Failed Leadership

On September 11, 2012, the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked.  Four Americans were killed including our Ambassador, Chris Stevens.  It was the first time in 30 years that an Ambassador has been killed abroad.

It was a tragic and horrific event carried out by extremists who hate everything about us.  Their hatred is deep.  Their rage is insatiable.  And their utter disgust for America allows them to justify abhorrent atrocities against our people.

The White House has been deeply criticized for what appears to be a distinct attempt to mislead Americans about the nature of this attack.  For 14 days, we heard about "spontaneous protests which grew out of control," we heard about an obscure YouTube video which inspired "angry riots" and we also heard, although abstractly, it referred to as an "act of terror."

Six weeks later, the picture becomes clear.

1. Months before the attack, our ambassador feared for his life and had requested for additional security measures.  It was denied.  
2. Benghazi was a dangerous place.  On the day of the attack, the British and even the Red Cross had evacuated the city.  Despite the danger and the anniversary of 9/11, our ambassador and his team remained with inadequate protection.  
3. There was no protest of any kind.  Multiple eye witnesses said, "The streets were quiet." So where did this fabricated story originate and why did the president believe it?  
4. It was undoubtedly terrorism and a jihadist group has claimed responsibility.

Most discouraging?  Emails and paper trail show that the White House knew it all.

Today there is a fascinating and heart breaking Fox News Exclusive report which shows that during the horrific raids, CIA operatives were on the phone with US Intelligence agencies.  In real time, they requested additional military back-up.  Three times they requested reinforcements, yet all three times they were told to "Stand Down."

For seven hours, these men hid behind the walls of a safe house.  For seven hours, they must have heard the angry hate-filled voices of the terrorists getting closer.  For seven hours, these men must have clung to each other and probably clung to the hope that someone would come to save them.

No one answered their call.   All four of them were killed.

Yet, from this article, we learned that 480 miles away at the Sigonella US Air Force Base, military jets were aware of the attacks and were waiting for the go ahead to send Tier One Special operations forces and Delta Force Operators to help.

They would have made it in time.  The command never came.

Where was our president in all of this and even just a few hours later?  Our president stood at a campaign rally / fundraiser in Las Vegas while he boasted of his accomplishments and how America needs to fear someone like Mitt Romney.

Enough.

Our president failed to fix our economy.  Our president failed to balance a budget and restore fiscal discipline in Washington, instead he added $5 trillion to our debt---$4 billion dollars a day.  Our president has failed to end bitter partisanship.  Our president failed to guide our leaders to find compromise for our country's biggest problems.  Our president has failed us.

And in the Benghazi attack---an act of war---our president failed to lead.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."                                                  - Martin Luther King, Jr.

In 11 days, we need to hold him accountable for it all.

We can.  We should.  We will.

Go Mitt.

A Broken Economy at Home = A Broken Standing in the World

The final debate is over and I think my heart rate has finally normalized.  (I can't take much more of these).  The political pundits were quick to award Obama with the win, but ironically, cable news programs' focus groups proved once again that Mitt Romney had the edge.

Today conservatives are scratching their heads a little.  Did Romney really let Obama off the hook on Libya?  Wasn't that the freebie question of the night and yet all we heard was Romney give a boring narrative of the Arab Spring?  I was confused and admittedly, still am.  I guess I was just anxious to see Obama try to slither out of the Libya debacle in front of millions of voters.  It just didn't happen.

Image from Fiscal Times

Was it the right thing?

Time will tell---14 days to be exact---but as I have reflected on the debate, I realize that Romney's debate strategy may prove to be brilliant.

Romney did not engage the president on Libya because I believe that he wanted to make just one simple and harsh case against the president's foreign policy failures.  Namely, that America has lost its standing in the world because we are broken at home.

It was a powerful imagery to realize that we are no longer seen as the shining light on the hill because we are burdened and being swallowed by our debt and the reckless spending habits of our leaders.  A broken economy at home = a broken standing in the world.

No "horse and bayonet" zinger from the president will overshadow that imagery and Americans were reminded that it happened under this president's watch.

Image from Fox News

Mitt Romney proved that he is presidential and like it or not, he looks ready to fill the oval office.  Voters saw it and had to feel confident of his command of foreign policy details.  Mitt Romney knows his stuff.

The most powerful moment of the night for me came when Mitt Romney talked about Obama's "apology tour."  He said,

"The reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq.  And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to other nations.  And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel.  And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive.  You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations.  No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators."

Strong words and I am confident that it resonated with the right people.

***

The race remains close.  So, did the debate change a thing?  Well, I think the president enthused his base, but I don't' think he won any new votes.  And it would be hard to imagine that Mitt Romney lost any of his new supporters.

It was a draw.

So where does it go from here?  14 days from today, this will all come to a close.  It is hard to predict the outcome, especially when I have heard that in states like Ohio, it will literally come down to 8 votes per precinct.  Really, 8 votes per precinct.

I guess my feeling is this, if the president has yet to destroy his rival, he probably can't.  If the president has failed to convince independents to rally behind him, he probably won't.  If the president has failed to convince Americans who overwhelmingly loved and adored and supported him just 4 years ago, zingers about horses and bayonets aren't going to be enough to attract them with the same enthusiasm.

Why?  Because this time around, the president has a record and let's be frank, it stinks.

Image from Politico

It's time to recover.  It's time to get it right.  It's time to say, thank you Mr. President, we know you tried, we know you wanted to help, we know you thought you could, but you didn't.  And as I always say, my family can't afford to find out what happens if you get it wrong...again.

Please step aside and let's let a professional finally get it right.

Go Mitt.

Foreign Policy Takes Center Stage and The President's Judgement Will Too

During the last debate, the attacks in Benghazi took center stage.  President Obama told Mitt Romney, "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened.  That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

Many people thought it was his strongest moment in the debate, but for anyone who has given this controversy 5 minutes of their time will quickly recognize that the Benghazi attacks have also shed light one of the weakest and disconcerting moments of his presidency.

It has been 6 weeks since the attack,  does this administration have a consistent story yet?  Will they at least acknowledge that they got it wrong and that it wasn't a spontaneous protest that got out of control?

Intelligence records and eye witness accounts have crumbled the president's repeated assertion that the attacks grew out of a protest over a video.  This simply isn't true.  I want to know, who told this fabricated version of the events to our president? Why did the president believe it for 14 days?  Has this person been fired?

During the debate, the president boldly promised that they would hunt down these vicious killers and bring them to justice.  Well, six weeks have passed.  Are there arrests?  Are there at least interrogations happening?

Or has six weeks simply demonstrated that the president's bold declaration "to bring about justice" is simply empty rhetoric?

***

The New York Times ran a fascinating article which shed light on the fact that the president may have delivered a carefully crafted answer to a debate question, but his actions tell a completely different story.

The NYT reporter David Kirkpatrick flew to Benghazi and personally met with a man who many eyewitnesses and government officials have said was outside the embassy that dreadful night, giving orders and is even considered one of the terrorist ring leaders.

Like me, you might ask, how did Kirkpatrick find this killer?  Did he have to meet with him in secret?  Did he meet with him in an undisclosed location surrounded by jihadist guards?  Shockingly no.  This leader sat with a reporter and "spent two leisurely hours one evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan government."

This terrorist says that he has never been interviewed by officials and he doesn't believe that they will come after him.  This man says "he has no plans to go into hiding."

Hmm.  It doesn't sound like a "hunt for those responsible" is actually happening.  It isn't.

What a mockery this terrorist is making of us.  He brazenly killed four of our own and now brazenly, scoffs at the idea that our president will actually do anything about it.  Can we imagine for one minute how these individuals must have laughed to see the president parade himself around on "The View," "David Letterman" and even before the United Nations assembly and for 14 days apologize for some obscure video that "sparked an out-of-control protest?"

Please.  They know the president was feeding us a line and they were the only ones laughing.

***

The president and his administration's tepid and sporadic response to this terrorist attack has been troubling and offensive.

9/11 should have taught this president an interesting lesson.  Americans rallied behind President George Bush at a desperate moment.  We were broken, but he wasn't.  We were scared, but he was strong.  And what was the result?  Patriotism began to swell and Americans rallied.  We rallied behind our president and above all, the terrorists knew that we were coming for them.

President Obama missed it.  We would have rallied and millions of Americans would have rallied behind him.  But what happened instead?  His message was muddied with talk of a video and a phony protest.  It still is.

President Obama has failed to show leadership and no carefully crafted answer in a debate can change that.

Obama was so focused on trying to downplay terrorism that he missed a rare opportunity to stand behind his "megaphone" and declare to the world that terrorism will not be tolerated and that America is coming fast and strong for those who attacked us.

Instead we have a leader who is still trying to articulate which "act of terror" he was referring to in his Rose Garden speech on September 12th.  Not strong.  Not impressive.  Not leadership.

***

Am I implying that the president should have used a horrific tragedy for political gain?  Absolutely not, but a firm and decisive response to this tragedy would have had a much different impact on a president who prides himself on being a bold foreign policy leader.

All we got was a lack of coherency, which speaks volumes about his judgement.

Tonight's debate focus on foreign policy is a perfectly timed gift for Mitt Romney.  He may been caught off guard by Crowley's participation in the last debate, but he will be ready tonight and the American people will see that not only is the president's judgment questionable, but Americans will see that Mitt Romney is more than ready to take his place.

Is foreign policy really Obama's strength? Or is it running a brilliant campaign?

Our embassies across the world are under attack.  For the first time in 30 years, a U.S. Ambassador has been killed.  (The last U.S. Ambassador to be killed was in 1979).  American flags are being burned.  Embassies are closing.  Anti-American sentiment is raging across the globe.

Is Obama's foreign diplomacy working?  Is foreign policy really his strength?

Image from dailymail.co.uk

The White House Administration is adamant that we need to be patient before drawing any conclusions about the nature of the attacks.  They continue to say that the unrest around the world and specifically the attacks in Libya were simply the "result of an anti-Islam video."

The White House has repeatedly condemned the video and apologized for its content.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the film is "disgusting and reprehensible" and a "cynical attempt to offend people for their religious beliefs."

Last Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "There was no actionable intelligence that could in any way have been acted upon to prevent these attacks."  Carney went on to say, "We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack."

Things are starting to get a little sticky.

Today CNN reported that months before the attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens had voiced his concerns for his safety and that he knew that he was on an al Qaeda hit list.

CNN also reported that "three days before the deadly attack, a local security official met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.  James Mabrouk, a member of the brigade told CNN that the "security situation wasn't good.  The situation is frightening, it scares us."

That was three days before the attack.

So let me get this straight, for months our ambassador feared for his life, a security guard warns about the lack of security and yet the "protesters"/attackers were still able to carry out their objectives?

Was anything done to beef up security?  To protect American interests?  To protect American lives?

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said, "As we did with all of our missions overseas, in advance of September 11, as we do every year, we did evaluate the threat stream and determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew."

It is disheartening then to learn that as the New York Times reported, the "protests" began at 10 PM with rocket-propelled grenades and by 10:15 the attackers had gained entrance to the main building."

The New York Times report continued, "Reports are that American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remain unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well-trained and heavily armed, it appears they had some level of advanced planning."

Hmm.

The White House would like us to believe that a few angry people who heard something about a little, obscure YouTube video, just randomly appeared with rocket-propelled grenades and were able to break down our "adequate" security and take over an embassy in a matter of minutes?  And just by coincidence, it happened on the anniversary of 9/11?

Please.

Should it surprise anyone that the Washington Post reported today, that a senior U.S. intelligence official is now telling lawmakers that "The U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed last week in Libya died in the course of a terrorist attack."

Ouch.  What was the White House's response?

Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counter Terrorism Center simply corroborated the Administration's stance and said, "initial conclusions do not point to a planned assault.  Instead, the facts indicate that this was an opportunistic attack."

Image from dailymail.co.uk

Why not tell it like it is?  Is there really harm in calling it terrorism?

Based on the White House's response, yes.

I guess it makes sense.  All of this unrest and foreign policy breakdown reflect poorly on the president.

Will they still be able to say Obama's strength is foreign policy?  Can they still brand him the "healer" of extreme Muslim relations if it is obvious that these extremist still hate us.  Can they still avoid Bush's term, "War on Terror,"if it is obvious that this war is still raging?

Will it be harder to sell Obama's campaign theme that "America is safer now that Osama is dead" if our embassies are being easily overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, American flags have been replaced by al Qaeda flags, our buildings are burning and an Ambassador has been brutally murdered?

This doesn't feel safer to me.  This doesn't feel like progress.

Image from nbcnews.com

In all fairness, maybe the White House did not know these specifics.  Maybe they didn't have all the details, but for an administration that is keenly aware of every single thing that rival Mitt Romney has ever said and everything he has ever done, it is a little hard to believe that they were somehow unaware of this global crisis.

What is our president doing today?  He continues to annihilate Mitt Romney for a secretly taped video where Romney is heard discussing the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes and why they would never vote for Mitt Romney.

I am of the belief that a president should not be rewarded for a "brilliant" campaign, but rather be rewarded for the job he has done as president.

America deserves better than what this president has offered.

Go Mitt.