US launches military action against Libya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Obama: Libya attack ‘wasn’t just a mob action’
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 12 hrs ago.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ZDp...70670004d6.jpg

Did Obama tell the audience of "The View...." that the man behind these attacks was released from Gitmo and was affiliated with Al Qaeda - the same leaders Obama supported using the U.S. military and tax payers funds during the overthrow of Libya?[/i]

---

Joy Behar: Maybe Obama would rather talk to me than Netanyahu — ever consider that?
By Doug Powers • September 26, 2012 08:26 AM

As a bizarre and perpetually confused friend once reminded me, “even a blind squirrel’s broken clock finds a nut twice a day.” And so it was with Joy Behar, who attempted to offer a defense of President Obama’s meeting schedule while at the same time unwittingly pointing out a perceived problem with the priorities: http://washingtonexaminer.com/joy-be...7#.UGJaa1Z5Of4

Quote:

---

Joy Behar doesn’t like all the criticism President Obama has received for going on The View while refusing to meet with any world leaders at the United Nations meeting in New York City this week.

“Obama is being bashed for doing the View instead of meeting world leaders,” Behar, a co-host of The View and outspoken liberal comedian, tweeted. “Maybe he’d rather talk to me than Netanyahu. Ever think of that?” She also tweeted a photo from Obama’s appearance on the show, which she described as a “lovefest.”

---

No argument here. It was a simple decision on the part of the president, really. Where’s he more likely to be considered eye candy http://twitchy.com/2012/09/24/hurl-n...-for-you-guys/ while reaching “low information voters” http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/2...-the-view-huh/ : at boring meetings with world leaders during times of trouble around the world (speculation about how a Netanyahu meeting would look can be seen here http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/201...ith-prime.html ) or amid an adoring throng (save perhaps for one) at The View? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...p_ref=the-view

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/09/26...ama-netanyahu/

It's so annoying. I did not see the View yesterday however, I caught just a bit today and the gals on there were STILL proclaiming that the murders over there were because of the video. The way they all fawn over the "POTUS" (with a giggle & eye squint) is really stomach turning. It's like they are part of his campaign......honestly, ABC is blatantly part of his campaign. They are not level nor unbiased.

The Rape of Christopher Stevens
by Raymond Ibrahim ~ FrontPage Magazine September 20, 2012

By obsessing over the 14-minute YouTube Muhammad video and its maker, the mainstream media ultimately exonerates the inexcusable and murderous response of the Islamic world.

One of the images being cited as evidence that Stevens was sexually abused: it appears his pants were down when he was rescued.

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/ibrahi.../large/235.jpg

There is only one question: did those who make this movie break any law? No, they did not—and so the matter should end there, and the media should move on. Focusing on those who did not break any American laws as a way to take the focus off those who murdered and initiated an act of war against the United States is not only misleading; it validates and gives Islamic blasphemy laws precedence over American freedoms.

Moreover, even if making movies deemed offensive to Muslims was illegal in the U.S., the fact is, these embassy attacks, which "coincidentally" began on September 11, have nothing to do with the movie. On September 10, I wrote an article titled "Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo." http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2012/0...bassy-in-cairo Then, the demand that the U.S. release its imprisoned jihadis, including the Blind Sheikh, was behind these threats. There was no mention of "offensive movies." My source, El Fagr, an Arabic website, reported all this on September 8. http://new.elfagr.org/Detail0777.asp...d=182500&vid=2
There was no mention of "offensive movies." My source, El Fagr, an Arabic website, reported all this on September 8. http://new.elfagr.org/Detail0777.asp...d=182500&vid=2

In other words, several days before Muslims rioted about this movie they were threatening to burn down the U.S. embassy in Cairo. I had even seen sporadic Arabic reports, from months back, talking about "extremist elements" threatening the embassy. The movie is just a pretext—aided and abetted by the media, not to mention the Obama administration: Hillary Clinton called the video "disgusting and reprehensible," wording which is more befitting for those who murdered (and possibly raped, see below) Americans; the U.S. embassy itself apologized over those who "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims"; and the administration asked YouTube to remove the 14 minute trailer.

Thus the U.S. administration validates Islam's blasphemy laws and, once again, aligns itself with America's jihadi enemies.

Seventy-year old, retiring Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., put it well, when he suggested that the administration's response to the embassy attacks was akin to a court asking a rape victim for an apology: "It's like the judge telling the woman who got raped, 'You asked for it because of the way you dressed.'"

Nor is the rape analogy entirely allegorical. According to the Arabic website, Tayyar, "the American ambassador in Libya [Christopher Stevens] was sexually raped before being killed by the gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night [Tuesday, September 11], in protestation of a film insulting to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him."

Sexual abuse and degradation is a common tactic used against non-Muslims, especially women, as the repeatedly raped Lara Logan found. A report in Arabic media that just appeared discusses how Christian women—identified by wearing crosses around their necks or simply not wearing a hijab—are subject to sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and even threats of rape on the streets of Egypt. This has only "become much more blatant and terrifying [after the embassy attacks]—and has even reached the point of threats of genocide and purging the land of Egypt of infidel Christians," writes one female Christian in Egypt.

Nor are men immune from such rapes. In fact, the photos of Ambassador Steven—stripped clothes, bloodied and tortured right before he was killed—very much resemble the photos of Gaddafi right before he was killed. One U.S.-supported "freedom-fighter," for example, can be seen sodomizing Gadaffi with a rod as others dragged him along.

The al-Qaeda affiliated men who sexually abused and killed Gaddafi are the same sort of men who sexually abused and killed America's ambassador. We were told that the late Libyan dictator was killed because he was an evil oppressor of his people. Why was the American ambassador killed, who had hailed the revolution and was there helping to "build a better Libya"?

These are the questions the media and the Obama administration need to be answering—not obsessing over a second-rate YouTube video and questioning hard won American freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment. They should be explaining why it is that, after four years of appeasing the Islamic world in ways unprecedented, including by helping oust America's longstanding allies like Egypt's Mubarak to empower Islamists, all we have to show for it are dead and violated Americans, stormed embassies, burned U.S. flags, and greater anti-American sentiment than ever before.

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/12305/...topher-stevens

»

October 02, 2012

BenghaziGate Blows Up, By The Numbers

Whilst the Editorial Staff was intently peering at boring spreadsheets, BenghaziGate hit the proverbial fan. Let's run it down: http://www.memeorandum.com/121002/p60#a121002p60

1. White House talking points based on cherry picked intel? http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2012/...president.html Sacre bleu! The arrogant cowboy Bush President Obama has much to answer for!

Lake reports that there was a briefing from the CIA blaming the attack on the video. However, the intelligence was based on one intelligence intercept and ignored all the other intelligence that we had about the attack.

Quote:

---

The intelligence that helped inform those talking points—and what the U.S. public would ultimately be told—came in part from an intercept of a phone call between one of the alleged attackers and a middle manager from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s north African affiliate, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intercept. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

However, the intercept was one of several monitored communications during and after the attacks between members of a local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.

In one of the calls, for example, members of Ansar al-Sharia bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador.

It’s unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn’t mention the possibility of al Qaeda involvement, given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the speakers were affiliated with. One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of “cherry picking,” or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.

---

2. Via DirectorBlue, CNN sources say White House lied about Benghazi attack http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...ays-their.html

3. Libyan Consulate bombed twice already this year: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...niversary.html

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Quote:

---

Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

---

4. Prior to 9/11 attack and after "long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya", U.S. Embassy requested more security ... and was turned down by Washington: http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-...0#.UGtkGE3A98E

Quote:

---

... multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” Issa and Chaffetz added. “The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

---

The committee noted 13 “security threats” in Benghazi, including an attempt to assassinate the British ambassador to Libya.

It was, or certainly should have been, an absolute no brainer that an unprotected Ambassador should not be in a vulnerable location on the anniversary of 9/11.

5. FBI asked for military security detail to provide perimeter support for their investigation... and was turned down. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/2...iref=allsearch

6. White House response to whistleblowers' allegations: "No comment". http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-91112-attack/

7. "RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!!!" http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...057_story.html


Doesn't look good, does it? Do us a favor, though: don't take your eye off the real danger facing America. http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/ob...dy-parts-image :rolleyes:

Priorities, people.

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...zigate_bl.html

Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Hillary missed her 3 am call also

More and more news is coming out that the security was "substandard" for our diplomats in Libya. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/0...y-in-benghazi/ Watch the video at the Hot Air link from Fox News about how the State Department did nothing when the Libyan contractors at the consulate who'd been hired complained about the poor security of the consulate and didn't want an American firm to be hired to help the Libyan contractors.

ABC reported that Ambassador Stevens had warned a retired senior American military officer not to travel to Libya because the security there was so poor. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...-libya-travel/

The State Department continues to stonewall and try to avoid questions because they claim that there is an ongoing investigation. Previously, we were supposed to wait until the FBI investigation had done its work, but they never were able to get to Benghazi because the security there is too weak. But we're supposed to wait, by coincidence, until after the election is over. How convenient.

Now Darrel Issa and Jason Chaffetz from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have written to Hillary Clinton that they have received information that "the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...to-Clinton.pdf The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington." They then summarize a list of 13 attacks on incidents threatening American diplomats in Libya. They conclude by asking if the State Department was aware of these incidents and, why not if they weren't aware. They ask what steps the State Department did to protect our diplomats in Libya and whether there were any requests made by the Embassy in Libya for additional security.

I'm sure that Hillary Clinton would like this to seem to be simply a GOP effort to blacken the administration on the eve of an election. But these are pertinent questions and there should be no security reason not to answer what concerns the Embassy had about security and what the State Department did in response. It might be embarrassing, but it would not interfere with any investigation into the murders in Benghazi. These are simple questions - did the diplomats on the ground in Libya ask for more security and how did the State Department respond.

It's just a joke that the State Department is hiding behind a supposed ongoing "criminal investigation" to avoid answering such questions. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...jonah-goldberg

Quote:

---

“You’re not going to hear anything from here unless my guidance changes,” explained Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman. “When we open a criminal investigation in the United States, generally, we don’t brief out in pieces until the investigation is complete so we don’t prejudice the outcome. I have to respect their process, obviously.”

---

There should be such an outcry from the media that the State Department doesn't get away with that stonewall. And if the media is too in the tank for Clinton and Obama, perhaps the Republicans in the House can hold Hillary Clinton responsible.

As Pejman Yousefzadeh asks, http://www.chequerboard.org/2012/10/...of-the-day-13/

Quote:

---

I recognize that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi is being investigated, but I have trouble understanding why the White House can’t answer a simple query: Did the consulate request additional security prior to the attack on it–the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stephens?

Seems to me that this is a question that can be answered with a simple “yes,” or “no.” When the answer instead is “no comment,” then something certainly smells fishy.

If there aren’t additional questions regarding this issue during the foreign policy debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama–and if the president is not pressed to give specific answers to those questions during that debate–we will know that journalism is dead.

---

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2012/...call-also.html

October 07, 2012

Cover Up: Obama Administration Yanked a 16-Member Special Forces Team From Benghazi, A Month Before Attack
(And A Month Before The Calender-Predictable Arrival of September 11th)

Yes, this is a cover up. http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/52936/

They know how badly they botched this -- and they know deadly errors were made by people at the top or so close to the top as to jeopardize the top -- and hence they went with a false cover story, a disinformation campaign directed at the real enemy -- the American voter.

Quote:

---

Lt. Col. Andy Wood was the leader of the 16 member special forces team whose job it was to protect US personnel in Libya. His team’s mission ended in August a month before the deadly Al-Qaeda attack on 9-11. A six member mobile security team was also withdrawn around the same time. This was despite the fact that there were over a dozen attacks in the country this year. Lt. Col. Wood was subpoenaed to appear at a House committee hearing this coming week. Wood told CBS News it was unbelievable to him that the State Department withdrew security when they did because of the 13 security incidents before 9-11.

---

Below, a pair of brutal videos about the cover up. The first, from ObamaIsn'tWorking, is a very cinematic effort, with quick cuts and grating, ominous music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=E0ArFli16UU

Ben Howe's video is a corker, too -- less music, less dramatic cuts, but a fuller account of the Benghazi Cover-Up. It lets the facts speak for themselves more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0d...layer_embedded

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/333596.php

Nothing about this Benghazi story adds up. Nothing.

Why did the State Dept allow insist Ambassador Stevens be in the most dangerous part of Benghazi without protection? Why did the Obama administration peddle the bogus story about a “spontaneous uprising” inspired by a YouTube video? That wasn’t “the best” intelligence they had at the time. There was never ANY intelligence that suggested that. That was always SPIN coming from the Obama White House.

We now know that members of the intelligence community had briefed officials in the Obama administration about what really had been going on… http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13497222963951

Quote:

---

“Elements of the intelligence community apparently told the administration within hours of the attack that militants connected with al Qaeda were involved, yet Ambassador Rice claims her comments five days later reflected the ‘best’ and ‘current’ assessment of the intelligence community. Either the Obama administration is misleading Congress and the American people, or it is blaming the entire failure on the intelligence community,” the senators said in a joint response to Rice’s letter today.

---

Judge Jeanine Pirro opened her show this weekend by methodically exposing the lies of the Obama administration and questioning the inexcusably lax security in Bengahzi despite the Ambassador’s requests for more.

She also noted that the British left a week earlier because they could see the handwriting on the wall, yet the Americans stayed in place like sitting ducks.

Via The Right Scoop, the most potent part of her monologue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=u3pPkwAC9hM

Quote:

---

We know that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in fear. We know that he wrote that he was on an Al-Qaeda hit list. But Christopher Stevens believed in America. Christopher Stevens believed he could make a difference. He upheld his part of the bargain. The Obama administration, Hillary Clinton in particular, did not.

---

Via New Zeal, here are a few more questions that need answers: http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13497224324682

•Why was Ambassador Stevens in the most dangerous part of Benghazi with no protection? Was he brokering arms deals with the rebels/terrorists? Was he working for the CIA? There was an alarming rise in al Qaeda activity before the murders and no one said a word.

•Why were ex-Navy SEALs killed trying to protect Stevens? (Those SEALs were there trying to recover weapons from al Qaeda.) I know they died bravely in the line of duty, running to the aid of Stevens – but where were those that should have protected Stevens? From what I understand, a private security detail was ordered – where was the military?

•Why did Obama claim that it was being investigated when it wasn’t? Over three weeks later, investigators are on their way. The entire scene is now compromised and they know it. Telling signs of violent assault and torture were in that compound – bloody hand prints on the walls, a toilet covered in blood. Did you know that CNN found Stevens’ journal on the ground in the compound days after the event?

•Why are important facts not being disseminated? For instance, did you know that our consulate there was bombed twice before Stevens was killed? Did you know that there had been 13 violent incidents, 5 serious, before the murders? Did you know that the British Red Cross pulled out because of the violence? Did you know that radicals had posted Stevens’ jogging route on Facebook before he was murdered? And why didn’t our government know? Why?

•Is this whole thing part of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda aided by Barack Obama and his administration? Did you know that the terrorists were upset before July when the YouTube clip originally aired and that is one of the reasons Obama was meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi? Did you know they discussed releasing the Blind Sheikh? http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13497224558063

•Why were repeated requests for security in Benghazi denied by the State department? http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13497225008084

•Did you know a prime suspect in the murder of Ambassador Stevens and the others was a terrorist released from an Egyptian prison during the Arab Spring?

•Did you know that over 20 American embassies have been attacked since the incident?

O---M---G---!

Me

Doug Ross: MELTDOWN: Intel Community Blasts Obama for Removing Amb. Stevens’ Security, Lying About Al Qaeda and Covering Up Its Epic Failures: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...sts-obama.html

Revolt of the Spooks http://freebeacon.com/revolt-of-the-spooks/

Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya
Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what career officers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa.

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

…Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence… Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism…


...

Not only did the Obama administration pull Ambassador Stevens' security before the attack, it refused to send help once word of the attack had been received.


Obama Decided Not To Send In The Military To Rescue Benghazi Personnel
According to the Wall Street Journal, as the attack on the U.S. consulate was raging, Obama took a “wait and see” approach.

Quote:

---

Ninety minutes after news of the attack reached Washington, Obama, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, JCS Chair General Martin Dempsey, and a national security adviser convened for an oval office meeting in which they ultimately rejected the course of U.S. military intervention. Instead, they decided to reach out to the Libyan government to ask if they would send reinforcements.

When the U.S. personnel at the consulate left the main building for what was supposed to be a safe house, questions regarding the deployment of forces seemed moot.

But the battle was still raging, and Ambassador Stevens’ life was close to its end.

---

http://www.rightwingnews.com/barack-...azi-personnel/

..

What is really going on in the Middle East?
It's safe to say we have no idea because this administration seems to have misled the American people about everything.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...gured-out.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hblueeyes

O---M---G---!

---

I feel the same way.

And there are still people making excuses for this - person - and his administration ...

CSI Benghazi

By Jed Babbin on 10.8.12 @ 6:11AM

Futile and pointless best describe the FBI investigation of the consulate attack.

Three weeks after the terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the FBI finally was permitted to bring its formidable forensic investigative capabilities to the burned-out husk of a building.

The FBI's efforts won't be entirely futile. Their expertise and methodical approach will certainly yield some evidence of what happened and perhaps who committed it, but there are a number of facts that compel us to conclude that their effort will be pointless.

Much of the information about the attack is already known. From a former Navy weapons expert, I learned that the attack was both well-planned and conducted by very highly trained terrorists. Examining the photographs of the scene -- and talking to his own contacts -- this man told me that the terrorist attack apparently began with a mortar bombardment. Most important, he told me, was the fact that the first rounds fired actually hit the building. A mortar is an imprecise weapon. Unless the terrorists had carefully picked their firing points and "registered" the target -- measuring carefully the distance and relative heights -- they wouldn't have been able to do so.

This proves that the terrorists were not only careful planners, they were highly skilled with their weapons of choice. Untrained "demonstrators" simply couldn't have hit the target with such immediacy and precision. Mortar fire would have fallen all around the area, missing the target as much as hitting it.

We don't know, but the FBI must, the results of the autopsies on the bodies of the four men killed. The ambassador apparently died of asphyxiation in the fires started by the bombardment and other parts of the attack. The other three may have died from gunfire or other causes.

But most forensic evidence of the perpetrators -- bodily fluids, finger prints, hair and such -- were probably destroyed in the fire or were not ever in the building, as the mortar crew was not. And whatever there may have remained would have been contaminated by news crews and others tramping through the ruins for three weeks. (CNN, in its own search before the FBI arrived, found a journal kept by the ambassador in which he recorded his fears of an attack.) Most importantly, in the absence of witness interviews and the ability to pursue freely and question both witnesses and suspects, what the FBI finds will be useless.

Identifying the perpetrators and -- as Obama promised -- bringing them "to justice" will be impossible. The FBI spent about three hours on the scene and wasn't able to stay to pursue witnesses and suspects. There is no civil order in Libya, no courts to issue search warrants and no police to serve them. No Libyan court exists to try the cases. In short, the whole exercise was pointless. If we really wanted to catch and punish the terrorists who committed this attack, it would be a job for the CIA and U.S. Special Operations Command to find and then capture or kill them.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder still -- despite four years' experience -- believe that terrorist attacks are criminal acts for the criminal courts, not acts of war to be responded to in kind.

It's a milestone of sorts that we have to rely on a Clinton for the truth. But it was Hillary Clinton who first admitted that there was a probable link between the al-Qaeda offshoot in Libya and the attack, as the New York Times reported. Further, Clinton admitted that Obama's military intervention in Libya had backfired. Speaking to the usual suspects at the UN on September 25, Clinton said: "Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions."

Our military intervention in Libya, which followed an admonition by then-defense secretary Bob Gates that America had no national security interest in that nation, has made things worse, creating -- in Clinton's words -- a larger safe haven for terrorists.

To paraphrase Joe Biden, al Qaeda is still alive and GM is still dying. The danger created by Obama's cavalier approach to the threat has been demonstrated redundantly in Benghazi, costing the deaths of four Americans including the first dead ambassador in 33 years.

The danger Obama has created is magnified by America's inattention to the war. Whether we like it or not, Islamists are engaged in a global war, working like Stakhanovites to best employ their kinetic and ideological weapons against us. As they did in Libya, they manufacture opportunities to do so whenever we leave ourselves open to attack.

Both President Obama -- who has worked hard to keep the war out of voters' minds -- and Republican candidate Mitt Romney -- who hasn't focused on these issues at any point in the campaign -- are apparently happy with this inattention to the war.

But wars do not proceed on the schedules or according to strategies candidates establish. Our enemies aren't taking a few months off to let us sort ourselves out. As my father always said, the world has a lot of moving parts and just because we're focused on one doesn't mean we can ignore the rest.

We can't know how the war will intrude on the remaining thirty days of the campaign, or even if it will. The third presidential debate, to be held on October 22, will focus on foreign policy. It will take Romney far beyond the issues he has spent his life thinking about. Will he -- can he -- be as prepared on those topics as he was in the first debate?

Romney's positions on Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel, Libya and much more will have to be developed and focused between now and that debate. After omitting mention of Afghanistan in his convention speech, Romney said, "Our goal should be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. We should evaluate conditions on the ground and solicit the best advice of our military commanders." That's internally inconsistent. If we can't complete a "successful transition" in 2014 -- and we can't -- does he believe we need to stay until we can? Is that all he has to say about a war in which 2,000 Americans have died to no apparent purpose?

A week ago Paul Ryan said of Libya, "It's part of a bigger picture of the fact that the Obama foreign policy is unraveling literally before our eyes on our TV screens." In the October 22 debate, Romney will have to adopt that theme and tell the world -- in detail -- how he would better manage our national security interests and defeat the enemies who we face. Americans and our enemies will be watching.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/08/csi-benghazi

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...1008114607.jpg