Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The Republicans had focused on Commandos in Italy for enforcing the idea of a "Weak Commander and Chief."

...The Pentagon had no forces (click here) that could be readily sent to Benghazi when the crisis unfolded. The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There are no armed drones thought to be within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit — a large seaborne force with its own helicopters — in the Mediterranean Sea. The Africa Command, whose area of operation includes North Africa, also did not have on hand its own force able to respond rapidly to emergencies — a Commanders’ In-Extremis Force, or C.I.F. Every other regional combatant command had one at the time....

OBAMA FIDDLED AS BENGHAZI BURNED (click here) – President Refused to Call in Troops From Italy One Hour Away

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 9:12 AM

The attack on the Obama Administration by Republicans was about politics, so if they pretend to actually be interested in reinforcing the security of State Department Assets; it is a lie. Let's get that straight first. It was Secretary Clinton insisting on an official investigation.

I am sure the recommendations made since the four deaths regarding security of State Department Assets by Secretary Clinton are more than adequate in updating the security protocols. The severeness of the report proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Secretary Clinton was serious about exposing failures within State Department security.

That is respect for human life, by the way. Not politics. She wanted all failures to be exposed to benefit the people within her responsibility and those in the future. Her priorities in ordering this investigation is above reproach.

That said.

There is a truth not identified in the Pickering Report. The diplomatic mission in Benghazi was premature. The consulate in Tripoli was the correct focus for USA involvement. The Benghazi issue was sincerely more the need of a military instillation than a consulate of any kind and the USA within NATO was not going to put troops on the ground. Libya isn't that large a country and there were not that many Americans in the country to justify two consulates.

Even today, I don't understand Ambassador Christopher's willingness to be in Benghazi knowing he was at risk.

There were also many, many unknowns in Benghazi, Libya. The militias were still active in the country and the central government, although established with help of the USA State Department (Secretary Clinton recognized those authorities very early into the Libya Revolution), was still struggling with the incorporation of militias into their military. Basically, Libya was a very dangerous place. Even today the current government is finding it difficult to function well enough.

Last Modified: 31 Oct 2012 14:22

Protesters have stormed Libya's national assembly, forcing the cancellation of a vote on a proposed coalition government named by the country's new prime minister, just hours earlier.
Fewer than 100 people, made up of civilians and former rebel fighters, charged into the meeting hall of the General National Congress  on Tuesday as it voted on Ali Zeidan's cabinet line-up, which was drawn from both liberal and Islamist parties.
In chaotic televised scenes, with the protesters unhappy with some of the nominations, congress members persuaded them to leave.
Voting then briefly resumed before being interrupted a second time, prompting congress leader Mohammed Magarief to announce the session was postponed to Wednesday.
"Let it be known to all Libyans and to the whole world what conditions we are working in, " Magarief said....

At least the protesters are former rebel fighters. I think that might be reason for hope. The current President was once a Benghazi resident.

I am not at all sure, the USA has ever had a mission in a country as unstable as Libya immediately after a revolution. This was a fresh as diplomatic ground gets. I hope the report is instructive to the State Department in handling it's responsibility toward it's Ambassadors, regardless, of their own priorities and demands for influence within any country. Ambassador Stevens was too willing to enter a dangerous country. And Libya was and is still very dangerous. He did so while believing he could trust the people and the benevolence of their new freedom. There is a level of naive willingness to face danger without the benefit of sincere security which needs to be restructured among our ambassadors.

I doubt the late Richard Holbrooke would be so willing to expose a mission to such instability. He would balance the need for involvement with realizing the value of living to make a difference.

Ambassador Stevens is a profound loss within our State Department. He will be missed. To that reality our diplomatic corp needs to value themselves far more than the willingness to make a difference. 

We need ambassadors, not martyrs.

The Ambassador Stevens of the world are few and far between. He could not afford to allow his death out of frustration with lack of his personal security. He should have been mad as hell about any safety compromise inhibiting his mission. Maybe. Just maybe if the State Department is mad as hell often enough their budget demands may even be honored.

Speaker Boner is a bit out of step with the rest of the nation.

He is talking about protecting the wealthy while the rest of the nation mourns the loss of children, teachers and administrators.

I don't take him seriously. He is running for Speaker. That is all this is. Until he is sincerely talking about the issues the nation have as priority I can't take him seriously.

I also hold not anticipation to hear from the NRA. They have blood on their hands, why would I consider anything they say important? They have assaulted the Social Contract of the USA for the purpose of corruption while seeking power through politics. I don't really care what the NRA thinks of this tragedy. To think they are actually important to hear from is offensive all by itself.

The Right Wing needs to return to reality and soon.

I am fairly sure I stated, the flag at half-mast "Was a good beginning." I haven't heard a word about gun control from the Speaker. Symbolism is fine, but, it doesn't mean a darn thing if it isn't followed up with respect.

Action speaks far louder than words. The Speaker is insincere and it shows.

Nancy Lanza was a victim of the gun lobby no different than her son.

She was a gun owner for its populous beliefs. I don't have to know her to know where her passion for guns came from. It is a perverse belief system outside the realm of possibility.

My youngest son was a very challenged child and young man. His strengths were very high, but, his weaknesses in learning were profound. He received significant help during all his learning years. His story has a happy ending.

When he was a young child, I would sit in front of him and spin a top to engage his attention. The top was a whistling top, very colorful and he loved to watch it. He was very challenged. His greatest gift and strength was his older brother and my insistence he be considered a normal child from his birth. He modeled his behavior after his older brother and I rewarded his NORMAL behavior with lost of rewards.

His rewards enhanced his brothers quality of life,too. We studied whales and whale song and all kinds of sea creatures during his early years. He eventually would seek a college education in marine biology, but, he would instead establish himself in a privately owned taxi service.

The boys were frequently rewarded for their behavior as wonderful sons. We went to Disney World, the Space Center and Sea World. The boys loved their trips to places of fantasy and critical thinking. They are wonderful sons yet today.

They also had a GI Joe Aircraft Carrier. It was set up in the living room every winter when playing outside was challenging because it actually got cold then and playtime was limited to what they could tolerate in their snow suits. My older son today is a successful business professional and gun enthusiast. He and his spouse conceal carry. They are sickened with what happened in Connecticut. They do not own a single assault weapon.

My younger son rejects the idea of private gun ownership even as a taxi driver that has seen the death of peers due to violence. The violence his peers have experienced wasn't with guns, it was with knives across the throat and reckless and drunk drivers on the road.

Due to my youngest son, his leadership among independent taxi owners has created a close and successful relationship with law enforcement. The legitimate taxi owners now have a safe zone in the city with a 'taxi stand.'

The tender ages of my sons were met with masculine play and tempered with compassion for life. Wildlife was valued and the outdoors were very important. What lacks in the video game industry is the way they base their enthusiasm in self defense and killing. The games are not tempered in 'real world' compassion and 'belonging.' My sons had video games like, Mario Brothers, Burger Time and games that created 'self' competition to achieve a 'personal best.' They wrecked race cars and hit baseballs and flew jets at their state of the art control console, but, they never were soldiers killing other people with a gun of any type.

My oldest son does currently own a sophisticated gaming system with fantastic panorama where his friends can log in to defeat enemies in battle. Today he is a thirty something and can discern the difference of sincere danger from fantasy. The chat that goes on when he and an online friend fail is interesting. They blame each other and joke about inefficiencies to victory. He never views himself as powerful as a lone wolf or successful without his friends. He practices alone to be a better partner 'online' to his group(s). He is not obsessed with online gaming either. This is recreation that has time scheduled when his friends can participate.

Both the boys are social creatures. My youngest have my four grandchildren. He is a great and dedicated father. Those children simply love him and celebrate him everyday.

Do I think Ms. Lanza did it "W"rong. Yes. But, she paid the ultimate price for her loyalty to the gun lobby and right wing extremism.
The Interstate Commerce Law allowing the shipment of gun sales across state lines is to increase competition in the cost of guns to consumers to bring down prices to those that will ultimately purchase ammunition and increase profits to gun manufacturers. There should be absolutely no Interstate Commerce of guns and ammunition. It provides for a free for all for Governors, the National Guard and ultimately the national security of the nation.

There is real profit in 'numbers of guns sold.' The profit in competition between states will be absorbed by the middle man, the gun shop. It will cause closure of small gun shops that cannot compete with places like Wall Street's Cabela's. Places like Cabela's can absorb gun sale losses with the sale of other goods. Guns "Bring them in." These Interstate Commerce laws will reduce commerce in any state and cause an increase in unemployment.

The Interstate Commerce of guns adds a lot of problems to each state in their legislation and enforcement. It will eventually homogenize the nation into one set of gun sales laws. It actually removes States Rights on the basis of a well armed and CONTROLLED militia.

This circus needs to stop.

It is amazing. In the case of Michigan, Canada should be chiming in on this one. The state shares the Great Lakes and borders where security is a real issue.

Teachers should be armed in classrooms?

What next, the students, including those under 18 years old? Where does it stop at five year olds? Or the pre-school four year olds?

Liberal gun laws are ridiculous to consider. Turning classrooms into gun show downs should never be part of the job description. The Gun Lobby is completely out of control and their politicians are now dangerous in backing the Gun Lobbyists.

Snyder's veto is basically worthless and increases the opportunity for gun violence in schools.

...While the governor rejected Senate Bill 59,(click here) he did sign two other bills that streamline the process for handgun purchases and eliminate restrictions on interstate rifle and shotgun transactions to states contiguous to Michigan.

Snyder's veto primarily is based on the bill's failure to let designated public entities such as schools, day care centers and hospitals opt out of the new concealed carry provisions. Currently, Michigan law does not prevent a concealed pistol license holder from openly carrying a pistol in these zones.

Snyder had urged that SB 59 be modified to more significantly restrict pistols in those zones by prohibiting open-carry in such places, in exchange for allowing only concealed pistols to be carried if license holders receive additional training - subject to the right of the property owners to prohibit concealed carrying if they desire. Under the bill as passed, only private venues can opt out, as can college universities with constitutional autonomy....

A challenge to the Interstate Commerce of guns and rifles need to be filed against the State of Michigan.

Snyder is allowing concealed carry in sensitive areas where children are present from open carry to concealed carry with "Special Training." The special training will be an increase in the cost of owning a gun, but, that never stops them. Concealed carry for licensed individuals allows more guns in an area where there should be NONE.

This is how the gun lobby works. First they demand open carry where guns were prohibited and then they continue to erode the safety of the public for the benefit of their perverse sense of owning guns and some kind of Second Amendment rights. They are hideous, secretive in their agenda and insidious in their methodology to corrupt the social contract between Americans.