My Thoughts Tonight

Imagine it is September 11, 2004. There is a terrorist attack against innocent Americans in the Middle East. Some die. President Bush is in a close race with John Kerry and since he is running partially on the notion that since 9/11, he kept us safe from terrorism, he doesn’t like the timing of this so close to the election. So he covers it up. Makes up some cockamamie idea like it wasn’t terrorism, it was a protest about a video. Or something. By October, everyone knows Bush in fact refused to take action that could have saved lives and then lied about it.

If this actually happened, not only would Bush not have won re-election, but there would have been screams for him to be impeached. And the screamers would have in fact have a pretty good point.

Now, in 2012, we know that this is what Obama did. It is indefensible. Barack may be a nice guy, but we cannot bear another 4 years of his terrible leadership.


  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    Without ever mentioning it, your post simply and accurately illustrates the great divide in media coverage based on ideology.

    Well said.

  2. Ryan, I’m glad you wrote this post. Just last night, after reading a news story ( from the President’s camp) about the need to delay the investigation to ‘not politicize’ the Benghazi terrorist attack, I wondered if it will just lead to impeachment trials, should Obama win.

    Also, it seems that I’ve read/heard in the past few days the White House’s response to the Facebook posting (shortly after the attack) claiming it was an act of terrorism should be discounted because it was communicated via social media. Wasn’t the President’s original (false and misleading) communication of the entire episode based an obscure (social media) YouTube video?

    The hypocrisy continues. Your post spotlights this.

  3. I don’t think it was a terrorist attack. I think it was an attack in retaliation to our fighting a war in that country. I don’t understand why Americans are always shocked and horrified that when we kill people in other countries, that it makes them want to kill us back.

  4. Nick. Are we also fighting wars with Libya, Egypt and Maghreb, or are we fighting an alliance of terrorist-leaning militants? Care to clarify?

    “E-mails: White House knew of claims in Benghazi attack
    The weakened al Qaeda affiliate has had a resurgence in Iraq since U.S. forces left the country at the end of last year. The group had used Libya as a source for fighters. In a 2008 cable, Stevens described a nearby town of Derna as “a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters” for al Qaeda in Iraq.

    The latest intelligence suggests the core group of suspects from the first wave of the attack on the Benghazi mission numbered between 35 to 40. Around a dozen of the attackers are believed to be connected to either al Qaeda in Iraq or al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the government official said.
    According to the official, others in the core group are suspected of having ties to the Libyan group Ansar al-Sharia, and many of them are believed to be Egyptian jihadis.”

  5. Of course we’re at War with Libya. We flew over their country, dropped bombs, deposed their leader, killed people, destroyed buildings. Just because Congress abdicated it’s duty and didn’t declare the war, and didn’t hold the President accountable for fighting an illegal war doesn’t mean it wasn’t one.

    This is the problem with our foreign policy.. not just Obama’s, but Bush’s, and what will be Romney’s if he is elected. You can’t set the end of a war if you never declare the start of one.

    It’s just convenient to call them terrorists because they choose not to come into open ground and be blown away by tanks and our superior firepower.

    This is more likely a guerrilla campaign, which is what an under powered, undermanned force does against a much larger force.

  6. Randy in Richmond says:

    What war during Bush’s presidency was fought without Congress’s approval?

  7. Randy, we started our war with Pakistan which we’re still fighting today. We also started our cyber-war with Iran

  8. Who is ‘We’, Nick? The Administration, Congress, American citizens? Is cyber-war your term? Referring to……?
    And, just curious, have you read this?

    What is your diplomatic solution to dealing with guerrilla attacks of the under powered, undermanned? Or any solution?

  9. Randy in Richmond says:

    There is no “our war” with Pakistan.


  10. A thought that has crossed my mind over the last few weeks is the possibility of Wisconsin being thrown into a recount of the presidential election after November 6th, much like Florida in 2000. Given everything else that has happened over the last two years, it just wouldn’t surprise me.

    So, brace yourselves.

  11. Bean: wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

  12. I’m sure the people of Pakistan who fear every day that they might die in a drone attack would disagree with you when you say we’re not fighting a War with Pakistan.

  13. Ryan and Mr. Bean: I agree absolutely. I don’t have a very good feeling about the next few months. We’ve been here before, though. We’ll get through it.

  14. Randy in Richmond says:

    If history is any indicator, the Obama administration will end up polititicizing Hurricane (storm) Sandy. One way will be to announce, through surrogates, how he cancelled or altered campaigning to attend to the storm.

  15. Here you go, Randy.

    16 hours 59 min ago – int
    Obama campaign fears impact of Hurricane Sandy

    Most importantly, all in the storm’s path, please stay safe.

  16. Hurricane Sandy will be (already is) a lose lose for Obama according to Republicans.

    If he cancels too much stuff, and attends to issues arising out of the hurricane, then he’s politicizing it. If he doesn’t, then he’s a heartless bastard who cares more about campaigning then his responsibility as President.

  17. Nick, I think that could be said for either candidate as professed by the opposite sides.

    Shit happens. Move along now.

  18. True Cindy, but Romney has no elected responsibility in this disaster.

  19. What was Bush’s cockamamie excuse for not immediately attending to the PDB entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US” presented to him one month before 9/11?

    Listen, if you can forgive Bush for that eff-up, you most surely can forgive Obama for any yet-to-be-determined eff-up regarding Benghazi.

  20. Hey, Milty. Congratulations on recognizing Obama messed up. It’s a good first step.

  21. Milt: Is not forgiving either Bush or Obama and trusting that Romney will be much better than both of them an option?

  22. Ryan, forgiveness is a central tenet of Christianity. I’ve forgiven Bush for his major league eff-up, and if it turns out that Obama effed-up, well, I’ll find it within my heart to forgive him as well.

    It’s what Jesus would do.

  23. Randy in Richmond says:

    Your “forgiveness” of President Bush has given me pause. If I read your comment correctly you are forgiving him for “his major league eff-up” which you refer to in an earlier comment–namely the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001. I must admit I had never read that brief in it’s entirety but have depended on Condoleezza Rice’s sworn testimony that the Brief was basically a historical document with no specific, actionable information. Here is part of her testimony before the 911 Commission:

    “And I can only assume or believe that perhaps the intelligence agencies thought that the sourcing was speculative.

    All that I can tell you is that it was not in the August 6 memo, using planes as a weapon. And I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons. In fact, there were some reports done in ’98 and ’99. I was certainly not aware of them at the time that I spoke.”

    Now having read the PDB I concur that there is nothing specific contained in it that could have resulted in action(s)–by anyone– to prevent 9/11/2001. The Commission also came to this conclusion. I suspect the title of the PDB, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US“, if read on it’s own could be interpreted to mean something specific was contained within–which it wasn’t.

    And your referring to Bush’s “cockamamie excuse for not immediately attending to the PDB” is not based on any specific fact in the document because there are none. Thus your corresponding statement “if you can forgive Bush for that eff-up”, is a false, at least to me, conclusion. And forgiveness for you apparently does not include your public descriptions.

    Forgiveness is not based on disagreement of ideas or ideology. If that were true you and I would constantly be forgiving roughly half of the country for most of what they say and/or do. I’m not joining that club.

    My pause is settled.