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...

Running on the Third Rail

It is past time conservatives start running their campaigns with a "third rail" issue - the supposed politically untouchable - as a centerpiece. We're all fully knowledgeable that government spending is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. Our spending levels on government programs that are nothing but wealth redistribution whose costs far outweigh the value received and are completely unsustainable as we saddle future generations with more and more debt.

"Wait!", I hear you say, "Aren't conservatives already fully on board with entitlement spending reform?" Of course they are, for the most part. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about defense spending.

That's right, defense spending. If conservatives are going to truly and honestly stand for fiscal sanity and to win spending arguments in the future, fiscal policy proposals and narratives are going to have to include not just touching a third-rail of conservatism, but seizing it enthusiastically.

Our nation deserves it, our children who are being saddled with more and more debt deserve it, and most importantly, the brave men and women who wear the uniform of our Armed Services deserve the best of each and every dollar we give them to defend us with.

Bayonets? How About Some Bombers?

As my regular readers know, I'm big about chronicling the exploits of military heroes, particularly on "decade" anniversaries as I did earlier today for Mitchell Paige (Medal of Honor, 70 years, 10/26/1942) and Sherrod Skinner (Medal of Honor, 60 years, 10/26/1952). It turns out that there's a 50th anniversary to note today as well, but it's not one we should be proud of.

On October 26, 1962 - fifty years ago today - the United States Air Force took delivery of a Boeing B-52H Stratofortress bomber from the manufacturer, serial number 61-0040. That was the last B-52 to be manufactured.

That's right. The newest B-52 in our Air Force's inventory - the "H" model is the only left flying, 85 in the active force, 9 in the Air Force Reserve - is fifty years old today. Forget the President of the United States ridiculing bayonets or pooh-poohing cutbacks to the United States Navy; we have defense procurement issues across the board that jeopardize our Nation's defense.

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?

Complete disregard for National Security

By now, I'm sure you've seen the reports on President Obama and Vice President Biden's lunch outing to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.

Contrived political opportunism? Of course. All politicians do that - and generally I don't criticize them for it - when they want to appear in tune with the "common man". Unless of course, the politician is a real common (wo)man (Sarah Palin, 2007 AGI of $166,080 with husband Todd), in which case they're simply a target for ridicule and destruction.

No, where I take offense to the New Soviet Man's lunch with his Plagiarist Veep is the fact that they were both in the same public place at the same time. Planned or not, unannounced or not, this showed callous disregard for security, safety, and continuity of the United States Government.

Let me be absolutely clear on one point: I am not a supporter of the Obama Administration - I hope they and their policies fail miserably - but at the same time I do not want to see any physical harm or even the risk thereof come to President Obama or Vice President Biden.

It is unconscionably reckless for the two of them to have been at the same place like that, especially in a post-9/11 world. This wasn't the White House, the Capitol Building (i.e. State of the Union Address), a military base, or some other controlled, secure environment - it was a burger joint.

Here's a scary way to look at it: at lunch time today, the United States of America was one hand grenade away from...President Pelosi.

And the Left wonders why we believe Barack Obama isn't serious about National Security...

An Obama reality check?

Candidate Obama railed repeatedly on the Bush policies that established Guantanamo and Military commissions to try our terrorist enemies for their crimes. Now, President Obama has examined all of his rhetoric and found that...Bush was right?

Who'd have ever thought that Barack Obama's beliefs had absolutely no relationship to the realities of the world? I'm shocked, shocked I say!

Mark the Date

Why? Because I'm going to say that President-elect Barack Obama has done the right thing. What did he do? Decide to keep Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in his post.

A quick survey of lefty blogs indicates that the Obamatons are not pleased. Good.

TFH 10/7: The War is Joined

Prior to 9/11, the United States was a passive participant in a violent conflict. Everything changed that September morning.

Seven years ago this day, the United States of America under the leadership of President George W. Bush began combat operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan under the command of General Tommy Franks, USA.

From this day forth, the United States of America made it known that we would no longer tolerate terrorist acts against our Nation, nor would we allow those who would support and harbor terrorists to persist among freedom-loving nations.

This day, those murdered by terrorists on 9/11 began to receive justice.

Today began Operation Enduring Freedom, a finest hour for freedom and liberty, and for the United States of America!

Just once...

Sarah missed an opportunity in the debate - a minor one (she's doing great by the way) - to state clear and loud what the exit strategy for the War on Terror is. Once, just once, I'd like to hear someone say at the top of their lungs that the only exit strategy acceptable to Americans in war is:

VICTORY!!!!!

America's doctrine in war should have only two possible outcomes for the enemies of Freedom:

1) You may surrender unconditionally and immediately.

2) If you choose to not accept option one, you will be completely and totally annihilated.

End. Of. Discussion.

Honoring our Military with the Best Recruiting Commercial Ever

Had my life taken a different course, I would be an officer in the United States Marine Corps right now. I know now, but not fully why, that that life is not what God intended for me.

In the day, I chose the Marines because I believed then as now that the United States was worth fighting for, and that the Marine Corps was my best chance for actually fighting. Yes, I wanted to go to war for my country. It would have been worth whatever the cost to myself.

Soon after September 11th, the United States Marine Corps produced the following television commercial. I can remember the first time I saw it. It's not about team building, individual achievement, or getting an education or training.

It's about going to war.



Thank you to all the members - past, present, and future - of the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Coast Guard, and the United States Marine Corps. You all have defended our Liberty and Nation, and today you defend myself, my wife, and my two wonderful children who sadly, will never know a pre-9/11 world.

Saddam's Congressmen

I'm shocked, shocked, to read that a "trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion" was paid for by Saddam Hussein's intelligence service through cut-outs.

The dates of the trip coincide with the trip by Representatives David Bonior (Democrat-MI), Jim McDermott (Democrat-WA), and Mike Thompson (Democrat-CA) in October of 2002. While these fine Americans are not named specifically in the Federal indictment surrounding the case, it's pretty clear that it was them who got their trip paid for on Saddam's dime.

I really don't care whether or not these upstanding patriots knew that the money for their trip came from Iraq or not. Their whole purpose in going was solely to undermine United States foreign policy, President Bush, and the need to insure Iraq's compliance with all of the various UN and other international sanctions against them - and produce compliance by force if necessary. No matter how you cut it, they gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. That's treason in my book. It's just icing on the cake that they were the dupes of the dictator himself.

Bonior, McDermott, Thompson - enemy collaborators.

Michelle Malkin comments here.

Iraq: D+ Five Years

Some reflections on the 5th Anniversary of launching Operation Iraqi Freedom:

1) Of course, I remember vividly watching the news coverage. In particular, I remember a FOX News reporter broadcasting from outside RAF Fairford commenting on the Air Force B-52H bombers that were heading off on their bombing missions to Iraq with a comment that, "they're five or six hours away from their targets over Iraq." To which I recall replying to the TV, "or 10 to 12 hours from their targets over Pyongyang, and just 30 minutes from their targets in Paris!" I'm so glad we have allies like France (at that time, Sarkozy will hopefully be another story) on our side.

2) Being woken up by the live report by FOX's Greg Kelly from Saddam's front yard in Baghdad at about 4:00 AM was awesome.

3) I am an Iraq war supporter. I am also one who believes that the conduct of the war has been atrocious. If I was asked how I thought the war was being conducted, I'd have to say poorly - which of course would translate in a poll that I oppose the war. I'm upset that we haven't been more violent, destroyed more of the enemy, completely destroyed their will to fight, etc.

4) There have been almost 4,000 Americans killed in action in Iraq, and around 29,000 wounded. Given the size of the force and the duration of conflict, from a military perspective there have been zero casualties. I am not saying that to minimize the sacrifices of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, nor am I discounting the pain and suffering of the fallen, wounded, or their families - the sacrifices made by our forces and their loved ones are significant and I honor them all for their sacrifices - but not one single unit has been rendered combat ineffective because of enemy action. Approximately 3,000 casualties were suffered by the 1st and 29th Infantry Divisions on D-Day. In the 35 days of the Battle of Iwo Jima, the United States suffered 26,504 casualties: 7,315 killed or missing and 19,189 wounded.

As of this post, the United States has suffered 3,987 killed and 29,320 wounded in Iraq; in 1,827 days.

That works out to 3 service members killed per day; the killed/missing rate for the Iwo Jima campaign was 209 per day - 70 times higher

That works out to 17 service members wounded per day; the wounded rate for Iwo Jima was 549 per day - 32 times higher

That works out to 19 total casualties per day; the total casualty rate at Iwo Jima was 758/day - 40 times higher

110,000 servicemen were involved at Iwo Jima - 24% became casualties.

The best estimate I can find on the Internet is that approximately 1 million unique American servicemen and women have served in Iraq. Let's be conservative, and say the number is actually 750,000. At the 750K number, just 4.5% of the total force has become casualties.

Can we please have some perspective on casualties?

5) May God continue to protect and care for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen - wherever they serve, comfort our wounded, lessen the grief for the families of the lost, grant wisdom to the commanders and leaders, and guide our way to ultimate victory for the Forces of Freedom.

And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave,
O'er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

What the French Foreign Minister Really Meant

If he was speaking in his native tounge, Monsieur Bernard Kouchner of France was misquoted - I think - in this English translation:

PARIS — Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France, said Tuesday that
whoever succeeds Bush in the White House will have to restore the United States'
battered image and standing overseas...Kouchner said the United States will
never be the country it was before the Bush presidency and would have to work to
repair its reputation, especially since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq..."I
think the magic is over," Kouchner told the International Herald Tribune. "It
will never be as it was before"...although it will take time, the new president
will have “many means to re-establish the image” of a country whose reputation
is suffering. Kouchner also discussed holding out hope of talking with Hamas,
the Palestinian faction that rules the Gaza Strip but has been ostracized by the
West and by its Palestinian rival, Fatah.
"We have to talk with our
enemies," he said.

What he really said is:

SURRENDER, SURRENDER, SURRENDER! Really, Islamofascists just want to peacefully coexist with us!

What I say is:

Enemies Domestic

The US Armed Forces Recruiting Station in Times Square was attacked with an explosive device this morning. I'm sure some sicko thought that this was a valid form of protest, but sorry, it's actually treasonous.

Don't blame the Air Force, blame Boeing

Part of the big news of the day is the United States Air Force's decision to procure Northrop Grumman's KC-45A tanker aircraft instead of Boeing's KC-767 offering as the replacement for aging KC-135 (in service since 1957) - and eventually KC-10 (in service since 1981) - air refuelling tankers.

The "scandalous" aspect to this decision is that the KC-45 is based on the Airbus A330 commercial airliner and is not manufactured in the United States! Airbus, of course, is owned by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Corporation (EADS). Northrop Grumman will be doing final assembly of the KC-45 in Alabama, and will be using domestically-produced jet engines for the planes, but most of the airframe components will be manufactured in Europe.

My first reaction to this decision was surprise (Boeing had been the favorite to win the deal) and then concern that we are sourcing a critical component of the United States' ability to project air power worldwide to a foreign supplier. However, I've done some research and:

1) The per aircraft acquisition cost for both the KC-45 and the KC-767 are essentially the same.

2) The KC-45 is a larger aircraft than the KC-767 and can carry both more cargo (in that role) and more fuel for transfer to "primary mission" aircraft.

3) The Boeing 767 is a 1970s era design - it originally entered airline service in 1982. The aircraft is being retired as a commercial airliner in the next 12-18 months by Boeing in favor of the new 787 Dreamliner. Effectively, had they chosen the KC-767, the USAF would have been the only remaining customer of the plane.

4) The A330 entered service in 1994 and is still in full production. Its replacement, the A350, is still in the early design phase, and won't be flying until 2013 at the earliest.

Sorry, but once I got past my knee jerk reaction to this, it's obvious that the KC-45 is a better option for the United States Air Force, based on the only alternative being the KC-767. Would I have preferred a majority-American constructed aircraft, absolutely.

In my opinion, it is completely Boeing's fault. Why they based their "future" tanker offering on a late 1970s aircraft design when they could have either used either the aforementioned 21st Century 787 is beyond me. The 787 could have carried more than an A330-based platform since it's a comparably sized, and lighter aircraft.

Boeing could have even made their offering based on the even larger 777 aircraft (introduced 1995), which would have dwarfed the capabilities of any alternative. Based on my research, the per unit acquisition cost for either a 777 or 787-based tanker aircraft would have been comparable, if not identical, to that of either the KC-45 or the KC-767!

Great move Boeing; real smart move to try and saddle the best Air Force in the world with 30-year old airplane designs when you could have presented modern, top-of-the-line airframes that are at the cutting edge of civil airliner designs.

As a taxpayer, I'm glad the Air Force chose the KC-45.

I feel so much safer...

...now that Nancy Pelosi and John "Surrender" Murtha have visited Iraq, really. I'm sure our troops were lining up to shake hands with them for subverting their mission and morale.

Another example of "enemies domestic"?

Just read an article in the Pittsburgh City Paper entitled "Targeting 'Modern Bullet Factory,' POG to block CMU Building". "POG" is the Pittsburgh Organizing Group, our local ultra-left wing band of peaceniks, and "CMU" is Carnegie Mellon University. The building they're planning to blockade on 3/2/2007 is the National Robotics Engineering Center.

CMU's robotics arm is at the cutting edge of developing autonomous combat systems that will help keep our brave Warfighters safe under fire.

Let's get this straight: the left cares not for our troops. They care only for furthering their whacko agenda and destroying this Nation's ability to defend ourselves, thereby coddling our enemies.

----------------------------------------

Blogged from my Palm Treo 700w
Powered by Windows Mobile 5.0

A missed opportunity...

Hear about that "Holocaust Forum" that Iranian Terrorist (oops, President) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was hosting in Tehran, complete with good ol' KKKer David Duke as an honored guest?

All of these terrorists, fascists, etc. in one place - public and known - at one time? My only thought, if I were the President would be (through the chain of command, of course) to call up the USAF's 509th Bomb Wing, task four B-2 Spirits each loaded with 16 2,000 pound GBU-31 JDAM weapons, and send a 64-ton high explosive message that would have done the whole world a lot of good.

We are at war, do not forget. Terrorists, their leaders, and those who support them are legitimate military targets.

Coming soon - my plan for solving the Iranian nuclear situation militarily. It can be done.

The Flying "Imams"

Pajamas Media has a great round-up of developments on the adherants to the "Religion of Peace" who were removed from an aircraft in Minneapolis.

Read the police report and witness statements. Sure, let's go ahead and give these folks their own private prayer rooms in airports so they can conspire in private.

Is Gates right for SecDef?

Paul Mirengoff over at Power Line brings up an interesting point in this posting about one good reason to be hesitant about Robert Gates becoming the Secretary of Defense: he's a member of the Iraq Study Group, a.k.a. the "Baker Commission". This group is expected to recommend a potentially disasterous course of action in Iraq, e.g. inviting Syria and Iran - two of the biggest state sponors of terrorists - to actively participate in reconstructing a peaceful Iraq.

I will be following Mr. Gates' confirmation hearings and public statements with great interest.

I hope he remembers:

1) There should be only two acceptable outcomes when the United States goes to war:

• Unconditional surrender of our enemies
• Total destruction and annihilation of our enemies

2) Peace only follows victory; one side has to win

3) Syria and Iran should be next on the chopping block for reforming the Middle East, not invited to the table with us.

We'll see...