Nearly two years after Benghazi, American embassy in Libya’s capital falls to Islamists

posted at 10:31 am on September 1, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Nearly two years ago today, on September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed in a coordinated and sophisticated attack on an American diplomatic consulate and a nearby CIA outpost in Benghazi, Libya. But you’re not supposed to talk about that. At least not within the context of today’s news; that the Islamist militia, which recently sacked the country’s capital, have also taken control of portions of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli.

Amid turmoil in Libya in late July, the United States suspended operations at the Tripoli-based diplomatic facility and evacuated American personnel to nearby Tunisia. “Due to the ongoing violence resulting from clashes between Libyan militias in the immediate vicinity of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, we have temporarily relocated all of our personnel out of Libya,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said at the time.

It looks like “temporarily” is going to be a long time.

“An Islamist-allied militia group in control of Libya’s capital now guards the U.S. Embassy and its residential compound, a commander said Sunday, as onlookers toured the abandoned homes of diplomats who fled the country more than a month ago,” the Associated Press reported on Sunday.

An Associated Press journalist saw holes left by small-arms and rocket fire dotting the residential compound, reminders of weeks of violence between rival militias over control of Tripoli that sparked the evacuation.

The breach of a deserted U.S. diplomatic post — including images of men earlier swimming in the compound’s algae-filled pools — likely will reinvigorate debate in the U.S. over its role in Libya, more than three years after supporting rebels who toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi. It also comes just before the two-year anniversary of the slaying of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.

A commander for the Dawn of Libya group, Moussa Abu-Zaqia, told the AP that his forces had been guarding the residential compound since last week, a day after it seized control of the capital and its international airport after weeks of fighting with a rival militia. Abu-Zaqia said the rival militia from Zintan was in the compound before his troops took it over.

According to a report via Vice News, the Islamist group published a YouTube video (now removed) which featured several militia members diving in to the embassy pool from a second story window after the facility had been captured.

American diplomatic officials believe that only the embassy’s residency has fallen to Islamist fighters, and the remainder of the embassy compound remains secure… For now.

Last week, the Islamist group Dawn of Libya – one of several militias vying for control of post-Gaddafi Libya – took control of the capitol after weeks of fighting. Their success resulted in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates conducting airstrikes against Islamist positions in an effort to halt the group’s advance. Last week, it was revealed that neither nation even bothered to inform Washington of their plan to engage in military operations in Libya.

In short, North Africa is falling apart. But you cannot say that, just as you cannot say that this outcome may have been foreshadowed by Ansar al-Sharif’s attack on U.S. outposts in Benghazi two years ago. That would be politically inconvenient for the White House, which engaged in a war of choice in Libya with the aim of toppling the regime in Tripoli and had no plans to secure the nation after the fighting stopped. Today, due to poor Western planning and leadership, Libya is a failed state.

It all sounds very familiar. But you’re not supposed to talk about that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But you have to keep in mind that they, and the political ideology they embraced from their youths, paved the way for this guy and his administration.

Cleombrotus on September 1, 2014 at 12:09 PM

The flaw in the Bush administrations, and their culpability in the matter, was their fecklessness and ignorance of just what they were up against. Bush Sr. was Reagan’s vice-president who learned nothing from his boss and was temperamentally adverse to capitalizing on Reagan’s successes. He did not share Reagan’s vision.

Cleombrotus on September 1, 2014 at 12:12 PM

What difference, at this point does it make…
Weather it was a few Jihadis out for a swim and decided to take an American compound?

Yeah, social media. “If not for social media, people wouldn’t know about my repeated failures as commander in chief”

B4B on September 1, 2014 at 12:20 PM

The flaw in the Bush administrations, and their culpability in the matter, was their fecklessness and ignorance of just what they were up against…

Cleombrotus on September 1, 2014 at 12:12 PM

Worse yet, the Boehner-McConnell crowd still doesn’t see it, or if they do, doesn’t seem to care.

petefrt on September 1, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Someone check with hillary and see if she has a reset button for the Middle East. It worked with Russia (sarc). Ask the Ukrainians.

crosshugger on September 1, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Technically, this isn’t the embassy, but an abandoned compound. Whatever … the symbolism is clear enough, isn’t it?

virgo on September 1, 2014 at 12:28 PM

How is it possible that “the remainder of the embassy compound remains secure”? Are there some folks there holding off the militants? They said all our personnel are gone, so what’s preventing the takeover of the rest of the compound? Could we maybe get some actual reporting on this?

GWB on September 1, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Asked but not answered. If you use common sense you would have to say that none of it is secured. If you don’t have US personnel there, it can’t be secured and “the remainder of the compound is secure” comment is just political bs.

Vince on September 1, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Worse yet, the Boehner-McConnell crowd still doesn’t see it, or if they do, doesn’t seem to care.

petefrt on September 1, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Oh they see it. They are not that feckless or stupid. Problem is they are working for the same thing. They are on the same side of the WH Marxist. We are the common enemy of them. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can hopefully get our country back if isn’t already too late.

bgibbs1000 on September 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Worse yet, the Boehner-McConnell crowd still doesn’t see it, or if they do, doesn’t seem to care.

petefrt on September 1, 2014 at 12:24 PM

I really don’t think they see it. I doubt if they ever did. They remind me of churchgoers who go through the motions but have no idea of what it’s really supposed to be about.

Cleombrotus on September 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Looking at the disastrous results of our interventions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Egypt, you’d think that non-interventionism would gain some traction. But for the neocons, the fact that all of previous bombings and interventions in the region made things much worse is only evidence that we need more bombings and interventions.

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Oh they see it. They are not that feckless or stupid. Problem is they are working for the same thing. They are on the same side of the WH Marxist. We are the common enemy of them. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can hopefully get our country back if isn’t already too late.

bgibbs1000 on September 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Guys like Paul Ryan are the ones who confuse me the most. I heard an interview he did with Glenn Beck in which he seemed to indicate that he really did understand “these people”, as he said, but I just don’t see that he does.

Cleombrotus on September 1, 2014 at 12:41 PM

It’s almost as if we are asking for it.

VegasRick on September 1, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Agreed. And what, by God, would be the reason for that? Because despite what I read some commenters state – that it will allow the opening for martial law – I really doubt that outcome.

If we get attacked in a way the media can’t shush-shush the Islamofascism angle – like they did with Boston – the shiite is really going to hit the fan.

And NO ONE is going to take it lying down.

MistyLane on September 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Oh they see it. They are not that feckless or stupid. Problem is they are working for the same thing. They are on the same side of the WH Marxist. We are the common enemy of them. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can hopefully get our country back if isn’t already too late.

bgibbs1000 on September 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

I’ve been stating this since shortly after GW Bush took office and did things like sign steel tariff legislation, McCain Feingold and of course, created that giant shitturd Homeland Security.

I have always said the goal of this “red state” “blue state” nonsense foisted on us by none other than Tim Russert (at least he’s the first I recall seeing that from) was purely designed to keep the peasants fighting among themselves, rather than seeing that the Federal govt, politicians, crony-rent-seeking “capitalists” and the MSM are the true enemy, as they are all in cahoots with one another.

MistyLane on September 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Just curious, exactly what you consider to be the “disastrous results” of our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Are we just looking at what they are now, after removing American forces and not achieving a status of forces agreement, basically abandoning whatever gains (at great sacrifice) were made? Or, are we looking at the whole picture, including what existed before we entered, and what it was just before we tucked-tail and ran?

B4B on September 1, 2014 at 12:58 PM

MistyLane on September 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Wow Misty, I was having exactly that conversation with the Mrs earlier this morning.
It’s my opinion that’s the unfortunate level of tragedy that it will take to flip the turning public tide of indifference on this administration.

B4B on September 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I’ve been stating this since shortly after GW Bush took office and did things like sign steel tariff legislation, McCain Feingold and of course, created that giant shitturd Homeland Security.

MistyLane on September 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM

With a list like that, it’s hard to argue that they are just sleep walking. You may be right.

Cleombrotus on September 1, 2014 at 1:08 PM

I’ve been stating this since shortly after GW Bush took office and did things like sign steel tariff legislation, McCain Feingold and of course, created that giant shitturd Homeland Security.

I have always said the goal of this “red state” “blue state” nonsense foisted on us by none other than Tim Russert (at least he’s the first I recall seeing that from) was purely designed to keep the peasants fighting among themselves, rather than seeing that the Federal govt, politicians, crony-rent-seeking “capitalists” and the MSM are the true enemy, as they are all in cahoots with one another.

MistyLane on September 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM

You are 100% correct. It is in essence a national version of good cop, bad cop being played against the American people. And for the most part the people are falling for it.

bgibbs1000 on September 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Obama is a loser.

corkie on September 1, 2014 at 1:43 PM

How is it possible that “the remainder of the embassy compound remains secure”? …

Could we maybe get some actual reporting on this?

GWB on September 1, 2014 at 10:47 AM

It’s incredible how often reporters make these type of obviously strange claims without offering a hint of explanation.

corkie on September 1, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Thank God our ambassador wasn’t there or this might have gotten dicey and dangerous.

Oh, wait…

(Somewhere Obama is angrily jamming a tee in the sod in response.)

profitsbeard on September 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Nearly two years after Benghazi, American embassy in Libya’s capital falls to Islamists

“But we made sure that the right Islamic terrorists won.”-Barky

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 1, 2014 at 2:05 PM

I think it was more or less handed to the Islamists.

kcewa on September 1, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Here’s the cynic in me…
The administration is waiting for 9/11 and any terrorist attacks to distract from all their current woes. If islamists hit U.S. interests, then all bets are off regarding public support in prosecuting any administration wrongdoing/culpability around the world.
They are marking time until something sparks the country to unite behind the “president”.

freedomfirst on September 1, 2014 at 2:13 PM

my buddy from elementary school was working there when it was evacuated. His email describing what it was like there was… eye opening… to say the least.

Defenestratus on September 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Libya’s capital falls to Islamists”

But you’re not supposed to talk about that.

Libya’s capital fell to Islam. That’s what we are not suppose to talk about and you have complied.

VorDaj on September 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM

I’ve been stating this since shortly after GW Bush took office and did things like sign steel tariff legislation, McCain Feingold and of course, created that giant shitturd Homeland Security.

I have always said the goal of this “red state” “blue state” nonsense foisted on us by none other than Tim Russert (at least he’s the first I recall seeing that from) was purely designed to keep the peasants fighting among themselves, rather than seeing that the Federal govt, politicians, crony-rent-seeking “capitalists” and the MSM are the true enemy, as they are all in cahoots with one another.
MistyLane on September 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Amen. Even in the runup to TSA, we could have gone with a privatised screening process but the progressives demanded that it be govt run and unionized with all the perks of civil service and Dubya bought it. Spit. The Patriot Act was nothing but “discarding the constitution vis a vis liberty in order to save liberty in the name of security”. If Dubya and the rest of the GOPe truly were guided by our founding fathers they would have found a way to secure our liberties, but that would be politically incorrect.

AH_C on September 1, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Even in the runup to TSA, we could have gone with a privatised screening process but the progressives demanded that it be govt run and unionized with all the perks of civil service and Dubya bought it.

AH_C on September 1, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Yes, I remember it well and the facepalm that went with it. That was the beginning of Dubya’s long slide downward, IMO.

petefrt on September 1, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Looking at the disastrous results of our interventions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Egypt, you’d think that non-interventionism would gain some traction.

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Yes, because as we’ve seen from Obama pulling our troops out of Iraq, isolationism is clearly the answer we’ve been waiting for! Everything became so much better and safer for everyone once we withdrew our imperialist troops and left the field clear for the Islamofascists.

AZCoyote on September 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM

#smartpower

everdiso on August 21, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Schadenfreude on September 1, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Looking at the disastrous results of our interventions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Egypt, you’d think that non-interventionism would gain some traction.

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Everything became so much better and safer for everyone once we withdrew our imperialist troops and left the field clear for the Islamofascists.

AZCoyote on September 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM

As long as ISIS (Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood and Koranically-driven Islamic imperialism in general) remains “non-interventionist”, too, this ‘works’.

Ask Charles Martel how that plan would have worked at Poiters in 732 or Jan Sobieski at Vienna on September 11, 1683.

You can pretend the jihadis aren’t coming for you, but they swear by Allah they are.

I believe the maniacal mofo’s.

profitsbeard on September 1, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Yes, because as we’ve seen from Obama pulling our troops out of Iraq, isolationism is clearly the answer we’ve been waiting for! Everything became so much better and safer for everyone once we withdrew our imperialist troops and left the field clear for the Islamofascists.

AZCoyote on September 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM

And Hussein, Assad, Gadaffi, and Mubarak were actually keeping the most extreme elements at bay. Then we came along and opened up fabulous opportunities for Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood. With that track record of success, why change strategies right?

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 3:27 PM

The conclusion can only be that he *wants* them to come here, and *wants* them to strike us. Why? Oh, maybe a solid terrorist hit, within our borders, before the ’16 elections get underway, gives the perfect opportunity (never let a crisis go to waste) to invoke martial law and suspend elections?

Just thinking out loud.

Midas on September 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM

At which point, the the Tree of Liberty will be refreshed, as Jefferson so eloquently put it.

captnjoe on September 1, 2014 at 3:28 PM

I’ve been stating this since shortly after GW Bush took office and did things like sign steel tariff legislation, McCain Feingold and of course, created that giant shitturd Homeland Security.

MistyLane

And don’t forget that silly light bulb ban.

xblade on September 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM

The Clinton Natatorium, soon to be a top tourist attraction.

higgins1991 on September 1, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Official

Schadenfreude on September 1, 2014 at 3:52 PM

And Hussein, Assad, Gadaffi, and Mubarak were actually keeping the most extreme elements at bay. Then we came along and opened up fabulous opportunities for Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood. With that track record of success, why change strategies right?

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 3:27 PM

I don’t disagree with this. But you said earlier that we should try more “non interventionism.” That is basically what Obama did in Iraq. He pulled out our troops and told everyone that we were done and what happened there next would be up to the Iraqis. And we all saw how well that turned out.

AZCoyote on September 1, 2014 at 3:54 PM

AZCoyote on September 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM

And Hussein, Assad, Gadaffi, and Mubarak were actually keeping the most extreme elements at bay. Then we came along and opened up fabulous opportunities for Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood. With that track record of success, why change strategies right?

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 3:27 PM

You have a small problem with the words I bolded; I won’t go into the other countries and other groups.

al Qaeda was already working with Iraq, and some members of al Qaeda were in Iraq well before the spring of 2003.

In its 1998 Federal Indictment of bin Laden, (Democrat) pResident Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice specifically mentioned a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Would you rather have Saddam back in charge now? And before answering, remember that he did kill his own people. That’s how he kept “the most extreme elements at bay”.

Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2014 at 3:59 PM

The most amazing thing is that the sheeple just appear to be most inflamed today about the country’s disrespect for Obama. It’s all about the O.
I wonder how the O is going to handle an attack………….on the golf course, I’m sure.

ORconservative on September 1, 2014 at 11:38 AM
Huddled and cowering in an underground bunker unable to make a decision and without a change of pants!

Bakokitty on September 1, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Okay, here is the link to the UK Mail Online:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739064/Militia-says-secured-US-compound-Libya.html

Wouldn’t this group be sending a message to the US about its contempt for us? I don’t understand their behavior.

onlineanalyst on September 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM

I took that video as a message of utter contempt for the US. How could you not?

Bakokitty on September 1, 2014 at 4:27 PM

AngusMc I Do believe Bush only relieved us of Hussein. Obama is responsible for the mess that resulted from Assad, Gadaffi, and Mubarek. If I remember correctly, Obama is responsible for the Arab Spring screw ups. Though, Obama did say, he would side with the muslims.

birdwatcher on September 1, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Obama wants the same thing that Osama wanted they are just going about it in different ways.

unseen on September 1, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Who’d have thunk Obama bin laden and barack Osama were such similar creatures ? Certainly not I….

cableguy615 on September 1, 2014 at 4:57 PM

I’ve been stating this since shortly after GW Bush took office and did things like sign steel tariff legislation, McCain Feingold and of course, created that giant shitturd Homeland Security.

MistyLane

Not to be an apologist for W (and you can add No Child Left Behind to the list, as well as the attempts to amnetize the illegals, to appease the Left, led by Teddy Kennedy), W was bending over backwards to appease, accommodate, and compromise with the Dems, who were still cry-babying over the 2000 election results.

Except for that brief window of national unity and purpose after the 9/11 attacks, the Dems/Left went back to their partisan attacks. In the context of the times, W was attempting to use the strategies of compromise, which served him as governor of Texas. The Dems at the national level were playing for blood instead, just as they are today.

onlineanalyst on September 1, 2014 at 5:43 PM

I am not singling you out for criticism, Misty. Others here have added to your points and rightfully so. I just thought that we should remember the entire context of the beginning of W’s first term in office.

onlineanalyst on September 1, 2014 at 5:46 PM

American embassy in Libya’s capital falls to Islamists

Henceforth the American flag flying over any Middle Eastern Embassy will be white.

MaiDee on September 1, 2014 at 6:54 PM

I don’t disagree with this. But you said earlier that we should try more “non interventionism.” That is basically what Obama did in Iraq. He pulled out our troops and told everyone that we were done and what happened there next would be up to the Iraqis. And we all saw how well that turned out.

AZCoyote on September 1, 2014 at 3:54 PM

That’s non-interventionism following a disastrous intervention that left Iraq with a corrupt government and gutted military. There’s lessons to be learned there in both directions.

AngusMc I Do believe Bush only relieved us of Hussein. Obama is responsible for the mess that resulted from Assad, Gadaffi, and Mubarek. If I remember correctly, Obama is responsible for the Arab Spring screw ups. Though, Obama did say, he would side with the muslims.

birdwatcher on September 1, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Where did I blame everything on Bush? Our recent Presidents of both parties (Clinton, Bush, and Obama in particular) have been internationally incompetent with an overly hawkish foreign policy. Our reaction to 9/11 should have been to pound Afghanistan to dust and then leave. The post-9/11 interventions in the Middle East were just outright mistakes from the start — but whenever there is a international event we think we need to use our military to fix it without thinking of the possible consequences. It’s the attitude that Bill Kristol expressed a few days ago “What’s the harm of bombing them at least for a few weeks and seeing what happens?”

In terms of ISIS, even before the bombing happened it appeared as though Syria, Iran, Iraq, Kurds, and Saudis had begun to turn the tide against ISIS. My God, our enemies were actually killing each other instead of us. We need to step in and set things right so they focus on the U.S. instead?

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Ten more days until Team Obama is forced to rustle-up another 9/11 scapegoat out of bed at 2am with The Goonsquad. Wonder if He will drag him through the streets in pillories this time?

Tick Tock
Tick Tock

Tard on September 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Would you rather have Saddam back in charge now? And before answering, remember that he did kill his own people. That’s how he kept “the most extreme elements at bay”.

Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Absolutely we were better off with Saddam in charge. Hell, he was an evil murderous bastard tyrant, but next to ISIS he was a saint.

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM

my buddy from elementary school was working there when it was evacuated. His email describing what it was like there was… eye opening… to say the least.

Defenestratus on September 1, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Care to open our eyes a little more?

pannw on September 1, 2014 at 7:16 PM

I can still hear Hillary cackling about Ghaddafi being dead.

She seemed to care more about that than what happened to Ambassador Stevens.

And it is a rare Sec. State that has an Ambassador assassinated during their term and then try to just brush it under the rug instead of resigning immediately.

No one had a plan for what to do in Libya after Ghaddafi.

Chaos is the result.

Chaos wins.

ajacksonian on September 1, 2014 at 8:22 PM

The middle east is NOT the seat of our problems BUT the answer to our problems.

Build a fence not on the border with Mexican but encircle the middle east to keep the population in its place. Stay out of their , it is non of our business they have nothing that we really need. The greatest fear that these detached kingdoms have is their destruction by these radical groups. They are more then willing as they have in the past to allow others, like us to die for them. Keep them from travailing by all means out of the area and with in two years the population will have reduced itself to one third of it’s current size. They will be happily living in the 14th century and a barrel of oil will be of less value then a barrel of water. Which they will no longer be able to produce either. The radical foreign fighters that join the cause will all be gone and out of our countries and most will be dead and forgotten.

In five years Hillary Clintons statement “at this time what difference does it make” will be the truth. All will be for gotten and their will a gain be peace. The land will again become fertile with the blood of the innocent.

Not ours.

jpcpt03 on September 1, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Obama will probably send the EPA over to Libya to clean the pool for those hot freedom fighters…..

redguy on September 1, 2014 at 9:08 PM

The middle east is NOT the seat of our problems BUT the answer to our problems.

jpcpt03 on September 1, 2014 at 9:00 PM

It is real simple, we can drown the world in America oil & natural gas…..
This would take out the middle east and dry up Putins funding as well….
And give us a much needed economic boost to re-build our military that Obama is destroying….

Abolish the Dept. of Energy, the EPA and the BLM…..

Then open all federal lands for drilling.

Of course we will have to get rid of Obama and the Progressives…..

redguy on September 1, 2014 at 9:11 PM

We are done. It’s just a matter of figuring how long we have left. I think maybe a decade before it’s all over but the crying.

unseen on September 1, 2014 at 11:02 AM

J. E. Dyer is a little more optimistic.

When is America no longer free enough to be worth preserving?

By J.E. Dyer on August 31, 2014 at 6:56 pm…

I have posed the question with intent. I don’t ask if America is worth defending. People consider their homes and communities worth defending, most of the time – at least against outright military invasion.

My question is when America, as a political idea to which we are committed, is no longer worth preserving in her current form.

AesopFan on September 1, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Looking at the disastrous results of our interventions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Egypt, you’d think that non-interventionism would gain some traction.

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 12:40 PM

So long as you have a spineless wimp ‘in power’ whom the military-industrial complex can bully into blowing up poor, mostly-defenseless 3rd-world insurgents with no real organization, forget it. And don’t forget the “anti-war” movement in Bush’s era was little more than a dog’s breakfast of traitors and lunatics with only a “me hatum Bush” for a common cause. There IS no major antiwar movement in America today with any real power, and that includes the “libertarian isolationists” the permawar brigade keeps bleating about.

Now Obama’s still President and unlike Bush he’s not their bosum buddy, so big invasions like Iraq are not going to happen as even they can’t get away with something that big. But all these little penny-ante interventions…if you think those are strictly HIS doing, you ain’t paying attention.

LawfulGood on September 2, 2014 at 5:25 AM

Absolutely we were better off with Saddam in charge. Hell, he was an evil murderous bastard tyrant, but next to ISIS he was a saint.

AngusMc on September 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Lawful Evil beats Chaotic Evil any day of the week and twice on Sunday. We are getting a first-hand demonstration why.

LawfulGood on September 2, 2014 at 5:27 AM

You know, the worst of this to me is that even if they happened back in 2012 two weeks before the election, Obama would have won.

It says so much about us as a nation, as a people, that we elect and re-elect corrupt unqualified men and women into power.

Then again, if you look at the new standards for AP history, which do not include details on our founding as a nation, you can understand why.

It took the progressives a hundred years to unwind our nation, to destroy our national culture. And they did it right in front of us.

No more PC.

archer52 on September 2, 2014 at 6:42 AM

Let’s not tell who went in and destabilized Libya for the fictitious “Arab Spring?
Also, let’s not mention who the Secretary of State was at the time. That would be another evil attack in the war on women (the ones that are allowed to be born and eventually make choices for themselves.)

Don L on September 2, 2014 at 7:06 AM

archer52 on September 2, 2014 at 6:42 AM

They removed God first…the PC was merely a follow up action.

Don L on September 2, 2014 at 7:08 AM

Don L.

Agreed.

archer52 on September 2, 2014 at 8:03 AM

This is a profoundly saddening thread. unseen and many others have articulated matters clearly and articulately.

I can imagine only two unlikely scenarios that might prevent the country’s utter doom.
The first scenario is best and most in keeping with the founding fathers’ vision- this would be for the Republicans to win control of the house and senate, followed by the election of a Reagan-quality conservative who will work tirelessly to restore our country and eradicate the influence and ill effects of the Left and the Media.
The second scenario would be for the military to fulfill their oath – “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

justltl on September 2, 2014 at 8:16 AM

And, in the event that we are indeed doomed, the darker and more emotional side of me wants 53% of the population to have an epiphany of understanding and then suffer deeply for their political ways, and for this administration and it’s enablers and co-conspirators to meet swift and harsh justice.

justltl on September 2, 2014 at 8:36 AM

Obama is a loser.

corkie on September 1, 2014 at 1:43 PM

No!!!…We the working taxpayers supporting the non-working leeches and ‘Big Brother’, are the losers.

It has amazed me for years now that the catch phrase, “for the children” is so dubious, that no one has seen through it and talks about it in public. If it was truly for the children, Why then, do the children have such a mountainous debt crushing them and their children?

Hmmmm…..

belad on September 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM

B-B-B-But, GLOBAL WARMING!

Ward Cleaver on September 2, 2014 at 10:10 AM

At this point with all the Countries O’Barry has “saved” it seems funny that all of them are falling to terrorists, its almost if that was the plan.

Sven on September 2, 2014 at 12:53 PM

The second scenario would be for the military to fulfill their oath – “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

justltl on September 2, 2014 at 8:16 AM

third option. The people raise up in a peaceful revo!ution of people power and run the “elites” out of DC and restore the inherent checks and balances of the constitution including federalism.

Fourth option. the people rise up with force. and do the same aka 1776

fifth option the people rise up AKA French revo!ution 1779 and utterly destroy the elites.

Personally I’, hoping for the third option and the replay of people power like what happened in other countries over the last couple decades.

unseen on September 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Lawful Evil beats Chaotic Evil any day of the week and twice on Sunday. We are getting a first-hand demonstration why.

LawfulGood on September 2, 2014 at 5:27 AM

wow had a flashback to some D&D adventures right there.

unseen on September 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM

you know if half the country tried what they tried in 1860 I think they would win this time as the force to keep the union together is no longer there. Can you really tell me the moms and dads of NY would willingly send their sons and daughters to Texas or IW to keep the country together?

Which tells me how far we have really fallen would most people care if CA or PA or TX said tomorrow they were their own country? I think outside of DC no more than 20% of the population would give a crap.

unseen on September 2, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Hillary Clinton’s legacy, 3 dead and our embassy occupied. All while trying to arm Syrian ISIS members. WTG donkey’s

jake49 on September 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Curious what Terp Mole has to say on this.

Christien on September 3, 2014 at 12:39 AM

you know if half the country tried what they tried in 1860 I think they would win this time as the force to keep the union together is no longer there. Can you really tell me the moms and dads of NY would willingly send their sons and daughters to Texas or IW to keep the country together?

unseen on September 2, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Probably not.

Most of the Northern states knew (even if they wouldn’t admit it) that the South was all but run by an oligarchy and supported by a shortsighted, cruel, and hypocritical populace. But anti-slavery views were decidedly unpopular right up until the South demonstrated to just what lengths they would go to save their failing free-labor state. Son fought father and brother fought brother to end an evil that had kicked in their own front door.

Contrast that to today. Can you really tell me that a New Yuck liberal would march in the streets demanding the draft and a mass callup to invade? Or that they would continue to do so after one of their “invade Conservistan” marches got bombed, or a speaker on stage was sniped?

The average liberal ‘plan’ in such a situation which I’ve seen stated repeatedly is literally “let the conservative breakaway states go, then nuke them into lifelessness”. But the problem with that is the liberal leaders aren’t quite as retarded in the area of self-preservation as their sheep.

LawfulGood on September 14, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2