The new book, Blood Feud, just blew the lid off Benghazi. Following is an excerpt from that book published in the New York Post:

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/

“However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run. If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.

“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”

Hillary allegedly called Bill Clinton and asked for advice.

“During their phone call, Bill started playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary consider resigning as secretary of state over the issue. But both he and Hillary quickly agreed that resigning wasn’t a realistic option. If her resignation hurt Obama’s chances of winning re-election, her fellow Democrats would never forgive her. Hillary was already thinking of running for president in 2016, and her political future, as well as Obama’s, hung in the balance.”

Obama had put Hillary in a corner, and she and Bill didn’t see a way out. And so, shortly after 10 o’clock on the night of September 11, she released an official statement that blamed the Benghazi attack on an “inflammatory video” posted on the Internet.”

We do not know if any of this is true. Ed Klein is not exactly a pillar of virtue. We don’t even know the identity of the alleged source and whether or not this person actually had this kind of access to Hillary. One problem with this version of events is that it seems too good to be true. One immediately suspects that this story is designed by Hillary supporters to throw Obama permanently under the bus.

If this story is true it is really hard to justify Barack Obama remaining in office as President of the United States. But perhaps the person hurt the most by this story is Hillary. Neither she nor Bill apparently considered putting the country first regardless of the personal political cost. That, sadly, is all too believable.  Ironically if this was true and she had resigned, she probably would have just waltzed into the 2016 Predential election.

Like I said, this just seems too good to be true. But, it is a far more believable explanation than anything released by either the State Department or the White House.

TDM

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (“FDR”) once said: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  Actually, people should have feared FDR’s economic policies because they turned a recession into the great depression, but that topic is for another day.  Today we are paying a terrible price for fear itself.  Obama is afraid to stand up to anyone, other than Republicans in congress and our strongest allies overseas.  Republicans in congress remain the only people in the known universe who still fear Obama.

The fruits of Obama’s fear are playing out on our television screens.  The fruit of Republican’s fear is Obama.

I think we are near the tipping point.  Opinion polls are so bad now that only the 40% of Americans born with the genetic defect that makes them vote straight Democratic pretend to support Obama.  No one, in either party, thinks that Obama is up to the job of being Commander in Chief.  Congress has an approval rating even lower than Obama.  Polls showing zero trust in the main stream media.  There is a real danger here that people will stop believing in the system itself.  If people lose total faith in the system, anything is possible.  That is what we really need to fear.

Republicans need to stand up to this President if for no other reason than to preserve faith in the system.  It is also time for responsible Democrats, if there are any, to put aside partisan politics and to join with Republicans in a search for the cold, hard truth.  We need leaders in both parties who can overcome their fear and do the right thing.

Patrick Henry said it best:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” 

“For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.

“The eternal difference between right and wrong does not fluctuate, it is immutable.” 

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” 

TDM

One of the great lines in a Hollywood movie was when Otter tried to tell Flounder what to do after the guys had totaled his car:

Flounder, you can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f****d up… you trusted us!

Sometimes one has to wonder if any of the political pundits actually think about the subject at hand.  Liberals are trying desperately to blame the disintegration of Iraq on President Bush’s failure to force Maliki to play nice with the Sunni.  I have even heard conservative’s level blame at Maliki for the same problem.  If only Maliki was more willing to share power.

Please!  I can’t find any place where Shia and Sunni were ever willing to share power.  As far as I can tell the Shia and Sunni have been at each other’s throats since around 632.  The only time they even pretended to work together was when for short periods of time they joined forces to fight a common enemy.   This was kind of like when Russia, Great Britain and the United States were allies during World War II.  Did anyone really expect them to willing share power after the war was over?  We went from World War II to the Cold War almost immediately.

This is the problem with liberal thinking.  They really believe that if we all get together and give peace a chance everything will be solved.  That, of course, has never worked.  The only way it could possibly work is if there weren’t any people involved.

There will be peace and stability in Iraq the same way it occurs anywhere else.  It will happen when someone wins and takes control.  Bush understood that which is why he sent in the surge to put Maliki in control.  Obama never figured that out, which is why we now have chaos.

What really matters is who wins.  If someone like Saddam Hussein wins, then things are peaceful, but only at the cost of personal liberty.  In the case of Saddam Hussein, he was also funding terrorists so they could kill us. That is a really important difference between Hussein and Maliki.

The miracle is finding someone strong enough to take control yet willing to yield power peacefully at some point in the future.  At a minimum try to pick a winner who doesn’t want to attack us.

In the meantime we are giving Maliki insane advice.  The following article in Time is a classic example:

http://time.com/2890134/maliki-iraq/.

Here is President Obama’s brilliant plan:

“The United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together.”

So, how does this work Mr. President?  Do you really think Shia and Sunni are going to just sit around the campfire and work things out with peace and love?  Democrats and Republicans can’t even find a way to share power in this country. Neither party is remotely interested in sharing power.  The difference here is that we have a pre-determined system for determining winners and losers and a tradition of the peaceful transfer of power.

Maliki is not going to share power with the Sunni for a very simple reason.  He knows they have zero interest in sharing power with him.  If I were Maliki I would literally laugh at Obama and say:  “just like you share power with Republicans.”  Expecting Shia and Sunni to actually share power is just plain stupid.

I have researched this quite a bit and so far I have never found a situation where serious problems were solved by stupid assumptions.

TDM

The opposite of love is not hate, it is apathy. The opposite of effective government is not freedom, it is anarchy. When anarchy reigns, no one is free. We are in perilous times, because a majority of Americans are losing faith in the system itself. Who can blame them? This President has abused power and ignored the constitution on a regular basis. No one, in either Political Party, appears to be ready, willing or able to stop him. If people really lose faith in the system, what is the alternative? Unfortunately the alternative is often revolution and most revolutions end badly. Our best hope at this point is that the revolution in this country will take place during an orderly election.

Following the Russian revolution there was a coalition government in Moscow. If that government had survived Russia would be a very different place today. But it didn’t survive. The communists were uninterested in sharing power. They were only interested in gaining total power. When one side will stop at nothing and the other side does nothing the results are inevitable.

The great miracle of our government is the balance of power and the sharing of power. It is the confidence of the American people in the system itself. Yes, there will be times when we don’t like an administration, but we are only one election away from a solution. Politicians come and politicians go but the system works. That was the genius of our founding fathers. The House balances the Senate. Congress balances the Executive and the Court holds both accountable to play by the rules. It has worked that way for a long time. But balance of power does not work if one branch of government ignores abuse of power by another branch.

Barry Goldwater

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I would reword this slightly:

Extremism, when confronted with a corrupt administration that abused power and ignored our constitution is no vice. Moderation, in dealing with such corruption is no virtue:

TDM

On April 30, 1975 we watched in horror as the last American helicopter left Saigon.  The United States had not only lost the war in Vietnam, we left with our tail between our legs.  What made the fall of Saigon so significant to me is that I served two tours in Vietnam as a linguist.  Since it was rare for the Vietnamese people to meet an American who could speak their language, they were anxious to talk to me.  One question I was asked all the time was this:  “Is the United States going to abandon us like France?”  I told them no, that the U.S. was not like France.  We would not abandon our friends.  Unfortunately, I was wrong.  In the end, few people in the history of warfare have been more abandoned to their fate that the South Vietnamese who foolishly believed the U.S. to be a dependable ally.  To this day, whenever I encounter a Vietnamese person who was in South Vietnam during the war the first thing I do is apologize.  It is too bad that our President who has apologized for the U.S. all over the world never thought to apologize for deserting our friends and allies in South Vietnam.

Now it looks like we will be seeing the fall of Baghdad, only it will be much worse.  The North Vietnamese were bad dudes but they don’t even compare to the Muslim extremists trying to take over Iraq.  Perhaps a miracle will happen.  Perhaps the Iraq people will come together and fight against the darkness.  Perhaps, but I doubt it.  One thing is certain, they will get little or no help from the U.S. and they would be absolutely insane to trust us.  That is the ultimate tragedy, because if Muslim extremists take over Iraq, that will endanger the entire world.

Now I watch the destruction in Baghdad and I think of all those in our military who sacrificed so much to give Iraq a chance.  I think of those being slaughtered today and I shudder to realize we will not even consider offering genuine help.  Barack Obama made it clear he wanted to leave Iraq, regardless of the consequences.  Well welcome to the consequences.  Once again people are paying a terrible price for foolishly believing that we would be a dependable friend.  I see this and all I can say is:  I am so sorry. 

TDM

How bad do things need to get before Democrats realize that Barack Obama is a problem?  How bad does it need to get before the main stream media starts to consider the possibility that Barack Obama is dangerously naïve and incompetent?  How bad does it need to get before the Republican establishment is concerned enough to consider taking a principled stand?   How bad before the ugly odor of truth becomes impossible to ignore?

Look at the Bergdahl for Taliban trade.  Look at the flood of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders.  Look at the mounting evidence that the DOJ was working with the IRS to target political opponents.  Look at sad reality that VA facilities all across the country were falsifying records to make it “look” like veterans are getting care.  But most of all look at Iraq.  Look at a meltdown worse than the worst case scenario.  Look at a situation where Iran sent in troops to fight against Islamic extremists.   Look at our  President paralyzed with indecision totally incapable of providing a shred of leadership.

How bad does it need to get?  Easy.  Just turn on the TV.

TDM

One of my favorite movies was called “Go for Broke.”  It was about the 442^nd Infantry Regiment made up of Japanese Americans in World War II.  “Go for Broke” meant to wager everything.  The Japanese Americans who fought in this regiment performed with great distinction.  It is the most decorated unit in U.S. military history.  Twenty-one members of the 442 won the Medal of Honor.

With Hillary Clinton, “go for broke” describes the pathetic attempt to generate sympathy by claiming she and Bill were dead broke after leaving the Presidency.  Hillary explained how difficult it was to afford the mortgage on two mansions while paying for Chelsea’s tuition at Stanford.  This is literally being laughed off the screen.  Even the local TV station, that normally puffs the Clintons, couldn’t resist showing pictures of the Clinton homes when discussing their desperate financial condition.

Hillary cannot resist padding her resume.  In some cases this is just plain silly.  For example she claimed that her mother named her after Sir Edmund Hillary in honor of his great achievement in climbing Mt. Everest.  Hillary was inconveniently born over five years before Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest, so this couldn’t possibly be true.  Then there was the corkscrew landing under fire in Bosnia.  The problem with this lie was a video of a sweet little girl meeting Hillary at the airport with flowers.

Hillary is so used to lying that telling the truth is obviously difficult for her.  Her lying works brilliantly with much of the liberal left, who still desperately wants to believe, but there is a problem.  In the age of the internet it is really easy to check out things and far too many things said by Hillary Clinton do not check out.

Her new book, designed to pave the path to the White House instead documented the problem.  The main stream media would have continued to cover for Hillary.  They would have continued to do soft ball interviews being very careful to never ask a question she couldn’t knock out of the park.  If she had done absolutely nothing it is unlikely that any Democrat would have even challenged her for the nomination.  But with Hillary enough is never enough.  She never has enough money.  She never has enough endorsements.  She never has enough homes.  She never has enough anything.  So even though she was way ahead in all the polls, she had to have the book.  She had to puff her resume once more time.  As a result, even some folks in the main stream media have had enough.  Just like Obama, they are seeing the real Hillary Clinton, possibly for the first time and they are saying “enough already.” 

Ironically, by “going for broke” Hillary Clinton may have finally achieved something.  She may have put a stake in the heart of her own Presidential aspirations.

TDM

During World War II British intelligence ran operation Mincemeat to trick Germany into thinking the U.S. was going to invade Greece instead of Sicily.  They planted false papers on a cadaver, named him Major William Martin, and arranged for the body to be “discovered.”  Incredibly the German commanders bought this hook, line and sinker and diverted troops to Greece.  At the time Winston Churchill was stunned that the German high command bought this, because it was really obvious that the Allies were going to invade Sicily.

At least Major Martin “looked” like the real thing.  Barack Obama never even looked like a leader.  He gave one speech, almost certainly written by someone else and liberals fell in love.  He “looked” like a leader and that was all that was required.   Obama had a paper thin resume and there wasn’t even any paper to back it up.   Now, six years later, the man who had zero accomplishments prior to running for President has zero accomplishments as President.  Why would anyone have expected something different?  What about Barack Obama’s personal history would cause one to expect something else?

Germany paid a high price for believing that Major William Martin was the real deal.  I fear this country will pay an even higher price for believing in the Obama myth.  In the meantime at least some people in the main stream media seem to be catching on.  They are beginning to question whether Obama is as sharp as they assumed.  As for me, as for me, I remain astonished that so many people believed and still believe in the man who never was.

TDM

Sometimes I watch the main stream media with absolute amazement.  With all the hyperventilating about the Bergdahl for Taliban exchange, no one seems to be addressing the single most important issue.  Why did President Obama do this?   A President of the United States has a right and a duty to do the necessary to protect the country.  That is the reason a President on occasion may violate the law and even the constitution.  The duty to protect the country is absolute.  Lincoln is considered to be a great president even though he clearly violated both the constitution and the law.  Some may argue whether or not it was necessary for him to do some of these things but it is indisputable that the reason Lincoln made these decisions was because he felt they were necessary to save the country.  FDR also violated both the constitution and the law prior to and during World War II.  Again some may argue as to whether or not some of these actions were necessary but it is indisputable that FDR made these decisions because he felt the national security was at stake.

Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury, yet he was acquitted by the Senate because Democratic Senators did not consider this to be a serious enough crime.  The majority of Republican Senators felt it was serious enough.  So I guess to some extent there is a different standard for Republicans and Democrats.  Other Presidents have probably violated some laws but this was ignored because it did not impact national security. This is not a minor issue.  In making this deal President Obama may have damaged national security.

Unlike the other scandals there is no difficulty linking this one to President Obama.  He admitted that he personally made the decision.  He said he did so because Bergdahl’s health appeared to have been deteriorating.  How is Bergdahl’s health a threat to national security?   How is anything that happens to Bergdahl a threat to national security.  Yes, we are glad to see him back home, regardless of what he did.  But there are other American citizens held hostage all over the world.  No one is arguing that failure to get them released represents a threat to national security.  A sad situation, yes.  A human tragedy, yes.  A threat to national security, no.

The President of the United States has the same duty to follow the law as everyone else, unless his higher duty to protect the country overrides.   Where is the higher duty here?   If anything, this decision harmed national security.  If breaking a law, for purely political purposes to do something harmful to national security is not a high crime and misdemeanor what would be required to meet that standard?

The question that must be asked is why did President Obama do this.  If he doesn’t have a satisfactory answer the constitution provides guidance on what to do.

TDM

Some misguided people have critized President Obama for trading 5 senior Taliban Commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.  They are wrong.  President Obama has brilliantly invented a new word.  A “Bergdahl” is a trade so bad that it defies imagination.  For example if the Miami Heat traded their entire starting line-up to the Los Angeles Clippers in exchange for Donald Sterling.

TDM