Can Old Lady Clinton Understand Benghazi Significance?

The thing that most bothers me about Hillary Clinton's comments about Benghazi is that she doesn't seem to understand why people are concerned about her mishandling of the Benghazi situation.   She doesn't seem to understand that her mishandling of the situation allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory at Benghazi by killing the top U.S. official in Libya.    Clinton doesn't seem to understand why her use of a private email server threatened national security.

The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time it killed an al Qaeda leader including killing Osama bin Laden .   An intelligent Secretary of State would have wanted to prevent the enemy from being able to kill any American ambassador.  Clinton foolishly decided to make it as easy as  possible for al Qaeda to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens.  Her handling of the situation would have made more sense if she had wanted him to die.

Clinton's   attempt to make a diplomatic facility at Benghazi permanent was the biggest American battlefield mistake since the Battle of Hamburger Hill in the Vietnam War.  The war on terror has made much of the world a potential battle field.   The enemy can attack any where, at any time even in San Bernardino California.

In May, 1969, the commanding general of the 101st Airborne made a foolish decision to try to take a well defended but worthless piece of real estate that became known as Hamburger Hill.  The Americans suffered heavy casualties and failed to take the hill which the enemy then abandoned.  

Clinton had ample warning that the ambassador would be in eminent danger in Benghazi.  The consulate had already suffered two minor attacks.  There had been attacks on the Tunisian consulate and the U.N. Special Envoy's convoy.   The International Red Cross closed its office after it was attacked.   The British government withdrew its diplomats  from Benghazi after an attack on its ambassador's convoy.

Clinton's critics have focused on the inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate and ignored the fact that the facility shouldn't have been defended in the first place.   A competent Secretary of State would have followed the example of the International Red Cross and the British government and abandoned a  building that wasn't worth the loss of American lives.

Clinton's use of a less secure private email server may have made it possible for al Qaeda leaders to learn the United States wouldn't defend the consulate

The advice of the old gambler in the Kenny Rogers song "The Gambler" applies to war as well as poker

"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run."

  The United States should have walked away from Benghazi.    There is no shame in walking a way from a battle that cannot be won.  In the early years of World War II the British army walked away from  France and the United States army walked away from the Philippines because the locations couldn't be defended at that time.

Trump's Muslim Proposal May be Necessary

Critics of Donald Trump's proposal to prohibit Muslims from entering the United States need to keep in mind that the United States is involved in a war with a group that is attempting to get all Muslims to join its unholy crusade.  War sometimes forces national leaders to take actions to defend the nation that they would not otherwise consider.   During World War II President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the bombing of German cities even though he knew innocent children would likely be killed.

I believe that the vast majority of Muslims oppose what the terrorists who call themselves Muslims are doing.   However, even if less than one in 100,000  support terrorism, that is enough to pose a threat to our safety.  Ten men brought down the World Trade Towers.  Tim McVey wasn't a Muslim but he destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City, Okla., with a truck loaded with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

The situation with Muslims reminds me of Vietnam.   We weren't completely sure which Vietnamese were friendly and which were not.  We sometimes wondered if the Vietnamese barbers who cut our hair in the afternoon would try to slip in and cut our throats at night. 

The terrorists are in a win-win situation on this issue.   If we allow foreign Muslims into the country they will probably be able to occasionally  slip in a terrorist like the woman involved in the San Bernardino shooting or the man who planted a car bomb in Times Square.  If we keep them out the terrorists can use the policy to convince Muslims we hate them.

Those who criticize Trump are ignoring the fact that he is more familiar with what terrorists can do than the rest of us.  His hometown New York City has been successfully attacked twice and nearly was the victim of a third attack.  

Trump is aware of the fact that American intelligence about the Middle East has been weak for decades.  The CIA failed to warn of the attack on the American embassy in Iran in the seventies and the 9/11 attack in 2001.  

Many of the people in the Middle East hate the United States because of European and American meddling in their affairs during the 20th Century.  European nations took over much of the region after World War I and imposed artificial political boundaries.   Later the United States helped the tyrant known as the Shah of Iran take control of that country and Saddam Hussein rule Iraq.  

Efforts by Westerners to ridicule the Muslim religion also generate anti-Western hatred.  These bigots call their efforts satire, but making fun of others is only satire if they of equal or higher status.   Making fun of those with lower status is ridicule.  Making fun of those who are down adds insult to injury.

In the coming election we will need to decide whether we want to risk allowing Muslim terrorists to enter the country legally or make it harder for the terrorists by restricting the innocent majority as well as the terrorist minority.  

ESPN and Capital One Are Dishonoring Real Heroes

The decision by ESPN and Capital One to allow the actor previously known as Bruce Jenner to desecrate the Arthur Ashe courage award dishonors real heroes.  Jenner has done nothing to deserve the Arthur Ashe  award.

Jenner's decision to be the character Caitlyn in an E! Network reality show is a common type of  action in the entertainment industry.  There is nothing unusual about an entertainer with a male body impersonating , or playing, a female character.  His action involves no more courage than all entertainers must have to perform before an audience.   His theft of the Arthur Ashe award to make himself look courageous is nothing more than a sick public relations stunt.  

It doesn't take courage for someone to take a high paying entertainment job that doesn't involve physical danger like the driver of a truck load of dynamite would face.   Many of us old guys would be willing to let our hair grow, or wear a wig if the hair has stopped growing, and put on a dress for the kind of money Jenner is getting from the E! Network..   Some of us might be willing to go even farther than Jenner is willing to go and let them remove what David Letterman calls our "junk".   When a man reaches 65 it sometimes isn't much more than junk anyway.

Giving a courage award to someone who has done nothing courageous dishonors those who have actually done something heroic.  Giving an award named after the black man who integrated the American Davis Cup team to a wealthy white entertainer so he can further his career is sick.    When Arthur Ashe discovered he had received an HIV infection from a blood transfusion he worked to educate people about the disease and founded Arthur Ashe Foundation for the Defeat of AIDS and the Arthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health.   Jenner's decision to do a new reality show playing a woman doesn't remotely compare to what Ashe did.

The actions of a young college woman named Lauren Hill does compare favorably with  Ashe's actions.  When she found out she was dying of an incurable cancer she dedicated the remainder of her college basketball career to trying to raise research funds so other young people would not have to share her fate.

Sgt. Noah Galloway didn't get a fatal disease in Iraq, but he did lose an arm and a leg.   If I had suffered that type of injury in Vietnam I would probably have spent the rest of my sitting in front of a tv set.   Galloway chose to fight back like Arthur Ashe and became a motivational speaker and even finished 3rd in the show "Dancing with the Stars".

Both of these individuals demonstrated far more courage than Jenner has. I recently saw a news story about a young father who demonstrated far more courage than Jenner.  When a man attempted to steal his car with his son inside, this courageous father jumped on the moving vehicle and held on as long as he could. 

The men and women who have served in the War on Terror have demonstrated far more courage than Jenner.    The same can be said of those who work as police officers or firefighters.

If Jenner accepts the award he will mark himself as a coward rather than a hero.   Jenner's attempt to steal the award reminds me of an old Warner Brothers cartoon about a phony hero dog.   At the start of the cartoon "Fresh Airedale"  the dog helps a burglar by serving as a lookout until the car chases the burglar.   When the dog hears someone coming he pretends he has chased the burglar away.  When the dog hears about another dog being called the "Number 1 Dog" he travels to the Number 1 dog's home and attempts to push him into a pond.  The phony hero misses and ends up in the water.  The Number 1 Dog rescues the phony, but is exhausted by the effort.  The phony revives first and when he hears people coming acts like he rescued the Number 1 Dog.    The dogs in the cartoon were males, but Jenner wants to be referred to as a female.   When you get older you sometimes have trouble remembering some words.  Does anyone remember the word for a female dog?

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.