That was the answer to the direct question, "Did we have increased security and intelligence up and running on the anniversary of September 11th?" The question was addressed yesterday to our military joint chief as he and Leon Panetta, civilian head of Defense gave a press conference regarding the much-worse-than-Blackhawk-Down political misfortune in Benghazi, Libya on, well, September Eleventh.
You may have heard of it. We lost our Ambassador and three U.S. Navy Seals. All heroes.
But then again, you may not have heard of it. But I've decided that at age 50, the whole media bias thing is a lost cause, and may in fact be the stuff of much merriment in late-night bars in New York and D.C.
So, I'm sitting in front of my media wall last night watching many disparate (read that, Fox) news outlets and I see a computer rendering/re-creation of the actual events on the ground as they happened. Gulp. My real intention was to watch with an unbiased eye. It really was. Which is to say that it really was impossible to do so and not come away heart-broken.
Friends, these guys weren't sitting ducks. They were sitting-with-wings-duct-taped ducks on a frozen pond. As the 3 survivors (up to that point) fled--predictably, evidently--from the consulate proper to the annex--a drive of approximately 1 mile, winding through tight intersections downtown--they were hit with AK-47's on 2 SEPARATE occasions and 3 grenades on another. Three separate occasions from planned (without question!) hidden snipers. And when they arrived at the ultra-tightly-secured security complex (the center of our Western North Africa intel control), things got worse. And they're all dead. One SUV is all they had, it appears.
One S.U.V. Apparently it was September Eleventh all over the world except Benghazi.
But all that's for the historians. Here's what's for anyone with a brain.
Secretary Of State Clinton has been as far up as anyone in this administration to have directly, sort-of, addressed the reason the Right is apoplectic. Namely, who started the provable farce/lie--and actively made sure that the line was maintained--that there was some YouTube (important that, watch) movieette that caused some kids in Libya and elsewhere to decide, oh! on September Eleventh, ""coincidently"", 'Let's go toss some fireworks at the embassy in Benghazi (where Ambassador Stephens hardly ever visited, by the way)'?
But more importantly, why did he/she? Because, first of all, you had to know it would be found out as a terrible, terrible thing that he/she did, which is terrible enough; but, and here's the meeting of rubber and road: Secretary Clinton, in her public wrist-slapping of anyone who would dare bring this up, uses as her defense, so to speak, the following 'logic': You all are going to have to stop with all this RELYING ON THE INTERNET FOR YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
How do you spell the sound of a man with a brain shaking his head back&forth as fast as he can as long as he can?
Hillary (I'm sorry, if I'm right she deserves no more reverence than that), in your own company policy statement you are by definition using basically ONLY the internet to generate YOUR public explanations of what went down. Your story is that our intelligence was picking up social media brushfires all across the Middle East all in a huff over this alleged YouTube (internet AGAIN!) movie, which caused the political misfortune. Right? And you now stand there before us and, with the cahones of an 1800's cowboy, lecture us on the evils of relying on flimsy internet intel? Really? Hillary, our evidence has been slightly upgraded by internal official e-mails and wires since we first started asking these questions, for one. But that's not even relavant to this complaint.
Your entire response, repeated at least 4 times, was our reliance on the internet.
Conclusion, the whole movie alibi was a time- and face-saving acknowledgement that your boss's administration's narrative (terrorism is over, and all bad things are America's fault) is of course an evil sham and dangerous and, now, terribly, fatal for the families of these 4 heroes (one of the victims had a 3-month old baby he'd never seen). And that's horrible (my thesaurus is out of words).
Remember the _ hair on the Coke can? And how terribly (again) offended thinking people were that anyone in the back of the opposing party's back room would have the unabashed gall to consider using THAT in a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice? Friends, closely examined, this public response to an obvious foul-up, makes those (Joe Biden-led) hearings look like child's play.
And we need some adults, please.
And that doesn't depend on what anyone's definition of, adults, is.
[Author's mea culpa: Will try to tone down my use of 'slang', friends. Thanks. We 'writers' sometimes tend to assume that no-one reads these things. The "____" was in your, and civilisation's, honor/.]