals who don't have the ability of the 9/11 hijackers or those who have conducted terrorist acts outside the U.S. Some would be local terrorists have been so careless they have made the mistake of letting undercover officers become a part of their conspiracies.

There are a couple of interesting 9/11 series currently running. "Inside 9/11" on the National Geographic Channel is an investigative series. "Rising: Rebuilding Ground Zero" on the Discovery and Science channels deals with replacing the World Trade Center. The episodes "Reclaiming the Skyline" follows construction of the tallest new building. One of the iron workers the show focuses on had a father who was injured building the original World Trade Center.

Editor Wants Rev. Wright to Shut Up

The editor of the Hutchinson (Kansas) News says "Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up" in an April 30 editorial.

Barack Obama's supporters in the media are piling on Rev. Wright for having the audacity to speak his mind and possibly harm their candidate's chances of being elected president.

Forgive my cynicism, but they are ignoring the fact that Obama made Wright a public figure by using Wright's church to try to convince black voters to vote for him. Politicians have been using church membership to win votes for generations.

I can understand criticizing Wright for his statements about government being responsible for the HIV virus, but why do some like the New York Times( April 30) criticize him for his statement that the 9/11 attack was punishment for various American actions abroad which killed innocent civilians. Religious leaders have been blaming calamities on "sin" since biblical times.

I have read the sermon in question and see nothing wrong with it. As a social scientist I look at human actions in terms of direct cause and effect actions.

I would explain 9/11 in terms of the reaction of al Qaeda to having our troops stationed in their Holy Land and the failure of the FBI and CIA to do their jobs and prevent the attack. The FBI had a man in custody who wanted to learn how to fly planes but not how to land them, but no one at the FBI could foresee the obvious possibility that someone was planning to hijack a plane or planes and deliberately crash them. To me the 9/11 attack occurred because of incompetence at the FBI and CIA.

Preachers look at events from the view point of moral issues of right and wrong. Positive consequences are rewards for doing right. Negative consequences are the punishment for doing wrong. Like the prophets of biblical times Rev. Wright looked at the wrongs he felt America had done and suggested punishment was understandable.

Those who condemn Rev. Wright for his statement about 9/11 reveal themselves as anti religious bigots. They are the ones who should shut up.

In Defense of Mr. Wright

I disagree with Rev. Jeremiah Wright on many things, but as an American I believe that he has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe and express those beliefs.

My father believed the rights of freedom of belief and freedom of expression were important enough to risk his life in Europe in World War II. I believe those rights were important enough to risk my life in Vietnam.

I disagree with Rev. Wright that the U.S. government is responsible for the HIV virus, but as an historian I know that some of our ancestors gave small pox infected blankets to the Indians.

America has a long tradition of belief in conspiracies. Many believe there was some type of government involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the fall of the World Trade Towers. I disagree with those theories but see nothing wrong with people wanting to have such beliefs.

Wright's statements about 9/11 being punishment are consistent with a long religious tradition dating from biblical times. Religious leaders have often explained calamities as punishment for sins. I disagreed with Rev. Martin Luther King's statements about the Vietnam War, but I recognized that he had a duty to speak out against what he believed to be wrong.

One of the functions of religious leaders is to condemn what they believe people or nations are doing wrong. If we want to truly guarantee religious freedom, we must allow them to continue to do so even if we disagree with them.

If anyone is to blame in the controversy, it is Senator Barack Obama not Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years. If Obama had serious disagreements with Rev. Wright, Obama should have left the church instead of belatedly condemning Rev. Wright for holding various beliefs.

Obama's behavior is scary in someone who wants to be president. Presidents can become intoxicated with the powers of the presidency. A candidate who makes a practice of condemning those he disagrees with as a candidate might attempt to punish those who disagree with him if he's elected.

Rev. Wright's statements about HIV might not make sense to most of us, but many of those who are condemning him believe ideas that make even less sense.

For example, many of them believe that carbon dioxide which is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere has some type of magical power to control the temperature of the atmosphere. They believe this even though the process they talk about is inconsistent with the laws of physics and with scientific experiments. They claim the earth is getting significantly warmer, even though they admit that the average temperature they use changed by only 1F during the entire 20th Century and such change represents only a 0.17% increase in temperature. Such a small change could indicate nothing more than differences in equipment or differences in the characteristics of the sites containing the equipment.