Sleepers wake? Part One of a Different Take on Benghazi

Inquiries and investigations into the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012 that left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, are picking up. Many are starting to ask about what I think is one of the key questions in the whole scandal, namely who was it that gave then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and others the talking points about the "YouTube" excuse; that it was the rather badly made anti-Muslim video that spurred on the whole attack and following debacle. Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post's "The Fact Checker" blog is on this angle, as is Ed Morrissey at Hot Air and in his new column for The Week.

Cover-ups rarely are spurred on by the events that directly precipitated the need to cover up, rather their genesis is to be found in keeping under wraps other things that an investigation will likely expose. This was true in both the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals, and it's almost certainly true about the aftermath of Benghazi.

I'm a fan of both history and fiction dealing with espionage and international intrigue. You may have read my recent post on the 70th anniversary of Operation Mincemeat, which except for date checks and verifying some minor details, I wrote pretty much from memory. Perhaps I've read too much history and fiction in that genre, as the tack I'm taking here is a bit off the wall, but I think it's the only explanation that begins to fit all the facts. It's also going to take several posts to flesh out the whole story as I see it. So, here goes...

The UN Speech I'd Give

Today, President Barack Obama will address the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. Frankly, I really don't care what he has to say there, because based on his track record, I'm sure it will be another iteration of his "blame America first" ideology, tinged with additional apologetics for the dubious view that it's a YouTube video that produced the recent increase in Middle East turmoil.

Another thing I can pretty much guarantee is that he's going to speak too long. That's a common problem with politicians, which is particularly on my mind as I was just in Gettysburg this past weekend. President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is masterful because of both its subject and its brevity.

So, were I the President of the United States, trying to keep it as pithy and inspiring as possible, here's what I'd say to the United Nations, if it was me standing there today. I think I'd probably set an all-time record for UN walkouts.

Why the Troops Can't Come Home

Recently, many people - notably Rep. Ron Paul and his supporters - have questioned the wisdom and/or necessity of maintaining forward deployed US military units in foreign countries such as South Korea. Removing these forces as a "cost savings" measure is problematic to say the least. I think it is completely irresponsible and would be disastrous to the United States as a Nation. Let's use South Korea as an example.

On October 1, 1953, the United States of America and the Republic of Korea entered into a mutual defense treaty. The treaty took effect on November 14, 1954. Article 2 of treaty reads as follows:

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of either of them, the political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack. Separately and jointly, by self-help and mutual aid, the Parties will maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and will take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this Treaty and to further its purposes.

Part of the United States' obligation to South Korea under this treaty is our forward deployed forces on the Korean peninsula. The main ground combat force we currently have there today is the 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team of the US Army's 2nd Infantry Division. But, what if they weren't there? What if South Korea came under attack, or even an increased threat of an attack, by the Communist tyrants to the north and we had to quickly redeploy forces from the continental USA?

John Bolton: Confirm Him!

John Bolton is completely qualified to be the United States' Ambassador to the United Nations; our Nation deserves, and for that matter, requires an Ambassador that will clearly state and drive forward the interests of the United States and not some form of internationalist agenda.

Their Finest Hour has joined "Blogging for Bolton", an Internet effort begun by Senator Bill Frist's VOLPAC. The Democrats' obstruction of Mr. Bolton's nomination is a disgrace. Please visit the website (linked from the icon on the right also) and call or email the senators blocking the process.

The United Nations should really be called the "Disunited Nations" or the "Dysfunctional Nations". Frankly, I think it should be abolished, but I'll accept an ambassador who will represent the United States, our President, and our Secretary of State without question or quarter to any anti-American domestic or international pressure.

The UN needs a complete rework if it expects to maintain any relevancy in the 21st Century. Take for example, the UN's Human Rights Council - a body on which, incredibly, the United States does not sit. Of the 47 nations that are HRC members, 22 of them - 47 percent - are cited by Human Rights Watch's published 2006 World Report (PDF file) as hardly the paramount of human rights.

John Bolton is the President's choice to represent our interests before the UN, and I wholeheartedly support him. The United Nations should be supporting the cause of Freedom, instead of allowing despotic or tryrranical nations defining the course of diplomacy.

If Mr. Bolton is confirmed and continued as our UN Ambassador, the cause of Freedom will be driven forward. If he succeeds in reforming that disfunctional body, it could be his finest hour.