en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/3924270 Comments by TS_Alfabet http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/02/chris-christie-worried-about-2013-not-2016-obama-romney/#IDComment479847749 Quite right. Remember one of the big killers for Charlie Crist in Florida was his warm embrace of Obama and the Porkulus money. After that he lost conservatives and Rubio was on his way. Same with Christie. His shameless pandering will not be forgotten. Hope that he likes the governor's mansion because he's never going to see the White House. Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:26:11 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/02/chris-christie-worried-about-2013-not-2016-obama-romney/#IDComment479847749 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/02/intel-officials-push-back-on-fox-story/#IDComment478756803 David, the situation may be worse than you paint. According to at least one news source, the Benghazi consulate was effectively surrounded PRIOR to the time that the Turkish General Consul left (and possibly even before he arrived). Islamist militia (apparently Ansar Al-Sharia) had all roads around the consulate cordoned off. So, how exactly did the Turkish diplomat manage to get through this cordon, particularly since he left so very close to the time of the attack? My speculation is that the Turks want their own cat's paw in Syria and they see Libyan Islamist militia as the key. Sending Libyans to Syria along with the ample leftover munitions and weapons from Qadafi is just the ticket. One news report cited a Libyan vessel, Al Ensar, docking at a Turkish port just 35 miles from Syria and loaded with weapons. It is possible that Stevens met with the Turkish GC in an attempt to stop the flow of militants and arms to Syria (giving him the benefit of the doubt) and when the Turk could not persuade Stevens to go along with the scheme, left the consulate and gave the Ansar Al-Sharia militants the green light on their attack, which occurred very shortly after. Yes, this is all speculation, but it is not unreasonable, not outside the realm of possibility. And now Turkey has a free hand in Benghazi. Look for increased traffic to Turkish ports. Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:48:30 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/02/intel-officials-push-back-on-fox-story/#IDComment478756803 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/29/benghazi-and-barack-obama-unfinished-business/#IDComment475711944 One problem with your narrative, Mr. Boot: even if "only Fox News" has been covering the widening scandal that is huge coverage. Have you seen the viewership for Fox News compared to all the other news networks? It's not even close. More people watch Fox programming than all the other networks combined. I think conservatives need to start facing the fact that the Leftist Media just isn't that relevant anymore. Fewer and fewer people watch or listen to them. They are basically preaching to the choir, so to speak. We seem to long for their approval for some sophomoric reason, but it won't happen. Let it go. The Leftist Media is passe. Most Americans know this. Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:39:21 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/29/benghazi-and-barack-obama-unfinished-business/#IDComment475711944 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/26/report-help-in-benghazi-was-available-waved-off/#IDComment474950638 This is a fast moving story, people, so the latest picture emerging is even worse than we thought. It appears that General Ham, commander of AFRICOM at the time of the Benghazi attack, was linked in with the consulate video feeds and audio contact from the consulate staff, as well as intel coming from the CIA Annex a mile away. General Ham dispatched the drones to the consulate and had live intel from at least one drone continuously within an hour or two of the attack. It *also* appears that General Ham dispatched a C-130 "Spectre" Gunship (a C-130 Plane equipped with heavy weapons for close-air support) to at least the CIA Annex if not to the consulate itself. General Ham also had at least two SOF units prepped and ready to intervene within a few hours of the attack. At the same time, we now know that the CIA contractors at the Annex were in constant communication with their superiors and were told to stand down by someone on two occasions but ignored those orders and proceeded to rescue the survivors from the consulate and retrieve Smith's body as well, back to the Annex. At the same time, the CIA station in Tripoli was cobbling together a relief force of U.S. contractors and Libyan mercenaries and flying in to Benghazi to help the Annex. It is not clear whether Panetta or Obama knew anything about this and might have been organized by the CIA at its own initiative. At some point during the firefight at the Annex, either Doherty or Woods used a laser targeting device to point out the position of an Islamist mortar team and requested supporting fire from the Spectre gunship. It appears, however, that General Ham was told by the Administration (Panetta? Obama? Biden?) *not* to intervene in any way. The rumor is that Gen. Ham began to deploy the SOF units in defiance of the order. It is a rumor that makes perfect sense in light of the fact that Ham was immediately relieved of command for no specified reason and in light of the fact that the Spectre gunship was there but did not apparently fire and the SOF units did not launch. The story now begins to come together. The attack began and the call for assistance rapidly went out from the consulate and from the Annex along with immediate video and audio feed to AFRICOM, the White House, and other agencies plugged into the intelligence loop. AFRICOM quickly had a response force up and ready to assist but the White House ordered AFRICOM to stand down. When the commanding general acted in defiance of those orders he was quickly relieved of command. At the same time, the CIA agents at the Annex went to the rescue of the consulate and bought some time by barricading themselves into the Annex while CIA agents in Tripoli put together an ad hoc rescue force with Libyan militia, eventually arriving at the Annex some hours later, too late, unfortunately to save Doherty and Woods. The attackers broke off the attack once the CIA rescue team arrived in force. Team Obama made a calculated decision to downplay the incident, reasoning it seems, that 4 deaths was no big deal and counting on the liberal Media to go along with the theme that the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest. Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:37:06 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/26/report-help-in-benghazi-was-available-waved-off/#IDComment474950638 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/25/mullah-omars-triumphalism/#IDComment472511715 Mr. Rubin, why do you consider a partition of the country "impossible" ? Indeed, a partition of the country into its various ethnic provinces and secured by the warlords and tribal chiefs is the natural condition of Afghanistan, something we have been fighting against in vain for the last 11 years. Far better to find Locals in each province who will keep out the Taliban -- not for love of America or democracy or nationalism-- but for their bitter experience with prior Taliban rule and the financial and military backing the U.S. can give them. Such arrangements would give the U.S. enough of a presence in Afghanistan to launch SOF operations while allowing for a radical reduction in the U.S. footprint and expense. Training a so-called Afghan National Army is a farce (something that Romney was sadly forced to endorse). When all is said and done the Afghans will return to their various provinces and their 9th century lifestyles with their loyalties firmly behind their tribe or local warlord. There is no reason that the U.S. cannot live with and support this arrangement so long as we retain the ability to bring in crushing force against any Islamist training camps or other facilitators. It would not be surprising, in fact, if AQAM decided to stay in Pakistan where they enjoy a certain amount of immunity from U.S. ground assaults rather than come back to A-stan and lose their Pakistani nuclear umbrella. Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:00:26 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/25/mullah-omars-triumphalism/#IDComment472511715 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/23/obamas-attacks-fail-to-hurt-romney/#IDComment470789209 The performances of Romney and Obama tell you everything you need to know about the *real* state of the race at this late date. Obama knows (from internal polls, advisers et al) that he is losing and possibly losing big time. That is the only thing that can explain his at times bizarre, childish, antagonistic behavior. He was looking for a game-changing moment, baiting Romney to make some outlandish comment or appear ridiculous. Obama's base demands that he be more like Biden-- nasty, aggressive, obnoxious... because that is what the Left likes. That is their natural disposition (even while they pretend to be fair minded, tolerant, liberal). Romney, on the other hand, knows (from internal polls etc...) that he is winning and potentially winning big. He is the football team comfortably ahead by two scores late in the game. He is not going to risk a pick six by throwing the ball around and let Obama back into the game. He is going to pound the football down the field and try to tack on another 3 points. In other words, Romney now is not merely playing to win the presidency but to try to create the kind of momentum with Indies and the few, remaining centrist Dems that will carry along House and Senate races for the GOP. Romney is playing for a GOP House and Senate which he knows he will need to undo the worst damage of Obama. That was exactly translated in his final debate performance: steady, pounding away on the economy, gashing the president wherever he could. Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:55:34 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/23/obamas-attacks-fail-to-hurt-romney/#IDComment470789209 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/23/about-those-horses-and-ships-obama-romney-debate/#IDComment470780763 Agree that this was a big blunder by Obama. (The fact that the Left sees it as a moment of triumph is just more proof of how disconnected and tone deaf they are from ordinary Americans). The point is that a global power like the U.S. that relies on international commerce simply must have a navy that can project its power around the globe. No ifs, ands or buts. That requires a robust number of ships. No matter the technology or "capability" that Obama talks about, if you don't have enough ships to be in the Persian Gulf, in the Eastern Med, in the South China Sea, in the Atlantic and the Pacific, all without overtaxing your ships and sailors with unending deployments, then you don't have enough ships. That's where we are today and it's getting worse as more ships come off line. And, by the way Mr. President: China seems to be building an awful lot of horses and bayonets these days. Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:42:51 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/23/about-those-horses-and-ships-obama-romney-debate/#IDComment470780763 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/21/how-bureaucracy-crowds-out-good-intel/#IDComment469882907 As "Ismael Jones" wrote in his book about the CIA, "The Human Factor," the CIA has morphed into a politically correct, inefficient, desk bound shadow of its former self. There are far too few field agents to get the job done and very little done in the way of cultivating human intel in those areas of the world where we need it most. The CIA either needs a complete overhaul or needs to be moth-balled and a new, leaner, more effective agency put in its place. Until that happens we are doomed to repeat the failure of 9/11/01 and 9/11/12. Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:58:01 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/21/how-bureaucracy-crowds-out-good-intel/#IDComment469882907 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/a-weak-case-for-inaction-in-syria/#IDComment468802499 Grig, why do you assume that Max or anyone else is talking about "going in" to Syria? There are lots of options for taking Assad out without putting any troops there. Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:16:10 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/a-weak-case-for-inaction-in-syria/#IDComment468802499 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/a-weak-case-for-inaction-in-syria/#IDComment468800418 Well, of course, "not necessarily." Every statement you could make could be qualified with a "not necessarily." The point is that Iran, Russia and China and Hezbollah are backing the Assad regime. That automatically gives the U.S. an opening with the non-Islamist rebels which the U.S. should be exploiting to maximum effect (short of any ground troops or direct air support--- although some anonymous cruise missiles flying through Assad's window might be appropriate at some point). Perhaps the FSA is not sufficiently desperate enough to accept our conditions for support. Fine. We can keep searching for other groups that will cut a deal and let the FSA stew awhile. But if we do nothing, we can be sure that others who do not share our interests will fill the void. Syria is way too important to let that happen. Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:11:46 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/a-weak-case-for-inaction-in-syria/#IDComment468800418 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/a-weak-case-for-inaction-in-syria/#IDComment468798147 It need not be "pro-American" Grig. It only need only align with our interests in the region (and compared to Assad's Syria even siding with our interest 50% of the time while bad-mouthing us would be a huge improvement). Again, it is simple power politics. The Free Syrian Army (or at least elements) view the Islamists and MB as competitors and threats. According to several reporters, they are already begging for U.S. support in order to combat the growing power of the Islamists. That isn't going to change when Assad falls but will intensify. Syria is not ready for real democracy at this point so the U.S. should not push for that until the group we are supporting and is beholden to us can decisively win any so-called election. Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:06:45 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/a-weak-case-for-inaction-in-syria/#IDComment468798147 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/libya-jihadist-defiant-in-interview/#IDComment467857785 This is a sure sign that the level of incompetence that we all witness at government services like the Motor Vehicle Agency has spread like a bad disease to the furthest and highest reaches of the State Department and the CIA. General Petraeus must be pulling his hair out. These most vital functions of govt are now staffed by political hacks and cronies who can't walk straight let alone get current intel on the bad guys or know what to do with it if it's handed to them by reporters. It used to be that people were hired at the CIA or State based strictly upon acumen and dedication and qualifications. Now, it's affirmative action, political loyalty and political correctness. Depressing indeed. Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:25:05 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/libya-jihadist-defiant-in-interview/#IDComment467857785 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/pro-obama-poll-formula-overcount-democrats-obama-romney/#IDComment467852472 Great article Mr. Tobin. About time someone started pointing this stuff out. Isn't it remarkable that virtually all of the polling firms are now trimming their sails for Obama lest they get stripped of the last shred of credibility on 11/7 when the results are in and their over the top predictions for Obama go out the window? As I've been saying for the last couple months, there is no way that Obama can come anywhere close to replicating the huge turnout and cross-over voting that he got in 2008 (not to mention the abdication of evangelical voters in 2008). Gallup may be using a model that is a tad too close to the 2010 turnout which favored the GOP but it has reason to do so based on other surveys of voter enthusiasm, changing registration patterns and voter approval. Obama is headed for a big defeat. Only question is how big. The numbers in PA going for Romney suggest it is going to be BIG. Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:15:29 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/pro-obama-poll-formula-overcount-democrats-obama-romney/#IDComment467852472 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/a-weak-case-for-inaction-in-syria/#IDComment467815636 It is well past time to act in the U.S. national interest in Syria, but it requires a Machiavellian perspective and not the rose-colored glasses of Obama (and Bush for that matter). We must understand a few fundamental points about Syria: 1. The rebellion consists of a temporary alliance among otherwise irreconcilable groups. (Free Syrian Army secularists or nominal Muslims vs. Salafists vs. Kurds etc..). 2. This Rebel Alliance will only last as long as (A) one group gains a decisive military advantage over the other groups, or (B) Assad is overthrown. 3. Other than perhaps Israel, there is *no* other ally of the U.S. with shared interests in post-Assad Syria. Turkey is increasingly an Islamist state that would like nothing more than to see Syria as its vassal. Turkey is really not our friend and we need to recognize this in Syria and elsewhere. This means that the U.S. has to act in its own interest and, if necessary, against that of Turkey. Same goes with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The fact that they are arming Islamists in Syria says it all. 4. The U.S. is uniquely able to put a decisive thumb on the scale in favor of virtually any rebel group (or groups) that it chooses, giving these groups a huge advantage in post-Assad Syria. 5. The U.S. can tip the scales in this fashion *without* sending in ground troops or establishing no-fly zones. 6. There *are* rebel groups in Syria that will align with the U.S. for the simple reason that they are desperate for the kind of assistance that the U.S. can bring. This is the Machiavelli part. We find rebel groups who will play by our rules, not because they are doe-eyed democratic idealists who love the U.S.A. but because they are in a life in death struggle with Assad (at the moment) and will be in a death match against the other rebel groups once Assad is gone. The key is that they need us more than we need them. And in Machiavellian fashion, the U.S. must always keep these groups dependent upon U.S. aid for their survival, by playing them off against other groups if necessary. 7. The sooner we start lining up client rebel groups in Syria the more flexibility we will have in the long run and the more dependent those groups will be on U.S. assistance. The longer we wait the greater the chance that an unfriendly power will fill the vacuum we are refusing to fill right now, making it difficult to get in later. 8. The installation of a pro-U.S. (or at least amenable) government in Syria would be game-changing in the Middle East: for Israel, for Lebanon, for Jordan, for Iraq and for Iran. Syria is immensely important to U.S. interests and power projection in the Middle East. Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:10:26 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/19/a-weak-case-for-inaction-in-syria/#IDComment467815636 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/17/obama-and-the-t-word/#IDComment466817864 There is a very simple and devastating question that Romney can (and should) ask the President at the next debate on this subject: Mr. President, did you lie to the American people and to the U.N. or are you merely incompetent? It's one or the other, folks. He has gone on record now as saying that he called the Benghazi attack a terror attack on 9/12 (and Josh Rogan claims at a campaign stop in Colorado on 9/13). But then he goes on "The View" and on (Leno?) and again at the U.N. and talks about the attack as resulting from some heretofore unknown YouTube video. So which is it, Obama? Were you trying to mislead the world with your "horrible video" comments that you knew to be untrue or are you really just THAT stupid or lazy that you cannot comprehend your own intel briefs? One last question, Mr. President: when are you going to apologize to the maker of that Mohammed video whom you have now put in the crosshairs of every Islamist? Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:25:29 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/17/obama-and-the-t-word/#IDComment466817864 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/12/biden-throws-intel-community-under-bus-benghazi-attack/#IDComment461582875 Did anyone else find it incredible that Biden categorically stated that the U.S. would be out of Afghanistan in 2014, no matter what? He said it several times. This shocked me. What if the Afghan security forces are still a complete and utter disaster (such as they are now) in 2014? Still packing up and leaving them to the wolves? What if U.S. commanders on the ground say that there is no way all U.S. forces can safely exit from A-stan by the end of 2014? Too bad? What if, God forbid, there should be another attack against the U.S. and it can be traced back to one of the growing areas in A-stan where Islamists have re-constituted terror training camps? Biden says, no, that will have to be done by the Afghans, we're outta there. It seems completely irresponsible for a sitting VP of the U.S. to state on national TV that the U.S. will absolutely, positively, no exceptions bug out of a theater of war 2 years in advance. Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:47:56 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/12/biden-throws-intel-community-under-bus-benghazi-attack/#IDComment461582875 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/11/the-myth-of-bidens-likability/#IDComment461577784 You've done it, Naclican! You have discovered the Dems' brilliant debate strategy for Biden. Prep him for the billions of people listening to the debate on the radio! That way no one will be able to see what an utter ass he made of himself on TV where he acted like the drunk uncle at a Thanksgiving dinner, smirking, shaking his head, rolling his eyes... Now if only the Dems can figure out a way to get the next presidential debate carried exclusively by RKO radio, they can sew this one up! Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:39:32 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/11/the-myth-of-bidens-likability/#IDComment461577784 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/11/the-battle-of-the-debate-prep-surrogates/#IDComment461180742 I should add, by the way, the *other* Achilles' Heel of the Left: they simply cannot conceive of any rational arguments, period. Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:06:06 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/11/the-battle-of-the-debate-prep-surrogates/#IDComment461180742 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/11/the-battle-of-the-debate-prep-surrogates/#IDComment461180154 I think you're on to something there, Keith. This is the great Achilles' Heel of the Left. They simply cannot conceive of any rational arguments that do not perfectly agree with their own ideas. So they are continually creating these ridiculous straw-man arguments. I fully expect Biden to direct his fiery bloviations at several such straw-men only to find Paul Ryan deftly pointing out that the straw-men bear no resemblance to reality. Biden will be spluttering and accusing Ryan of lying or flip-flopping etc... I expect Biden to look quite the fool before it's all said and done, all because Van Hollen is preparing Biden with a caricature of the GOP position. Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:05:22 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/11/the-battle-of-the-debate-prep-surrogates/#IDComment461180154 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/11/dems-new-benghazi-defense-blame-the-tea-partiers/#IDComment461172526 People, people... we are simply not thinking big enough on this issue. I guess that's one big difference between the Left and the Right. The Left has imagination. Too often it is cruel, horrible, immoral imagination, but imagination nonetheless. Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation for denying security funding for Benghazi (and elsewhere I would wager), given the fact that it was *not* a lack of funds, is that the State Dept and Obama Admin did not *want* the Benghazi consulate to be secure. Now we can speculate about *why* they didn't want it to be secured against attack (or at least withdraw the staff in the face of an untenable situation), but there it is. I suggest we look to Fast And Furious as a hint. Obama and Co. have a passion for restricting gun ownership and using their fertile (and fetid) imagination concocted the hare-brained scheme to send guns across the Mexican border without any tracing in order to rack up a horrific body count that could be blamed on U.S. gun dealers and justify gun control laws. In Beghazi, I suggest that something equally horrific was at work (and, hence, the coverup like we have seen in Fast & Furious). Perhaps the Dems imagined that they could blame any attack on the GOP for cutting security funding? They are rather late to pushing that meme but it's possible. I haven't heard any, other explanation that makes any sense at all. We just have to realize that these Leftists are absolutely cold-blooded when it comes to increasing their power. Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:55:32 +0000 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/10/11/dems-new-benghazi-defense-blame-the-tea-partiers/#IDComment461172526