Government adds truth to Endangered Species list

"I don't want yes-men around me. I want everyone to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs
                                                                                                                                 Samuel Goldwyn

It seems clear that no important jobs were put in jeopardy by the State department's internal investigation of the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi. Kirsten Powers noted that weeks of investigation unearthed little information that couldn't have been learned from watching Fox News. On the plus side, it did create some investigative jobs and saved countless others. 

President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice had each stated rather emphatically that all of the relevant intelligence indicated that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a hateful video. It was strongly suggested that it was carryover violence, inspired by a related protest in Cairo.

Discerning the motivations and actions of the assembled is always a challenge for investigators. The genesis of violence is not always clear (i.e. the events at Kent State University forty years ago). The Benghazi investigators were unable to establish the occurrence of a protest or the presence of a crowd prior to the attack. Political spin masters labeled this an 'intelligence failure' or a 'misjudgment'.

This calls to mind a 'misstatement' made by candidate Clinton during the 2008 campaign. The senator recalled encountering sniper fire upon her arrival in Tuzla. Had Senator Clinton confused sniper fire in Tuzla with sniper fire in Belfast, it could have been fairly characterized as a misstatement. But she confused real sniper fire with imaginary sniper fire. There was a time when an investigator or a journalist would have termed that a lie.

So I ask; if your intelligence sources cannot distinguish between a real crowd and an imaginary crowd or between a real demonstration and an imaginary one, is it bad intelligence or is it a lie?

I would have hoped this investigation would have settled some simple factual matters. If the consensus of the intelligence was as Susan Rice presented it, then the following questions should lead us to a human source: 1) Who saw and identified the crowd? 2)  To whom was that information communicated? 3)Who edited away the terrorism reference? and 4) Who linked the Benghazi violence to the events in Cairo.

I suspect the explanation for this preposterous narrative is simple. An anonymous (and well-meaning) staffer speculated that perhaps the events in Benghazi occurred in the wake of the disturbance in Cairo. In the heat of the moment, it seemed like a far better story than admitting we were unprepared for an attack on our poorly secured embassy on September the 11th.

A decision was then made to proceed with the video narrative for political reasons. I believe that Senator Clinton refused to carry the ball on first down and Susan Rice was chosen to replace her. Mrs. Clinton understood the political risks and didn't want to be the poster child for questionable information. It was her job to walk the plank, but she wasn't willing to go first. In retrospect, most of the blowback has been directed at Susan Rice.

On one level, this is just politics. But we no longer know how or where it stops. A man from Incutel spoke to some government defense and security professionals. He said he was sure that everyone in the room was willing to take a bullet for their country, but he doubted that any of the same people were willing to put their jobs on the line.

So we should contemplate the following. Would a person recommending increased security in Benghazi be risking his or her job. How about a person who disagrees with the consensus of relevant intelligence or someone who finds evidence of dishonesty or malfeasance. This administration has mastered the narrative of wrong but never culpable. The willingness to seek and speak the truth should be a job expectation, not a career risk.

Compounding a tragedy

There is considerable evidence documenting the difficulties that autistic persons have both processing and demonstrating empathy. No one knows to what extent those limitations may have contributed to yesterday's explosion of violence in Connecticut. But whatever our limitations, we all have choices.  

Some prominent political types, who are not handicapped by deficits in empathy, were particularly tone-deaf in their reactions. Given the the unconscionable mass murder of 6 year old children, one would hope that the gun rights and gun control advocates might remain silent for a few days; perhaps until the victims are identified and the dead are buried.

Carol Platt Liebau sensed something sinister in President Obama's call for "meaningful action to prevent this from happening again." Not to be outdone, Representative Nadler called for the president to "exploit the tragedy" in the service of gun control legislation. These are just a sample of inappropriate and ill-timed responses.  

We have lost a measure of propriety. We once understood that the feelings of the grieving loved ones are more important than our right to speak. Why don't these people stifle themselves? Why doesn't someone else?
        
Senator Ron Johnson is an honorable, thoughtful and articulate public servant, one of a rare few in Washington. Yet he felt compelled to go on television to defend 2nd amendment rights in the 48 hours immediately following the tragedy in Tucson. It was painfully inappropriate. Who thought it was important to defend gun owner's rights in that moment? Who thought the argument would even be heard? Why didn't someone have the grace to say "Please stay home. Your position is going to be criticized today. It's okay. Stay home anyway."

In the coming weeks some discussion of gun rights/ restrictions will occur. We should not lose sight of the founder's foremost concern. They feared a government that could disarm the citizenry. History across the globe validates that concern. 

That said, an unfettered right to bear arms doesn't really afford us much protection in that regard. It needs to be weighed against the danger that heavily armed citizens pose to each other. Guns exacerbate the harm that impulsive anger provokes.

But before engaging in the gun debate, we should seriously examine how grievance came to be considered a virtue in America. Guns are a dangerous tool in the hands of people who feel entitled to do harm. Mere grievance grants them permission to visit violence on to others.  You have a grievance with your girlfriend, hit her; have a grievance with the guy crossing the picket line, assault him.

The gun rights advocates are right about one thing. Most gun owners do not endanger anyone, even those possessing the most dangerous weapons.

Those who feel entitled to exact satisfaction for their grievances are a danger to everyone, more so when they are armed. Back before deregulation, it was necessary to demonstrate a need for your services to secure an ICC (trucking) permit. Maybe we should think about requiring gun purchasers to demonstrate a need for select weapons and let state and local communities make the judgments about which weapons to allow and which buyers to license.

We have confused our young. Kindness and empathy are regarded as weakness. Anger and self-absorption are seen as strength.  The gun laws are a problem. The lack of empathy among us is another. It would be easy to overestimate the former and underestimate the latter..

Profiles in Courage 2012

''If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so that my child may have peace."  Thomas Paine

Once in American history, patriots knowingly put themselves in harm's way to spare their children. No one kicked the American Revolution down the road. They didn't leave it for the kids to fight.

Trouble has happened again, 17 trillion dollars worth. Our leaders are less inspiring. No one in Washington is saying "let it be in my day." To paraphrase Mr. Paine,  "If there must be trouble, let it be in my children's time, so that I may have peace today."

History credits the founders for their integrity and courage.Their willingness to 'walk the walk' sets them apart. It's possible (theoretically) that two centuries from now, Barack Obama and John Boehner will also be so kindly remembered. If that is the case, it will be for what they do in the coming weeks, not for anything they have done so far.

As an Illinois legislator President Obama defined himself as a man of limited opinions. He voted 'present' with an ease that is hard to fathom. The president speaks passionately about our grave financial situation, yet  his only commitment thus far is to an increase in tax rates. Those increases will be limited to those persons (and individuals filing as subchapter S corporations) with earned incomes of over $250,000 a year. On the spending side of the equation,'present' would be an overly generous reading of his involvement.

This rate increase is expected to generate about 80 billion dollars annually. 80 billion is still significant money in some quarters. But consider this;  were that 80 billion dollars used solely for debt reduction, it would take 18 years to retire the budget deficit for 2009(principal only). 

Boehner and McConnell seem willing to give in on rate increases. Their strategy on spending cuts and entitlement reforms mirrors that of the Democrats - you first.

The founding fathers put their lives and liberty at risk for their children. The president and the speaker seem unwilling to risk a paper cut for ours.












                                                                                                                             

Conservative casts vote for Kirsten Powers

Politically, I am a little to the right of Alan Keyes. Nonetheless, when news breaks, I often find myself wondering "What will Kirsten Powers think?" That question doesn't usually come up with political writers. 

I find Kirsten Powers;

** secure in her own judgments. She doesn't weave across the line between spin and analysis. Even more important, she understands that if you long to be a player, you aren't doing analysis.

** can admit being wrong. The Anthony Weiner video episode had to be personally difficult and her impassioned defense of him professionally awkward. She wrote a column after the facts became known. She chose to forgo the usual political rationalizations, leaving it simply at "I was wrong."
 
** can stand up for herself. The unfortunate Megan Kelly/ Kirsten Powers voter intimidation debate was not highlight reel material for either of these quality women. That said, we like to see our daughters fight back and fight fair. She did both.
  
** demonstrates integrity. When Martin Bashir rudely insulted Charles Krauthammer, she dismissed him as the classless clown that he is.

** guided by a moral compass, not a self-esteem deficit. If she were seeking the fawning adoration of the liberal elites, she would keep her pro-life sentiments to herself..

Kirsten Powers is honest, almost reflexively so. Of course she is not the only one. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams come to mind. Steve Hayes is another. Still, there is still a higher price exacted from women who don't hold to the party line. Male honesty is generally tolerated and occasionally considered admirable. It is regarded as somehow unseemly in women.

I don't much agree with Ms. Powers on policy. I certainly don't find President Obama moderate and can't share her confidence about the happy outcomes of the Obamacare experiment..
 
But if you were to ask me if I would vote for a person who is secure in her own judgments, who can admit when she's wrong, can stand up for herself, has integrity and is guided by a moral compass, the answer is yes. In fact, I would be hard pressed to vote against her. Odds are, we will probably never have the opportunity. Conservatives should, however, read her columns and carefully consider her analysis. There is something to be learned there.


.

"Everything is on the table"

"Everything is on the table." Politicians say it all the time. It is an all-purpose response designed to address the public's concerns about everything from budget deficits to Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions. Yet, it strikes us as trite and empty. Why doesn't it comfort us? Because it isn't true. "Every option is on the table" is simply a lie. If every option was truly considered, politics would be a more interesting. Governing would be more efficient.

That brings us to the tragic events in Libya. How did the video become the consensus opinion of the administration? See paragraph one.  Islamic terrorism was never 'on the table.' Politicians have pet narratives and they prefer that the underlying causes and precipitating events fit the story line.

Consider this. There have been several recent events for which Islamic terrorism might have been a plausible, if not the compelling explanation. The Obama administration has determined some of these same events to be the unfortunate results of workplace violence, a drive-by shooting, personal emotional turmoil or a spontaneous riot incited by a YouTube video. . If a future tragedy. similar to the one in Benghazi occurs, the causes cited will not number Islamic extremism among them.

The sad reality is that facts  are usually "on the table" only to the extent that they coincide with some predetermined political narrative. When the facts don't fit the narrative, they get some adaptation.

The facts is in the Fort Hood case got considerable adaptation along the way. The Major left a trail of clues to his murderous designs. He didn't really try to conceal his intentions or disguise his contempt for his colleagues and fellow citizens. Many red flags were ignored or given a more favorable reading. The Major was given the benefit of the doubt. The result was unspeakable and perhaps preventable.

The impulse to ignore politically incorrect or uncomfortable realities is often measured in American lives. What can we do about it? Tell your representatives and political friends that the truth is the only
thing you want on the table. Tell him or her that you want it no matter how uncomfortable it is for them or for you.